Exist (format PDF / 14 MB )

Transcription

1/22/2015
The Campaign to Prove Shakespeare Didn't Exist
Register
Sign in
The Campaign to Prove Shakespeare Didn't
Exist
BY ROBERT
GORE-LANGTON / DECEMBER 29, 2014 4:45 AM EST
The greatest ongoing investigation in literary history has been caused entirely by William
Shakespeare’s thoughtlessness. He left no paper trail. Not a single poem or letter or play has
ever been found in his own hand. We have just six shaky signatures. His will mentions no
books, plays or anything else to suggest the balding Stratford businessman was also a writer.
His personality, love interests, movements are all a total mysery. The documents relating to his
life are all of a legal nature. Nobody ever recognised Shakespeare as a writer during his
lifetime and when he died, in 1616, no one seemed to notice. Not a single letter refers to the
great author’s passing at the time.
Now, a new book has fanned the flames of treason by saying that Shakespeare of Stratford,
far from being the most colossal literary genius of all time, was a provincial Midlands nobody
who could barely write his name. Shakespeare in Court by Alexander Waugh is written in a
mock trial format. It sifts the evidence and, without putting forward any other candidate,
asserts that there are plenty of reasons to think Shakespeare was a front man or pseudonym for
some highly educated, welltravelled courtier, who preferred to keep his identity secret in an
age when pennames were common.
Subscribe to Newsweek Today: Offers
Waugh and a prominent group of doubters called the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition
(SAC) felt sufficiently confident of their ground that they took out a fullpage advertisement in
The Times Literary Supplement, offering to donate £40,000 to the Shakespeare Birthplace
Trust if it could establish, in open debate, beyond reasonable doubt, that William Shakespeare
of Stratford was the author of the Complete Works. The money was put up by an assortment
of supporters, including the actors Sir Derek Jacobi and Michael York. The Birthplace Trust
curtly declined.
file:///Users/mike/Documents/pandoc-test/Exist.html
1/326
1/22/2015
“Can you believe it? A registered charity turned down the opportunity of £40,000 to defend
the very basis on which they are founded!” exclaims the irrepressible Waugh, grandson of the
novelist Evelyn Waugh and honorary president of SAC. “We are now considering a formal
complaint to the Charities Commission and appealing to anyone who would like to join in a
class action suit against the Trust for all the money they’ve taken under false pretences. I am
publicly accusing them of that and I am waiting for my writ. Where is it?”
It’s not in the post. The Birthplace Trust would greatly prefer it if the Coalition would go
away and boil its head. The Trust has stated its case for Shakespeare repeatedly and at length,
notably in an online Authorship Campaign (featuring a battery of orthodox scholars) and in
Shakespeare Bites Back, published as a spoiler the day before the 2011 film Anonymous
came out. Starring Rhys Ifans, Anonymous (the poster read “Was Shakespeare a fraud?”)
dramatised the “Oxfordian” claim that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the true
author of the plays. Yet no matter how much the scholastic Shakespeare establishment insists
that the doubters are fruit loops, flatearthers or simply snobs, who can’t bear the idea that the
world’s greatest poet was a mere grammar school boy and not a glamorous aristo, the case
against Shakespeare is as vociferous today as at any time since it first gained credence in the
mid19th century.
Apart from a sizeable community of dandruffy amateur codebreakers and anagramspotters
looking for clues as to the identity of the real author, the doubters’ camp can also boast some
worldclass minds down the years, including Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain, Henry James,
Charles Dickens and historian Hugh TrevorRoper, who found the case for reasonable doubt
about the author’s identity “overwhelming” (though it should be pointed out that Trevor
Roper also famously believed the forged Hitler diaries were genuine). Every time a book
asserts Shakespeare was the true author, another one of apparently equal erudition comes out
saying, “Where’s the evidence?”
Last year, Professor Stanley Wells published an ebook titled, Why Shakespeare WAS
Shakespeare. It didn’t do the trick with one customer – Prince Philip. When the author asked
him if he was a heretic, the Prince is reported to have replied, “all the more so after reading
your book.” Prince Philip apparently thinks a Tudor diplomat named Sir Henry Neville wrote
at least some of the plays. But even the House of Windsor is divided on this national debate:
Prince Charles is president of the Royal Shakespeare Company, which is in no mood to re
brand itself as The Royal PossiblyNotShakespeare Company. Indeed the RSC summarises
without mercy on their website the doubters’ collective mental state: “ignorance; poor sense of
logic; refusal, wilful or otherwise, to accept evidence; folly; the desire for publicity; and even
(as in the sad case of Delia Bacon, who hoped to open Shakespeare’s grave in 1856)
certifiable madness.”
2/326
1/22/2015
But does it really matter who wrote these wonderful plays? According to one notable paidup
doubter, Derek Jacobi, “Yes, it does! The disclosure of the real author would enhance not
only the historical significance but also the contemporary excitement of these treasures for
both actors and spectators; and it shouldn’t be regarded as potential professional suicide,
heresy or an actor’s silliness to come out and say so.”
Stanley Wells, in his Stratford office, sighs at having to repeat all the points he’s made over
the years about Shakespeare’s identity. For him, there is no mystery: “Yes, there are gaps in
the records, as there are for most nonaristocratic people. We do, however, have documentary
records and there’s lots of posthumous evidence. There’s evidence in the First Folio, the
memorial in the church here in Stratford, the poem by William Basse referring to him, all of it
stating that Shakespeare of Stratford was a poet,” he says.
But if that’s the case what about the £40,000 mock trial – easy money, surely? “Public debates
are an exercise of forensic skill rather than an intellectual scholarly exercise. So no, we are not
going to debate or take their money. I would hope we have more dignity.”
What would settle this question for good? “I would love to find a contemporary document that
said William Shakespeare was the dramatist of StratforduponAvon written during his
lifetime,” says Wells. “There’s lots and lots of unexamined legal records rotting away in the
national archives; it is just possible something will one day turn up. That would shut the
buggers up!”
The doubters, meanwhile, are busy writing and convening. Among them is the actor Mark
Rylance, a trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust (founded in 1922), which has just had
a conference on the authorship question at the Globe Theatre. Indeed, heresy seems to be
spreading. Brunel University now even has a course on the authorship and one survey shows
that 17% of American literature professors think there is room for reasonable doubt about
Shakespeare’s identity. Even in the States, you probably wouldn’t find 17% of biology
professors doubting evolutionary theory.
The battle continues. Alexander Waugh and a phalanx of combative Shakesceptics are
already looking forward to hosing cold water over the 400th anniversary of the Bard’s death
in 2016. “The Stratfordians have been trying to pretend we don’t exist for a long time, but
now they’re running scared,” says Waugh. “As Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.’ We’ve got to the fight bit.” JOIN THE DISCUSSION
1,740 comments
Add a comment
3/326
1/22/2015
Tom Regnier ·
Follow · President at Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship
An attempt has been made in this discussion to suggest that the abundant circumstantial
evidence pointing to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as the true author of Shakespeare’s
plays is not actually circumstantial evidence, but merely coincidence. It is claimed that there
is no logical connection between certain facts – that Oxford’s life parallels incidents in
Shakespeare’s in numerous ways, that contemporary writers named Oxford as the foremost
noblemen of his time who had written well but could not allow his writings to be published
under his name, that Oxford had the education and the books that would explain
Shakespeare’s vast knowledge in a wide array of subjects, and that Oxford’s travels,
especially in Italy, coincide in many ways with the locales of Shakespeare’s plays – and the
possibility that Oxford was Shakespeare. All of this is relevant evidence. Relevant evidence is
that which has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. (Federal Rule of Evidence 401). All these facts about Oxford make it more likely that
he was Shakespeare, which qualifies them as relevant evidence, although we may disagree
about whether they ultimately prove that Oxford was Shakespeare. Of course, relevance is in
the eye of the beholder. Some Stratfordians on this site have expressed the opinion that
these facts about Oxford mean nothing. I invite general readers to read Mark Anderson’s
“Shakespeare By Another Name,” a biography of Oxford, and decide for themselves.
Going back to the subject of “circumstantial evidence,” which has been debated in this
forum, here is a definition:
circumstantial evidence: “evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or
participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that
such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable
conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a
vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the
evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot
Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence
becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime,
ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly
point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.” (http://
dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=191)
Of course “being seen in the neighborhood” of the crime is not enough by itself to convict a
person of the crime, but it is circumstantial evidence that makes it more probable that the
person committed the crime. Oxford’s life, travels, education, experience, and reputation as a
hidden author likewise add to the probability that he was the real Shakespeare, which is why
they are relevant circumstantial evidence.
Reply · Like ·
31 · Follow Post · January 4 at 4:52am
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Indeed! To take one example, Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and
sentenced to death, based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Reply · Like ·
6 · January 4 at 10:22pm
Tom Reedy ·
Top Commenter · Works at Retired
Karl Wiberg And Oxfordians are convicted of the murder of logic and reason
based solely upon their unique interpretations of circumstantial evidence. For
that they are sentenced to the ghetto of literary studies, whence they periodically
announce, Pinky and the Brain-like, their impending takeover of Shakespeare
studies.
Reply · Like · January 4 at 11:19pm
Oxfraud
Well anyone can see that's not what happened.
Most of what you offer doesn't even qualify as circumstance, much less
circumstantial evidence. In any case, if you want to allocate authorship on the
basis of autobiographical similarity to the work, Oxford wouldn't make the Top 10
Elizabethans or the Top 1000 Jacobeans.
4/326
1/22/2015
Elizabethans or the Top 1000 Jacobeans.
Mark asked you for three examples of direct and three examples of actual
circumstantial evidence.
I must have missed your reply.
Christopher Carolan · Works at Spiralcalendar.com
Tom Reedy
“…a tumult may beget a captain, and the corruption of a captain may beget a
gentleman-usher, and a gentleman-usher may beget a lord, whose wit may beget
a poet, and a poet may get a thousand pound a year, but nothing without
corruption.”
George Chapman - The Tragedy of Chabot - Act V, sc ii.
lol!!
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Christopher Carolan
Lol is the word. If you think that's evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Christopher Carolan Welcome to the fray, Chris! Your expertise is most
appreciated.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
In their responses to Tom Regnier's excellent post on circumstantial evidence, the
Stratfordians are utilizing the Rules of Disinformation -- rules designed to impede
the flow of information and lead interested, fair minded readers astray. Tom
Reedy taps into Rule #5: "Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule."
Oxfraud makes use of Rule #6: "Hit and Run: make a brief attack on the opponent
and ignore the answer." He mixes this with Rule #9: "Play Dumb: deny that the
evidence and logical arguments of the opponent have any credibility" and Rule
#19: "Ignore proof presented by demanding more" (a variant of Rules #6 and #9).
With this last tactic, Oxfraud takes Rule #19 to the next level with the pretense
that no information has been presented by his opponents -- which of course is
not true.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Stritmatter ·
State University
Follow ·
Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Coppin
Oxfraud Actually, it is very good evidence. But since your argument consists of
excluding any evidence that doesn't on its face support the contentions of the
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, it is automatic for you to deny that it is. This may
work to slow down the inevitable humiliation you will eventually face, as more
and more persons become aware of the evidence you don't want to acknowledge,
but it cannot prevent it.
Time's glory is to calm contending kings
To unmask falsehood, and bring truth to light.
Who said that?
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
5/326
1/22/2015
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Tom Reedy The other TR [the Oxfordian one] still doesn't understand. He states:
“An attempt has been made in this discussion to suggest that the abundant
circumstantial evidence pointing to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as the
true author of Shakespeare’s plays is not actually circumstantial evidence, but
merely coincidence. It is claimed that there is no logical connection between
certain facts...and the possibility that Oxford was Shakespeare”
Well, no, that isn't the argument that we have been making at all, and to say that it
is still shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what circumstantial evidence is.
The argument is that the statements of fact cited, whether taken alone or
considered cumulatively, do not logically and reasonably yield an inference that
Oxford was Shakespeare. I note that TR {Ox} has yet to show the logical,
inferential process whereby he gets from a premise such as Oxford was related to
Golding and Golding is credited with translating Ovid, to an ultimate conclusion
that Oxford was Shakespeare.
Circumstantial evidence involves evidence of facts or circumstances from which
the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue may reasonably and logically be
INFERRED; it is a process of decision by which the trier of fact may engage in a
process of reasoning from circumstances known or proved , to establish by
INFERENCE the principal fact. The principal fact sought to be proved by TR {Ox}
is that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. He can continue to pile up coincidences as
long as he likes, and they may all be factually accurate statements of fact, but
unless and until he provides a logical, step-by-step description of the inferential
process which takes him from his premises to his ultimate conclusion [his
principal fact] , then his coincidences are not circumstantial evidence and he
hasn't offered up proof of even a possibility that Oxford was Shakespeare. I'm not
sure why this appears so difficult to understand.
What we have so far is something like the following [obviously simplified]:
Premise: Oxford was related to Golding.
Premise: Golding is credited with translating Ovid.
Premise: Oxford was living in the same house as Golding during some period in
which Golding was writing the translation.
Premise: Oxford was kidnapped by pirates.
Premise: Hamlet was kidnapped by pirates. [Of course, you must ignore the
dissimilarities between the two situations if you are an Oxfordian].
Premise: Oxford had three daughters
Premise: Lear had three daughters.
Premise: Contemporary writers named Oxford as the foremost noblemen of his
time who had written well but could not allow his writings to be published under
his name. [I don't believe this one is even factually correct].
Premise: Oxford had the education and the books that would explain
Shakespeare's vast knowledge [Again, I don't believe this is even a correct
statement of fact].
Premise: Oxford’s travels, especially in Italy, coincide in many ways with the
locales of Shakespeare’s plays. [Another suspect claim].
Conclusion: Therefore, Oxford was Shakespeare.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which “requires some reasoning to
prove a fact.” Show the reasoning and how, specifically, it tends to prove the
ultimate fact. If you can't do so, you don't have circumstantial evidence.
I would also disagree with the claim that all of these statements are “relevant”
evidence, using the definition provided by TR {Ox} [“Relevant evidence is that
which has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence
to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would
be without the evidence. (Federal Rule of Evidence 401)']. The basic test as to the
“relevancy” of evidence is whether or not “reasonable inferences” can be drawn
therefrom tending to prove or disprove the issue in controversy., or a contested
matter connected to that ultimate issue. Evidence is “relevant” when it tends to
prove or disprove a precise fact in issue, or when it tends to establish facts from
which the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue can be directly and logically
inferred. The statements offered up by TR {Ox} don't even qualify as
circumstantial evidence, so they necessarily don't qualify as relevant evidence.
Reply · Unlike ·
2 · Edited · January 5 at 6:57pm
6/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Unlike ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Good evidence of what exactly, Roger? Do you consider this to
be direct or circumstantial evidence...or is it some other type of evidence entirely?
If so, what gives it any evidentiary weight at all, much less makes it "very good"
evidence. How do you establish the credibility of Mr. Carolan as a witness and
then show the factual accuracy of his speculative, idiosyncratic interpretation of
Marston?
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson It is good evidence when cross-corroborated with the facts of
Oxford's thousand pound annuity, the numerous references to this annuity in the
plays, and to Rowe's statement that Shakespeare spent at the rate of a thousand
pounds a year.
The quote from Chapman only confirms that "Shakespeare" was not the only one
who found Oxford's annuity to be a topic for conversation, suggesting that his
authorship was an "open secret," as many have already said on this thread. It is
one of many concrete references in the literary record disproving the frequent
claim that "no one said anything" --- ergo the proposed "conspiracy" is
ridiculous and without substantiation.
Now, you may well reply, "this is open to multiple interpretations," which is
correct, and therefore would be a valid answer if it was the only example of
evidence that could cited for these generalizations. But it is not. There are in fact
a large number of similar passages in the literary record of the late Elizabethan
and early Jacobean record, many of them published in the Shakespeare allusion
books as early as 1874-1909, which corroborate it.
Interestingly, in 2001 when I completed my dissertation and wrote at some length
about the annuity and the references to it in the works, I was unaware of this
remarkable corroboration from Chapman. In other words, it is "new evidence,"
and therefore becomes part of the long chain of historically accumulated
evidence supporting the Oxfordians. The Oxfordian body of evidence is not a
static thing; it is a living thing, developing over time through the collaborative
work of many scholars and researchers.
Also, I am still waiting for the masked man, "Oxfraud," to respond to my question
about the origins of the quote I gave.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Top Commenter · Works at A multitude of Educational
Tommy, tommy, tommy --- "Abundant circumstantial evidence" to support de
Vere's authorship???? I haven't seen one shred. Not here, not anywhere. Lots of
passion, lots of subterfuge, guesses, assumptions, and lies, but evidence? None.
Mike Leadbetter
Roger Stritmatter What quote? This thread has outlived its usefulness as it is
almost impossible to follow.
What's clear as day, however, and you have just proved it conclusively, is that you
do not understand the nature of evidence. You have no evidence. The reference
to Chabot is only evidence of CC's talent for misinterpretation in his desperation
to attach passages to Oxford's life, like a child sticking Panini footballers into an
album.
What is your reading of the passage? Can you not see that it is a complaint about
the fluidity in society's caste system? That Chapman is describing how chance
7/326
1/22/2015
the fluidity in society's caste system? That Chapman is describing how chance
and small amounts of good fortune can result in commoners rising to become
lords and poets.
Oxford, par contre, started almost at the very top of society and through bad luck
and incompetence, managed to end up at the bottom.
And you think the similarities between this throwaway line and Oxford's life are
not only evidence of authorship but actually probative. Because it contains the
word poet and the sum £1,000?
Mark. This inability to get to grips with what constitutes evidence.
It's worse than you thought.
Reply · Like · January 6 at 10:29am
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter " It is good evidence when cross-corroborated with the facts of
Oxford's thousand pound annuity, the numerous references to this annuity in the
plays, and to Rowe's statement that Shakespeare spent at the rate of a thousand
pounds a year. "
Your conclusion that this is a reference to Oxford's annuity, or that there are
other references in other plays to Oxford's annuity, depends entirely upon your
belief that the plays contain hidden references to Oxford, which further depends
upon your belief that Oxford is the secret author. Are you unable to observe the
circularity in your argument? There is nothing at all, textually or otherwise, to
indicate that the reference is tyo Oxford's stipend, or to indicate that other
references to a "thousand pounds" are connected, nor does Rowe's statement
about Shakespeare offer any corroboration of those claims.
Carolan's discernment of hidden clues in various plays is not evidence of
anything [and I am being kind here]...it is [im]pure speculation, as subjective and
conjectural as it is possible to be. Speculation is not evidence. It is merely
theorizing about a matter as to which actual evidence is not sufficient for certain
knowledge. That you treat these subjective speculations as evidence, as if your
conjectures should be accepted as fact, is where you and Oxfordians have run off
the rails.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mike Leadbetter I have been hoping that an Oxfordian would actually deal with
my argument concerning their notions as to circumstantial evidence, but that
hope is ebbing away. I'm still waiting for someone to show how they logically and
reasonably proceed from their factual premises to an inferential conclusion that
Oxford was Shakespeare. I think that there is a problem with the logical leap that
they have to take. I'm not sure that any of the Oxfordians have even considered
that possibility.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Wow. Even more silliness. You oxfraudians never run out.
Oxfraud
Mark Johnson If they admit any kind of sensible rules of evidence they will not
only be forced to dismiss everything they use in The Daily Bluff, everything
they've submitted here, for example, BUT they will also be forced to accept all the
evidence that damns them.
Redrawing the rules of evidence is the first step in the falsification of the
historical record.
8/326
1/22/2015
historical record.
Reply · Like ·
1 · January 7 at 9:23am
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud The fact is that it is the Oxfordians themselves who have proposed
making this a legal matter. If they truly wish to do so then the meanings of the
terms should be quite clear. I've had a post up in this thread for over a week now
requesting that they simply list three pieces of direct evidence and three pieces of
circumstantial evidence which they would contend support their claim that
Oxford was Shakespeare. Not one Oxfordian has responded to that post.
To quote another poster here, "what is your best evidence? Put it forward and it
can be discussed."
Reply · Unlike ·
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson To quote another poster here, "what is your best evidence? Put it
forward and it can be discussed."
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/discover-shakespeare/
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Thanks for stepping up, Roger, and tendering what you
consider to be the "best evidence" for your case. I now have a much fuller
appreciation for where I think you are going wrong in your understanding as to
what qualifies as evidence. Would you like to go through the "best evidence" you
have cited piece by piece, and show specifically how it qualifies as evidence for
the proposition that Oxford was Shakespeare? I'd be more than happy to engage
in that discussion.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Mark Johnson I would be happy if someone would engage such a discussion.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino I am waiting on Roger's response. I would be interested to read
why he believes that much of what is cited in the link he provided even qualifies
as evidence, much less as evidence supporting the proposition that Oxford was
Shakespeare.
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Top Commenter · Hook Norton
Roger Stritmatter Roger, thanks for posting the page from the Shakespeare
Oxford Fellowship.
But all you have to do is write 'Therefore Shakespeare was not the author' after
each bullet point in the first section and 'Therefore Oxford was the author' after
each bullet point in the second set and the non- sequiturs scream at you. You
don't have to be a lawyer or a student of logic for your ears to hurt.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown And that is their "best evidence", according to no less an
authority than Roger Stritmatter.
9/326
1/22/2015
authority than Roger Stritmatter.
Mike Leadbetter
Mark Johnson `
And asking for a defence of it as evidence is also Roger's exit cue.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mike Leadbetter Right. It appears that ,"Put it forward and it can be discussed,"
actually meant a discussion in which Roger would not be involved.
Jim Tobin ·
Top Commenter · University of Wisconsin-Madison
Joseph Ciolino, please avoid ad hominem attacks.
Reply · Like ·
Tom Regnier ·
In order to believe that the Stratford man was Shakespeare, it is necessary to suppose that
the son of illiterate parents, for whom there is no evidence that he ever went to school, ever
wrote a letter, or ever owned a book, somehow attained a world-class education that
included fluency in several languages, a deep understanding of law, medicine, classical
mythology, aristocratic sports, science, philosophy, Greek drama, heraldry, the military, and
Italy, among other subjects, thereby becoming one of the most literate people of the
Elizabethan Age, and gained all this knowledge without leaving a clue as to how he did it.
Yes, the author of the plays had native genius, but he also had tremendous book learning. I
have taught a law school course on Shakespeare's knowledge of the law. There wouldn't be
enough material to do that with any other Elizabethan playwright.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
As usual, an elegant synopsis from Tom Regnier. In other words, the whole is
more than the sum of its parts. All these problems, and many more, afflict the
orthodox account and help to explain why it is now in decline.
Further details are available here: http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/
Reply · Like ·
28 · Edited · January 1 at 4:18am
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
In order to believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare it is
only necessary to examine and accept the direct and circumstantial evidence
provided by the extant historical record. In order to believe that Oxford was
Shakespeare it is necessary to deny the fact that not one iota of actual evidence
exists to support the proposition that he was the author of the Shakespeare
canon. What should we call it when a belief is not supported by any evidence at
all...I think the applicable word would be "faith". In this instance, the Oxfordian
faith in their Lord.
Reply · Unlike ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson I' faith, Mark. What you're describing is the foundation for the Holy
Mother Church of Stratfordianism! Pour yourself an ale at the Mermaid and have
a Happy New Year.
Reply · Like ·
Follow ·
10/326
1/22/2015
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj Happy New Year, Ann(e), Mark, and everyone else on the discussion,
and especially to Newsweek for sponsoring the discussion with such a fine
article.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter And a Happy New Year to you Roger(e)! And, yes... We would
be remiss in not thanking Newsweek! Kῦδος !
Reply · Like ·
Michael F. Pisapia · St. John's University
Mark Johnson -unless you have something that no one else has seen- the there
is no direct evidence as to any author of the Shakespeare works, only
circumstantial evidence. We all live our lives relying on circumstantial evidence...
and the circumstantial evidence precludes the man from Stratford... it also points
toward several candidates to be the author, Edward DeVere being the strongest,
contender.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Michael Pisapia: There is documentary evidence in the historical record which
specifically identifies the author as Mr. William Shakespeare [using the honorific
signifying the status of a "gentleman", a status which would be applicable to
William Shakespeare of Stratford due to the grant of a coat of arms to his father.
If you can locate another William Shakespeare who could claim that status at that
time please let me know. This evidence is direct evidence identifying the author as
William Shakespeare of Stratford; it is not circumstantial evidence. You can
attempt to rebut the evidence, or you can argue as to the relevancy or weight of
the evidence, but to deny that it qualifies as direct evidence is simply inaccurate.
Please identify just a few of the pieces of circumstantial evidence which you
contend "precludes the man from Stratford." In addition, please provide a few
examples of circumstantial evidence that " points toward several candidates to be
the author, Edward DeVere being the strongest, contender." I look forward to your
reply.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Just wondering why you continue to bring up the farce of the
Shakespeare coat-of-arms... The grantor was sanctioned for doling them out to
"base" individuals, one being Shakespeare. Then there's the ludicrous Latin text
(with and without a comma) and its parody by Jonson. It doesn't lend much
credence to your stance and in fact points to a social-climbing faux-gent.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
None of which would do anything to rebut the fact that he was the author...and,
of course, you are making assumptions again. Shakespeare may have renewed
his father's previous application for a grant of coat of arms merely to honor his
father. The alleged "motto" may not have been an actual motto at all, and, if you
think that Jonson was satirizing it, you have to explain how he even knew about it
since it was never [as far as we know] used in public, and only appeared in that
official record. As for the complaint about the grant to John Shakespeare, the
defense of the grant has quite a bit more to do with an alleged similarity to
another coat of arms than it does to any accusation of Shakespeare being a base
individual [although "ye player" may indicate that at least one person involved did
not consider players worthy of the grant].
I bring up the grant because following that event there are a number of
documents which identify the author using the honorific title WS of Stratford was
11/326
1/22/2015
documents which identify the author using the honorific title WS of Stratford was
then permitted to use. That makes those records [imo] specific references to WS,
identifying him as the author.
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson, You've made an interesting observation here: "if you think that
Jonson was satirizing it [the Shaksper motto], you have to explain how he even
knew about it since it was never ... used in public." Thank you, Mark, for this
helpful observation that it was "never used in public." So how did Jonson know
insider information from the College of Heralds? It's a very good question, and I'll
give you a few moments to steel yourself for the answer.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson And the answer is: Ben Jonson was a life-long friend of William
Camden. Among Camden's many accomplishments and powerful connections,
he was the Clarenceux king-of-arms, obtaining this important position in the
College of Heralds in 1597. Jonson, Camden and the antiquarian Robert Cotton
were fellow lodgers at Cotton's residence.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Thanks, Ms. Cutting, but you're not telling me anything I didn't
already know. Do you understand the ramifications of the speculative scenario
you have proposed...that Camden told Jonson of the alleged motto. You might
want to steel yourself for the answer. That would appear to indicate that Camden
knew that Jonson knew Shakespeare, and knew of his status as a "player'.
Even more important is the following:
"But the matter impinges on the Oxfordian claim far more severely. For the
Clarenceux King who collaborated on the reply to Brooke's accusation was
William Camden, not just the foremost antiquary of the time, but also Ben
Jonson's master at the Westminster School and his life-long intimate friend.
Camden was also on friendly terms with Lord Burleigh, Elizabeth's most trusted
minister, Oxford's long-suffering father-in-law, and, it is sometimes supposed,
the executive director of the Great Concealment. Camden was, in fact, selected by
Burleigh to write the more or less official history of Elizabeth's reign, and was
given access to the government's records and correspondence to do so. Given
Camden's interests, expertise, and connections, he would have known the secret
of the Shakespeare plays, if there was one to know. Yet in Remaines (1605),
Camden names "William Shakespeare" as one of the poets of his time "whom
succeeding ages may justly admire." Matus duly reproduces the passage, refutes
some misconstructions by Charlton Ogburn, and notes -- again, quite rightly -that Camden, like other contemporaries, speaks of Shakespeare not as the
transcendental genius of his time, but as one talented writer among many. The
comment, however, has far more significance. The mere form is significant:
Camden names ten poets and concludes with an et cetera: "and other most
pregnant wits of these our times." Shakespeare is the tenth and last specified;
and, thus, since there is no measurable rhetorical difference between either nine
or ten specifics before a final et al, Camden must honestly have thought
Shakespeare one of the age's most pregnant wits, or, alternatively, he was guilty
of a most incoherent and gratuitous falsehood. Even more important, since he
had, as Clarenceux King, responded less than three years earlier to Brooke's
attack on the grant of arms to the father of "Shakespeare ye Player" -- it may well
have been more recent, the preface of Remaines claims it was completed two
years before publication -- Camden thus was aware that the last name on his list
was that of William Shakespeare of Stratford. The Camden reference, therefore, is
exactly what the Oxfordians insist does not exist: an identification by a
knowledgeable and universally respected contemporary that "the Stratford man"
was a writer of sufficient distinction to be ranked with (if after) Sidney, Spenser,
Daniel, Holland, Jonson, Campion, Drayton, Chapman, and Marston. And the
identification even fulfills the eccentric Oxfordian ground-rule that it be earlier
than 1616.
12/326
1/22/2015
than 1616.
------------------------------According to no less an authority than William Camden, the son of John
Shakespeare of Stratford, Mr. William Shakespeare of Stratford, Gentleman, was
the same man as the actor (ye player) and was the same man who was "a writer of
sufficient distinction" to be included among a list of other great writers of the
day.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Another point: since the coat of arms as described in the play
looks nothing like the one granted to John Shakespeare, do you know of anyone
connected to the theater world at that time whose coat of arms does resemble the
one in the play, and who Jonson may have been caricaturing by depicting it the
way that he did?
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
The answer is Burbage. The actual heraldic symbols which Jonson gives to
Sogliardo [the boar's head ripped from the body] are actually far more pertinent to
Burbage, and the "not without mustard" line was appropriated from an earlier
work by Nashe. Now, if Jonson did intend to satirize Shakespeare with the "Not
without mustard" line, was he also satirizing Burbage with the design of the
arms? Just one more link [potentially] between Will and Burbage. This
speculation stuff sure is fun, isn't it?
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson, You have made here a heroic effort to turn lemons into lemonade.
I agree that Ben Jonson's character Sogliardo is a lampoon of the Stratford man.
You seem pleased that this shows that Ben Jonson knew Shaksper from
Stratford. Indeed it does! And Jonson characterizes him as an ignorant, rustic
buffoon. The passage is painful to read. The Stratford man is "an essential clown"
who buys a coat of arms with "as many colours as ever you saw any fool's coat in
your life." After Sogliardo's description of his newly purchased coat, another
character notes that "it's a hog's cheek and puddings in a pewter field." Adding
salt to the wound, Sogliardo's crest has "a swine without a head, without brain,
wit, anything indeed, ramping to gentility". BTW, swine don't "ramp"; i.e. stand on
their hind legs. With friends like this (assuming Ben Jonson was a "friend"), what
might Shaksper expect from his enemies?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting "swine don't "ramp""
Really? What is the boar doing on de Vere's crest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Oxford#mediaviewer/
File:Oxford_coat_of_arms.jpg
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson you say: "you're not telling me anything I didn't already know."
But no one ever does, does she? Or he. You already know it all. That's why you
raised the question, because you already knew the answer and were just waiting
to see if anyone could supply it, right?
Some of us have noticed already that you already know everything, so you can
relax with telling us over and over again about it.
Reply · Like ·
13/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Poor Knit: An animal "ramping" is standing on its hind legs. Lions do this, but
not swine. Sogliardo's crest is a swine in an improper, if not impossible, stance.
Need I spell it out what Ben Jonson is getting at?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Did you look at the link I provided? The boar is rampant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Oxford#mediaviewer/
File:Oxford_coat_of_arms.jpg
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Also, did you know that per Nina Green, "The Bolebec crest of
the lion rampant shaking a broken spear does not date from Oxford's lifetime."
pp. 16-17 http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Oxmyths/OxmythsOxford.pdf
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ms. Cutting: I don't agree that Jonson is satirizing Shakespeare as Sogliardo,
and, even if he is [which is simply speculation], then it doesn't mean that
Shakespeare isn't the author -- unless you don't understand what satire involves.
As for the swine, you must have missed the part where that would be more
applicable to Burbage [if it is applicable to anyone at all]. Isn't it incredible how
Oxfordians insist that literary works of the period were ambiguous, and yet if they
can interpret a passage in such a way for it to be an attack on WS it isn't at all
ambiguous? Talk about ad hoc arguments...Oxfordian methodology is to
magically make cherries out of limes.
Even if we all speculate that Sogliardo is a shot at Shakespeare, we know from
*Parnassus* that the author Shakespeare got the last laugh, and made Jonson
"beray his credit".
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Please try to be less pompous, stop being dishonest, and cease
pretending that you can read minds through the internet. All I have done here in
my discussion with Ms. Cutting is to let her know that I already knew about
Jonson and Camden, and Camden and the College of Heralds. I don't claim to
know everything -- I only claimed to know these specific facts -- and I have not
told anyone else, or even your "us", that I already know everything. I certainly
don't. I have tried to read as much as I can on this subject and to consider it all as
carefully as I can, but there is still much I need to learn. Finally, I did not set Ms.
Cutting up, as you propose I did. I don't think that way, but, apparently, you do. I
will remember that in any future discussions I have with you. Thanks, and have a
happy new year.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting One more thing. What do you say to Camden's *Remaines* and
his reference to Shakespeare therein, considering all of the surrounding
circumstances cited above?
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
14/326
1/22/2015
Ann Zakelj My response was to Ms. Cutting. She wrote "Oxford's crest as Lord
Bolbec was a lion ramping."
====
Oy, Ann!! Where d'ya go, sweetpea?? Hurry back, y'all.
Reply · Like · Edited · January 3 at 2:00am
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
@Knit Feeling like the only fat bridesmaid in the wedding party, I deleted the
offending [sic] reply.
I'm still here, Sugar Lips.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj I'm sorry you found your reply offensive. Sincerely, I think we can all
agree it's easy to miss the entirety of a thread. Bestest wishes!
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain Well, not so much offensive as offending. Regardless... Bestest
wishes back atcha.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Nina Green is a highly respected and admired Oxfordian researcher, and her
website is a marvel of information. However, it's not necessarily the last word.
There is usually more to discover when drilling down on details.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson In Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? Exposing an Industry in Denial,
Ramon Jimenez discusses William Camden and Shakespeare in his article
"Shakspere in Stratford and London: Ten Eyewitnesses Who Saw Nothing." As
you note, "Shakespeare" is on Camden's list of poets and playwrights in his book
Remains Concerning Britain published in 1605. Two years later, Camden
published a new edition of his book, Britannia. This updated 1607 edition has a
section on Stratford-upon-Avon and calls attention to several important
residents of this "small market-town." But Camden does not mention that
"Shakespeare" is among the town's notables. To summarize Jimenez
conclusions: Even though William Camden revered poets, had several poet
friends, wrote poetry himself, knew the Shaksper family and -- as you note in
your posting here -- had mentioned that a "William Shakespeare" was a
playwright in his earlier book Remains -- he apparently did not make the
connection between Shaksper in Stratford-upon-Avon and the one on his list of
the best English poets.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Your " However, it's not necessarily the last word. There is
usually more to discover when drilling down on details." re Nina Green. Agree.
Ms. Green does cite references (albeit incomplete i.e. she hasn't exactly made it
easy for her readership to retrace her sources !!) as cited as follows:
References:
(1) E-mail message of 15 February 1999 from John Rollett.
(2) Papers of Canon Gerald Rendall, Liverpool University archives.
15/326
1/22/2015
(2) Papers of Canon Gerald Rendall, Liverpool University archives.
(3) Article by Christopher Paul.
But, I note Ms. Zakelji had (before she deleted her message) offered confirmation
that Oxfordians knew of such by 2006 (as in The Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter
discontinued its use of the supposed Bolebec crest as its logo on its newsletter.
Note to Ms. Z: Please feel free to make corrections re my statement; I'm working
from memory of your comment.)
Ms. Cutting. If you have information which contradicts Ms. Green's findings
(whatever her sources may ultimately reveal), please feel free to share. Thank you!
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain You have a good memory.
I found the article pertinent to the removal of the Bulbeck crest in the Fall 2006
issue of the SO Newsletter. It begins:
“The Bulbeck crest had been part of the newsletter's masthead since the Winter
1996 issue when it ironicalIy replaced the previous logo, a circular stamp
containing the motto vero nihil verius. With the latest revision, the society has
redoubled its efforts to represent ‘nothing truer than the truth.’"
Hope this helps...
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Thank you, Ms. Z! Christopher Paul's article, "R.I.P.: Bulbeck bites the
dust " *The Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter* (Fall 2006: 1, 17-20) may be
accessed at http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/03/SOSNL_2006_3.pdf
Reply · Like ·
Cheryl Eagan-Donovan
Tom's list of subjects the author would need to have been well-versed in is not
just accurate but also reflected in the books that Edward de Vere had access to,
first as a student of the scholar Thomas Smith, then as a ward of William Cecil's
and later son-in-law of Cecil and his wife Mildred Cooke, whose library included
many of the source texts for Shakespeare's works, in their original languages,
including Greek classics.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson I commend to you the excellent treatment given by Dr. Roger
Stritmatter of the marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva bible as guidance on
circumstantial evidence tending to show that the author behind the pen name
was Edward DeVere. One piece of circumstantial evidence which precludes
Stratford is the lack of any evidence he ever attended school or had tuition of any
sort, yet is so literate as to write the works of Shakespeare... there is a disconnect
which has never been overcome.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting "...referring to is the 1607 edition of Camden's Britannia, as cited
by Ogburn and various other Oxfordians. To begin with, the first edition of this
work was published in 1586, written entirely in Latin, with the full title of
Britannia, sive florentissimorum regnorum Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae et
insularum adjacentium ex intima antiquitae chorographica Descripto ("A
description of features, to the earliest time of the powerful kings, of England,
Scotland, Ireland, and the adjacent islands). As the title implies, it was a work of
antiquarian scholarship, intended to give the history of the various areas of the
16/326
1/22/2015
antiquarian scholarship, intended to give the history of the various areas of the
British Isles, and not intended as a guide to the contemporary literary scene, or
indeed any contemporary scene. After the first edition of 1586, further editions of
Britannia came out in 1587, 1590, 1594, 1600, and 1607 (the only one Ogburn
notes); an English translation by Philemon Holland appeared in 1610, with a
second edition in 1637.[3]
In discussing Stratford, Camden mentions John de Stratford, the fourteenthcentury Archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh Clopton, the fifteenth-century Lord
Mayor of London who built the bridge over the Avon (and who also built New
Place). There is absolutely no reason to expect Camden to mention Shakespeare
here; he only occasionally mentions living people (none below the rank of knight)
and then only if they are descendants of some illustrious person from the past
and/or if they live in some historic castle or manor which he's describing. Thus,
after describing Hugh Clopton and the bridge he built in Stratford, Camden
writes a bit about Clopton's lineage and notes (in the 1607 edition) that his most
direct living descendants are two sisters, one of whom is married to Sir George
Carew, Vicechamberlain to Queen Anne. Camden's Remaines of a greater work
concerning Britain, the first edition of which was published in 1605, was
intended as a supplement to Britannia, containing material not appropriate to an
antiquarian work, including a discussion of literature. Here Camden does mention
Shakespeare along with nine other contemporary poets."
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/eulogies.html
The conclusion reached by Mr. Jimenez is a typical example of the Oxfordian
penchant for indulging in speculation based on a misunderstanding of the actual
evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Michael F. Pisapia When Roger proves that Oxford actually made the various
underlinings in the book, we might then have something to discuss. Even then, it
isn't evidence which rebuts the prima facie case for WS of Stratford. Neither is
the gap in our knowledge as to Shakespeare's education. You have no direct or
circumstantial evidence. There is direct and circumstantial evidence for the
attribution of the works to WS, in fact, more than enough to establish a prima
facie case. Unless and until you locate some actual evidence in support of your
Lord you will never be able to overcome that case. Good luck in your search.
Robert Jones · Attorney at Self
Mark Johnson : To believe in Santa Claus, a six year old need only examine the
direct and circumstantial evidence of the presents under the trees. The older kids
who say there is no Santa have no proof at all that it is really the parents.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Robert Jones Seriously? You think the presence of presents under a tree on
Christmas morning qualifies as direct and circumstantial evidence for the
existence of Santa Claus? There is direct testimonial, documentary and tangible
evidence for the attribution of the works to WS of Stratford, as well as a
circumstantial case that can be made. We have the documentary equivalent of the
receipts for the gifts proving that the parents did purchase the gifts. If you deny
that this is so, then you are just one more anti-Stratfordian who doesn't
understand evidence. In addition, you have condemned your own theory to
complete irrelevance, as there is absolutely zero evidence to support the
proposition that anyone else wrote the works of Shakespeare.
Reply · Like · Edited · January 5 at 4:15pm
Oxfraud
Mark Johnson
17/326
1/22/2015
Although you have to admit, Mark, that the evidence for Santa Claus puts his
existence into the same neighbourhood of probability as Oxford's authorship, so
it's a helpful analogy in that sense.
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj regarding the motto, it is in French: "Non, sanz droit." "No, without
right." This seems to be a record of the herald's initial rejection of the grant,
which has been transmogrified over the generations into a motto by the
Stratfordians after first being, as you suggest, parodied by Jonson.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter I stand corrected!
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj Have you noticed that the Stratfordian faithful in these discussions
almost NEVER correct one another?
Is that because they all actually always think exactly the same thing, even on
points that are beyond dispute invalid, or is it because the pressure to ideological
conformity causes them to refrain from ever contradicting one another in public?
Or is that a false dichotomy?
Reply · Like ·
Mike Leadbetter
Roger Stritmatter Well it's a false statement, if that's what you mean. Tom and
Mark are just as likely to correct me and the rest of us SAQ Juniors in error as you
are.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mike Leadbetter Well by the holy hyphen and the tuns of rancid fat (quoth our
American poet Herman Melville!) in Stratford, tell those two traitors to keep it up,
Mr. Oxfraud! That will keep them employed for a long time.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Top Commenter · Works at A multitude of Educational Institutions
Very bigoted reporting. You should know better. That there are no plays or poems in his
hand, or that we have "only" six signatures are specious arguments. Compare to
contemporaries of Shakespeare, then render a judgement.
Lord what fools these particular mortals be.
The quartos published IN HIS LIFETIME, specifically NAMING SHAKESPEARE as the author
of the plays, the numerous references to his authorship, and Ben Jonson (the greatest literary
scholar England has produced) who KNEW Shakespeare and attests to his authorship, are
just about enough for me.
There is NO contemporary evidence that anyone else wrote the plays; no evidence that
anyone CLAIMED to have written the plays, none that anyone claimed that someone else
wrote the plays. All of this started because one woman (Celia Bacon) whose sanity was
waning and ended up in a sanitarium, claimed Roger Bacon to be the true author.
PLEASE!
Reply · Unlike ·
43 · Follow Post · Edited · December 29, 2014 at 2:34pm
18/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Unlike ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Never heard of a pen name?
Reply · Like ·
26 · December 29, 2014 at 4:20pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Karl Wiberg Brilliant. That's it! You just destroyed all the mountains of evidence,
the years of scholarship! The overwhelming historical and contemporaneous
proof that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare by using that ONE word!
Congratulations!
Reply · Like ·
18 · December 29, 2014 at 4:30pm
Howard Schumann ·
Top Commenter · Film Critic at Criticalcritics.com
Thanks to Diana Price for pointing out the following:
We have much documentation for lesser writers.
Gabriel Harvey left over 150 books written in five languages.
Thomas Nashe left behind a handwritten verse in Latin, a letter to William Cotton,
and a 1593 letter to Sir George Carey to Cotton reports that Nashe had dedicated
a book to him.
Robert Greene’s death in 1592 was the talk of the town in literary circles and
there is a complete record of Greene’s education at Cambridge.
George Chapman contributed a commendatory poem to John Fletcher and
received one from Michael Drayton.
Drayton was treated by physician John Hall and was described in Hall’s casebook
as an excellent poet. He has a handwritten inscription to “his honored friend” Sir
Henry Willoughby on a copy fo his poem “The Battle of Agincourt”.
Drayton, Chapman, Henry Chettle, and John Webster among others were paid by
Henslowe to write plays. Thomas Dekker’s name appears in the Henslowe diary as
a payee over fifty times.
I could go on and on citing documentation from the period for John Marston,
Francis Beaumont, William Drummond, Samuel Daniel, George Peele, John Lyly.
Thomas Kyd wrote in a letter that he shared a room with Marlowe for writing and
that Marlowe had been writing for his players. Peele paid tribute to Marolowe with
in a month after his death. There are records of Marlowe’s education at
Cambridge. Marlowe along with Eatson and Webster were three of the least
documented writers yet for each of them, literary records survive such as personal
tributes (while they were alive) or payments for writing.
If the man from Stratford did write the plays, he would have left some trace as to
HOW he did it. There is nothing to show that Shakespeare was a writer by
vocation, and anyone who conspired to eradicate records could not possibly
predict which records may have escaped detection and therefore might survive.
All that we have for Shakespeare are six signatures, each spelled differently, one
is incomplete and the other is blotted.
Name one contemporary reference IN HIS LIFETIME that identified the author
William Shakespeare as the man from Stratford. There are none and nobody
during his lifetime ever claimed to have met the man.
Reply · Like ·
41 · December 29, 2014 at 5:27pm
View 82 more
Tom Regnier ·
19/326
1/22/2015
Those who say that there is "no evidence" that anyone other than the Stratford man wrote
Shakespeare's plays do not understand circumstantial evidence. It is possible to prove a case
in a court of law entirely with circumstantial evidence. Of course, one piece of circumstantial
evidence does not prove a case. It takes a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that fit
together and point in the same direction. in the case of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of
Oxford, there are so many parallels between his life and the plays of Shakespeare that they
cannot be explained away as mere coincidence. The first 17 sonnets, which urge the "fair
youth" (probably the Earl of Southampton) to marry were written around the time that
Southampton was being put forth as a husband to Oxford's daughter. Like Hamlet, Oxford
was captured by pirates and left naked on the shore. Just as Antonio in the Merchant of
Venice borrowed 3,000 ducats from Shylock, Oxford invested 3,000 pounds with Michael
Lok to find a Northwest Passage. A strong correlation has been found between the notations
that Oxford made in his Geneva Bible and Biblical references in Shakespeare's works. Ovid's
Metamorphoses, one of Shakespeare's favorite sources, was translated by Oxford's uncle,
Arthur Golding. Contemporary writers identified Oxford as the foremost of noblemen who
had written well but who could not, under the mores of the time, publish under their own
names. He was said in his day to be among the best writers of comedies, but none have
survived with his name on them. The towns in Italy that Oxford visited correspond to the
settings of Shakespeare's Italian plays. Baptista Minola, Kate's wealthy father in The Taming
of the Shrew, derives his name from two men from whom Oxford borrowed money in Italy -Baptista Nigrone and Pasquino Spinola. I couldn't possibly list all the parallels between
Oxford's life and the works of Shakespeare in this space -- they would fill a book. In fact,
they have filled a book -- "Shakespeare By Another Name" by Mark Anderson, a biography of
Oxford that demonstrates in about 400 well-documented pages the many connections
between Oxford and the works of Shakespeare. Anyone who believes that there is no
evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare simply hasn't looked at the evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
I understand the meaning of the term "circumstantial evidence" quite well and
what you have listed here does not qualify as such. It is merely coincidence. For
instance, stating that, "The first 17 sonnets, which urge the "fair youth" (probably
the Earl of Southampton) to marry were written around the time that
Southampton was being put forth as a husband to Oxford's daughter," does not
logically and reasonably yield an inference that Shakespeare wrote those sonnets.
There is a logical process involved with circumstantial evidence that is not
present in your cited examples.
Premise: Oxford's uncle translated Ovid.
Premise: Ovid was one of Shakespeare's favorite sources.
Conclusion: Therefore, Oxford was Shakespeare.
Golding's translation of Ovid is not evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that
Oxford was Shakespeare. It is merely a coincidence. That the two men were
related doesn't even yield an inference that Oxford ever even read the translation,
much less support the claim that is often made by Oxfordians that he helped to
write the translation.
Even taken cumulatively all you have is a series of coincidences. Of course, the
main problem for your "case" is that amassing all of your alleged coincidences
does absolutely nothing to rebut the prima facie case for the Stratfordian
attribution which is actually established by direct and circumstantial evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson vs. Tom Regnier Game on!
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Per Naseeb Shaheen *Biblical References in Shakespeare's Plays*
(1999, p. 144): "But Shakespeare took the name of Oberon's queen, Titania, from
Ovid's *Metamorphoses* 3.173, and since Golding did not use 'Titania' in his
translation, Shakespeare must also have read or remembered Ovid in the
original."
20/326
1/22/2015
original."
That would seem to tank the Oxfordians' reliance on the relationship of Golding's
Ovid with Shakespeare through de Vere.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj Technical KO in the first round. MJ wins again.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
I'm waiting on the cage match between you and Sandra Lynn. Get your popcorn.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain That's an interesting point, Knit. Do you know of any studies showing
what translation of Ovid the author of Shakespeare is thought to have used?
Reply · Like ·
Tom Regnier ·
Mark Johnson , circumstantial evidence takes its probative force from its
cumulative effect. Your argument is a flawed attempt to look at each piece of
circumstantial evidence individually and conclude that that evidence by itself
does not prove that Oxford was Shakespeare. I would agree that if the only
evidence we had for Oxford was that his uncle translated Ovid, that would not be
enough to prove that Oxford was Shakespeare. The same is true for each parallel
between Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works -- but only if taken individually.
Once one starts to look at the evidence cumulatively, however, as one must do
with circumstantial evidence, one has to deal with probabilities. There are so
many connections between Oxford and the works of Shakespeare that it is highly,
highly improbable that they are all just coincidences. Failing to recognize the
cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence is to reject circumstantial evidence
entirely.
Reply · Like ·
Tom Regnier ·
Knit Twain , you say (quoting Shaheen), "Shakespeare must also have read or
remembered Ovid in the original." Then you add, "That would seem to tank the
Oxfordians' reliance on the relationship of Golding's Ovid with Shakespeare
through de Vere." Not at all. Oxford could have read both the Latin original and
Golding's translation. And we know he was living in the same household as
Golding when the translation was being done.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Shaheen (p. 144, MND): "[T]he story of Pyramus and Thisby itself
was well known in Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare's main source for the story
was Golding's translation of Ovid, since he borrowed several recognizable words
from Golding."
Shaheen (p.321): "Shakespeare knew Ovid well, both in the original Latin and in
Golding's translation."
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Tom Regnier Your "The same is true for each parallel between Oxford's life and
Shakespeare's works"
This is really disappointing to continually hear that the life of Oxford is echoed in
21/326
1/22/2015
This is really disappointing to continually hear that the life of Oxford is echoed in
Shakespeare. Please consider Dr. Stritmatter's work on de Vere's Geneva Bible.
Dr. S was able to identify a group of marked verses as falling under the theme of
the Catholic admonition to perform good works IN SECRET to God.
Why would de Vere mark such and then openly refer to himself in the plays? It's
very disturbing how the Oxfordians easily (and without any consideration as to
the consequences) tank their own team members research.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Tom Regnier: I note that you skipped right by the fact that circumstantial
evidence involves a logical, inferential process for it to even qualify as
circumstantial evidence. You can pile up alleged coincidences as high as you'd
like, but if that logical process is not present, you have not made a circumstantial
case for the proposition you wish to prove. All you have is an accumulation of
coincidences, which, even if shown to be true, would not rule out biography,
much less establish autobiography as fact.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson i.e. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Yes Tom, Golding was living at William Cecil's London Home when his
translation of Ovid was published. He notes this in his dedication that it is "from
Cecil-House, December 23, 1564". His nephew, Edward de Vere, had been living
there from the time he became William Cecil's ward in 1562.
Reply · Like ·
Philip Buchan ·
Top Commenter · University of Iowa
Tom Regnier said: "And we know he [Oxford] was living in the same household as
Golding when the translation was being done." Just to be clear, you are not
claiming that Oxford at ages 12-14 helped Golding with the translation, correct?
Just that he was there and may have read his uncle's work?
Reply · Like ·
Philip Buchan ·
Tom Regnier I agree with you that "circumstantial evidence takes its probative
force from its cumulative effect." Indeed, all evidence needs to be seen in context
-- and that includes the evidence of Shakespeare's authorship. So attributions to
"Shakespeare" during his lifetime on title pages, and clear attribution to
Shakespeare of Stratford in the First Folio, and attribution in the records of the
Master of Revels, and his sharing in the playing company that performed plays
attributed to "William Shakespeare," and there being no clear contemporaneous
evidence of anyone else writing the plays or any references to any other authors,
and the cumulative effect of the Stratfordian case is very challenging to
overcome.
There's no point in adding up little scraps of information like whether Oxford's
uncle translated Ovid and Oxford may have read it -- because unless there is
some coherent reason to believe Oxford could write the works of Shakespeare
and eliminate all contemporary evidence of it, all these coincidental scraps are
just coincidences.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Philip Buchan Meres: “...so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and
honey-tongued Shakespeare." And I might add, in more ways than one.
22/326
1/22/2015
honey-tongued Shakespeare." And I might add, in more ways than one.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Your "And I might add, in more ways than one."
Ms. Z. Why do Oxfordians like to tease us so? Why does your group hide its finds
under a stone to rust? Don't you want to get your slam-dunks in your opponents'
faces ASAP??
I've never understood the Oxfordians' little game of "We know something you
don't know". Can you explain, please? Thank you for your help!
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Knit Twain No, regrading Golding. It shows that the author knew the original as
well as Golding's translation. There is no question that he knew Golding's
translation - as abundant literature attests.
Surely you already know this. Why are you trying to put out a forest fire with a
water pistol?
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain Oh, Knit, don't be so coy. You've lurked...uh...I mean...participated in
more Oxie threads than I have, so you must be aware that there is strong
indication that the young hormonally-charged Oxford, and not the staid Puritan
uncle, may have translated Ovid... Tell me this isn't an epiphany for you.
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Tom Regnier Don't you need to look at each piece of circumstantial evidence
individually and discount it if you find that it is logically flawed? Do you have
some kind of method for determining the strength of each piece of evidence so
that when you weigh up the accumulation you are confident that all pieces have
exactly the same logical integrity?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Your "so you must be aware that there is strong indication that the
young hormonally-charged Oxford, and not the staid Puritan uncle, may have
translated Ovid"
Yes, I've heard. Sorry the tale doesn't interest me. i.e. You can't prove it. And why
would the vain-glorious Oxford use "Titania" from the Latin in his MND over his
own translation?
P.S. Your snarkasm seems a bit lack-luster this p.m. oops
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
It appears that you are the person who does not understand circumstantial
evidence, as your idea of circumstantial evidence is defective. Circumstantial
evidence is evidence that relies on a logical inference to connect it to a
conclusion of fact; it is not mere coincidence. Here’s an example:
William Shakespeare was an actor and shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain's
Men (later the King's Men), the playing company that owned exclusive rights to
produce Shakespeare's plays from 1594 to 1642. The name William Shakespeare
23/326
1/22/2015
is on the plays as author. These all, when taken together, infer that the actor
William Shakespeare was the author Shakespeare.
Here’s another: Sir George Buc was Deputy Master of the Revels from 1603 and
Master of the Revels from 1610 to 1622. He personally consulted Shakespeare
on the authorship of an anonymously printed play, Geroge a Green. He also
personally licensed King Lear for publication as written by "Master William
Shakespeare". William Shakespeare of Stratford was an armiguous gentleman
entitled to use the honorific “Master”. All three of these taken together infer that
the author of King Lear was William Shakespeare of Stratford.
Do you see how circumstantial evidence works? Can you tell the difference
between those examples and yours?
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Assistant/Instructor at UMKC
Top Commenter · Graduate Teaching
Knit Twain, this would seem to support, not tank, Oxford. He'd have seen both
the original and Golding's translation, since the translating went on in his own
home and he was very likely encouraged at least to read, if not assist with, his
uncle's work. Shaksper, otoh, has nothing linking him with either the original nor
the Golding translation. George Buc asked Shakespeare who wrote George A
Greene. This doesn't prove Shakespeare ever wrote anything, although it does
contribute strongly to the tradition that he was an actor or a procurer of plays.
Shakespeare's inaccurate response that it was some clergyman who acted in the
play itself, suggests that Shakespeare was no more literate than his daughter,
Susannah, who when asked for her father's books pulled out a medical journal by
Jonathan Hall, hoping that would satisfy people. (It was the only book in the
house. No need for a family Bible if nobody in the house can read it).
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Michelle Mauler wrote" Shakespeare's inaccurate response that it was some
clergyman who acted in the play itself"
Nobody knows whether Shakespeare's answer was accurate or not. *George a
Green* was attributed to Robert Greene long ago on account of the title, but no
scholars accept the attribution today. AFAIK no one has done any stylistic testing
to confirm or elude Greene's authorship.
The rest of your post is merely fairy-tale speculation that suits your bias.
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Mark Johnson, once you have over a hundred coincidences, it starts to look more
logical to regard them as perhaps more than coincidences.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson there is no direct evidence identifying any person as the author
behind the pen name Shakespeare- unless there is something you have that no
one else has ever seen. There is circumstantial evidence pointing to several
individuals as the author Shakespeare. The circumstantial evidence favors
Edward DeVere as the most likely candidate. It should be noted that
'circumstantial evidence' is perfectly good evidence- you, we all, live our liveseach day- in reliance on circumstantial evidence, more so than direct evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
24/326
1/22/2015
Michael F. Pisapia You have not understood what Mark means by 'circumstantial
evidence'. When he uses the term 'circumstantial evidence' he means
'circumstantial evidence'.
When Michelle Mauler and Oxfordians use the term, they mean 'guesswork' and
'coincidence'. We have nevertheless looked in detail at Oxfordian coincidence and
published the definitive paper on the subject. http://oxfraud.com/OX-Vere
State University
Follow ·
Tom Reedy Now, this is entertaining.
Tom Reedy, the man infamous for removing references to articles published in
*Notes and Queries* from Wikipedia entries on the grounds that Oxford
University Press is not a "reliable source," has graduated to trying to explain
circumstantial evidence to attorney Tom Regnier, an acknowledged expert in rules
of evidence whose ability has been honed through many years of teaching law
school, working for the public defender's office, as well as in private practice, and
tested before the Florida Supreme Court.
Reply · Like ·
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
Follow · Sonoma State University
Ben Jonson, The First Folio, Staple of News and Devere
http://www.sirbacon.org/bjonsffolio.htm
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Top Commenter · Works at Göteborgs Universitet
Oxfraud, Mark Johnson, Tom Reedy etc.
The principle (i.e. the 'logical process') used by you Stratfordians here in this
thread to accept a piece of circumstantial evidence as relevant to the case is that
it has to lead to the conclusion that WS wrote Shakespeare, otherwise it is,
apparently, without logic.
Example: no evidence exists that WS could read a book, ever was educated or
ever wrote something else than six hardly readable signatures. BUT. The name
William Shakespeare is printed on front pages. Therefore we have a piece of
evidence that can be accepted as EVIDENCE by the Stratfordian community that
WS (since his name is similar to that of the author) could read books and that he
was a literary giant. This is an example of the logical process accepted.
Another example: thousands of direct references between the Shakespeare canon
and the life, travels and readings of Edward de Vere can be identified (and the list
is continuously growing). But these findings are ALL using the wrong 'logical
process' (leading to an unaccepted author), so they cannot be classified as
circumstantial evidence, and certainly not be accepted as the mass of evidence
that it is.
Now, please tell me; what is the logic of 'the logical process' that you follow?
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Mikael Kjellgren Mikael Kjellgren 50,000 coincidences won't convict a man of
murder in London if CCTV shows he was in Brazil at the time. One fact trumps
any amount of suggestive coincidence.
Bonner Cutting, fr' instance, keeps going on about the coincidence of Oxford and
his Uncle Golding's residence in Burghley's house in the 1560's. She is hinting
that this coincidence suggests that Oxford was partly (or even wholly)
responsible for Golding's translation of Ovid, published in 1564.
What she is actually suggesting is that Oxford produced a groundbreaking
25/326
1/22/2015
What she is actually suggesting is that Oxford produced a groundbreaking
translation of a major classic in his early teens, rendering it in verse whose quality
he never then surpassed, WHILE HE WAS STILL BEING TAUGHT LATIN TWO
HOURS A DAY BY HIS TUTOR!!!
This isn't cognitive dissonance or anything else that has a high-fallutin' name.
This is just a cognitively-challenged individual trying to bang a square block into
a round hole.
And this is what you call evidence.
Hand D is now unassailably canonical. Three pages of Shakespeare manuscript.
Primary evidence. Three lots of 20c paleographic and graphological analysis by
some of the century's top authorities link the signature handwriting to Hand D.
Circumstantial evidence.
The evidence (and there's lots more) is all on one side.
Febrile Oxfordian jello, like Cutting's hints, passed off as evidence is all that
exists on the other.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mikael Kjellgren Sorry, but you don't get to misrepresent our argument and then
argue against the misrepresentation. I fully realize that you, like most Oxfordians,
do not understand the actual logical process that determines what is and isn't
circumstantial evidence [in your case, I'm not even sure you understand what
qualifies as direct evidence], but the fact remains that you have no direct or
circumstantial evidence to support your belief in your Lord. All you have is
coincidences. On the other hand, direct and circumstantial evidence exists in the
historical record, which evidence does establish a prima facie case for the
attribution of the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford. You can deny that
all you want [which would be irrational], and try to make a god of the gaps in our
knowledge, but none of that will suffice to rebut that prima facie case. You need
actual evidence...you don't have any.
Reply · Unlike ·
State University
Follow ·
Philip Buchan and Mark Joshon sagree that " "circumstantial evidence takes its
probative force from its cumulative effect."
This is of course just what John Thomas Looney said in *Shakespeare Identified,*
as already quoted in this discussion:
The predominating element in what we call circumstantial evidence is that of
coincidences. A few coincidences we may treat as simply interesting; a number of
coincidences we regard as remarkable; a vast accumulation of extraordinary
coincidences we accept as conclusive proof.
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/etexts/looney/00.htm
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Oxfraud "The evidence (and there's lots more) is all on one side." Sorry Mr
Oxfraud, Hand D is a theory and nothing more. A quite desperate one at that, if
you ask me. Or, to use the favorite word of Mr Johnson, a speculation.
Before you can show us some evidence that Mr Stratford could (and did) read a
book, I think you should be somewhat more careful with words such as
'evidence'.
And btw, I find Bonner Cutting's speculation far less wild than yours; you
speculate that a man without any trace of a literary life wrote supreme poetry and
drama.
26/326
1/22/2015
drama.
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Mark Johnson you are trying to say something logical without success. For
example, if you tell me "the fact remains that you have no direct or circumstantial
evidence to support your belief", it does not follow logically that this is correct
just because you say so. The true state of affairs may very well be something else.
"All you have is coincidences. On the other hand, direct and circumstantial
evidence exists in the historical record, which evidence does establish a prima
facie case for the attribution of the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford."
It appears to me that you have no understanding of the concept of coincidence.
One coincidence is certainly just one coincidence. But already at five or six
coincidences the laws of logic and mathematic demand a closer look at the case
at hand to decide whether the coincidence is something more than that. In the
case of correspondences between the known life, travels, writings and readings
of Edward de Vere and the Shakespeare canon the number of coincidences are so
extreme that they are, from a logical, mathematical or common sensical point of
view impossible to ignore.
And the prima facie case you are so proud of is, when you look at it from an
unbiased position, not so convincing. You could start by providing evidence that
your man could read a book. There will be doubts about the relevance of your
evidence until then, I'm afraid.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Mikael Kjellgren "Hand D is a theory and nothing more." Yikes!
Hand D is a rather precious artefact, MS. Harley 7368, in the care of the British
Library on Euston Road in London. You have the classic Oxfordian
misunderstanding of the word "theory'. Do you dismiss Einstein's Theory of
Relativity in the same way? There is absolutely nothing theoretical about Hand D.
It was recently on display and The British Library has no doubt that it is
Shakespeare's hand.
It is the work of an author, not a scribe. We can tell that from the way it has been
amended inline. It is the work of a very great author, a very close student of
human nature and a humanitarian. That reduces its possible source down to a
tiny handful of authors, most of whom can be eliminated by other Primary
evidence.
Internal evidence and stylometry confirm it is the work of the canon author.
Without addressing the analysis of the signatures, if the canon author is the man
from Stratford, and he is, then Hand D is his handwriting.
We do not have to prove anything to prove Shakespeare's authorship. There is a
solid, prima facie case for his credit, accepted without question by very, very
close to 100% of English Scholars and Professors. There is no tangible evidence
of any kind for any other author. It is up to those making cases for alternative
authors to prove that their argument deserves to be taken seriously.
This is done with evidence and so far there is none.
The alternative cases consist of outrageously silly notions like "the concept of
coincidence" supported only by inference, supposition and a few ragged
biographical similarities to a few plot elements.
Which is why they are not taken seriously.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
27/326
1/22/2015
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mikael Kjellgren Please stop telling me what I am trying to say, especially when
you obviously don't understand what I am saying. I'm afraid you still don't
understand the logical process which is at the heart of circumstantial evidence.
Even if we take a closer look at your coincidences, as you suggest we should, you
are still unable to set out the logical steps necessary to get from your factual
premises to the conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare. I know why you are
unable to do this, but it seems that no Oxfordian understands what prevents
them from doing so. Maybe I'll let you in on the secret eventually. The prima facie
case is what it is, and it is based on an objective view of the evidence. What
Oxfordians do is to view that evidence subjectively in an attempt to twist it into
meaning something other than its face-value, plain vanilla meaning.
It is amusing that Roger cites Looney's blather about coincidences as if it has
anything whatsoever to do with actual circumstantial evidence, as if Looney was
an expert on the law of evidence. The subjective assessment that there is a "a vast
accumulation of extraordinary coincidences" [besides being a ridiculous
argument by adjective] isn't even true, and yet Oxfordians accept their
accumulation of coincidences "as conclusive proof" -- and do so in the face of
actual evidence to the contrary.
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Mr Oxfraud, the British Library are men and women of miracle if they can have 'no
doubt that it is Shakespeare's hand'. Or, more likely, preys to wishful thinking. We
have some crippled signatures put down on paper by WS the Stratford man
(probably with some help from others). To link that to Hand D takes a wand in the
hands of H Potter, or maybe more apt, is what in my country is called to make a
soup out of a nail. 'An educated guess' is the polite way to put it.
Your reference to English Professors brings to mind Upton Sinclair; "It is difficult
to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it." Maybe the same goes for you, what do I know? What I do
know is that you hide behind a silly pseudonym. I realize that having a discussion
with someone as biased as you is doomed; you cannot for anything in the world
change the way you look at these things without losing your name and identity. ;)
Not a good ground for an interesting exchange of thoughts.
And, just like Mr Johnson, you're trying your best to ignore the links between the
canon and de Vere. Since there is no logical reason for this, on the contrary the
sheer mass of links alone should be enough to raise interest, I have to conclude
that you act out of dogma (if not for your salary?) rather than out of curiosity to
find the truth of affairs. Your constant plea to authorities seems to me to be in
line with this dogmatic view.
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Mark Johnson your objective view of the evidence will not be objective at all as
long as you exclude 99,5% of the facts involved in the case. And your idea that
the Stratfordian thesis rests upon a 'logical process' that is beyond my and other
people's understanding is really ridiculous. No, what is really beyond my
understanding is why you guys keep restricting yourself to a tiny minimum of
facts just to keep your orthodoxy above sea level. But if you one day start to
wonder why your bard is without a face, without a life, without connection to his
work and without blood in his veins, the 99,5 % is in my opinion a good place to
start looking for him.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Mikael Kjellgren The folks from the British Library are on the radio now.
Apparently one of their two copies of Magna Carta is the second copy (dozens
were made over a period of 10 years), delivered to Canterbury Cathedral in 1215.
I'm sure they'll be devastated by your criticism and will have returned from the
studio, tails between their legs, determined to start all their work again.
28/326
1/22/2015
studio, tails between their legs, determined to start all their work again.
I'm also sure that having read your post, Sir Jonathan Bate and everyone else in
the Academy will be similarly devastated never, of course, having heard of
popular fiction writer Upton Sinclair or read him on the subject of salary and
belief. It's amazing that the Ancient Greeks never spotted that. Imagine how much
time and money would have been saved.
I must, however, take issue with your contention that I am dodging the
significance of the links between the canon and de Vere. Call me myopic but I still
can't see how linking small plot details in plays which have copious source
material to small details in the life of an Earl somehow amounts to case for the
transfer of authorship. And none of the links cited so far seem to be....what's the
word I'm looking for - oh yes, links.
"Your constant plea to authorities seems to me to be in line with this dogmatic
view."
Know what an authority is? Know what dogma is? Know what a plea is?
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mikael Kjellgren Right...you still don't understand what qualifies as direct or
circumstantial evidence. Instead of following actual evidence, you believe that the
case should rest on your subjective speculation that Oxford was Hamlet, and,
therefore, that work must have been autobiographical. Apis Lapis must be
Oxford. Labeo must be a hidden author, so let's make him Oxford as well. Etc.
Thanks, but I'll choose to stick with the actual evidence in the historical record.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj If you review the whole sentence, you will note that it begins thus:" as
the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the sweet witty
soul...
The reference to Pythagoras is significant here, because, of course, Meres was a
Pythagorean who believed that number was the constituting element of reality.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mikael Kjellgren Welcome to the discussion and thanks for your cogent remarks.
Are you familiar with the Facebook Shakesvere group? Please check us out. You
will find more than 800 well informed Oxfordians and fellow travelers on that site.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson says: " I'll choose to stick with the actual evidence in the historical
record."
Notice the buggesword "actual." Evidence that does not support the Oxfraudian
belief system does not exist. For this reason, the conclusion is a fait accompli,
and the entire construct is circular.
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud quotes Mikael Kjellgren: "Your constant plea to authorities seems to me
29/326
1/22/2015
to be in line with this dogmatic view."
And responds:
"Know what an authority is? Know what dogma is? Know what a plea is?"
Yes, and some of us also know what a know-nothing professional bully hiding
behind a pseudonym is.
State University
Follow ·
Alasdair Brown "Don't you need to look at each piece of circumstantial evidence
individually and discount it if you find that it is logically flawed? Do you have
some kind of method for determining the strength of each piece of evidence so
that when you weigh up the accumulation you are confident that all pieces have
exactly the same logical integrity?"
This is an excellent point. Yes, you do. And that is part of why we have a problem,
Alasdair. Different people value different elements of evidence differently.
Stratfordian faithful value the monument at Stratford and the name on the title
pages - skeptics are looking for a real human being commensurate
(psychologically and in other ways) with the literary evidence. That is why the
Sonnets play such a significant role in the debate, and why Stratfordians tend to
either dodge discussions of their contents or be satisfied with entirely superficial
readings of them.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter "Yes, and some of us also know what a know-nothing
professional bully hiding behind a pseudonym is."
Oooo! I know the answer to this one...
Is it someone who makes five abusive posts in reply to one, without addressing
any of the issues raised in an attempt to move away from an embarrassing hole in
their own case?
Like you just have?
As far as psuedonyms go, they're really quite sensible in open forums on the
internet and the only reason you're not posting under one of your own regular
pseudonyms like psi2u2 or, saints preserve us, stboniface, is that this is
Facebook and you don't know how.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter No, Roger, it simply means that which actually qualifies as
evidence in a methodology designed to move from factual premises to actual,
factual conclusions. Your so-called "evidence" does not involve such a logical
process. My use of the term is meant to contrast with your reliance on
coincidence and speculative interpretations [your "looking for a real human being
commensurate (psychologically and in other ways) with the literary evidence." I
note that you left out the conclusion of the phrase I used..."actual evidence in the
historical record." That would be the record which many Oxfordians would deny
even exists.
No one, including me, is denying that your coincidental facts or your
speculations exist...I am merely pointing out that they don't qualify as "evidence",
especially in light of the fact that your side has indicated a willingness to frame
this debate as a legal matter. I realize that you have no hard evidence, direct or
circumstantial, on which to build a case, but that is no excuse for you to try to
redefine what evidence is.
30/326
1/22/2015
I have offered to engage in a discussion of what you claim is the "best evidence"
for the proposition that Oxford was Shakespeare...do you care to do so?
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Now is it Mark Johnson's fault that all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE
supports the concept that William Shakespeare was the man who wrote the
works of William Shakespeare, the Immortal Bard of Avon??? We can't control
the historical record, now can we? All we can do is attempt to change it,
misrepresent it, misinterpret it, etc. In which case, we will have a new name:
Oxfordians.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Tom Regnier "The most astonishingly incredible coincidence imaginable would
be the complete absence of all coincidences." Mathematical Illiteracy and Its
Consequences (Vintage)] John Allen Paulos, Mathematician.
Coincidences happen. You know what they are called? "Coincidences." No
causal relationship between events. Merriam-Webster: Coincidence, ". . . the
occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have
some connection." Statistics and science show that the most outrageous
coincidences are supported by statistical theory. Therefore, no matter how many
coincidences you may think you discover supporting the authorship of de Vere,
as long as they are coincidences, they are, in reality, meaningless.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Just as an aside, Roger, do you never tire of telling people what
they actually meant when they wrote something. or do you at least ever pause for
a moment to consider that maybe, just maybe, you aren't actually clairvoyant over
the internet tubes? I like the word "buggesword" [a great word] but it has, and
had, absolutely nothing at all to do with what I intended to, and did, write.
Unsupported assumptions are not beneficial to an open dialogue. I'm trying not
to get involved in the insult game here if at all possible, especially as we are
discussing a topic which I have always found to be of great interest [and not just
as a matter of professional interest].
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Roger Stritmatter Roger, when you dodge discussions of the Shakespearean
qualities in Oxford’s poetry, you are, to all intents and purposes, also dodging
discussion of the contents of the sonnets. ‘Contents’ must refer not just to the
biographical information you think you’ve found but to the nature of the poetry
itself. And I rather object to the implication that it is ‘superficial’ to love the
sonnets purely for the poetry. Some might argue, that it is superficial to get your
biggest kicks from the story.
Anyway, for decades you’ve had this potentially wonderful circumstantial
evidence in the form of Oxford’s poetry and letters right under your noses and all
Oxfordians can do is make the lamest excuses for the pedestrian language and
hum-drum sensibility to be found therein.
What primarily defines Shakespeare is his gift for language . Yes, yes I knowerudition, learning, falconry and heraldry, no books, no letters, blah, blah, blah
and harrumph, harrumph, harrumph - but it’s the extraordinary gift for language
which is the thing.
On that basis, I would claim that a literary argument, based on a critical analysis
31/326
1/22/2015
On that basis, I would claim that a literary argument, based on a critical analysis
of Oxford's language use, should take precedence over any other arguments you
present. You need to make that argument . You know you want to make that
argument. You have the material with which to make that argument.
So, why can’t you make it?
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Oxfraud Not very much of substance in your reply, I'm afraid. I repeat (sorry); as
long as you cannot show evidence (Mark Johnson's favorite word again) that your
man could even read a book, people are going to doubt your orthodoxy. Live with
that.
None of my business, but what's the purpose with running a webpage and adopt
a pseudonym of this kind? You should (if I were you) be more concerned finding
evidence for your own position instead of exposing this fanatic obsession with
Oxford. It's a bit funny, actually.
"Call me myopic but I still can't see how linking small plot details in plays which
have copious source material to small details in the life of an Earl somehow
amounts to case for the transfer of authorship."
Yes, thinking about it I think I will call you myopic. Or blind, perhaps?
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Mark Johnson, You wrote "No, Roger, it simply means that which actually
qualifies as evidence in a methodology designed to move from factual premises
to actual, factual conclusions. Your so-called "evidence" does not involve such a
logical process. My use of the term is meant to contrast with your reliance on
coincidence and speculative interpretations [your "looking for a real human being
commensurate (psychologically and in other ways) with the literary evidence."" A
lot of words here, Mr Johnson, that serve you to redefine the concept of
'evidence' to your own liking. But an evidence is not such a complicated thing. An
evidence is actually "anything presented in support of an assertion" (Wikipedia).
You are using language to make something rather straightforward into something
intricate. Your logical process is, I repeat, not logical at all as long as you exclude
99,5 % of the evidence involved.
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Roger Stritmatter thanks, I'm already there (although I'm a very sparse Facebooker
all in all) :)
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mikael Kjellgren My definition of evidence is the one that is accepted in legal
methodology and in historiography. It is Oxfordians who are attempting to
redefine "evidence" to fit their own needs. I understand the evidence in this
debate quite well. I also understand that you [and, apparently, no other Oxfordian]
can demonstrate any logical process that gets you from Oxford lived in the same
house as Golding to the conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare. If you
disagree, please rise to the challenge and set out the logical steps leading from
the premise to the conclusion. Show how the fact that they shared a roof
somehow qualifies as circumstantial evidence.
It is important to remember that it is the Oxfordians who wish to place this debate
in a legal format [read the article which has instigated this thread], and the
Oxfordians who constantly use the term "circumstantial evidence". If Oxfordians
truly desire to submit their claim to a legal process then they had better accept
that the terms that will be used will be legal terms, with specific legal definitions.
In a legal proceeding, evidence is excluded if it doesn't meet certain requirements.
32/326
1/22/2015
Oxfordians need to deal with that fact. So, if you think it best to avoid using
those legal definitions, and would rather conduct the debate with the nebulous,
and ultimately worthless, "anything presented in support of an assertion"
definition, please feel free to do so. But stop whining about terms that you
obviously don't understand.
State University
Follow ·
Mikael Kjellgren You say: "Hand D is a theory and nothing more." It is not even a
decent theory. No credible forensic handwriting analyst would give it the time of
day. Extrapolation from the limited data set of six "signatures" simply is not a
credible operation.
Using this methodology it could be "proven " that hand D is written by any
number of early modern writers who share the common features used to establish
the claim that the hand is identical to that of the writer of the Sh. "signatures." It
is, really, a laughable proposition that retains credibility only because a significant
number of Stratfordian professors do not know any better and are desperate to
pad their case with bogus conclusions of this nature.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Alasdair Brown says: "when you dodge discussions of the Shakespearean
qualities in Oxford’s poetry."
I don't dodge such discussions at all. I wrote about this matter some length in
appendix N to my dissertation, published in 2003. Please stop making these
kinds of accusations,read what I wrote, and suggest where you find fault in my
methods or conclusions. You make yourself look willfully ignorant when you
continue to ignore that I have written and accuse me of not discussing the topic.
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson, regarding "buggesword," which I placed in quotation marks in
acknowledgement that I was using an unfamiliar metaphorical usage - perhaps
you would be more comfortable if I called you use of "actual" in the phrase
"actual evidence" a meaningless hedging adjective? Because that is exactly what
it is.
Oxfraud
Mikael Kjellgren Here is yet another example, were any needed, of your confusion
over the word 'evidence'.
"Not very much of substance in your reply, I'm afraid. I repeat (sorry); as long as
you cannot show evidence (Mark Johnson's favorite word again) that your man
could even read a book, people are going to doubt your orthodoxy. Live with
that"
The evidence that Will Shakespeare of Stratford could read and write is abundant.
It lies in the sonnets, plays and long poems attributed to him by his peers in the
acting profession, his publishers, his friends, neighbours and fellow parishioners,
in his signatures on witnessed documents and in all the other circumstantial
evidence which attaches the man from Stratford to his work. I need no evidence
to prove he could read or write. All I have to do is accept what the record says and
his literacy can be reasonably assumed. Indeed no other assumption makes any
sense at all.
You, on the other hand, are taking an absence of evidence, the lack of enrolment
33/326
1/22/2015
You, on the other hand, are taking an absence of evidence, the lack of enrolment
records at KE6 and assumptively concluding that this is probative of something,
which it is not.
It was you Oxfordians, as Mark points out, who first got fussy about the
definition of the term 'evidence', seeking some legitimacy for what you want to
include in your arguments.
The important point, that your collection of inference and coincidence does not
qualify as 'circumstantial evidence' has been made.
You may now be happy that it qualifies as evidence according to Wikipedia's
definition but that is not what you or Tom Regnier or Roger (who constantly
abuses the word 'forensic') were trying for.
You don't seem to have the smallest idea of the nature and depth of your abuse
of the term.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter You would still be wrong, as the word "actual" serves to note
the distinction between things that actually do qualify as evidence, which
Stratfordians have in abundance, and things that do not actually qualify as
evidence [using any definition even slightly more rigorous than that proposed by
Mikael], which Oxfordians could dump in that crater they want to name after their
Lord.
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Mr Oxfraud you are a victim of circular reasoning using the Shakespeare canon as
evidence of Mr Stratford's (non existing) literary record. Good luck with that. I
notice that you, like Mark, are using acrobatics with the language to assist you in
excluding all evidence from the case that is uncomfortable for you. It might fool
your own brain, but you will have to live with the fact other people are not so
easily deceived.
Reply · Like ·
Mikael Kjellgren ·
Mark Johnson you are playing tricks with yourself. Thousands of aspects in this
affair point to Oxford as the author, but somehow you allow yourself with aid of
your own word magic to exclude all this evidence. You write:
" I also understand that you [and, apparently, no other Oxfordian] can
demonstrate any logical process that gets you from Oxford lived in the same
house as Golding to the conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare."
You would help yourself if you really listened to the arguments and not (as here)
misrepresented it to something you can easily dismiss. I will not waste time on
this though, since my feeling is that you simply don't want to (for reasons I know
nothing about) challenge your orthodoxy. Otherwise you would not take all these
steps just to be able to ignore this mass of evidence.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mikael Kjellgren, you write: "It appears to me that you have no understanding of
the concept of coincidence. One coincidence is certainly just one coincidence.
But already at five or six coincidences the laws of logic and mathematic demand a
closer look at the case at hand to decide whether the coincidence is something
more than that. In the case of correspondences between the known life, travels,
writings and readings of Edward de Vere and the Shakespeare canon the number
of coincidences are so extreme that they are, from a logical, mathematical or
common sensical point of view impossible to ignore."
34/326
1/22/2015
Indeed - well put.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mikael Kjellgren writes: "You would help yourself if you really listened to the
arguments and not (as here) misrepresented it to something you can easily
dismiss."
Alas, this is Mark Johnson's method - all arguments that would require rethinking
of assumptions are to be recast as a straw man that is easily beaten up with a
stick. Welcome to the first lesson of online authorship "discussion."
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Roger Stritmatter Although I will read Appendix N because I’m interested, you are
certainly dodging the discussion again simply by referring me to it.
For God’s sake, you teach English Literature! If there really are Shakespearean
qualities in Oxford’s poetry, then it shouldn’t take you any time at all to post a
couple of lines or so of his poetry accompanied by a succinct critical commentary
in which the signals are louder than the noise.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mikael Kjellgren I'm not playing tricks with anyone. What I am doing is providing
an accurate definition of evidence and then challenging you, and Roger, and any
other Oxfordian, to prove that you actually have any evidence to support your
belief in your Lord. Coincidence is not the same thing as circumstantial evidence,
and I note that you are unable to take any steps to demonstrate the inferential
process whereby you get from your coincidental premises to an ultimate, logical
conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare. You simply don't want to (for reasons I
know nothing about) challenge your simplistic notion that coincidences make
your case. I doubt that I will waste any more time trying to get you to supply an
actual argument as it is quite clear that you are unable to meet the challenge.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Alas, you are wrong again, and your misrepresentations grow
exceedingly tiresome. What I am trying to do is to require a rethinking of an
assumption that coincidence is the same thing as circumstantial evidence. I
haven't dismissed anything at all. In fact, the only people here dismissing
something are you and your fellow Oxfordians who summarily reject the
argument that circumstantial evidence involves a logical process, one that you
and AK can't even show for your alleged "evidence". None of you have even dealt
with the actual argument that has been made. You merely repeat that an
accumulation of coincidences is "impossible to ignore" -- a statement that
doesn't even address the argument as to what qualifies as circumstantial
evidence.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
At this point I think I may be done with this particular conversation. It has been
very enlightening. Not a single Oxfordian has been able to demonstrate the
logical process showing that any of their "coincidences", considered individually
or cumulatively, even qualify as circumstantial evidence. The best they can claim
at this point is that they have so many "coincidences" that we should pay
attention to them. So much for making a case. Once it became obvious that no
Oxfordian would even attempt to provide a logical argument it was a certainty
35/326
1/22/2015
Oxfordian would even attempt to provide a logical argument it was a certainty
that the next responses would be some ad hominem twaddle like that which
issued from Roger, or a simple dodge like that which came from Mikael ["I'm not
going to waste my time..."]. Why not just admit that you can't do it, as it is
impossible to do so logically? The next thing that will happen is that, somewhere
down the road, or maybe later in this very thread, some Oxfordian will claim that
they have a mountain of circumstantial evidence for their theory that Oxfrord was
Shakespeare. And they will still be wrong. For Will Shakespeare of Stratford, there
is direct and circumstantial evidence. For Edward de Vere, there is coincidence.
EDIT: I should have added another possibility.Some Oxfordians simply won't
understand the argument that what they present as "circumstantial evidence" for
their theory doesn't even qualify, by definition, as circumstantial evidence. This
will result in them misrepresenting the argument -- for instance, allowing them to
state something as ignorant as the claim that I am arguing that "circumstantial
evidence, even in abundance, doesn't make" a case. I guess I need to be more
blunt -- what Oxfordians tout as "circumstantial evidence" for their theory
doesn't even qualify as circumstantial evidence [as is shown by the fact that no
Oxfordian is able to demonstrate the inferential process whereby they get from
theory coincidental premises to their ultimate conclusion that Oxford was
Shakespeare]. Merely listing a bunch of alleged coincidences, and saying,
"therefore, Oxford was Shakespeare," doesn't cut it. They are missing a step [or
two] in the logical, inferential process -- and the really funny thing is that they
don't even know what it is or that it is fatal to their claim to have actual
circumstantial evidence. Maybe if the Oxfordians simply deny the problems which
exist with their so-called "evidence" they can make the problems go away.
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson You are verging on an exercise in solipsism, which is the primary
reason the conversation is finished.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter That may be the most ridiculous thing you've ever said in these
debates. All I am discussing here is the definition of the term "circumstantial
evidence" and the fact that your "coincidences" do not qualify as circumstantial
evidence under that definition. Solipsism has absolutely nothing at all to do with
the argument.
It is apparent that you and your fellow Oxfordians at the SV page don't
understand the argument and are misrepresenting it, and it is even more obvious
now that none of you will ever even attempt to accept the challenge to
demonstrate how it is that you think your coincidences actually do qualify as
circumstantial evidence. You can continue to argue against straw men at the SV
page and indulge in ad hominem attacks to your hearts' content, but it is painfully
and readily apparent to anyone who reads this thread that the real reason this
conversation is finished is because you are simply unable to meet the challenge
that has been made. Prove me wrong...set out the logical steps showing how you
get from your coincidental premises to your ultimate conclusion that Oxford was
Shakespeare. Or just admit that you are unable to do so. Step up or step off.
Just a short time ago, you confirmed that the following comprises the substance
of your theory: "One coincidence is certainly just one coincidence. But already at
five or six coincidences the laws of logic and mathematic demand a closer look at
the case at hand to decide whether the coincidence is something more than that.
In the case of correspondences between the known life, travels, writings and
readings of Edward de Vere and the Shakespeare canon the number of
coincidences are so extreme that they are, from a logical, mathematical or
That, and your "best evidence" doesn't make a case for your theory.
Reply · Unlike ·
36/326
1/22/2015
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
By expounding and then maintaining the correct (and widely understood)
definition of the nature of circumstantial evidence, Mark Johnson has proved that
there is nothing which qualifies as circumstantial evidence suggesting Oxford
wrote the work of Will Shakespeare.
The few 'coincidences' you have dared to submit, in support of your idea that
coincidence and circumstantial evidence are the same thing, have been shown to
be febrile imaginings, cushioning a delusion which is no longer fit for the
purpose of supporting the idea that Oxford is a viable alternative candidate for
the authorship of Shakespeare's work.
You cannot continue the discussion because, obviously, you cannot accept
either the boundaries of the evidence rules or the consequences of your very poor
performance in presenting alternative support matter.
You have lost the argument.
Right here.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud "By expounding and then maintaining the correct (and widely
understood) definition of the nature of circumstantial evidence, Mark Johnson
has proved that there is nothing which qualifies as circumstantial evidence
suggesting Oxford wrote the work of Will Shakespeare."
"You have lost the argument."
Right. And I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Right...selling Oxford as Shakespeare does resemble selling a
bridge to nowhere.
Mike Leadbetter
Roger Stritmatter
Took you five days to post that insult (or make that 'ad hominem' argument as
you like to call it). Did you think we weren't expecting you to come minesweeping
after the discussion was finished?
In doing so you have simply further underlined the fact that you cannot present
evidence in support of your case and, therefore, [drum roll...] have lost the
argument.
No evidence, no case.
Which was to be shown. QED as you would probably say, were you on our side.
State University
Follow ·
Mike Leadbetter Good luck with your project, Oxfraud.
37/326
1/22/2015
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
A big thank-you to Roger Stritmatter and other open minds for their many patient and
thoughtful (and largely non-ad hominem) replies. It's important to note that having one's
cherished beliefs challenged is no small matter. Often, our identifies are wrapped up in what
we believe. I think it was Ogburn who pointed out that when plate tectonics was first
proposed, virtually none of the geologists of the time accepted it. The theory gained
mainstream acceptance only after that generation died off. They were not stupid. Rather, their
minds could not accept something so contrary to what they knew, so contrary to their sense
of self. It's no wonder so few Stratfordites bother to read the arguments put forth by the
skeptics and doubters, much less the full-throated Oxfordians. Who wants to entertain ideas
that make one feel foolish? I sure don't.
Reply · Like ·
35 · Follow Post · Edited · December 30, 2014 at 2:13am
State University
Follow ·
Thanks Karl. You are quite right to point out that there is an issue of cherished
belief at stake. Many of us have made the leap of actually reading up on the
Oxfordian case. But many are, alas, still stuck in the denial stage.
Reply · Like ·
20 · December 30, 2014 at 5:09pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Seems to me that the real religions being promoted here is
Oxfordianism, Baconism, or basic Anti-Stratfordianism -- all relying on faith
without proof. Well, more a 'cult" than a religion.
Reply · Like ·
Jeff Rowe
Joseph Ciolino Not so, Joseph. We are just relying on the Earl of Oxford's life
story and the contents in the "good book." What it seems you Stratfordians rely
on is "the given story.' But what's really at heart is that you Stratfordians are all
"pretenders." You love to use Shakespeare's words as your own calling card of
intellectually superiority over the largely unread masses. This makes you special,
in your eyes. You've all written books and recited passages at parties,
unknowingly losing a lot of the double meanings and jokes Oxfordians get, while
secretly fantasizing that maybe you could "pretend" to know a thing or two and
go down in history, just like little old William. Genuine articles, like Oxfordians,
are just fine with marveling at the man himself. We have our own lives just like he
did.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jeff Rowe What a remarkable gift you have Mr. Rowe, of seeing into my soul and
knowing what my true motivation is for quoting Shakespeare. Doubtless some
form of inferiority drives you to think you can do this, perhaps some anatomical
short-coming, I don't know. . . but no, I do not fit into your nice neat attempt at
pigeonholing.
But typical of Anti-Strats, you create a reality that suits your needs and then you
go with it, shouting that anyone would agree who has an "open" mind. Pity, Mr.
Rowe. You're a sad, confused, lot. Which of the 77 do you support?
And still, no evidence has been presented. Amazing.
Alasdair Brown ·
Jeff Rowe, "Not so, Joseph. We are just relying on the Earl of Oxford's life story
and the contents in the "good book."
38/326
1/22/2015
and the contents in the "good book."
Please explain how this repudiates Joseph's suggestion that Oxfordians are
members of a cult or religion. If anything, it confirms it.
You are not a true believer though since you failed to mention your reliance on
Oxford’s poems and letters.
This may mean you are a sensible, intelligent person who allows an element of
doubt to remain lodged in his belief system.
Or it could mean that you still have another monster sized bottle of Kool–Aid to
swallow.
The garbage in the rest of your post points firmly to the latter.
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown Play your cards right and I just might show you our secret
handshake. But first you'll have recite our sacred oath.
Alasdair Brown ·
Karl Wiberg Thanks Karl. Sounds exciting. But, as Jeff Rowe will tell you. I am far
too busy patronising the unread masses and reciting Shakespeare at parties.
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown And all this time I thought you were patronizing the unwashed
masses. My bad.
Tom Regnier ·
Jennifer Burnham makes an interesting comment when she says that anti-Stratfordians "do
not believe the son of a glove maker, who was educated, could possibly have been a great
playwright. It could only have been a noble or someone of the royal court who could write
like that. It's a very class-elitist/snobby argument. . . . Tennessee Williams was the son of a
shoe salesman! How dare anyone think he is a great playwright." So let me clarify something
about the anti-Stratfordian argument. We are NOT claiming that one has to have an
aristocratic background or a world-class education to be a great writer or a great anything. As
Jennifer points out, Tennessee Williams was the son a shoe salesman. Christopher Marlowe
was a cobbler's son. Both were great playwrights. So, please, spare us all the examples of
great geniuses who came from humble backgrounds. We have no doubt that this
phenomenon occurs. Our argument is specific to Shakespeare because a careful study of
Shakespeare's works reveals that whoever wrote the works had to have been one of the most
literate people who ever lived. Scholars have documented references in Shakespeare to
hundreds of books, many of them written in other languages and not translated into English.
Although Williams and Marlowe were great playwrights, one does not come away from their
works impressed by their detailed knowledge of law, medicine, mythology, philosophy,
heraldry, etc. etc. In the case of Shakespeare many books and articles have been written
detailing Shakespeare's technical knowledge in these subjects and many, many more.
Jennifer comments that the Stratford man was "educated," but there is no evidence that he
ever went to school, owned a book, or wrote a letter. His six shaky signatures are so different
from each other they look as if they were written by different people. It is not a great leap to
believe that a man who could barely write his own name is not likely to have written Hamlet.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Tom Regnier says: "Let me clarify something about the anti-Stratfordian
argument. We are NOT claiming that one has to have an aristocratic background
39/326
1/22/2015
or a world-class education to be a great writer or a great anything."
The trouble is, Tom, it is so much easier to impute these straw man arguments to
your opponent than it is to deal in a fair-minded and substantive way with his or
her real arguments. Sad, isn't it?
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Tom Regnier, although you write logically and lucidly, you contradict yourself in
the most heinous way, and therefore shed light on the fallacy of the antistratfordian movement, you do exactly what you claim your opponents to be
doing. Very clever. (well. . .) After a wonderful paragraph of decrying the use of
"assumptions," you make the bold statement that the "man who could barely
write his won name," -- as if that has ANY meaning toward his creative or
authorship abilities. You do not know if his hand was injured, or deformed in
some small way, or if he just didn't give a crap about it, or, if he was drunk. You
don't even know which signatures are actually his, do you?
There is good evidence that they were not all his.
EPIC FAIL. As the kids say.
But let's assume that these ARE in fact, Willy the Bard's, signatures, and that they
were the best he could do and that he had trouble writing his own name. What
does that prove? Is it evidence of anything, or of any kind? You think it's
evidence that he didn't have an "education," right? How? Why? Give me reasons.
Facts.
Why does this out-weigh the multitude of attributions of contemporaries that we
have, along with the published works bearing his name, and the complete
absence of any hint of conspiracy or subterfuge from ANY quarter during his
lifetime?
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
By the way, Tom, have you ever tried to read the handwriting of Ludwig van
Beethoven? Hemingway? Completely illegible. Guess we should be suspicious.
Reply · Like ·
View 10 more
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
When the truth is exposed, there will be no need to re-christen the company as The Royal
Possibly-Not-Shakespeare Company. All that will be needed is a hyphen. Edward de Vere's
pseudonym was Shake-speare.
Reply · Like ·
27 · Follow Post · December 29, 2014 at 3:46pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Ann can you cite a source for this claim that de Vere's pseudonym was
Shakespeare? Thanks. JC
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
5 · December 29, 2014 at 4:55pm
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino Yes, I can. Can you cite a source for the claim that William of
Stratford, or any of his family members including the illliterate ones, ever signed
their surname as Shakespeare? With an E? And please don't bring up the red
herring of arbitrary spelling in Shakespeare's time. Debunked soundly.
Reply · Like ·
22 · Edited · December 29, 2014 at 5:02pm
40/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
· Edited · December 29, 2014 at 5:02pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Yes, he signed his will "William Shakspeare" (with different spellings
among earlier documents with convention common at the times)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_handwriting and his father also
used "Shakespeare" and was referred to as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/John_Shakespeare (And yes, both artciles are fully cited.) If this is merely
grasping at straws.
Reply · Like ·
View 74 more
Linda Theil · Works at Retired
I would just like to address the issue of “genius” raised by Jennifer Burnham because this
argument often arises in discussion of the Shakespeare authorship. Burnham specifically
names the genius of Isaac Newton, but the genius of Mozart is also often evoked.
The point seems to be that there exists a mystery that we refer to as “genius”. That genius is
by definition a form of inspiration whose genesis is unknown and cannot, therefore, be
documented. We accept that genius exists in Newton and Mozart; we don’t know how they
became genii, so we must accept that Shakespeare is in the same category and is similarly
inexplicable.
Maybe so. I’m not sure I accept that premise, but even if it is true, that argument does not
address the problem of attribution of the Shakespeare works to the Stratford candidate.
Comparing the well-documented lives of Newton as a scientist and Mozart as a musician to
the complete absence of any evidence of the Stratfordian’s life as a writer only enhances the
difficulties of the Stratford attribution because no such documentation exists for the
Stratfordian candidate.
I can’t help believing that anyone who makes that comparison doesn’t understand the quality
of the documented evidence in support of Newton’s and Mozart’s accomplishments, or the
absolute dearth of any such evidence in support of Stratford.
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Documented evidence like in 1598, Francis Meres named Shakespeare as a
playwright and poet in his Palladis Tamia, referring to him as one of the authors
by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched". (Montague, William Kelly
(1963). The Man of Stratford—The Real Shakespeare. Vantage Press.) He names
twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including four which were never published
in quarto: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's
Won, and King John, as well as ascribing to Shakespeare some of the plays that
were published anonymously before 1598—Titus Andronicus, Romeo and Juliet,
and Henry IV, Part 1. He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his
private friends" 11 years before the publication of the Sonnets. (Loomis,
Catherine, ed. (2002). William Shakespeare: A Documentary Volume. Dictionary of
Literary Biography 263. Detroit: Gale Group.) The Quatros were published under
his name during his lifetime http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/MND_title_page.jpg/220px-MND_title_page.jpg
and Ben Johnson attested to his authorship in the First Folio, and there are
official records as well, such as: "Entred for their copie under thandes of Sr
George Buck knight & Thwardens A booke called. Mr William Shakespeare his
historye of Kynge Lear as yt was played before the kinges maiestie at Whitehall
vppon St Stephans night at Christmas Last by his maiesties servantes playinge
vsually at the globe on the Banksyde vj d" ~ entered by Nathaniel Butter and John
Busby, 26 November 1607. And it goes on, there is a TON of historical evidence,
from statements by actors he worked with to other playwrights, that he wrote the
plays. Just because I reply to one specific argument, that does not mean I can't
reply to others.
Reply · Like ·
4 · Edited · December 31, 2014 at 1:41am
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
41/326
1/22/2015
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Linda, I greatly appreciate your comments, and here's another point about
Mozart. I'm a musician (a pianist) by training and Mozart is one of my favorite
composers. As you note, Mozart was a well documented child prodigy. But it
would surprise people to know that much of his early work is terrible. If you don't
believe me, check out his first Symphony #1, written when he was 8 years old;
then compare it to the magisterial Jupiter Symphony of his later years. A case
could be made (notice I said "could be") that the person who wrote Symphony #1
would never have improved enough (despite his youth) to write the later
symphonies. But geniuses must learn their trade like everybody else!
Reply · Like ·
18 · December 31, 2014 at 5:48pm
Sandra Lynn Sparks ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Mozart was a child prodigy as a player, not a composer. And, like
most people, you don't seem to understand what genius is. It's no more about
leaping into life with a perfected craft than it is about never being a genius unless
highly educated. Genius is a creative process in the brain that we truly can't pin
down. It already exists in the person. The flow of it is directed according to a
combination of circumstances unique to the individual. One can't know how the
flow will be directed, and the direction can change during a life - it can be
misdirected, even stopped, if circumstances go wrong. Once Mozart found the
way to direct his musical genius into composition unique to his will and mind which had to happen away from Daddy's control - all he could do was grow. It's
astounding what can happen when genius finds the right channel for the genius
to flourish in.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 8:45pm
View 75 more
John Braaten ·
Top Commenter · University of Vermont
"There is NO contemporary evidence that anyone else wrote the plays; no evidence that
anyone CLAIMED to have written the plays, none that anyone claimed that someone else
wrote the plays." Joseph Ciolino
I first learned about Edward de Vere in an article from Games magazine. Supposedly, Bacon
wrote a cryptic epitaph specifically naming de Vere as the true author. Since then, tidbits I've
read on the Internet, which may or may not be true, are: A couple of Shakespearian sonnets
were discovered by the owners to whom de Vere sold his home. Upon his death, the Royal
Court honored him by performing his...er I mean Shakespeare's plays. De Vere had direct
relationships with the people acknowledged in the preface to the First Folios and sonnets.
This is my favorite mystery. If I was a juror in a copyright lawsuit, I'd lean towards de Vere
being the author of most of Shakespeare's work. Stratfordians for the most part are like
Internet commenters. They assume everything they believe about Shakespeare is true. They
ridicule the doubters and de Vere himself, without providing a shred of tangible proof that
the gentleman from Stratford is in fact a writer.
Reply · Like ·
Philip Buchan ·
De Vere died shortly after James I became King. Among the new monarch's acts
was to name the former Lord Chamberlain's Men (the playing company that
William Shakespeare had a share in) as the King's Men. When the winter holidays
of 1604-05 arrived the court was entertained by the company -- and not
surprisingly, Shakespeare's company performed Shakespeare's plays. Oxford's
death was irrelevant.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 7:58pm
Howard Schumann ·
Philip Buchan King James remembered Oxford's death by performing his plays.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
14 · December 30, 2014 at 8:10pm
Top Commenter
Howard Schumann How obvious is this!
42/326
1/22/2015
Howard Schumann How obvious is this!
Reply · Like ·
10 · December 30, 2014 at 8:47pm
View 26 more
Ren Draya · Blackburn
The Oxford claim (Edward deVere) looks good to me. So many of the details (locations,
names) from Italy match up with the actual experiences and travels of Oxford. The guy from
Stratford never went to Europe. Tudor times were full of cover-ups. . .
Reply · Like ·
20 · Follow Post · January 2 at 5:53pm
Michel Vaïs · Université de Paris 8
No one yet mentioned John Florio as the man who wrote all those works. To me,
this is the most serious "candidate". See Lamberto Tassinari's website:
www.johnflorio-is-shakespeare.com
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ren Draya Why is that William of Stratford was unable to talk to the court
musicians who hailed from Milan (the Lupos) and Venice (the Bassanos)?
Couldn't he learn about Italy from them without ever stepping foot out of
London?
State University
Follow ·
Greetings, Ren Draya. It is great to see you joining the conversation. For those
who do not know, Dr. Draya is a Professor of Renaissance lit (among other
subjects) at Blackburn University.
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Knit Twain, it's very unlikely that the things he describes, such as the paintings
on which Venus & Adonis and Rape of Lucrece are based, the works of sculptor
and painter Giulio Romano, the stand of sycamores in Verona, the canal routes
throughout Italy, and a vivid and natural familiarity with the land and its people,
such that even people in Italy assume he was a native, would come from a
hypothetical conversation with a hypothetical musician. It's more likely he toured
Italy. That would motivate him to set 10 plays in Italy, much more than a
hypothetical passing conversation with a stranger. We write what we care about
and are inspired by. He probably put the trees in Romeo and Juliet because he
saw them and was inspired by them, not because some guy in a pub told him
they were there.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Michelle Mauler There are no sycamores rooting from the walls in Verona*.
Engravings from the time show that, like other fortified cities, Verona kept the
artillery sight lines outside its walls entirely sycamore-free. The sycamores that
Roe and the Oxfordian tribe claim are there now are actually young plane trees,
planted in in the 80's in avenue-straight lines alongside roads. So Will didn't hear
about Veronese sycamores in a pub or see them on a visit, did he? He made them
up.
It's a mistake, isn't it?
A mistake that would incline people to believe the author had not actually visited
Verona. Nor did Verona have a Duke. It was a Venetian dependency during
Oxford's lifetime. So that's another mistake, isn't it?
43/326
1/22/2015
It could have had sycamore groves and did have a Duke when Will's source
material was written 160 years earlier. But that would mean these details came
from the source and not a personal visit. And you would be holding the wrong
end of the stick, wouldn't you?
Italy was a generic backdrop used by all Elizabethan and Jacobean playwrights.
Your "vivid and natural familiarity" is really just hit and miss local colour added
for effect. What the plays really show is that Will cared little enough to have
horses and publicans in Venice and banks of Warwickshire wild flowers in
Athens.
*Actually there is a single one, not in the correct location, kept to enable life to
imitate art, like Juliet's balcony, added in the 1920's to delight tourists.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler How convenient that Oxfraud ignores your mention of one of the
most damning pieces of evidence against the Stratford man: Shakespeare's
intimate knowledge of Titian's painting of Venus and Adonis, details of which he
replicates in his own epic poem. And then there's Giulio Romano's fresco
depiction of the Trojan War in Mantua's Palazzo Ducale, reflected in verse in The
Rape of Lucrece.
How did the poet gain this knowledge? You asked a probing question, Michelle,
but all we hear are crickets chirping.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
You're still not sure what is meant by 'evidence' I see.
Yet another example of Oxfordian guesswork masquerading as fact.
There is a rumour that Shakespeare went to Madrid with Southampton in the
plague year of 1593, where he could have seen Titian's Rape of Lucrece and
Venus and Adonis in the same room. Oh ho! With the dedications, that's a
Stratfordian twofer. Threefer in fact.
Sadly, this has exactly the same status as your own unspoken contention that
Oxford may have see Titian's version of V&A, with the headgear, on his visit to
Italy in 1575.
Not a smidgen of evidence to support either idea.
There are odd bits of counter evidence that Shakespeare might not have been in
Madrid but there are also pesky art historians who claim that the headgear
painting of V&A was in Prague, long before Oxford went to Italy, having been
commissioned by Emperor Charles V sometime around 1560.
If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if....
If guesswork was fact then guesses would be evidence. But it ain't. And they're
not.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud Had Southampton and the Straford man actually seen the painting of
Venus and Adonis in Madrid, it would have been one of the five original versions
by Titian, but one without the tell-tale bonnet. Coincidentally, this is the same
(Prado) version that was painted to grace the apartments of Philip II of Spain,
commissioned by his father Charles V. The only original version of V&A in which
Adonis wears a bonnet, dated ~1554, is now housed in Galleria Nazionale in
Rome, and it is this version whose details correspond to the poem.
44/326
1/22/2015
And while we're at it...
How do you explain the author's descriptions of the three "wanton pictures" in
The Taming of the Shrew? Were they more instances of his vivid imagination?
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud Re: Titian's painting Tarquin and Lucretia (NOT The Rape of Lucrece)… It
was probably in Spain during the time frame you presented, but unfortunately for
your argument, her rape was not the only event mirrored in the poem. The Trojan
War, one of the focuses of the poem, is nowhere to be seen in Titian's painting,
but it is the subject of Giulio Romano’s fresco in Mantua, visited by de Vere
during his Italian sojourn.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj There are no difficulties here (except that my Phaidon guide to Italian
Renaissance Painting as the bonnet picture in Prague while you want it to be in
Italy).
There is no evidence for Will or Oxford seeing any of these pictures. You are
stretching your imagination to its limit and calling the result evidence. The
chances of either of them seeing a cheap Titian engraving in London are
massively higher than the chances of them being in the presence of one of the
originals. Oxford hated Italy and strikes me as more of a sex tourist than a culture
vulture. None of his letters home mention paintings.
Furthermore, nothing relevant to the debate hangs on the issue apart from its
value as further illustration of the Oxfordian inability to reason from evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud There are only five original paintings of V&A by Titan (Madrid, London,
NYC, DC and Rome) and over 30 copies, some begun by the master and
completed by his school, either with or without a bonnet. It's reasonable to
assume that the Prague painting is a copy, and not the original (we surmise) seen
by Oxford. The Prado version, the one which you say Southampton and Shax
may have seen while in Madrid, is definitely without a bonnet. Perhaps they took
a side trip to Prague? (Talk about inability to reason from evidence…)
Oxford hated Italy? Now, that’s a corker.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud You have not addressed the Trojan War frescoes or the "wanton
pictures," so I assume I can enjoy (?) a brief hiatus from this forum. Deadlines
loom!
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj I cannot prove Will saw any of these pictures. You cannot prove
Oxford saw any of these pictures. Thus far we are equal.
I am not the one trying to create significance where none exists and then leap
across the Grand Canyon blindfold by calling it evidence before flying to moon
on a giraffe and claiming it proves Oxford's authorship.
In any case, there is only one "headgear picture", commissioned in the 1550's by
Emperor Charles V and located first in Prague and then in Stockholm. So you
now have a choice of journeys to invent for the Earl.
45/326
1/22/2015
For anyone who doesn't know what Ann is trying to prove, Will refers to Adonis
as wearing a 'bonnet'
"And with his bonnet hides his angry brow"
Unlike Titian, Ann insists that Will is incapable of imagining Adonis wearing a
hunting hat. The idea can only have occurred to him if he had first seen a picture
of someone called Adonis wearing something called a hunting bonnet.
Oxfordianism is almost entirely constructed of this kind of fanciful, irrational
codswallop, built on the slightest of foundations, usually suspect in themselves.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud “In any case, there is only one ‘headgear picture’, commissioned in the
1550's by Emperor Charles V and located first in Prague and then in Stockholm.
So you now have a choice of journeys to invent for the Earl.”
Wrong. The Venus and Adonis commissioned by Charles V for his son has this
provenance: Venice, Madrid, London (1554-1555), Madrid (1556-present). And
Adonis wears no bonnet. It’s interesting to note is that in the past, some have
latched on to the fact that Titian’s V&A was in London, and concocted another
possible scenario in which Shakespeare could have seen it. When the dates of the
painting’s movements were discovered, their “fanciful, irrational codswallop” was
essentially debunked and replaced by the Prague theory. With all the copies and
versions, it’s difficult keeping track…
True, we cannot *prove* that Oxford saw Titian’s painting while in Venice, but it’s
not out of the realm of possibility, given the coincidence in detail between the
poem and the painting. On the other hand, the Stratford man seeing a bonneted
version in Madrid in 1593 is an impossibility. Thus far we are UNequal.
Reply · Like ·
Mike Leadbetter
Ann Zakelj There is no 'Prague theory'. The bonnet picture seems to be the one in
the Dulwich Gallery in London and you may also have your Emperor Charles's
and, therefore, your picture's provenance mixed up.
No matter.
Neither of us are art historians and Titian and his copies are difficult to track. The
painting and its provenance is completely irrelevant.
When Simon Schama talks about Oxfordianism representing 'a catastrophic
failure of imagination on the subject of the imagination' the idea that
Shakespeare must have seen a picture of Adonis in a hat to describe him that way
is precisely what he has in mind.
Imagining such a painting can cast light on the question of authorship is the
fanciful, irrational codswallop we are trying to eliminate.
Here is a perfect example of the trouble you can get into when all you are doing is
playing with different assumptions and surmises.
"True, we cannot *prove* that Oxford saw Titian’s painting while in Venice, but it’s
not out of the realm of possibility, given the coincidence in detail between the
poem and the painting. On the other hand, the Stratford man seeing a bonneted
version in Madrid in 1593 is an impossibility."
Wrong. Since there is no evidence to support either conjecture, NEITHER of
which is impossible, then both have equal value the authorship scales. A value of
Nil.
Furthermore, if both conjectures could be proved, the value as evidence of
authorship would still be nil. Will Shakespeare was perfectly capable of forming
46/326
1/22/2015
authorship would still be nil. Will Shakespeare was perfectly capable of forming
an mental image of Adonis and putting hat on him without seeing any paintings.
Just like Titian.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mike Leadbetter Ah, yes. Imagination - the Strats' answer to everything deemed
an impossibility/irreconcilability in the life of the "author" Willie Shakspeare.
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj In the space of five posts, you've gone from:
"How convenient that Oxfraud ignores your mention of one of the most damning
pieces of evidence against the Stratford man: Shakespeare's intimate knowledge
of Titian's painting of Venus and Adonis,"
to
True, we cannot *prove* that Oxford saw Titian’s painting while in Venice,
Are you beginning to get a feel for why people get so frustrated by the things that
Oxfordians call evidence??
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... I do
not see my comments as contradictory. You and I both know that evidence is not
proof.
Would it make you feel better if from now on I use "uncanny coincidences”? How
about “associations”? “Relationships”? “Things that make you scratch your head
and say, ‘Hmmmm…’”? There are hundreds of them, but none of them proof, just
as your insistence that the Stratford man is the author because his name is
Shakespeare.
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj "Ah, yes. Imagination - the Strats' answer to everything" Given all our
posts pleading with you to provide some rational evidence for your bizarre
hallucinations relating to to the 17th Earl of Oxford , I can hardly believe you just
said that.
Jonathan David Dixon ·
Top Commenter · University of North Dakota
The Italy-related "coincidence" that gets me most (among others):
In a small Italian town that Edward de Vere is known to have passed within a few
miles of on his travels … which at that very time was being constructed as a
gathering place for intellectuals of the kind de Vere is documented as having
gone out of his way to visit … which was called “Little Athens” because of that …
it turns out there is an actual location called "the Duke's Oak" -- which is not a
tree, but a city gate leading into the woods. (Not to mention the fact that there
was an actual Duke, which there weren’t any of in ancient Athens, despite
Shakespeare making Theseus a duke).
There is also a church there called “the Temple". In A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S
DREAM the characters several times refer to "the Temple" -- capitalized in the
original printing, as it is for the actual building in that town. (However, thinking
the characters must just be referring to some generic temple, modern scholars
47/326
1/22/2015
the characters must just be referring to some generic temple, modern scholars
always un-capitalize the word.)
It almost makes one think that maybe we’ve been misunderstanding the author’s
intentions all these years. Maybe the play is actually set, in a cheeky way, in "Little
Athens", Italy, not Athens, Greece, at all. And maybe the place where the artisans
meet before entering the woods to rehearse their play isn’t a big oak tree at all, as
has been shown in productions for years, but a city gate leading out into the
woods (which actually makes more sense).
What another strange bunch of meaningless coincidences which only SEEM
meaningful when Oxford is mistakenly assumed to be the author! And
coincidence upon coincidences, what a coincidence that these coincidences
weren't even sought after: Richard Roe, the discoverer of all this, stumbled upon
it completely unawares while touring the town on a whim.
But maybe it's not a coincidence at all. It is much more likely that Shakspere of
Stratford could have learned all this from a chance encounter with traveling Italian
musicians while hanging around the court of Queen Elizabeth. Too bad we don't
have any documentation to confirm it, but no doubt it probably happened.
Reply · Like ·
Mike Leadbetter
Ann Zakelj
Your comments are self-evidently nonsensical. Their proximity of the descent
from the sublime to the ridiculous created an opportunity, I thought, for you to
catch a glimpse of your own mad inconsistency.
But the moment passed. As they always do.
Roe discovers sycamore groves where there are only plane trees and builds
mountains of speculation based on a random escutcheon in the street in Florence
on the location of The Pilgrim's Hospice when any 1€ guide could have saved
him the embarrassment. We can safely disregard ALL of his self-confessedly
'wilder' guesswork.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mike Leadbetter "builds mountains of speculation..." Have you read Will in the
World? lol
Mike Leadbetter
Ann Zakelj It begins with the words "Let us imagine'.
Not that I'm much of a New Historicist or even much of a Greenblatt fan. Like
Oxfordians, he overrates context and what can be derived from it. Unlike
Oxfordians, he never confuses speculation with evidence, Nor does he try to pass
off guesswork as fact or mistake sycamores for plane trees, nor large inhabited
islands in sight of the mainland with barren, remote, unpopulated islands. etc etc
etc. rtfl.
State University
Follow ·
Mike Leadbetter Looks like you forgot to use your "Oxfraud" identity for this
posting. Better be careful about slipping up that way, Mike, or word may get back
to Professor Wells.
Mike Leadbetter
48/326
1/22/2015
Mike Leadbetter
Roger Stritmatter
You really have given up, haven't you?
Jim Tobin ·
Knit Twain , He could have learned a great deal about Italy in general, but not
about the obscure specifics mentioned in passing in the plays which Richard
Paul Roe investigated and describes from his feet on the ground investigations.
Steven Thomas Sabel ·
Top Commenter · Los Angeles, California
I rather like the Swiftian nature of the tone of the Newsweek piece. I think the writer is a
closet doubter who played it safe with the story, but nonetheless gave Oxfordians full due
alongside the established view of the Bardologists, as Samuel Clemens referred to them .
Most importantly, the writer admits that authorship doubt is not only here to stay, but is
growing! When 17% of educators becomes 20%, and then 30%....... Not meaning any
offense to any in the group, but the best thing English literature professors do, is create new
English literature professors. The authorship Question and authorship doubt have finally
waves of significant impact in the world of academia. Vero nil Verius! The truth will out. It
cannot be stopped....
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Per the article, "one survey shows that 17% of American literature professors
think there is room for reasonable doubt about Shakespeare’s identity." Does
anyone see anywhere in the article the number of respondents to such survey?
Would it be considered a significant trend if only 100 professors responded?
What if just 12 responded? Stats are crap.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 8:22pm
State University
Follow ·
Knit Twain
The methodology is outlined in the original NYT article from 2007, already linked
in this discussion or available via google search, to which this article refers.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
10 · December 30, 2014 at 9:44pm
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Thank you. I found the article before you posted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/shakespeare.html?_r=0
"265 professors filled out an online survey"
The beginning of the article notes "In an Education Life survey of American
professors of Shakespeare, 82 percent said there is no good reason to question
whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon was the principal author of
the poems and plays in the canon; 6 percent said there is good reason, while 11
percent saw possibly good reason."
But later shows "Sixty-one percent of respondents said they considered the
authorship question a theory without convincing evidence, and 32 percent found
it a waste of time and distraction in the classroom; 3 percent considered it an
exciting opportunity for scholarship, and 2 percent said it has profound
implications for the field."
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 11:50pm
Top Commenter
49/326
1/22/2015
Roger Stritmatter Here's the actual survey http://www.nytimes.com/
2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html
15. Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William
Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the
canon?
6% Yes
82 No
11 Possibly
1 I don't know
18. Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare
authorship question?
2% Has profound implications for the field
3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship
61 A theory without convincing evidence
32 A waste of time and classroom distraction
2 No opinion
"Of the 1,340 institutions in the College Board data set, a random sample of 637
was drawn. Shakespeare professors were identified at 556, and 265 completed
the questionnaire."
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 1:05am
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Isn't it interesting that Oxfordians will accept a "possibly"
answer when it ups their ante but diss Stratfordians for offering any "possibly"
which ups theirs. Dr. Stritmatter. What do you attribute such hypocritical
methodology to?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Dr. Stritmatter. Here's an easy math question for you... If 6%
think there is good reason to question the authorship, how does that equate to
17% per this article as in "one survey shows that 17% of American literature
professors think there is room for reasonable doubt about Shakespeare’s
identity." ?
I note that 11% voted for "possibly" which doesn't equate to a certainty as does
"yes". Why the misrepresentation? Why not just describe the survey as showing
"6% say 'yes' while another 11% say 'possibly'"? Wouldn't that be an honest
(and accurate) representation of the survey? You should know (of all people) that
combining percentages across multiple ranges is a big no-no in any field,
especially in the world of scholarship where honesty outweighs motive.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Longden ·
Top Commenter
I do like how "17% of people think Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare" is enough
for the doubters, when a perhaps slightly better way of putting it would be to say
"the vast majority of people we asked believe that Shakespeare WAS
Shakespeare".
Reply · Like · December 31, 2014 at 5:10pm
Bob Grumman ·
Top Commenter · Valley State Junior College
Knit Twain Interesting that the professor gave us the link, you gave us the data,
Knit Twitter. But, hey, I see he got three more likes than you did!
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 9:07pm
State University
Follow ·
Mark Longden No, actually the doubters have read the scholarship. I don't care if
50/326
1/22/2015
Mark Longden No, actually the doubters have read the scholarship. I don't care if
the number is only 1% What have you read? What do you find to be the most
compelling arguments?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 9:20pm
Top Commenter
Bob Grumman Well, yeah. Stats are boring, dude. Get over it.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter I would be interested in seeing an updated survey. Could the
Shakespeare-Oxford Fellowship possibly sponsor such? Is there any reason to
take a random sampling? Is the population of American university Shakespearean
professors that large it would render such a survey unwieldy?
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Bob Grumman He has a team of post pimpers. On a long Disqus thread, last year,
he made three attempts at a short post. The two broken efforts had exactly the
same number of Likes as the successful one.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Knit Twain What a fascinating poll. Of course, not the least bit surprising. Thank
you.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino Hi Mr. Ciolino. Not surprising, certainly. But I think the point is
that the Shakespeare Authorship Question has gained at least SOME footing in
American universities (as of 2007). Plus, that survey was conducted over a
random sampling rather than the entire population of American Shakespearean
professors.
Jim Tobin ·
Some of my concerns with the opinions of English professors I have spoken with
about this question is that they tend to be literary formalists rather than
historians with an interest in literature. Consequently they are concerned with
literary criticism rather than with historiographical analysis, which they simply do
not care to look into closely. The latter is irrelevant to them, or the simply
consider the question a matter of settled fact-- not something they take pains to
argue about on the evidence, which they do not engage with point by point, let
alone as a cumulative and emerging picture.
Kim Holston · Drexel University
This issue can be traced back to 1728's "An Essay Against Too Much Learning" (anonymous
but probably Matthew Concanen). Warren Hope and I pointed this out in "The Shakespeare
Controversy" (McFarland, 2nd ed., 2009). By the way, Francis Bacon has not been the
leading candidate for the Bard's throne for more than half a century.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Greetings, Kim. I am a big fan of your book, and its great to see you online.
51/326
1/22/2015
Greetings, Kim. I am a big fan of your book, and its great to see you online.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Ah, yes, but tell that to the Baconians! http://www.sirbacon.org/
links/evidence.htm
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino They are very few and of no consequence in the 21st century, as
Kim was trying to tell you. He would know, since he (co) wrote this book on the
history of the question: http://www.amazon.com/The-Shakespeare-ControversyAuthorship-Detractors/dp/0899507352
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter And Marlovians? They are many. Who are we to believe? And
the Raleighites? What of them? And Neviliians? So many candidates (77 at last
count) to choose from! All except the true man himself, the Immortal Bard, William
Shakespeare. Anyone but HIM.
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino
First, when you say "many," how many are you talking about? Do you really have
any idea?
Second, a simple review of the popular literature, from PBS Frontline (1989),
Atlantic (1992), to Harpers (1999), Time (1999), The New York Times (2001), The
Washington Post (2007), or Newsweek (2014), may provide a better measure of
the relative strength of the alternative theories than guessing about how many
people may in some way support one or another divergences from orthodoxy.
Here the historian of ideas is face with an obvious piece of evidence that you
seem to find difficult getting through your skull, perhaps because you didn't read
any of these fine articles (except, perhaps the present one), and have never been
asked by anyone to consider the fact pattern that they comprise.
ALL of these have run major stories on the authorship question that focus on
Oxford. The same is true of major periodicals in Italy and Germany (less so in
England, where de Vere is the skeleton rattling the closet, and where,
consequently, the "77 candidates" theory tends to get more play). We call this
fondly the "anyone but Oxford" theory.
Why, you may ask, this singleminded focus on Oxford? It is for the simple reason
that anyone but the most dogmatic and dishonest Stratfordians, and the few
persons who do adhere to these fringe theories, understand that the only real
game in town is Oxford. It may be convenient to change the channel and start
gabbling about the 77 "candidates," but it is not a defensible position in the
discussion.
In case you haven't noticed, at least 9/10 of the post-Stratfordians in this
discussion, and the only ones scoring regular points, are Oxfordians (some of
whom have not said so, because they prefer to advance the post-Stratfordian
position without declaring any allegiance).
Finally, the Oxfordians are the only group that has over the last thirty years,
52/326
1/22/2015
Finally, the Oxfordians are the only group that has over the last thirty years,
starting with Charlton Ogburn's *Mysterious William Shakespeare* -- a very fine
book in many ways -- has made regular contributions to the larger field of
Shakespearean studies (many still under-appreciated by the mainstream), and not
just cordoning itself off as a kind of special club who has found the holy grail.
These contributions are, collectively, the first wave of the paradigm shift, and it is
a wave still out to sea but growing bigger by the hour. If I were you, I would seek
higher ground. But maybe you are a really good swimmer.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Pompous? A little bit? In fact, they simply do not make ladders long enough to
get you Oxfordians down off your high horses.
You boldly claim the support of the whole landscape of popular literature then
cite the entire but tiny, dismal catalogue of articles which offer Oxfordians a
crumb of support. Then you position yourself as a historian of ideas.
If you think this is a 'popular' movement', you are seriously mistaken. The number
of articles appearing in the quality press which give even minute amounts of
credence to Oxfordian theory has now sunk below the level of measurable
significance. Oxfraud.com has been running for two years now and has been
abused by all of the Oxfordians in this column and lots who aren't present. We
know who's in the game. I showed you a Google trend chart a week or two back
which showed that interest in the SAQ has declined to nothing in the last 10
years with a blip around 2011 when Anonymous, the film of the theory, appeared.
And it's certainly not an academic debate. The English Faculty Profs who used to
waste their time on you are all long gone. One of them recently described
Oxfordians as 'ants at a picnic - best ignored'.
There are at least two big reasons.
First there is the film of your theory, Anonymous, a $30m swing on the
Hollywood trapeze.
The idea that Oxford and Southampton were bastard brothers sired by Elizabeth
1, one the father of the other, is the daftest theory EVER to make it onto celluloid.
Even now, three years after the film, none of you have the wit to realise why
turning the greatest playwright in history into a drunken, illiterate murderer,
turning the greatest statesmen of the 16c into a comedy villain troupe and
turning the greatest Head of State, possibly of all time, into a nitwit
nymphomaniac, might have affected the wider opinion of your theory. Or made
you unpopular here in England.
You can't blame Emmerich or Hollywood. They were forced to thread your ideas
into a coherent narrative (something no Oxfordian has ever managed) and the
result made your ideas look utterly ridiculous. Hardly a surprise since almost all of
them are, but turning them into a story with a beginning, a middle and an end
exposed the mad inconsistency and arrogant disrespect for the historical record
which lies at their heart..
The second is the onslaught of stylometry. Big Computers are cheap, now. Big
Data techniques are sophisticated. The scary nerds at the frontier are saying,
quietly but emphatically, that there are no questions that big data can't answer.
And all of the data in Elizabethan and Jacobean drama isn't all that Big. So
questions are being answered, Hypotheses are being confirmed. The chronology
of Will's work is being cemented slowly into place and the scale of collaboration
in the the Jacobethan playhouse is being slowly unpicked, measured, tested and
validated.
And you can't even play, can you? Because computerised stylometry shows, that
it can discriminate between authors accurately (unlike you) in solid detail.Using
its own calculated disciminants, it can map out just how Will's work developed. It
highlights his contribution to Jacobean theatre. Whereas, your candidate died 12
years too early, Before Jacobean theatre had any distinguishing features. Worse,
it's now dropped Hand D into Will's lap, made it canonical and knocked out your
53/326
1/22/2015
it's now dropped Hand D into Will's lap, made it canonical and knocked out your
cornerstone.
Unlike you, serious scholars are interested in what mathematics can can offer in
the field of attribution. Far from being ignored by resistant orthodoxy, your
attribution field is now front and centre in the Academy's work on the period. And
Oxford doesn't figure anywhere. Does he? Because although he wrote enough to
give the machines a stylometric profile, he didn't write anything of note. Did he?
So your 'historian of ideas' when he is writing about the SAQ, may write a
paragraph about it or may only mention it as a footnote in the chapter under
'Delusions'. Because that's all it is. A worn-out goose feather jabbed into a stale
baked potato.
Well, now the winds are getting up. And the music and credits have started to roll
on your 'theory'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBtG0gj6MxA
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud
I thought your employers had already warned you about those ad hominems,
masked man. In any case, its not really clear who you are talking to.
Was it me?
If so, I do approve that you begin with a personal attack, since the your posting
otherwise lacks merit and where you fail in logic you are skilled at compensating
for with more of your aggressive personal attacks, as has long been your wont
under your various avatars and sock puppets (at least two of which seem to be
active in the present discussion).
You can't argue directly against my proposition, so you bring an alternative set of
"facts" regarding google stats.
Of course it never occurs to you to consider the basis of those stats, or what
confounding variables might account for them, other than your a priori
assumption, which you think those numbers prove, that somehow the Oxfordians
have fallen from favor.
I heartily approve that you keep believing that. Its always nice when one's
opponent begins by calling you "pompous" and ends by realizing that he had
little idea, all along, of what was actually transpiring in the discussion, because he
was so bent on "doing his job."
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter Logic eh?
If it's "not really clear who" I was "talking to" why do you interpret it as personal
abuse? And then, after complaining about my 'ad hominems' why do you go and
repeat your defamatory statement (that's worse than abuse) that I am employed to
make your life difficult?
Your proposition, that popular literature is an indicator of the strength of your
arguments is self-evidently ludicrous,
No one serious about Shakespeare takes you seriously. Do they?
After Anonymous, this also applies to people who have seen the film but aren't
serious about Shakespeare. The pathetic list of articles in your survey of 'popular
literature' suggests that finding anyone who takes you seriously is becoming
really, really difficult.
54/326
1/22/2015
really, really difficult.
There are obvious reasons for this. When someone raises one of them, you
flounce about in a lather of peevish persecution.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter "They are very few and of no consequence in the 21st century"
Same is true of Oxfordians.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud So you keep saying, at least as long as the checks keep rolling in, huh?
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Is this stuff on the level or are you making it up as you go
along? ~ Groucho Marx.
Alasdair Brown ·
Roger Stritmatter So you’re surfing on the first wave of the great paradigm shift
are you? Well, you would say that wouldn’t you?
The reality is that, whilst Oxfordians show some ability in making loud noises all
over comment threads and in writing little kindle books to keep one another’s
sprits up, in terms of making an impact on what you call ‘orthodoxy’ you have got
absolutely nowhere.
The only anti-Stratfordians who have made any headway at all in speaking
powerfully to the public at large are the supporters of Christopher Marlowe
because:
1.The Marlowe Society in 2002 succeeded in persuading the authorities to install
a window in poets corner in Westminster Abbey bearing the inscription,
1564 Christopher Marlowe ? 1593.
Antony Sher unveiled the window and read an extract from Tamburlaine the
Great. Perhaps you need to be thinking about an Oxford poem you would give to
Derek Jacobi to read when your great moment arrives.
That question mark on the inscription is infinitely more potent than the one you
guys plonked after the SBT’s title, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt. You merely
irritated the SBT with your question mark. The Marlovians enraged them with
theirs.
2. The best piece of anti-Stratfordian literature to have been produced in recent
years is Ros Barber’s The Marlowe Papers. It’s an engaging and stirring novel in
its own right and she has the courage and imagination to speculate in detail as to
how this particular front-man conspiracy actually worked.
As this discussion has demonstrated very plainly, you can’t provide proper
evidence for Oxford’s authorship, you can’t show how Oxford’s language is
remotely like Shakespeare’s, and, when it comes to explaining the workings of the
conspiracy all you can do is to wink and tap your noses.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Top Commenter · Seton Hall University
55/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Alasdair Brown The whole idea of the poet's corner brings up an interesting
question. Is De Vere regarded as a major poet outside the Shakespeare canon that
he would receive a poet's corner honor? If he is such a revered poet as
Oxfordians make him out to be, why isn't he recognized as a major poet today?
Jonson, Marlowe have remained popular since the Elizabethan era, why not De
Vere as he was recognized as a poet in his day? Which brings up the another
question, If De Vere was already a recognized playwright, most notably by Francis
Meres in print, why would he not have taken credit for other plays? Why were
other plays ok to take credit for and the "Shakespeare" ones weren't?
Alasdair Brown ·
Jon Ciccarelli Jon, I'll just answer one of those questions in the hope of casting
some light on the others. Or rather, I'll ask Dr Stritmatter yet another question, in
the hope of a straightforward answer. Here it is. You have claimed that 'My Mind
To Me A Kingdom Is', which is attributed to Oxford, is one of the 'best loved
poems in the English language'. Upon what basis do you make this claim?
Oxfraud
Alasdair Brown On the basis that it is 'the most anthologised poem in the
language' though the evidence for that claim of his seems to have suffered the
same fate.
For traditionalists to deny there is room for doubting the Shakespeare authorship -- and to
deride those who believe the Stratfordian might have been a front man -- is simply
intellectually dishonest. It is clearly documented that even in the 1590’s literarily
knowledgable people were questioning the identity of the writer “Shakespeare”:
In 1595 one writer indicated his belief that “Shakespeare” was Samuel Daniel by praising
Shakespeare and some of his poems and characters in a note beside a passage about Daniel.
In 1599 the authors of the PARNASSUS plays also attributed a quote from ROMEO AND
JULIET to Daniel (even though that attribution occurs in an exchange in which the name
“Shakespeare” is explicitly mentioned two lines earlier.) In satires published in 1598 Joseph
Hall and John Marston implied that VENUS AND ADONIS was by Francis Bacon by referring
to his motto. And sometime between 1598 and 1601 Gabriel Harvey expressed his belief that
“Shakespeare” was Sir Edward Dyer by explicitly attributing a quote from VENUS AND
ADONIS to Dyer.
These examples prove that for much of the 1590’s there was confusion and acknowledged
mystery around the authorship of Shakespeare’s works; and that there was a belief current in
the Elizabethan literary world that the authorial name “William Shakespeare” did not refer to a
real person. All this, of course, was at the exact time period we are told that the Stratfordian
was supposedly at the height of his fame and public exposure, hanging out in taverns with
other leading writers and hobnobbing with the nobility.
Reply · Like ·
We are also told that for a noble author to anonymously write plays is
unbelievable “conspiracy theory” (because of course we know there were NO
conspiracies or secrets in Elizabethan England). In reality we have a perfect reallife example of how this exact kind of “conspiracy” could have easily remained a
secret to history:
We know that the Earl of Derby was “busy penning comedies for the common
players.” How? From an intercepted letter to Rome from a Jesuit spy. That’s it. If
that one letter hadn’t been intercepted, we would today have not the slightest
inkling that Derby was a writer, let alone a write of comic plays, let alone a writer
of comic plays performed by “common players.” (The next logical question, of
56/326
1/22/2015
of comic plays performed by “common players.” (The next logical question, of
course: So, which plays of the time were actually by the Earl of Derby?)
Reply · Like ·
As for the supposed “unbelievability” of the notion of a noble author employing a
front man, it is also documented that in the 1590’s front men were used by
authors of rank to protect their reputations: In Robert Greene’s FAREWELL TO
FOLLY (1591), Greene complained of “poets, which for their calling and gravity,
being loathe to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hand, get some
other Batillus to set his name to their verses: Thus is the ass made proud by this
underhand brokery.” Here Greene explicitly describes the practice in his day of
poets of dignity and rank who wished to remain anonymous, to protect their
reputations, employing other people to take credit for their work. (His use of the
word “brokery” suggests it was a business arrangement.)
This is supported by the author of THE ARTE OF ENGLISH POESIE (1589), who
wrote of noble authors who “have written commendably, and suppressed it again,
or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it.” The phrasing
“published without their OWN names to it” suggests these noblemen’s works
were published not just anonymously, or with made-up names, but with OTHER
people’s names to them. So, while Greene’s quote may not be a smoking gun
proving the Earl of Oxford, say, was Shakespeare, it does prove that the basic
Oxfordian hypothesis of a highly-placed author taking a real-life front man to
protect his reputation was a genuine practice of the time. While we may not know
the details in the case of a “fronted” Shakespeare authorship, doubters cannot be
attacked on the question of whether such real-life front men were used. They
were.
Reply · Like ·
In fact, Greene opens up a whole area of exploration in Elizabethan literature, for
the logical questions then become: How widespread was this practice? Who
exactly were those hidden poets of “calling and gravity”? What authors are not
getting the credit they deserve to this day? And of the names we have on title
pages, who were fronts? Which works dating from around the early 1590’s were
intentionally misattributed to protect an author’s reputation? For scholars of
Elizabethan literature to avoid asking these questions and following up on them
open-mindedly is, at best, a case of poor scholarship and, at worst, intellectual
dishonesty; for given what Greene tells us, all printed names on title pages
become suspect to some degree. And the logical questions to propose as a
starting point for investigating the above questions are: Which names on title
pages seemed to be most questioned and doubted at the time? Around which
authors did there seem to be authorship-related rumors, or guesses as to
identity? The most notable answer to these questions, as mentioned above, is
“Shakespeare.”
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jonathan, welcome to the discussion. You make many valuable points in this
comments. Are you aware of the facebook Shakesvere page? Your participation
would be very welcome there.
Reply · Like ·
Jacob Maguire · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Roger Stritmatter & Jonathan Dixon, I enjoy the LOGIC of this thread: Robert
Greene basically says- of all the front men in the SHAKE-SCENE, Willmn Shaxper
was the least worthy, who will be next? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Greene%27s_Groats-Worth_of_Wit
The next logical step in the reasoning is: what other front men were a part of the
"Shake-scene" prior to Shaxper?
57/326
1/22/2015
"Shake-scene" prior to Shaxper?
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
> In 1595 one writer indicated his belief that “Shakespeare” was Samuel Daniel by
praising Shakespeare and some of his poems and characters in a note beside a
passage about Daniel.
Ah, yes, the Covell marginalia:
All praise
worthy.
Lucrecia
Sweet Shakspeare.
Eloquent
Gaveston.
Wanton
Adonis.
Watsons
heyre.
So I suppose that Covell was also attributing Drayton's and Barnfield's work
(hint: Shakespeare's Adonis is the very opposite of wanton) to Samuel Daniel
also? And before you declare what Covell's intention was, you might want to look
at some of his other marginal notes, or have you read anything else in the book?
> In 1599 the authors of the PARNASSUS plays also attributed a quote from
ROMEO AND JULIET to Daniel
If you think that the passage in Parnassus indicates that the author thought that
Daniel wrote Romeo and Juliet, you don't understand the passage, the characters,
the scene, the play, or the purpose of the play.
> In satires published in 1598 Joseph Hall and John Marston implied that VENUS
AND ADONIS was by Francis Bacon by referring to his motto. And sometime
between 1598 and 1601 Gabriel Harvey expressed his belief that “Shakespeare”
was Sir Edward Dyer by explicitly attributing a quote from VENUS AND ADONIS
to Dyer.
No, no they didn't. You could certainly interpret them that way out of context, but
that would be an out-of-context ex post facto interpretation, nothing to do with
their actual meaning. Such willful forced interpretations are the very bedrock of
anti-Stratfordism and Oxfordism.
Will Monox · University of Sydney
In an autocratic government, writers had to render controversial issues
ambiguously, which certainly makes it harder for Oxfordians to prove individual
cases, but the large number of them gain cumulative force. I also notice you have
not rebutted Mr Dixon's undeniable, unequivocal, incontrovertible statement that
we have contemporaneous evidence that Elizabethan writers used fronts?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Tom Reedy Its interesting that you would have the audacity to introduce this
particular note of argument - I mean the "C.W." marginalia from *Polimanteia* -into the discussion without even mentioning that Alexander Waugh has recently
argued forcibly for this being yet another of the "between the lines" references to
de Vere.
As Matt Hutchinson instructs you - but you are very slow student, from what I
can tell, on this point - early modern writers habitually wrote "between the lines"
when discussing controversial subjects like the authorship of the plays.
58/326
1/22/2015
I understand that you don't like Waugh's interpretation - that's not my point.
My point is that you are continuing or old brazen habit of simply not mentioning
any other interpretation of highly problematic "evidence," even though you
obviously do know about them and prefer to hide behind anti-intellectual cliches
like "their actual meaning."
Its no wonder you dropped out of graduate school if this is the substance of your
analytical and interpretative method. Their meaning, obviously, is in dispute.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Sorry, but it simply isn't true that the authors of the *Parnassus* plays attributed
a quote from R&J to Samuel Daniel -- the author is merely indicating that Gullio is
foolish in his admiration of the cloying sweet poetry of Shakespeare, and that he
may next refer to the even more cloyingly sweet poetry of Daniel. Have you
actually read the *Parnassus* plays or are you merely reciting anti-Startfordian
dogma?
Joseph Hall and John Marston do not imply that V&A was written by Francis
Bacon. In fact, the subject of the dispute between the two authors is Marston's
burlesque of Shakespeare's V&A, entitled The Metamorphosis of Pigmalion's
Image*. Have you actually read Hall and Marston, or, once again, are you merely
repeating hearsay?
The marginalia about Dyer's jest does not attribute a quote from V&A to Dyer.
Your speculative and idiosyncratic interpretations of these passages are no more
factual than mine, of course, and obviously do not qualify as evidence -- much
less being undeniable, unequivocal or incontrovertible statements of fact.
Reply · Unlike ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Jonathan David Dixon No, we don't know for a fact that Derby was a "writer of
comic plays performed by “common players." It is interesting that you will accept
this one report as evidence for the proposition that Derby was a writer of stage
plays for the public theaters but appear to deny all of the direct and circumstantial
evidence that exists for the attribution of the works to WS of Stratford. Your
double standard is quite evident.
Oxfraud
Mark Johnson
ALL the professional playwrights were commoners. Aristocrats confined their
efforts to elaborate devices and short entertainments for the court, usually lavish,
usually obsequious and usually short.
Once again a treasured Oxfordian nostrum inadvertently casts light on their
misunderstandings. Derby may well have written plays for players but the
professional theatre had gatekeepers. Henslowe and Burbage foremost amongst
them. If you wanted to get a play on the London Professional stage, Burbage and
Henslowe had to be satisfied they could make a profit. So none of Derby's efforts,
if there were any, may have been good enough.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
Tom is being provocative, not audacious in drawing attention to the Wavian
Polimanteia catastrophe suffered by Oxfordianism last year.
59/326
1/22/2015
Tom Reedy ·
Roger Stritmatter I wouldn't worry about my grad schools if I were you, Roger. I
did manage to get an MA before I tried for a PhD on a part time basis 10 years
after I got my MA and working full time, which wasn't the greatest idea I ever had.
Instead you should worry about why you have yet to make full professor at 55
years of age (Jim Shapiro made it in his 30s). And especially since you've been
stuck at a fourth-rate institution for your entire career and haven't progressed any
further than that, what does that say about your analytical and interpretative
skills?
And you might want to think about why you don't see any other university
professors who spend most of their days posting on Facebook and comment
pages.
And just FYI, Waugh's "interpretation" is nuts, and nobody outside of your little
fringe group takes it seriously. The only reason we read his stuff is for laughs.
http://oxfraud.com/100-covell
Reply · Like ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Jonathan David Dixon It was actually a pleasure to read your posts. It was also a
pleasure to see from your facebook page that you're a rarity among this group,
are very gifted, and spend a good deal of time on using your gifts. You're not just
xeroxing someone else's thoughts. You are using references from the proper time
period. If this were just a game of possibilities - and I know it is for some, a
circumstance I have no problem with, I once looked at the possibilities for Bacon
myself - you stated your case very well. But once one moves past possibilities,
where do the problems lie? Why is it that with over a hundred years of dedication,
different questioners have never been able to prove that what you think could be
possible, is probable? Where does your argument fall apart? Others posting here
would deny there is any problem with their argument. I have certain beliefs about
Shakespeare that I know very well I cannot prove in any way, so I don't present
them. But I do know enough to stand by the basic proof of William Shakespeare's
rights as an author, and why we don't have more proof than we have. Fires and
other damages of time keep us from having what we'd like to have to give the
history - or any of our ideas of history - more flesh. So we are basically stuck
playing tic tac toe, and giving too much time to it keeps us from other things. I'm
glad that's not true for you. Me, I come calling with a cattle prod when I'm
working on my play, to keep my characters lively. Whoever jumps highest feeds
the comedy. You are no comedy. ;)
Reply · Like ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter I exist. Let me know when you actually achieve something.
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Jonathan David Dixon Oh dear. Research just blew the idea you might be being a
bit more careful and original about the questioning, but the artwork is still very
good, and I hope you're doing something wonderful with it.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Tom Reedy Tom. Why is it that you think it matters where Dr. Stritmatter teaches?
Do you think his arguments would be different if he was a Chaired Professor at
Columbia?
Let me ask you something.
60/326
1/22/2015
Let me ask you something.
Professor A writes: "I had wanted to write my doctoral dissertation on
'Shakespeare and the Jews' but was told that since there were no Jews in
Shakespeare's England there were no Jewish questions, and I should turn my
attention elsewhere. I reluctantly did so, but years later, after a good deal of
research, I learned that both claims were false: there was in fact a small
community of Jews living in Elizabethan London, and many leading English
writers at that time wrestled in their work with the questions of Jewish
difference..."
Professor B, in his dissertation, acknowledges he had no knowledge of
Shakespeare and the Bible prior to his finding the de Vere Bible. In fact, IIRC, he
wasn't aware of such a field but reasoned that others must have found biblical
allusions in Shakespeare based on his findings in de Vere's Geneva Bible.
Who is the better researcher? Not Shapiro. A researcher not only doesn't take 'no'
for an answer to his question, but he also conducts his own preliminary
investigation BEFORE asking that question.
Sorry to hurt your feelings but Stritmatter wins in the how-to scope a research
project category.
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Knit Twain Why don't you ask Stritmatter why it's important that I didn't finish my
PhD after taking a couple of courses? I don't claim to be an academic, and never
have.
Several things I've noticed about Asst. Prof. R. Stritmatter:
1) He likes to take people to task for appeals to authority, yet he's the first one to
sling around his publications and CV in an effort to intimidate his interlocutors.
Just for fun, let's compare the CVs of Jim Shapiro and Roger Stritmatter. Here's
Shapiro's:
B.A., Columbia (1977); Ph.D., University of Chicago (1982). Professor Shapiro is
author of Rival Playwrights: Marlowe, Jonson, Shakespeare (1991); Shakespeare
and the Jews (1995), which was awarded the Bainton Prize; Oberammergau: The
Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play (2000); 1599: A Year
in the Life of William Shakespeare (2005), winner of the Theatre Book Prize as
well as the BBC Samuel Johnson Prize; and Contested Will: Who Wrote
Shakespeare? (2010), winner of the Lionel Trilling Award in 2011. He has coedited the Columbia Anthology of British Poetry and served as the associate
editor of the Columbia History of British Poetry. He has also co-authored and
presented a 3-hour BBC documentary, The King and the Playwright (2012). He
has been awarded fellowships by the Guggenheim Foundation, the NEH, the
Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers, and the Huntington Library. He is
currently at work on The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606, as well as a Library of
America volume on Shakespeare in America. He is a Governor of the Folger
Shakespeare Library, on the Board of Directors of the Royal Shakespeare
Company, and in 2011 was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences.
Rather than trying to construct a comparable CV, I'll just furnish the Wikipedia
page for Stritmatter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stritmatter
Review both and tell me which one you think "wins in the how-to scope a
research project category."
2) He is very bad-tempered and nasty when contradicted, and is usually the first
on any comment page to use ridicule and ad hominem tactics, yet he complains
incessantly when any of his opponents follow suit. What do you call someone
who does that? (Hint: begins with "H" and ends with "ypocrite".) look at any
thread in which he complains about the bad manners of his opponents and
invariably you will see that they are merely mirroring his comments.
3) When asked to provide sources or support, usually ends up giving links to his
61/326
1/22/2015
3) When asked to provide sources or support, usually ends up giving links to his
self-published essays on line, yet when his opponents such as Mark Johnson are
asked for sources or support, they usually furnish relevant answers and give
references, yet Stritmatter complains that all his opponents can do is call names.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Tom Reedy So Tom. Are you trying to say that if Dr. Stritmatter was a chaired
Professor at Columbia U, you'd love the man and believe everything he wrote?
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Tom Reedy Prof. Simon Schama CBE? Who called the SAQ 'a catastrophic failure
of imagination on the subject of imagination'?
Here's his balance sheet:
MA (Cantab), Christ's College, Cambridge, Fellow and Director of Studies in
History, ibid. Prof. History, Brasenose College Oxford, Harvard University,
Columbia University. Publications and Prizes too many to mention,
Or Sir Jonathan Bate? His list is just as long, just as impressive and he has said
much more dismissive things. Not to mention publishing a recent volume of
Collaborative Plays which kicks Oxford out into the long grass with very little
effort.
In fact, the moment you start counting, this list begins to look like the evidence
list. Almost everything is on one side of the scales and it isn't the Oxfordian side.
Tom Reedy ·
Knit Twain I'm saying that Pee Wee Herman shouldn't get in the ring with Hulk
Hogan.
Reply · Like ·
Sandra Lynn Sparks Thanks for the compliments. For me, one of the big
problems with the traditional story of Shakespeare is, it is simply not believable. It
is not how creative people work, and it is not how human beings work. I've spent
years working in the theater field, surrounded by real-life actors and writers. I am
an actor, artist, sometime writer, and songwriter myself. My whole circle of friends
and acquaintances, for years, has been made up of actors, writers, theater people,
artists, storytellers ...
When looking at the actual contemporary records relating to the personality and
interests of the real Shakspere of Stratford (as compared to the the mythological
version of him, based as it is on a lot of "must haves" and "no doubts" rooted in
circular reasoning) ... he seems NOTHING like the people I've spent my life
around. He simply doesn't fit the type of what he's supposed to be. Jonson does.
Marlowe does. Donne does. Spenser does. But "Shakespeare" ... no.
I am also a licensed psychotherapist, with decades of experience working with
how real human beings' psyches, minds and emotions work, at a really nitty-gritty
level. The traditional "Shakespeare," as presented to us, simply does not add up,
artistically, historically, or as a real human being.
As if in acknowledgment of this, traditional scholars have to keep making excuses
and exceptions for Shakspere of Stratford, and have to keep piling on a lot of
vague non-explanations, in order to try to make him somehow fit into the rest of
reality: Unlike any other human being, he was "universal" (whatever that is
supposed to mean). He was just an "unfathomable genius" (so, conveniently, we
shouldn't even try to understand him as a real-life human being, by the standards
of other real-life human beings). At the same time, though, he also "invented the
62/326
1/22/2015
of other real-life human beings). At the same time, though, he also "invented the
Human" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Unlike any other creative human
being, he "left no trace of himself or his real personality in his works" (including
his sonnet cycle, which despite all obvious impressions of being deeply
emotional, first person expressions, are REALLY just non-personal "poetic
exercises on stock themes.") And of course the old, "What does it matter who
wrote them, as long as we have the works themselves?" Who else do the scholars
claim that about?
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Jonathan David Dixon You are very far from the only experienced theatre pro in
here. You are, however, the only one, so far as I know, who might believe in
fairies.
I'm delighted you feel kinship with some of the greatest artists in the Englsih
language. However, John Donne, I'm afraid, was not a playwright or any sort of
classic creative type. He was a famous cleric. His late sonnets are outstanding but
sacred. Marlowe worked for Walsingham as an intelligencer in foreign Catholic
seminaries. How are your connections with the Intelligence Community?
Your profiling is way off-base and that's before we even get down to your
misunderstandings of the Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre workplace.
You need to think again. And stop talking to Oxfordians.
Oxfraud I didn't say Donne was a playwright. I said his life and personality fit the
type of a creative artist ... and for you to deny that he was one is just nuts. Read
about his unconventional earlier life, and his earlier poems. And yes, Marlowe did
what you say ... but you conveniently neglect to mention that he is most known
for ... um ... writing plays; and that he completely fit the creative type. As for my
being the only experienced theatre pro who "might believe in fairies," what other
theater people have been, or are doubters? Off the top of my head: John Gielgud.
Derek Jacobi. Vanessa Redgrave. Tyrone Guthrie. Michael York. F. Murray
Abraham. Jeremy Irons. Roger Rees. Mark Rylance. Orson Welles. Leslie Howard.
Kenneth Branagh is evasive when asked, but his two great mentors, Gielgud and
Jacobi, are for Oxford and Branagh once tried to produce a movie about Oxford.
Patrick Stewart is known to at least have an interest in the question, but
downplays it. Derek Jacobi reports that MANY theater professionals -- including
many well-known Shakespearean actors -- don't believe the traditional story;
they're just hesitant to say so publicly for fear of the effect on their careers.
Reply · Like ·
Jonathan David Dixon The author of the plays speaks with such a wealth of
knowledge that we come to know the mind that invented so many of the words
and phrases we still use today. The Shaxper man that appears in the life record
would sue you for copyright but leaves us nothing intellectually- I feel like this is
a clue. There is something psychologically powerful in the exchange between Hal
and Williams in Henry V. (Shaxper doesn't know that the real author is the Earl,
and Oxford is masquerading as a lower rank). Very interesting exchange no?
WILLIAMS
How shall I know thee again?
KING HENRY V
Give me any gage of thine, and I will wear it in my
bonnet: then, if ever thou darest acknowledge it, I
will make it my quarrel.
63/326
1/22/2015
WILLIAMS
Here's my glove: give me another of thine.
KING HENRY V
There.
WILLIAMS
This will I also wear in my cap: if ever thou come
to me and say, after to-morrow, 'This is my glove,'
by this hand, I will take thee a box on the ear.
KING HENRY V
If ever I live to see it, I will challenge it.
WILLIAMS
Thou darest as well be hanged.
KING HENRY V
Well. I will do it, though I take thee in the
king's company.
WILLIAMS
Keep thy word: fare thee well.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jacob Maguire The man's name was William Shakespere, his coat of arms
application attests to this. Shakespeare is also phonetically correct. The college
of arms is the official spelling of names and it recognized it as such. Shaxper,
Shaksper or whatever other letters you want to leave out does not exist.
Leonidas Kazantheos · Buxton
to Jonathan David Dixon
Are we forgetting also that De Vere was active as a dramatist of this time. Though
none of his masques and plays survive, he wrote plays of a quality to be cited by
Francis Meres (Palladis Tamia, 1598) for comedy and interlude, being praised by
Meres as "the best among us for comedy."
Throughout the 1580s, De Vere maintained a band of tumblers as well as two
theatre companies, Oxford's Boys and Oxford's Men. The former company played
at the Blackfriars Theatre in London, the lease of which Oxford purchased and
transferred to playwright and novelist John Lyly, his secretary for more than 15
years, and at Paul's Church, until it was closed in 1590. Oxford's Men was a
troupe of actors which mostly toured the provinces.
Evidence of De Vere's lifelong interest in learning were the numerous
contemporary tributes to his patronage. Among the 33 works dedicated to the
Earl, six deal with religion and philosophy, two with music and three with
medicine, but the focus of his patronage was literary, for 13 of the books
presented to him were original or translated works of literature. Authors
dedicating works to De Vere include Edmund Spenser, Arthur Golding, Robert
Greene, John Hester, John Brooke, John Lyly, Anthony Munday, and Thomas
Churchyard, the latter three writers all having been employed by De Vere for
various periods of time. According to Anthony Wood, another of his secretaries
was the English scientist, Nicholas Hill.
His extensive patronage and possible mismanagement of estates led to the sale
of all his inherited lands, inhibiting the formation of a local power base and
possibly precluding high office, though De Vere was briefly given military
commands in 1585 in Holland and in 1588 during the Armada. In 1586, to rescue
64/326
1/22/2015
commands in 1585 in Holland and in 1588 during the Armada. In 1586, to rescue
him from penury, the Queen granted the Earl an annual pension of £1,000.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Jacob Maguire Henry V generally, and the character of Williams in particular
ought to ab an anthema to Oxfordianism rather than a support.
When people claim that Shakespeare defined 'Englishness', this is the play to
which they are referring, with its Brechtian Common Man as the chorus and the
King demonstrating the franchised responsibility of the English monarchy. This is
the very opposite of The Divine Right of Kings. Williams and the English soldiers,
truculent, aggressive, free but loyal, who Henry meets the night before Agincourt,
ARE Shakespeare's England.
Nothing is less likely to have been written by a selfish, impoverished Earl who
believed that society merely existed to serve him, entirely due to the accident of
his birth.
Tom Regnier ·
Coincidences are the essence of circumstantial evidence. That is why all the parallels
between the Earl of Oxford's life and Shakespeare's works are not just coincidences, they are
circumstantial evidence. But don't take my word for it. Hear it from some legal experts on
evidence. The following is a quotation from the “Doctrine of Coincidences” by Charles
Reade, which I found in “The Principles of Judicial Proof” (1913), edited by John H.
Wigmore, one of the great evidence scholars of all time:
"I proceed to state the leading principle . . . the progressive value of proved coincidences all
pointing to one conclusion. . . . I will now show [the] ascending value [of coincidences] when
proved in open court and tested by cross-examination. “A” was found dead of a gun shot
wound, and the singed paper that had been used for wadding lay near him. It was a fragment
of the Times. “B”'s house was searched, and they found there a gun recently discharged, and
the copy of the Times, from which the singed paper aforesaid had been torn; the pieces fitted
exactly. The same thing happened in France with a slight variation; the paper used for
wadding was part of an old breviary subsequently found in “B”'s house. The salient facts of
each case made a treble coincidence sworn, cross-examined, and unshaken; hanged the
Englishman, and guillotined the Frenchman. In neither case was there a scintilla of direct
evidence; in neither case was the verdict impugned. I speak within bounds when I say that a
genuine double coincidence, proved beyond doubt, is not twice, but two hundred times, as
strong, as one such coincidence, and that a genuine treble coincidence is many thousand
times as strong as one such coincidence. But, when we get to a five fold coincidence real and
proved, it is a million to one against all these honest circumstances having combined to
deceive us."
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
That the Stratfordians are trying to re-define the rules of evidence is an indication
that -- somewhere deep in their subconscious -- they really do understand that
there is no hard evidence to support the attribution of authorship to the Stratford
man. Worse still is the problem for them that this lack of evidence is amplified by
the contradictions in what IS KNOWN about this person's life!
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
Top Commenter · CEO at Nevermind, USA
@ "Bonner Cutting"
Quote :
"...somewhere deep in their subconscious -- they really do understand that there
is no hard evidence to support the attribution of authorship to the Stratford man"
...I don't think the "doubt" is "subconscious" anymore, as demonstrated by their
65/326
1/22/2015
...I don't think the "doubt" is "subconscious" anymore, as demonstrated by their
blatant defensiveness. There are clearly scholastic egos on the line...Freud
notwithstanding, the "subconscious" has become an open-ended gambit and an
act of desperation.
They tipped their hand a long time ago. Resting on their scholarly laurels is no
longer a viable security blanket.
That, if nothing else, shines in multi-color display. Right here on this
commentary.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
I appreciate that Mr. Regnier has provided this excerpt from the “Doctrine of
Coincidences” by Charles Reade, as it actually supports the argument that the
Oxfordian coincidences do not qualify as circumstantial evidence, since they do
not logically and reasonable lead to an inference that Oxford wrote Shakepeare -the same argument that Mr. Regnier has failed to address here.
“I proceed to state the leading principle . . . the progressive value of proved
coincidences all pointing to one conclusion.” -- Charles Reade
This is exactly what we have been arguing and what the Oxfordians have been
ignoring as if their lives depended on it. In order for the coincidences to qualify as
circumstantial evidence they must ALL point to ONE CONCLUSION.
Circumstantial evidence involves a logical process, drawing inferences from
factual premises which all logically point to and yield a conclusion of fact.
Circumstantial evidence involves evidence of facts or circumstances from which
the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue may reasonably and logically be
INFERRED; it is a process of decision by which the trier of fact may engage in a
process of reasoning from circumstances known or proved , to establish by
INFERENCE the principal fact. The principal fact sought to be proved by Mr.
Regnier is that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. He can continue to pile up
coincidences as long as he likes, and they may all be factually accurate
statements of fact, but unless and until he provides a logical, step-by-step
description of the inferential process which takes him from his premises to his
ultimate conclusion [his principal fact] , then his coincidences are not
circumstantial evidence and he hasn't offered up proof of even a possibility that
Oxford was Shakespeare. I'm not sure why this appears so difficult to
understand.
The Oxfordians have been challenged to demonstrate how that process works
when it comes to their alleged coincidences [some of which have not been proved
or submitted to cross-examination ]and they have simply failed to even attempt to
do so. Their inability or unwillingness to understand the concept of
circumstantial evidence is an epic and comical fail. If circumstantial evidence is
“central to the Oxfordian thesis,” they should quit now. Either that or one of them
needs to step up and demonstrate the logical process that makes their
coincidences circumstantial evidence tending to prove the proposition that
Oxford wrote Shakespeare.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson You must get paid by the word.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
The examples provided in the extract from Reade's *Doctrine of Coincidences”
illustrate quite well the fact that the coincidences cited by Oxfordians don't
qualify as circumstantial evidence.
Reade's scenario:
Premise: A was found dead of a gunshot wound;
66/326
1/22/2015
Premise: A was found dead of a gunshot wound;
Premise: The singed paper that had been used for wadding was found near the
victim;
Premise: The wadding had been ripped from a copy of the Times; Premise: A
search of B's house locates a gun that has recently been fired;
Premise: The copy of the Times from which the wading was ripped is also found;
Premise: The piece of paper found at the murder scene is an exact match for the
torn copy of the Times found at B's house:
Conclusion: B shot A.
The reasoning process here is quite obvious. An inference can logically and
reasonably be drawn from the factual premises that the gun used to kill A
belonged to B. The factual premises, when combined, all point to one logical
conclusion.
On the other hand, you have the Oxfordian scenario.
Premise: Oxford was related to Golding.
Premise: Golding is credited with translating Ovid.
Premise: Oxford was living in the same house as Golding during some period in
which Golding was writing the translation.
Premise: Hamlet was kidnapped by pirates. [Of course, you must ignore the
dissimilarities between the two situations if you are an Oxfordian].
Premise: Contemporary writers named Oxford as the foremost noblemen of his
time who had written well but could not allow his writings to be published under
his name. [I don't believe this one is even factually correct].
Premise: Oxford had the education and the books that would explain
Shakespeare's vast knowledge [Again, I don't believe this is even a correct
statement of fact].
Premise: Oxford’s travels, especially in Italy, coincide in many ways with the
locales of Shakespeare’s plays. [Another suspect claim]. Conclusion: Therefore,
Oxford was Shakespeare.
One of these scenarios is not like the other. The Oxfordian coincidental premises,
individually or in combination, do not all logically and reasonably point to the one
ultimate conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare. There is no match between the
premises and they remain mere coincidences. No Oxfrodian, including Mr.
Regnier, has even attempted show the logical, inferential process -- how, step by
logical step, he gets from the premise that Oxford was related to Golding and
Golding is credited with translating Ovid, Lear had thre daughters, etc., all
combining to yield an inferential conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare.
I'm not even going to mention the fact that Oxfordians are in the position of
having to rebut a prima facie case, based on direct and circumstantial evidence,
showing that WS of Stratford was the author of the Shakespeare works. The
Oxfordians [most of them] realize that they have zero direct evidence to support
their theory; they don't understand the fact that they don't even have
circumstantial evidence to use to try to rebut the prima facie case.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj I'm not getting paid at all, Ann. Surely I didn't mean to challenge your
attention span? Can you explain why no Oxfordian will meet the challenge to
show how the Oxfordian coincidences qualify as circumstantial evidence for the
proposition that Oxford was Shakespeare. A short answer will do.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Why not take it to court? Hmmmm?
https://doubtaboutwill.org/press/12_06_2013
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
67/326
1/22/2015
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj I think it would be great fun, but it isn't my call.
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson You couldn't use 40,000 pounds!?
You seem to have a very strong case, or at least are extremely confident in your
own reasoning.
Why waste your time posting to this discussion when you could be laughing all
the way to the bank, based on your superior understanding of the rules of
evidence and the facts of the case?...then of course you would have to actually
make an argument that appealed to a reasonably objective adjudicator and put
your reasoning power to the test.
You might find that your arguments are not as persuasive as you suppose. So on
second thought, not risking anything is a good plan.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Still no response to the actual argument, Roger, and you still
can't manage to show how to logically proceed from your premises to your
ultimate conclusion. Do you not have enough confidence in your own reasoning
to make a counter-argument? I have made an argument, but it seems that you
and your fellow Oxfordians are unwilling, or unable, to actually make an argument
that appeals to any reasonable observer at all. None of you appear willing, or able,
to put your reasoning power to the test here?
I am not a member of the SBT, or an employee thereof, nor am I even in touch
with anyone at the SBT [contrary to the beliefs of some people who participate in
these debates]. There is no risk to me whatsoever.
All that said, I'd gladly be a participant in any trial of the issue which utilized legal
rules of procedure and evidence. I can already envision the discovery requests.
And the hearings on the Motions in Limine would be fascinating. Daubert
hearings would be of interest as well. As I said, I think it would be great fun. I also
think you would be very disappointed in the outcome.
Oxfraud
Mark Johnson In any case, Mark, we have explained to Roger on numerous
occasions that £40,000 wouldn't open the doors of an English court. If they can
raise £250,000, and offer it to us rather than the SBT, then we can think about a
show. And the case here, in this comment thread, has not been to prove
Shakespeare's authorship but to disqualify Oxford's on the basis of a lack of
admissible evidence.
No one has offered anyone £40,000 to do that.
And a good job too or they'd all be writing cheques this morning, none of which
would be coming our way. This case for dismissing Oxford on the grounds of
lack of evidence has here been twice argued and twice proved.
Twice.
No Oxfordian has submitted anything which qualifies as circumstantial evidence.
In fact the only submission of any kind was the attempt by Christopher Carolan
to suggest that the words 'poet' and '£1,000' in a line of Chapman's was enough
to prove the entire Oxfordian case. What better illustration could there be of the
Oxfordian evidence-vacuum?
68/326
1/22/2015
The reason for this third fresh attempt at starting a discussion on evidence, by
Tom, Ann and Roger, can only be to limit the damage caused by their woeful
performance in the first two evidence threads.
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud 'No Oxfordian has submitted anything which qualifies as circumstantial
evidence."
Its a good thing that you are not a student in a freshman composition class at any
competent university, where it would be pointed out to you at your peril, Mr.
masked man, that repeating assertions contradicted and readily disproven by a
mass of evidence does not qualify you for advancement or earn you passing
grade.
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj “You must get paid by the word.”
Ann, paranoia isn't cool.
It's absurd and untrue to claim or insinuate that some people are being paid by
the SBT, or some other sinister agency, to do battle on the internet with your
authorship delusions.
These accusations do, however, assist you in maintaining an inflated sense of
your own significance and they simply affirm to others that you can't kick the
habit of making up nonsense on the basis of imagined conspiracies.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown Paranoia? You should talk. It was an off-hand remark, an
expression. Quite telling, that you inferred something I didn't imply.
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Tom Regnier It's interesting that you would post this. The first time you brought
up circumstantial evidence you received several replies, but for some reason you
never responded. Here's my response again in case you missed it. Perhaps you
could show us how it's wrong and walk us through a piece of Oxfordian evidence
and show us show it qualifies.
It appears that you are the person who does not understand circumstantial
evidence, as your idea of circumstantial evidence is defective. Circumstantial
evidence is evidence that relies on a logical inference to connect it to a
conclusion of fact; it is not mere coincidence. Here’s an example:
William Shakespeare was an actor and shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain's
Men (later the King's Men), the playing company that owned exclusive rights to
is on the plays as author. These all, when taken together, infer that the actor
William Shakespeare was the author Shakespeare.
Here’s another: Sir George Buc was Deputy Master of the Revels from 1603 and
Master of the Revels from 1610 to 1622. He personally consulted Shakespeare
on the authorship of an anonymously printed play, George a Green. He also
personally licensed King Lear for publication as written by "Master William
Shakespeare". William Shakespeare of Stratford was an armiguous gentleman
entitled to use the honorific “Master”. All three of these taken together infer that
the author of King Lear was William Shakespeare of Stratford.
69/326
1/22/2015
Do you see how circumstantial evidence works? Can you tell the difference
between those examples and yours?
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj Perhaps I should have made it clearer that a number of Oxfordians, on
frequent occasions, and on various sites, have claimed or suggested that some of
those who challenge their position on the internet receive payment from the SBT.
It was on that basis that I made my inference. Were they also making 'off-hand
remarks'?
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Roger Stritmatter Then it should be easy for you to give us an example of
something for Oxford and demonstrate how it qualifies as circumstantial
evidence. Curiously, you have yet to do so. Does this mean you're about to
remedy that void?
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
"Its a good thing that you are not a student in a freshman composition class at
any competent university, "
Finally we agree on something. Perish that thought. Now. I can't imagine being
taught freshman composition by anyone you would adjudge competent.
You and Tom have done absolutely nothing in this thread to defend yourselves
from the accusation that you do not understand the nature of circumstantial
evidence yet this is the third thread that Tom has started on the subject.
If you haven't lost the argument entirely by now, then you are both doing a
marvellous impression of it.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter You should heed your own advice: "...repeating assertions
contradicted and readily disproven by a mass of evidence does not qualify you for
advancement or earn you passing grade." You keep repeating the assertion that
your coincidences qualify as circumstantial evidence but you are never able to
demonstarte how that is true.
Roger Parris ·
Top Commenter · Hayesville High School
Tom Reedy
Tom,old chum, I just happened to be browsing the Justice Denied blog which
featured a stunning circumstantial evidence case from your home town of Denton
,Texas.
The Appellate Court stated (Texas vs.Stobaugh) "We hold
that
,
viewed in the light most favorable to State, the cumulative force of the
circumstantial
evidence
and any reasonable inferences from that evidence
that
could be considered incriminating
are insufficient to convince any rational
factfinder
beyond a reasonable doubt ... "
70/326
1/22/2015
beyond a reasonable doubt ... "
No,the evidence certainly wouldn't convince any rational fact finder as the court
found .
But guess what? I checked the Denton newspaper report of the acquittal and
what irrational fact finder was in there arguing the judges didn't know anything
about circumstantial evidence? Why,natch,it was one Thomas Reedy.
You were immediately pulled up by numerous rather more intelligent
correspondents who,unlike,you and Mark Johnson, do know what constitutes
circumstantial evidence.
But as on so many other occasions,you merely quietly skulked away and tried the
same stunt on yet another Shakespeare thread.You can't fool the judges nor the
pedestrians in your home town and you have long ceased any of us here.
Further your most recent claim above that Shakespeare' was is documented for
the Lord Chamberlain's Men since 1594 is complete bull and you know
it.."Shakespeare "plays start showing up(anonymously) as played by the Lord
Chamberlain's in late July,1597.
"Titus Andronicus" is billed as having been played by two previous companies
before going to the Lord Chamberlain's. One of them was Pembroke's
Men.Pembroke's Men made their last stand at the Swan Theatre. Shakspere was
arraigned on charges of attempted murder with co-defendant Francis
Langley,owner of the Swan.
Will obviously came to the Globe looking for a new investment with old whoring
buddy Richard Burbage when the Government closed down the Swan about June
to early July,1597 as I recollect.
And will you please stop passing the Buc.John Landowski had a very informative
conversationwith you about last year on Oxfraud.You and Mike Peterbeater had
at that time apparently never as far as page 2 of Allen Nelson on Oxford and Buc.
Roger Nyle Parisious
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Roger Parris Seek help. Please. You have a few more years left, and they can be
good ones for you and your loved ones. Modern medicine has changed a lot in
the past 30 years.
And you might want to read what I really said: "Circumstantial evidence is
evidence, and often stronger than eye witness evidence because of being more
reliable."
http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20140124stobaugh-not-yet-released.ece
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Tom Reedy Does Roger Vile Parisious make things up out of thin air because he
is an Oxfordian or because he is suffering from some form of dementia?
RVP: "Shakspere was arraigned on charges of attempted murder with codefendant Francis Langley,owner of the Swan."
Tom Reedy ·
Mark Johnson Apparently he was sent to distract, because neither Tom Reigner
nor Roger Stritmatter have deigned to respond to the questions put to them. If
either of them do, I will be surprised.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Mark Johnson
>>"Does Roger Vile Parisious make things up out of thin air because he is an
Oxfordian or because he is suffering from some form of dementia?"
71/326
1/22/2015
Let's look at this by trying to work out what % of Oxfordians make things up and
then use them as evidence.
There. That didn't take long, did it?
Alasdair Brown ·
Tom Regnier, I’m still waiting for your answer to the question I asked you
regarding whether or not you are prepared to sift through your sack of
coincidences and throw away those which have made fallacious connections
between one fact and another.
For example, elsewhere in this discussion, Ann Zakelj maintains that the allusions
to the sport of bowling in the canon can be connected to the fact that there was a
bowling alley at Fisher’s Folly and that therefore this coincidence can be added to
the others in support of Oxford’s authorship.
Would you really want to argue for the validity of this connection in court and
explain exactly how this adds weight to your other coincidences?
And if you are not prepared to throw this, and similar observations, into the
wastepaper basket, how can you convince people that what you claim is an
impressive accumulation of remarkable coincidences is not, in reality, merely an
accumulation of illogical statements?
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown Tom Reedy & Oxfraud... It's FOOTBALL SUNDAY. Give us a
break, for cripe's sake!
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj I just heard a voice using East Anglian Old Pronunciation asking me to
give you this message:
‘Oh God, Ann Zakelj what a wounded name
Things standing thus unknown, shall leave behind me!
If ever thou dids’t hold me in thy heart,
Absent thee from Football Sunday a while,
And in this harsh world get back on your laptop
To tell my story.’
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Ann Zakelj It hasn't been football Sunday for the past two weeks or so since I first
posted my question. For some reason I doubt either Tom or Roger will answer my
question, just going on past history. It's easy to make pronouncements about
circumstantial evidence; a different thing altogether to support them using
Oxfordian examples.
We've all been patiently waiting to be "kindly, consistently and firmly shown that
[our] deep conviction not only violates the law of evidence in numerous ways but
also ignores the substantial facts regarding De Vere". So far, no soap, nor has
there ever been any, and I doubt there ever will be.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Tom Reedy Well. Some people actually have a life outside of
Newsweek/Facebook threads. I suggest you get one. Now, if you'll excuse me...
The Pats are on...
72/326
1/22/2015
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson
Premise: Hamlet was kidnapped by pirates.
So would it be correct to say the following:
1) The fact that Melville sailed on a whaler proves he wrote Moby Dick.
2) The fact that Tom Blankenship, the real-life son of a sawmill laborer and
sometime drunkard named Woodson Blankenship, who lived in a "ramshackle"
house near the Mississippi River behind the house where Clemens grew up in
Hannibal, Missouri, proves Clemens wrote Huckleberry Finn.
3) The fact that Clemens was acquainted with a jolly and flamboyant fireman
named Tom Sawyer in San Francisco, California, while he was employed as a
reporter at the *San Francisco Call*, proves Clemens wrote Tom Sawyer.
Awesome.
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Ann Zakelj I've posted here less than 10 times. What's your count?
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain 1) No. 2) No. 3) No.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
Tom Reedy
We know what you said,Tom,and we know what the Court of Appeals
unanimously found in a closely argued 176 page decision minutely applying the
rules of circumstantial evidence.They concluded that no reasonable fact finder
could have found the defendant guilty on the evidence presented.You published
a reply attempting to the vindicate your employers whom you are paid to
represent .You demonstrated that you do not what circumstantial evidence is and
were sharply pulled up on the spot by a number of your fellow citizens who
evidently do not regard you as any more competent in your definition of
evidence,or much else, than the vast majority of educated readers who read you
buffoonish epistles here and elsewhere .
Ah well, Mark and Mike and all the neo-Stratfordians' greatest authority on
circumstantial evidence,Don Foster,will doubtless continue to love you.
But just to show there's no hard feelings I recommend that you guys sign up Peg
Leg Pete and Bluto who are in a better position to provide a harder hitting
defense than you are offering at present.
.
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Bonner Cutting ‘Stratfordians are re- writing the rules of evidence.’
Why do you say this ? We don't take issue with Reade's Doctrine and we agree
that his three pieces of evidence point to just one conclusion- that B killed A.
Which pieces of evidence can you put together which point ONLY to the
conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare? The number of questions which
Oxfordians will not answer is starting to acquire major cumulative significance.
73/326
1/22/2015
Anyway, if we look at Reade's example through Oxfordian eyes there is
ANOTHER conclusion. A person or persons unknown, whom we shall call C,
went shopping for a gun and a copy of The Times. He gained access to A's
apartment, wadded the gun with a bit of the newspaper and shot A , carefully
leaving a singed fragment of the newspaper behind. After discovering A's will and
forging an interlineation, C then proceeded to B's apartment where he gained
entry and deposited both the gun and the ripped newspaper.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Parris It is now apparent that Mr. Vile Parisious can't make the logical
argument for why the Oxfordian coincidences should be considered to qualify as
circumstantial evidence. The argument that has been made here by Tom and Mike
and Alasdair and me [and others] as to the definition of circumstantial evidence,
and the necessity of a logical progression from premises to inference to ultimate
conclusion of fact, has absolutely nothing to do with Don Foster. That is just
another vaporous notion arising from Mr. Parisious' dementia.
Roger Parris ·
Mark Johnson
So Dr. Gender Bender strikes again!
The issue is that the neo-Strats such as Mike Peterbeater, yourself, Reedy ,and
any remaining fossils from the old HLAS have no methodology.You are certainly
not applying
Tom ,as his reaction to a case in which no rational fact finder could have found in
favor of his position(the official verdict from the Texas courts,is typical.Tom still
is unwilling to admit that the Court knows more than he or you do about what
constitutes circumstantial evidence. Blow,blow,thou wind...
The exact same thing happened previously with the Don Foster case. I had
occasion to remark to David Kathman in the late 90's( when we both appeared at
the Los Angeles Shakespeare Authorship Conference) that if Foster's "forensic"
techniques-which Kathman was heavily toting- were applied in a court of law
Foster could end up killing an innocent person.And sure enough when Foster''s
applications to the Shakespeare were completely exposed by rather more
reputable Stratfordians than those who hang out at HLAS or Oxfraud, the
undaunted Donald continued to ply his trade in the criminal courts. First ,there
was the Ramsey case where his forensic techniques (so lauded by Reedy and
others) allowed him to successively identify a fourteen year old male,a Carolina
housewife and a middle aged Denver socialite as authors of the same kidnap
letter.
You can read Brian Vicker's sometimes hilarious account of this in his book on
the Ford Elegy.However the three people whom Foster successively accused in a
capital case were somewhat less amused.
Having flubbed that one Don went onto apply his identical techniques in three
further major Federal prosecutions,two of them likewise involving the death
penalty.And lost all three in a row. It seems extremely doubtful if Dr. Foster's
methodology will ever be utilized in a major criminal prosecution again. I have yet
to hear one of you neo-Strats repudiate his actions. Presumably your application
of the rules of circumstantial evidences could have prevented Foster's six year
reign of terror.Why didn't (why don't) you and Tom give us a demonstration on
how it should have been done and where you and Dave and Tom and KQ Knave
went so terribly wrong first time around.
The fact is none of you happy band have a methodology.
I had yet another experience when I sensibly gave up on HLAS and devoted
myself to helping a dedicated group of attorneys and academics who were
exposing the now globally infamous Duke Rape Hoax. Surprise all twenty-two
members of the lit department not only believed in Stratford Will( and some could
get pretty nasty with students who showed the intelligence to disbelieve) but the
entire intellectually corrupt lot wanted to send three of their pupils up for thirty
years on" evidence" that wouldn't have fooled a bright ten year old applying the
principles of circumstantial evidence.Though the "evidence " was accepted,for a
long while, by the lefties over at Newsweek and the New York Times.
And I suspect it would have been accepted,for a while,by some of the loonier
74/326
1/22/2015
And I suspect it would have been accepted,for a while,by some of the loonier
lefties who write as Oxfordians and whose company Tom at least does not find
uncongenial.
If it's any comfort to you, Mark,Paul Streitz,for example,thinks more badly than
even you
But as, unlike some of you neo-Strats ,Streitz hasn't ,as yet,tried to apply his
techniques to depriving citizens of their lives,I will, for the time being, refrain from
criticizing them.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Parris More dementia...Mr. Vile Parisious has me confused with some
academic [also named Mark Johnson] who has written about gender issues, and,
even though he has previously been informed that he is mistaken in this
identification, he continues to indulge in this fantasy and insist that I am that
academic [which may also have something to do with Vile's apparent obsession
with the term "peterbeater"]. Of course, Mr. Vile Parisious demonstrates once
again that he can't engage in any rational discussion on the subject of
circumstantial evidence. He certainly can't refute the argument that has been
made here that what the Oxfordians call their mountain of coincidences doesn't
qualify as circumstantial evidence for the proposition that Oxford was
Shakespeare.
Tom Reedy ·
Mark Johnson He's the same way with Paul Barlow. In addition, he confuses
events the way Stritmatter, et al does. I never championed Don Foster's
attribution, nor did I ever argue for Strachey as a necessary source for *The
Tempest* as S&K claim in their book. It appears they have a hard time telling the
difference between reality and theri fantasies; that's the effect Oxfordism has on
one's judgement.
Meanwhile, still no response from Tom Regnier or Roger Stritmatter. That's
unfortunately typical when you ask them to back up their assertions. The most
you'll ever get it "see my website". What's really strange is they don't understand
why academics and literary historians don't take them seriously, but I suppose
that's more Oxfordian cognitive dissonance.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Tom Reedy Likewise as to Donald Foster. I have never in my life defended him
personally or professionally, and I have never defended his methods [as to
criminal cases or as to Shakespeare attribution]. Again, Vile Parisious has me
confused with someone else [from HLAS it seems] -- this isn't the first time that
he has stated that I supported Foster's analysis and it isn't the first time he has
been told that I never did any such thing. I fully expect Vile Parisious to continue
to rely on his confusion in the future, so I doubt it will be the last time I have to
correct him. Of course, Vile P has suggested that I am a member of a "particularly
vile satanic cult," which only serves to show what a loon the man is.
Donald Foster and his flawed results have absolutely zero to do with the
argument as to circumstantial evidence which has been advanced in this thread,
and no amount of confused and poorly-written nonsense from Vile Parisious will
do anything to show that the Oxfordians have even a shred of circumstantial
evidence in support of their conspiracy theory. They have no valid methodology,
and they can't depend upon Vile P to supply them with one.
Roger Parris ·
Mark Johnson
I can well understand your ardent desire to disassociate yourself from the
notorious Mark Johnson who often writes under the pseudonym Dominique
Hughes to conceal his academic shame.However the best way to avoid confusion
75/326
1/22/2015
Hughes to conceal his academic shame.However the best way to avoid confusion
with this utterly gender,morally and legally confused individual,(unless you
unconsciously wish to be identified with the same) would be to post a saving
initial.Of course the "other " Mark Johnson has been exposed in discreditable
stunts of an exactly similar nature on many previous occasions this may just be
one more cheap escape trick.
After all you just lied again when you stated we have have had this conversation
before,
not unless you are Johnson one we haven't.
You aren't worth the space talking.But the record I'll post a few more items
tomorrow on how deadly you guys could be if you were allowed out into the real
life show operating under your premises.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Parris You really are deranged. You are still addressing the professor who
has written on gender roles in spite of the fact that I am not him, and have told
you I am not him. Why would I I disassociate myself from myself, since that is
who I am. I am not at all notorious. I also don't have any academic shame to hide.
I am not at all confused about gender, morality or legal matters.
Nor have I lied, here or anywhere else, or engaged in any cheap tricks or stunts.
Your dementia is indicated by the content of your posts and by the fact that you
are unable to write a coherent sentence in English. "You aren't worth the space
talking" [sic]? You are not worth my time. The only person who might pose a
danger to anyone is you. Deranged people can be dangerous to themselves and
others. You really should seek help.
I note that you didn't deny your defamatory allegation suggesting I was a member
of a satanic cult. If you continue to provide me with legal grounds to sue, I might
decide to ignore the fact that you are a senile old twit.
Tom Reedy ·
Mark Johnson Apparently Parisious has some type of fixation on abnormal sexual
behaviors. He continually referred to me as "tranny boy" on hlas, a derogatory
term for a transsexual. Keep in mind that this is the guy who is looked upon by
leading Oxfordians as a treasure-trove of anti-Stratfordian wisdom, the same
Oxfordians who continually complain about ad hominem remarks from their
opponents. The hypocrisy would be astonishing if their double standards were
not so well-known. Parisious is merely demonstrating typical anti-Stratfordian
principles. I'm sure they're all proud of his performance.
Meanwhile, as Parisious continues his tactic of distraction, no sign of Regnier or
Stritmatter since they put theri foot into it by bringing up circumstantial evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
Mark Johnson This should be with,with luck ,the last occasion that it will ever be
necessary to speak with you and it seems impossible that anyone who has
viewed your contributions will be inclined to further discuss the nature of
evidence,circumstantial or otherwise, with you.
Unless you are the first Mark Johnson you have never discussed anything with
me nor shall you ever again.Show the statement in which you claim you told me
you were not Johnson.Otherwise apologize for a malicious untruth.
You well knew Ur Mark Johnson's reputation for erratic and disagreeable
behavior when you began posting here.He has been a pen buddy of Tom's for
nearly of decade. If you came on here signing as the same and aided and abetted
by Reedy you could expect to be identify by readers as the same.
If the signature of an alleged William Shakespeare appears on "Venus and Adonis
"accompanied by a letter to the earl of Southampton(or Tom Reedy) and if
thereafter another poem appears bearing the signature William Shakespeare
accompanied by another letter to the Earl of Southampton(or Tom Reedy)
,circumstantial evidence,which may be deceptive,clearly indicates that it is the
same William Shakespeare addressing Southampton in both instances
76/326
1/22/2015
same William Shakespeare addressing Southampton in both instances
So it has happened here.Sorry you can't appreciate the irony of your setting
yourself up to be identified as the same ignominious Johnson
.Or you could plead that you never previously heard of the first Johnson and that
Reedy set you up for what he knew you would certainly get
.If you had signed in introduced by Reedy as Donald Foster ,what do you think
would be said to you?
.But you can'not(without inviting suspicion of paranoia) claim that you are the
author of a non-existent letter or have been implicated in a Satanic cult.
By the way do you now concede that the Texas Court Appeals knows more about
circumstantial evidence than Tom Reedy who attempted to read the court a
lecture on the correct mode of applying the same? A bumptious attempt which
evoked the derision of Tom's rather more perceptive fellow townsman.
You apparently do concede that Donald Foster''s applications of circumstantial
evidence were and are both absurd and potentially lethal.Doesn't it strike you as
strange that only two members of the Strats at HLAS (certainly not Tom Reedy)
realized
where he was headed.How does this effect your perception of the numerous
other absurd pieces of "circumstantial evidence" which were posted on that blog
and are being repeated here and many other places by the same expert logicians?
Sincerely yours,
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
Mark Johnson
The official court document reads:
Anglia
scire
scilicet
Willelmus
Wayte
petit
securitates
pacis
versus
Willelmum
Shakspere
ffranciscum
Langley
Dorotheam
Soer
uxorem
Iohannis
Soer
&
Annam
Lee
ob
metum
mortis &c Attachiamentum Vicecomiti Surrie
retornabile xviij Martini
England.
Be
it
known
that
William
Wayte
craves
sureties
of
the
peace
against
William
Shakespeare,
77/326
1/22/2015
Shakespeare,
Francis
Langley,
Dorothy
Soer,
wife
of
John
Soer,
and
Anne
Lee,
for
fear
of
death
etc.
Writ
of
attachment
to
the
sheriff
of
Surrey,
returnable
on
the
18
of
St
Martin
[=29 November 1596.
Technically it is a charge of conspiracy to commit murder. And ,of course, Wayte
have been exaggerating just as Heminge and Condell were exaggerating and as
you and Reedy frequently exaggerate.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
Tom Reedy
Tom,
Surprise,you are a knowing and conscious liar,or would be if you could any
longer clearly differentiate between fact and fiction.
The only two occasions in my life that I was forced to refer to a transsexual in
print were both because you chose to introduce two of your more flamboyant,
and extremely hostile, self proclaimed transsexual acquaintances into the
authorship question.
The first was a maniac who also believes Alistair Crowley is the Messiah,is a self
proclaimed Satanist,and has some of the worst character references of anybody
on the web . He finally got carried utterly away and started posting links to his
highly colorful occult sex blog .Shortly after,he,or it, as you prefer ,disappeared
from the debate.And I will say the most decent Strat writing on HLAS sent me a
private apology and an assurance that it wouldn't happen again.
I am not printing your pal's name here as it would give you an opportunity to
reintegrate him into the debate from which your own colleagues previously
ousted him.
Nor were you were never called "tranny boy by me ", a term with which I was
previously unfamiliar but if you choose to identify yourself with it and are easy
with the lingo that is your hangup,and yours alone, not ours.
By the way the only thing I wished to ,and have, established here is that no one
should be engaging in a debate with you on circumstantial evidence because you
don't know the meaning of the words. This was clearly demonstrated by your
comments on the Stombaugh verdict.
The Texas Appellate clearly found in a 157 page decision that no reasonable fact
finder could take the position on the basis of the circumstantial evidence which
you continued to use
78/326
1/22/2015
you continued to use
.I don't need your apologies(You'll soon be back soon enough with more of your
old tricks ) but don't you think it would be a decent thing to write an apology in
your local paper for the years of hell that poor man and his children suffered at
the hands of the local police?
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Parris "But you can'not(without inviting suspicion of paranoia) claim that
you are the author of a non-existent letter or have been implicated in a Satanic
cult."
Mr. Vile Parisious suggest that I am a member of a "particularly vile satanic cult"
and now he is ranting that I am paranoid to claim that I am "the author of a nonexistent letter" [???] and that I have "been implicated in a Satanic cult."
I think it is enough to allow this demented, incoherent rant to stand on its own as
a prima facie proof of the addled state of Mr. Vile Parisious' mind. I would be quite
content not to have any more contact with the senile old twit. One parting shot...I
told Vile that I was not the Mark Johnson, the academic who specializes in gender
issues, in another internet discussion of an article. I can find it if anyone else
really wishes for me to do so; I believe he was also told the same thing at the SV
page.
Funny...I don't see Roger riding in to curb Vile's excesses here. And add Roger
Vile Parisious to the list of Oxfordians who have failed to actually confront the
argument as to the lack of circumstantial evidence.
EDIT: Here is one of Vile Parisious' defamatory statements, made at the
Shakesvere facebook page:
"Tom Reedy's buddies, [Name redacted] and [Name redacted] are certainly
members of particularly nasty Frankist cum Crowleyite sects and so (I suspect)
are Mark Johnson and (for reasons given here recently) [Name redacted]."
October 6, 2014 at 4:00pm · Edited
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Parris "Technically it is a charge of conspiracy to commit murder. And ,of
course, Wayte have been exaggerating just as Heminge and Condell were
exaggerating and as you and Reedy frequently exaggerate."
Technically, it isn't any such thing. It is more in the nature of a peace bond [and
was filed in response to one originally filed by Langley], and it is not a "charge" of
attempted murder. Of course, your initial claim was that "Shakspere was
ARRAIGNED on charges of attempted murder with co-defendant Francis
Langley,owner of the Swan." Why not just admit that you were wrong?
Tom Reedy ·
Roger Parris Go f**k yourself with a rusty barge pole, you unpleasant little cretin.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Tom Reedy Hey! The Seahawks and Pats are going to the Super Bowl!!!
What did I miss?
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj The Pat's hopes may be deflated.
79/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Ann Zakelj It appears that the field has been abandoned by your side, leaving only
one crazed horse snorting amongst the offal.
Reply · Like ·
1 · 21 hours ago
Roger Parris ·
Get a brain, you wanabee clone
The words translate as shown .They were used to denote what they meant, they
were
also used as a standard formula .Considering the clout that the equally corrupt
Langley ,Shakspere ,and Gardner were trying to throw about ,all three of them
would wish their words to be understood as involving the lowest implications
possible. Just as utter fakers like yourself, Tom and Mike have been shown to
consistently pervert your phony legalese here .
And by the way a lot of Foster's other authorship drivel (not the Eulogy) drivel is
still being posted,( with much laudatory comment) on Kathman's authorship blog
.Tom has recently been bending over backwards here to belatedly disassociate
himself from Kathman's endorsement of the "Funeral Elegy".Perhaps he would
like to further disassociate himself from the wretched Foster blurbs which remain
and are pasted side by side with those bearing the name of one Thomas Reedy.
Get a new life,clone.
Reply · Like · 14 hours ago
Roger Parris ·
"One crazed horse snorting among the offal"
Many of those who know the Denton law enforcement system at first hand are
"snorting about the offal" cast by the local justice system for instance:
Anthony Williams · Top Commenter
We all know the jury system of Denton county is a joke. Am sure thats why
Gabriel Lee didnt mind reversing the decision. Denton county jury system will
convict an unborn child without blinking an eye
http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20111016-grandjury-system-questioned.ece
A statement approved by seven further citizens who read your statement on the
evidence in the Stobaugh case, Tom.
And,further,this:l:"... yep, That is Denton county for you, They have the habit of
convicting without evidence. Just imagine how many innocent poor people they
lock up on daily basis. This man was able to afford a good appeal lawyer. They
manupulate the jury system, put their friends on the jury . and have them convict
anyone they want to convict.
http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20111016-grandjury-system-questioned.ece
Sorry,Tom,old buddy,I live in Pennsylvania and sorry as I am to tell you,. you will
just have to get out your own broom and start sweeping up the judicial offal from
the Denton streets. Come to think of it I hear Denton has several paying positions
open in hygienic sanitation. Perhaps a career change in order.
Reply · Like · Edited · 13 hours ago
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Parris Try to remember when you had a functioning mind [if you ever did].
The language of the official document is quite clear, and it is obvious that it does
not say what you have claimed that it does. In fact, contrary to what you have
stated, it does not show that Shakespeare [as the name appears in the document
itself] "was ARRAIGNED on charges of attempted murder," or that he was ever a
"co-defendant" with Francis Langley on a "charge of conspiracy to commit
murder."
80/326
1/22/2015
As I said earlier, it is a typical peace bond, as the language makes quite clear:
"Be it known that William Wayte craves sureties of the peace against William
Shakespeare, Francis Langley, Dorothy Soer, wife of John Soer, and Anne Lee,
for fear of death..."
Are you unable to read or is your brain so addled that you cannot understand...it
says "SURETIES OF THE PEACE" and it doesn't say anything at all about
charges or arraignments. In fact, it is merely a peace bond filed by Wayte, and is
not a charge or arraignment, which would have to have been filed by the
authorities, not a party to the dispute. The people named in the peace bond
would have been summoned by "the sheriff of the appropriate county" and would
have to "post bond to keep the peace, on pain of forfeiting the security." No
charges or arraignments, as you have claimed.
Earlier in the same term of court in which this peace bond was filed by Wayte,
Langley had himself filed a peace bond against Wayte and Wayte's stepfather
William Gardiner, who had tried to put Langley's Swan playhouse out of
business. Wayte's filing was purely retaliatory, as is typical even today where
peace bonds are concerned. What you have said about this incident, claiming that
Shakespeare was arraigned for conspiracy to commit murder, or was charged
with that offense, is simply wrong. The only person here who is speaking "phony
legalese" is you.
Is it your senility that results in your not being able to properly format a post, or is
that just a product of your stupidity?
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
It's rediculous. All their arguments boil down to, "He was middle class, so he could not
possibly have been smart/creative enough." That's it. They do not believe the son of a glove
maker, who was educated, could possibly have been a great playwright. It could only have
been a noble or someone of the royal court who could write like that. It's a very classelitist/snobby argument. (These people probably have problem with patent clerks unlocking
the secrets of the physics as well. Hey Tennessee Williams was the son of a shoe salesman!
How dare anyone think he is a great playwright. Someone else must have written those
plays!) Now they don't want to believe Shakepeare existed? He did exist, there is
docuentation to that end, and he did write the plays. I won't say every single one of them was
an original idea (Taming of the Shrew for instence was based on an Italian play), but he did
write them and his sonnetts. I think this is that whole "tearing down of heroes" cultural
movement that has been popular for the last 20 years or so. Our society simply doesn't
believe in greatness anymore. Our culture feels threatened by someone who is great, so we
try to destroy it where we find it.
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
The social station of the author is the least of their concerns. Doubters agree that
there was a guy named Shakspere, but he didn't author the plays. Check out the
arguments if you care. Start with Mark Anderson's Shakespeare By Another
Name, or Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare. It's almost all
circumstantial, but it amounts to an Everest of evidence.
Reply · Like ·
21 · December 29, 2014 at 4:29pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Some of the repsonses here show the power of Hollywood over the popular
knowlege of history. Francis Bacon is actually the leading candiate of being the
alternate "true author" of Shakepeare's plays, but Hollywood made an historically
inaccruate movie of de Vere (most notably the order and years of publication of
the plays were re-arranged to fit the theory/story) and now some people think he
was the leading candiate. I guess one should not be so surprised. Look how one
Shakepeare-written play driven by Tudor propganda coloured our perception of
Richard III, despite historical sources to the contrary, for almost 450 years. Hint
people: You can't learn facts from fiction. "Truths" perhaps, but not facts.
Reply · Like ·
81/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Karl Wiberg Yes, but when all is said and done, it all boils down to: "He was
middle class, ergo he could not have possibly have written those plays. It *must*
have been someone of a higher class." Which is why they are searching for
someone elese in the first place. It's utter hogwash. Circumstantial evidence is
just that, circumstantial, piled up by people with an agenda. It's contridicted by
real evidence from within Shakespeare's lifetime as outlined by Jospeh Ciolino
and linked to by Jack Malvern below.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jennifer Burnham Well spoken. It's interesting to note that a great number of
"anti-Stratfordians," seem also to be selling something, usually a book, at the
same time they are arguing.
Who would, after all, purchase a book that I wrote claiming that Beethoven
actually wrote the works of Beethoven? But I would be willing to bet that if I were
to write a book claiming that Beethoven's gay lover, the "duchess" of
Lichtenstein, a transvestite-black man from Russia, actually wrote Ludwig's
symphonies and chamber music, there would be a ready and willing audience.
P.T. Barnum is proven right again.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
3 · December 29, 2014 at 5:16pm
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino If you know the history of the procurement of the "Shakespeare
Birthplace," then you are also aware of how ironically hilarious or hilariously
ironic (take your pick) this PT Barnum comment of yours is.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
8 · December 29, 2014 at 5:28pm
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham Wow. Roger Bacon. A 13th century Franciscan monk. How
about that.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
To Jennifer Burnham, Your comments here are the usual fallacies in logical
thinking that sorely afflict the traditional Stratfordian mentality. It's not that
someone from a middle class background could NOT have written the
masterpieces, it's that there is NO HARD EVIDENCE to show that the Stratford
man did! Just think of it: almost a million words on paper and no paper trail? How
can that be? After all, the Stratford man was affluent, living in a mansion home -a perfect situation to preserve letters, books, manuscripts, diaries, notebooks,
musical instruments, maps, art. But so far as the record shows, there is no
evidence that the Stratford man possessed even the usual trappings of a cultured
life.
Reply · Like ·
Michael Lloyd · Senior Consultant at CGI's Official Page
My dear Bonner Cutter - how splendidly you have made the case for the
"traditional Stratfordian mentality."
You are correct that "hard evidence" is what is required, but you (as well as the
entire "SAC community") have completely missed where the burden of proof lies
- which is on the side of those who claim that anyone other WS was the author of
the works in question.
82/326
1/22/2015
Until hard evidence pointing to another author turns up (e.g., a signed manuscript
of Hamlet in de Vere's hand ... along with primary-source corroborating evidence
e.g., letters by Richard Burbage attesting to de Vere's authorship), the speculative
theories of the SAC are worth no more than the ink (or bits) they are typed in.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Nowhere is this maxim
more apt than in this case.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 29, 2014 at 6:51pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jennifer Burnham There is nothing in Ogburn that proves anything. It's hard to
believe people still cite it as a "source."
Circumstantial evidence is being kind. It is laughable what passes for "evidence."
His knowledge of Falconry for example. Good God, does anyone study history
anymore? Does anyone know how popular a sport that was, even among
gentlemen, not nobles, and that is was roundly discussed and analyzed much like
baseball in America or football in the UK is today????
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 29, 2014 at 7:47pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Except the folios produced durrig his lifetime and statements
from contemporaries. Such as...
"Entred for their copie under thandes of Sr George Buck knight & Thwardens A
booke called. Mr William Shakespeare his historye of Kynge Lear as yt was played
before the kinges maiestie at Whitehall vppon St Stephans night at Christmas
Last by his maiesties servantes playinge vsually at the globe on the Banksyde vj
d" ~ Nathaniel Butter and John Busby, 26 November 1607.
Among many, many others.
Meanwhile, all you lot have is conspriacy theory. And that is what it boils down
to: That for hundreds of years, a sucessfull conspiracy existed to hide one of the
greatest playwirghts who ever lived behind the name of a "nobody." And you
have no proof.
And this is mostly becuse people are ignorant of school curriculums during that
time, which included not only English grammar, but Latin, rhetoric and the
classics. And William Shakepeare, the son of a middle class tradesman and
alderman, had such a school half a mile from his boyhood home.
And as Joseph points out, books were available on a wide variety of topics, from
falconry to swordfighting to warfare to Bede's history of England (amoung many
others such as Historia Regum Britanniae), More's Utopia to The Prince, which
had been translated by Henry VIII's time, all of which Shakespeare could have
either aquired or borrowed from friends and patrons.
You assume that someone who was not noble was not educated. That is simply
not true. Moreover, the fact is many great writers, artists and even scientists have
came from obscurity and left equal amount of evidence behind that is not
questioned.
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham et al, unless you take the time to understand the other side's
arguments, you're nowhere. I'd like to believe that the Bard was the grain-dealing
merchant from Stratford, it's a great democratic story, but the preponderance of
evidence points elsewhere.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 29, 2014 at 9:10pm
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
83/326
1/22/2015
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Ms. Burnham and Mr. Lloyd, You must have at your disposal a handy list of all the
fallacies in logical thinking (ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments), and you
rely heavily on disinformation: e.g. What patrons? Why did no teacher ever notice
this supposedly brilliant student? I suggest you do a little reading and include
Lawrence Stone's Crisis of the Aristocracy, Joel Hurstfield's The Queen's Wards,
and David Cressy's books on education (or rather the lack of it) in Tudor England.
The problem is that a hodgepodge of myths, legends, conjectures, speculations,
rationalizations, explanations, misconceptions and outright falsehoods have
grown up over the centuries to cope with the deficiencies in the Stratford story.
For example, it's told that young Will left Stratford for London after getting into a
spot of trouble deer poaching in the deer park in the manor home of Charlecote.
However, research showed that Charlecote DID NOT HAVE a deer park! So to
accommodate this inconvenient fact, the ever-resourceful Stephen Greenblatt
changed the deer park to a rabbit warren in his book Will in the World. I must say
that the image of the supposedly great playwright groveling in a rabbit warren
does not inspire confidence. I'd recommend sticking with the deer park story,
even if it's non-existent.
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
"He was middle class, so he could not have been smart/creative enough."
Absolutely untrue, and NOT my argument. Bacon was middle class and he was
one of the greatest minds of the age, and left behind in his will a staggeringly
large library. Ben Jonson was middle class and likewise seems to have spent all
his money on books. Shaksper accounted in his will for every stick of furniture.
His family saved receipts, tax demands, and documentation for petty purchases
and every petty lawsuit, but nothing of his shares in the Globe, no plays, poems,
manuscripts, or books of any kind whatsoever. He was not a reader. He was not a
writer. His parents, his children, and his wife were illiterate. The greatest writer in
history, let his children die illiterate? Of course, when David Garrick came to
Stratford to do his Jubilee, he was shocked at the ignorance of the locals. It was a
bookless town. How does a boy get his hands on Ovid, Gower, Holinshed, or any
of the Italian, French, or German sources Shakespeare used, in a bookless
backwater? Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe got scholarships to
Cambridge, and thereby got access to the books they read, that made them great
playwrights. Woody Allen saw a movie a day, and became great through many
sources. Chaplin was immersed in music hall, vaudeville, and silent movies. It's
not a matter of nature and bloodlines. Our argument is that education matters,
that early childhood education matters most of all, and poor Shaksper didn't have
any! He WAS exposed to business and banking through his father's business,
(unlike whoever wrote the plays), and had a stellar understanding of those. But
that is the very bit of brilliance our author lacks. It's a blind spot a noble would
have, a blind spot Shaksper could not afford.
Reply · Like ·
7 · December 29, 2014 at 10:18pm
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham Francis Bacon has not been "the leading candidate" for over
ninety years.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 29, 2014 at 11:10pm
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Tennessee Williams was indeed the son of a shoe salesman. But he also lived in a
country where children legally had to finish elementary and middle school. There
were such things as truant officers, in Williams' lifetime. No such thing existed in
Stratford. Williams was exposed to Shakespeare, the King James Bible, and other
poets. He read voraciously. Shaksper read a horn book, and, if we assume against
all evidence that he did attend Stratford Grammar School, a Geneva Bible and
Lily's Latin. Williams saw lots and lots and lots of movies. Shaksper might have
seen, at most, 4 plays. The players came through Stratford once every 2-4 years.
84/326
1/22/2015
seen, at most, 4 plays. The players came through Stratford once every 2-4 years.
Shaksper COULD have seen a play at age 8, 10, 12, 16, and 18. IF he could get
away to see it, if he had the price of admission, if he were so inclined. Very unlike
Tennessee Williams, who went to the movies all the time. Meanwhile Edward de
Vere's father owned several playing companies, which he inherited. He could see
(and write) as many plays as he liked, whenever he liked. You know, kind of like
the way Hamlet seems to know the players personally.
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 29, 2014 at 11:35pm
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham Jennifer, it does not "boil down to that." Please, stop heaping
your own ignorance on readers and do some research. You are making yourself
look rather foolish, trying to summarize arguments you have never read.
Reply · Like ·
Julie Sandys Bianchi ·
Top Commenter · San Francisco State University
Jennifer Burnham What it boils down to is respect for the value of education.
How as a teacher can I look my students in their eyes and tell them that there was
a man who without advanced education acquired a vocabulary of over 17,000
words at a time when statisticians calculate that the average university graduate
has a vocabulary of less than 6000 words? (The most renowned literary Englishspeaking cholars today have vocabularies of around 10,000 to 12,000 words.)
Clearly Shakespeare couldn’t have learned all the words on the street or in pubs;
he had to have read a good portion of them. Yet considering the lack of public
lending libraries in Elizabethan times, the absence of anyone ever claiming
(bragging) that they had loaned books to the acclaimed author before, after, or
during his 20 year writing career, the absence of any record that he actually ever
attended any school at all (no former teachers waxing poetic about how he had
been their pupil?!), and considering the strict Elizabethan record-keeping rules for
stationers and publishers (punishable by DEATH if not adhered to) London
bookseller’s accounts which still exist and reveal every OTHER Elizabethan poet
of any note as having been book purchasers in these accounts—no one by the
name of William Shakespeare, or Shakespere, or Shakspere, or Shaksper ever was
recorded as having purchased a book.
And , since two of the over 3700 English words identified from his poems and
plays as having been invented by Shakespeare were “persuade” and the figurative
use of the word “murdered.” How is it then that these two words were also used
by Edward de Vere in his personal correspondence before the poems and plays
were published?
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 30, 2014 at 12:17am
Sonja Foxe ·
Top Commenter · University of Chicago
JB-- most oxfordians have no problem with the son of a cobbler, Kit Marlowe, as
the author of 6 plays ...
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 12:45am
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino Falconry a sport of the hoi polloi? Breeding, raising and training
such rare birds was outlandishly expensive! And what poor country lad had the
time to spend on their care and feeding? Are you confusing falcons with
pigeons? At least they could be eaten.
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 30, 2014 at 12:51am
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham
Jennifer,
Lets get a few things clear:
85/326
1/22/2015
Lets get a few things clear:
1) There were no folios published during the life of the Stratford Shakspere.
2) The folio of the collected works of the bard was published in 1623. It was
dedicated to the son-in-law and his brother (who almost married another de Vere
daughter) of the 17th Earl.
3) If you are referring to the quartos of individual plays published during the
period 1591-1616, then you really ought to examine evidence with a little more
care. The more you do so, the less it will support your preconceptions, viz.:
a) Until 1598, those play quartos, which include as many as 7 canonical plays, are
all anonymous. The two narrative poems do appear in 1593-94 as by "William
Shakespeare," but for some reason the plays are anonymous.
b) This changes abruptly in late 1598 and after that point in time most of the
plays do have the name on them, but never spelled as the Stratford businessman
spelled his.
c) After the name begins to appear on the title pages of plays, several plays
appear under the name that everyone now agrees are not by the bard. For some
reason, the author did not object, although according to the orthodox account he
was still alive. This is in sharp contrast to other writers, who often complained
about the appropriation of their work or their names by unscrupulous (at least as
they saw it) publishers.
d) Many of these plays are "bad" quartos, i.e. poorly printed from bad copy. Again,
there is no evidence that the author ever complained or tried to do anything about
this.
e) By considering the testimony of the sonnets, we may begin to understand this
remarkable instance, one of many, in which the dog did not bark in the night, for
in Sonnet 48 the author says
How careful was I when I took my way, Each trifle under truest bars to thrust,
That to my use it might unused stay. From hands of falsehood, in sure wards of
trust!
The "trifles" mentioned here ironically are the plays.
In other words, the author himself states that his works were released to the
public via a process of subterfuge and alienation. This would explain why he had
no recourse, even had he still been alive, to object. The works were released as
not by him.
e) during the period 1591-1604, almost half the plays appeared for the first time
in quarto. During the period 1605-1616, which by orthodox reasoning is the
most productive decade of the author's life, only three new plays are published in
quarto, the rest being long-delayed (some by as much as 30 or more years) from
publication until the folio. Orthodox scholars rarely acknowledge, and have never
explained, this dramatic pattern, which is explicable on the hypothesis that the
author was dead and his manuscripts remained in limbo while his relatives
considered their publication options.
f) In 1609, with the alleged author still having seven years to live, appeared
"Shake-Speares Sonnets," in which the author speaks of being old and decries
the imminence of his death. If he was still living, he should have had a heart
attack when the scandalous contents of this remarkable volume were published
to the "common view." Of course, if the author was dead, this among other
mysteries is readily explained.
You continue to reject this evidence and reasoning as "conspiracy theory" on
peril of the loss of critical thinking skills. Such reflexive appeals to the bogeyman
of "conspiracy theory" suggest an unwillingness to engage in rational discussion.
Reply · Like ·
Philip Buchan ·
86/326
1/22/2015
Philip Buchan ·
Karl Wiberg The "everest" of evidence are coincidental biographical similarities
between the Earl of Oxford and some characters in Shakespeare's plays. These
really don't constitute evidence. We're often told that Hamlet was captured by
pirates in the play, and Oxford was captured by pirates in real life. Well, yes -piracy was common. Oxford had three daughters, and so did Lear, or so the
Oxfordians argue -- though Oxford himself doubted the paternity of one of his
daughters at the time of her birth, and his daughters were all brought up by their
maternal grandparents.
The best scholarly biography of the 17th Earl, Alan Nelson's "Monstrous
Adversary," shows conclusively the mismatch between the portrait being created
by Oxfordians and the historical reality of the man. He was far more interested in
get-rich-quick schemes to get the exclusive right to mine tin than in writing.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 2:29am
Top Commenter
Philip Buchan If I may be so bold as to present to you a series of billets-doux
between the distinguished Oxfordian William Ray and Alan Nelson... For your
edification and enjoyment:
http://www.wjray.net/shakespeare_papers/alan-nelson-letters-appendix.htm
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 30, 2014 at 2:57am
Joseph Ciolino William Shakspere was not a gentleman in his youth, so when
would he have learned the gentleman’s sport of falconry and had time to practice
it? When would he have had time from his grueling life as a grammar school boy
enduring the Latin beaten into him from early morning to late in the afternoon,
going home to a working class family, becoming a butcher’s apprentice, then
marrying and becoming a father at an early age? Shakespeare demonstrates his
knowledge of falconry not like someone who has spent his precious and limited
free time sporting with the birds, then deciding based on his occasional pastime
to add a falconry scene to his plays -insert falconry scene here- but instead he
insinuates the language of falconry into scenes and sentences and ideas that
have nothing to do with gamehawking—the way I automatically think “students”
when I see a group of young people while my physician husband thinks
“patients” and my aunt the store clerk thinks “shoplifters.” Our experience colors
the way we express ourselves.
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 30, 2014 at 3:01am
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi They are called books, and there have been books about
falconry, hunting, warfare etc. since the middle ages. http://www.shm-qa.net/
monograph/grethe_Falcons.shtml
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi Did you know Sir Issaac Newton had no training in
mathmatics before college and was an indifferent student when he got there. By
your reasoning, he could not have possibly invented Calculus, discovered the
laws of optics and the laws of physics. But he did. It's called "Genius" and just
because most people are not geniuses, that does not mean they do not exist. And
sometimes they come from the humblest of backgrounds. All that is required is
the brilliant mind with a desire to learn and expand knowlege and the world.
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter
1. You got me. I confused the folio with the quatros.
87/326
1/22/2015
2. Work was dedicated to nobles and Royalty all the time. That does not mean
they wrote it. At best this proves that the family may have been patrons.
3. The name thing again, which given how many people of that era spelled their
names differently during the course of their lifetimes under different
circumstances, is simply clutching at straws.
4. "How careful was I when I took my way, Each trifle under truest bars to thrust,
That to my use it might unused stay. From hands of falsehood, in sure wards of
trust!
The "trifles" mentioned here ironically are the plays.
In other words, the author himself states that his works were released to the
public via a process of subterfuge and alienation. This would explain why he had
no recourse, even had he still been alive, to object. The works were released as
not by him."
That is an interesting interpretation, which A. does not prove he was referring to
the plays at all as you assume, and B. denies any metaphor in the poem. In short,
it's the old tag about writers using lies to tell truths.
5. Your assumption about the decline of his work is extreme. Authors do not slow
down production only because they are dead. Just ask George RR Martin.
I think you should apply your "critical thinking skills" to your conspiracy theory.
Because that is all it is, there is no evidence that anyone else wrote his plays.
None. At best, you have circumstanial assumptions.
Reply · Like ·
Philip Buchan ·
Ann Zakelj Thanks for the link to that discussion between William Ray and
Professor Nelson. Ray seems entirely out of his depth, doesn't he? I've had
similar discussions with Mr. Ray.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 4:09am
State University
Follow ·
Philip Buchan The best example is one you do not mention:
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/essays/polonius/corambis.html
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 30, 2014 at 4:38am
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham
Thank you for acknowledging your error about folios and quartos.
You write:
2. Work was dedicated to nobles and Royalty all the time. That does not mean
they wrote it. At best this proves that the family may have been patrons.
Yes, I'm quite aware of this that works were dedicated to nobles and, sometimes,
royalty. But your attempt to shift away the implications of the very specific family
relations involved in the publication of the folio is not warranted, for several
reasons:
1) Examining the larger immediate context of the folio's publication, we find that
1623 was a year of constitutional crisis in England, in which the Protestant
dedicatees of the folio, de Vere's son in law Montgomery and his elder brother
Pembroke, led the Protestant oppositio to the so-called "Spanish marriage"
through which James proposed to marry his son and heir Charles to the Spanish
88/326
1/22/2015
through which James proposed to marry his son and heir Charles to the Spanish
Infanta in exchange for a very large dowry and a promise of religious peace in
Europe.
2) The two other leading opponents to the Spanish marriage were the Earls of
Southampton (to whom the author "Shakespeare" had dedicated the first two
publications under this name, the two narrative poems in 1593 and 1594. Both
younger men were imprisoned during the lead up to the crisis during the years
1620-23. More specifically, the 18th Earl of Oxford was imprisoned from Spring
of 1621 until fall 1623 -- exactly, that is, during the months that the folio was
being printed.
For these reasons a tight family nexus connects the de Veres to the publication of
the folio, almost as if the final decision to print it had been made in response to
King James' jailing of Henry de Vere.
3) In the years leading up the folio there is a clear paper trail of the publisher
Jaggard, courting the de Vere daughters and their husbands for right to produce
the folio. This was the topic of a little article I wrote some years ago, which you
can read here: http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/bestow-how-andwhen/
In 1619, Jaggard went so far as to ask Montgomery's wife Susan, and her
husband, to "bestow when and where you list" (desire) some unspecified product
that eventually became manifest in the folio.
"That is an interesting interpretation..."
Thank you for acknowledging that this "an interesting interpretation." Actually, it
is the ONLY interpretation with which I am familiar which makes any sense out of
these lines. I wish I could it was my own, but actually it was first proposed over
ninety years ago in this important book: http://www.sourcetext.com/
sourcebook/etexts/looney/00.htm
"which A. does not prove he was referring to the plays at all as you assume."
I don't assume anything. Unlike you, however, I know that the author of the two
dedicatory epistles to the 1623 folio uses the term "trifles" 3x to refer to the plays
the book contains. I also know that this is the usual translation, then and now, for
Horace's word "nugae," which explicitly and self-referentially refers to his own
work. So the burden is on you and your colleagues to supply a more well
informed and plausible reading of the poem if you dislike this one.
"and B. denies any metaphor in the poem."
Huh? How does it do that? Metaphor operates by making a comparison between
two things. In this case, those two things are the concept of "trifles" and the
reality of the plays. The author is speaking metaphorically all over the place in this
passage and nothing that I wrote allows you to infer that I was somehow
negating that.
"In short, it's the old tag about writers using lies to tell truths."
Speaking of using lies to tell truths, perhaps you would care to give us a reading
of Sonnet 71:
No longer mourn for me when I am dead
Than you shall hear the surly sullen bell
Give warning to the world that I am fled
From this vile world with vilest worms to dwell:
Nay, if you read this line, remember not
The hand that writ it, for I love you so,
That I in your sweet thoughts would be forgot,
If thinking on me then should make you woe.
O! if, I say, you look upon this verse,
When I perhaps compounded am with clay,
Do not so much as my poor name rehearse;
But let your love even with my life decay;
Lest the wise world should look into your moan,
89/326
1/22/2015
Lest the wise world should look into your moan,
And mock you with me after I am gone.
Why is your author telling us, "do not so much as my poor name rehearse"?
Let me guess, you hadn't read that one yet.....
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 30, 2014 at 4:59am
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter I'm reading a lot of circumstantial stuff, some of it extremely
circumstanial (sorry, but I fail to see how opposition to the spanish marriage has
anything to do with ther folio, let alone proving de Vere was the author), and
NONE of it is proof that outweighs the contemporary evidence. And snobby
snark does nothing to further your point either. (P.S. 71 is one of the ones some
scholars point to to suggest Shakepeare had a male lover, hence the desire to
protect his young friend from being mocked for the attachment.)
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham The difference between Sir Isaac Newton’s life experience and
the man from Stratford is that he actually had a university education and there are
records of his actually buying books on mathematics. Why is that? Do you realize
that in renaissance times one had to order the printing and binding of a book
from booksellers and printers…that you didn’t just walk into a shop or stall and
pull a printed and bound copy off a shelf? Booksellers were required to keep
scrupulous records regularly scrutinized by Elizabeth’s Star Chamber because of
the fear of her realm being undermined by propaganda from her enemies, and the
consequences for ignoring the printing regulations were harsh. In none of the
bookseller’s records of Elizabeth and James’ reign did anyone by the name of
William Shakespeare, Shakspere, Shagsberd, Shaxper etc EVER buy a book.
Since the Stratford businessman did not attend Cambridge or Oxford and there
were no public libraries, where could he have gotten hold of the historical
information imbedded in the plays?
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 30, 2014 at 12:26pm
Jennifer Burnham And did you read your linked article on falconry? “Falconry's
popularity became a status symbol in medieval society, but it was a rather
EXPENSIVE PLEASURE. The birds required intricate housing and all kinds of
accessories- and falconers were required to feed the birds a balanced diet on a
daily basis. The average citizen kept more common birds like sparrowhawks and
goshawks.” “The Lisle Letters, published in six volumes by Muriel St. Claire
Bryne, reveals how thoroughly falconry permeated various realities of life in the
household of LORD and LADY Lisle.” “In Shakespeare's works the reader will
probably get a more distinct vision of falconry and the sporting pastimes of the
ARISTOCRACY of that day.”
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 30, 2014 at 12:39pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi I did read, too bad you chose to miss the point entirely
THAT THERE WERE BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT that Shakepeare would have had
access too through friends and patrons. Jeezus! Are you people truly THAT
determined to be blind to anything that gets in the way of your conspiracy
theory? I've never climbed Mt. Everest, and I guess all the books about means no
one who has not climbed Everest has any knowlege whatsoever about it. Give me
a break!
Reply · Like · Edited · December 30, 2014 at 1:22pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi And again missing the point about Newton and Shaekpeare.
Both came from relatively humble origins, both were educated and both went far
90/326
1/22/2015
Both came from relatively humble origins, both were educated and both went far
beyond their education. And he "never bought a book"? Wow, first profound lack
of knowlege of what publication was like at the time. Booksellers had to keep
such meticulous records that *every* book sale was recorded (and that all such
records survive) because of thought police so we should know of every single
booksale made in England during Elizabeth and James' reigns? B.S. That is just
desperate conspriacy theory B.S.. As in "You people are nuts" B.S.. Secondly you
ignore that Shakepeare had at least one patron, and he would have had access to
that patron's library as well as any other books his friends had. I will also point
your to Hebbie Taylor's excellent breakdown of book ownership among
playrights of the time above. It looks like by available evidence, less than half of
them ever owned a book.
Philip Buchan ·
Roger Stritmatter The Polonius=Burghley theory -- indeed, one more
circumstantial connection where identifying Oxford's hand depends on one
already assuming that Oxford is attached to it.
Oxford was indeed Burghley's charge as a ward of the queen in his minority.
Hardly surprising since Burghley was the master of Wards and had a number of
other noble wards in his house at the time. If the Polonius=Burghley theory were
correct, the inference would be that the author of the plays had some knowledge
of the character of the Queen's most prominent and powerful minister of state,
and possibly had seen or heard about his "precepts."
But Burghley was a well known figure in Elizabethan England. If he was seen as a
pompous ass who pontificated to Oxford from his book of precepts, he likely was
seen as such by many of the wards in his charge. Oxford certainly had a special
relationship with Burghley as his son-in-law and father of his granddaughters -but that would just as easily mitigate against Oxford as the source for the
reference as for it. Burghley was Oxford's only contact with the court and there
are records of Burghley pleading on Oxford's behalf. Certainly there are instances
of people acting against their own interests -- but doesn't it worry you that this
key piece of circumstantial evidence relies on your candidate acting against his
own interests?
Lastly -- there's still the issue of evidence. Textual interpretation is merely
secondary evidence. Though the case can be made that Polonius was a reference
to Burghley, there is no evidence whatever that people at the time made the
connection. Here is a play that was performed at court before nobles who knew
Burghley; the play was subject to official censorship by the Queen's Master of
Revels who could and would have cut the character entirely if it had been an
apparent reference to the Queen's recently deceased minister. Yet there is no
evidence that anyone ever noticed the resemblance between the Lord and the
character in the play.
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mr. Buchan, It is understood by historians that the character of Polonius in
Hamlet (Corambis in the 1st quarto) is modeled on William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
Among the English historians who acknowledge this identification are Lawrence
Stone, Joel Hurstfield, and A. Gordon Smith. That "Shakespeare" held Lord
Burghley up to ridicule on the public stage is all the more remarkable in the
historical context. Lord Burghley brooked no criticism. After the cruel
"unhanding" of John Stubbs -- who voiced concern over a policy of Burghley's in
1579 -- there was no further criticism of the Queen's powerful Lord Treasurer. As
Burghley's adoring 20th century biographer Conyers Read notes: "Throughout
his life he was, for a veteran politician, exceptionally sensitive to personal
attacks." And there's more...
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
8 · December 30, 2014 at 3:45pm
Top Commenter
Philip Buchan Please tell me how a commoner, whether or not he had certain
special ties to royalty by means of patronage, could have known that Burghley's
91/326
1/22/2015
special ties to royalty by means of patronage, could have known that Burghley's
motto was COR UNUM, VIA UNA... and then had the temerity to parody this
motto by naming the duplicitous character in Hamlet "Corambis"?
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 30, 2014 at 4:05pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Seriously? SERIOUSLY? You think no "commoner" (again, displaying
ignorance of social classes in England at the time, Shakepeare's family were not
"peasants," they were tradesmen which meant they dealt with people who had the
money to buy their goods: aristocrats) ever saw a noble house's coats of arms?
Shakepeare's family was allowed to have a coat of arms with a motto; "Non Saenz
Droict" "Not without right." And you think no one outside of nobility ever saw
coats of arms? Seriously?
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham I truly think you are out of your depth here.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
4 · December 30, 2014 at 4:22pm
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham Yes, seriously. That's why tradesmen never saw the lush
interiors of noblemen's homes, having to enter and exit by utility doors, or not at
all. And had they the opportunity to enter, do you think they'd be given all the
time in the world to attempt to decipher the Latin motto on Cecil's crest? And
would they actually know or care that he had a motto, Latin or Greek or
Hebrew...? Your stance is all based on supposition: could have, would have. On
the off chance that a tradesman recalled enough of his his grammar school Latin
to translate Cecil's motto, what on earth would have prompted him to share this
with William of Stratford? It boggles the mind! But, for the sake of argument, let's
say that Will was somehow enlightened with this little tidbit of knowledge. Can
you explain how he got away with mocking the most powerful man in the realm?
Heads rolled for lesser offenses!
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 30, 2014 at 4:35pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Right, because noblemen *never* displayed their family coats of arms
in public. That was for private use only. I think the person out of their depth is
you, who have repeatedly displayed ignorance of English society of the time,
including the fact that the school half a mile from the house Shakepeare grew up
in taught it's students latin. And I am sorry if you can't remember the foriegn
language you had to take in school, but that does not mean others don't. (Like
translating four words would have taken forever *rolls eyes*) As for mocking,
Shakepeare was a good Tudor propgandist, even if he did poke a little fun at
courtiers. A play on words does not outweigh the smear job he did on Richard III
on behalf of the Tudors, who had usurped his throne.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham Oy.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 5:12pm
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Ms. Cutting, if you're alluding to the lack of books, etc. in
Shakespeare's last will and testament and the fact we will never know IF books,
etc. were listed in the "lost" inventory, perhaps the following will allay your
derision.
One of your sources in your *Brief Chronicles* essay, Tom Arkell "Interpreting
Probate Inventories" in *When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and Interpreting
the Probate Records of Early Modern England* ed. Tom Artkell, et al (2000) notes:
92/326
1/22/2015
the Probate Records of Early Modern England* ed. Tom Artkell, et al (2000) notes:
pp. 72-3: "Overall fewer inventories have survived than wills, with the ratios
varying greatly by ecclesiastical court and over time. This applies especially to the
Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC), where most researchers have discovered
that inventories for their chosen area are rare before 1660, while subsequent ones
are often damaged or inaccessible."
i.e. Your sneers toward such "lost" inventory per your *Brief Chronicles* essay (p.
172), "Most recently, Stanley Wells, the Chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace
Trust, has come to the rescue with another escape hatch for the books. In an
article in *The Stage* magazine, he waves off the books to an inventory - which,
of course, is conveniently lost." are absolutely unscholarly based on your
decision to ignore one of your own sources' statement of fact. Please learn what
"full disclosure" means.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
I have checked out the arguments, and what is offered doesn't even qualify as
circumstantial evidence. It is nothing more than coincidence and speculative
interpretations of literary works. On the other hand, the case for Will Shakespeare
of Stratford is supported by direct and circumstantial evidence.
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham What friends? What patrons? The indefatigable Charlotte
Stopes spent years searching for a connection between the Stratford man and his
supposedly "beloved" patron the 3rd Earl of Southampton. But she found
nothing. Southampton's later biographer, G. P. V. Akrigg, even found a stash of
Wriothesley family papers that Stopes did not know about, and he came up with
nothing. It's instructive to simply look at the index of the Stopes and Akrigg
biographies of Southampton and note the multitude of insignificant people who
HAVE documented connections to Southampton. But there is nothing outside of
the imaginations of Stratfordians to show that these two individuals ever so
much as met.
Reply · Like ·
7 · December 30, 2014 at 7:06pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
None of which does anything to rebut the prima facie case for the proposition
that Will Shakespeare of Stratford was the author of the Shakespeare works, a
case which is established upon direct and circumstantial evidence -- nor does it
answer the fact that your belief in your Lord is totally lacking in any direct or
circumstantial evidence. You seem very eager to make a god of the gaps -- a tool
that is usually employed by creationists and is equally useless when employed by
you.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Your interpretation that Burghley's motto was parodied does not make it a fact
that Burghley's motto was parodied. This is just one more instance of Oxfordians
treating their speculations as factual evidence.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Have you seen the following? Southampton must have known of
Shakespeare's plays. Why would an Earl record anything about a common player
in any of his papers? There are lots of dedications to Southampton. Did he
actually patronize all such dedicators? And do his papers reflect such? Similarly,
there's lots of dedications to Oxford. Do Oxford's papers show whom he
patronized?
1604-5. Letter from Sir Walter Cope. (Hatfield House Library.)
93/326
1/22/2015
1604-5. Letter from Sir Walter Cope. (Hatfield House Library.)
To the right honorable the Lorde Vycount Cranborne at the Courte.
Sir, I have sent and bene all thys morning huntyng for players juglers and Such
Kinde of Creaturs but fynde them harde to fynde/ wherfore leavinge notes for
them to seeke me/ burbage ys come/ and Sayes ther ys no new playe that the
queene hath not seene/ but they have Revyved an olde one/ Cawled Loves
Lahore lost which for wytt and mirthe he sayes will please her excedingly. And
Thys ys apointed to be playd to-Morowe night at my Lord of Sowthamptons
unless yow send a wrytt to Remove the Corpus Cum Causa to your howse in
strande. Burbage ys my messenger Ready attendyng your pleasure.
Yours most humbly
Walter Cope.
From your Library.
(Endorsed: 1604.)
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson The Corambis-Polonius-Burghley connection is interesting, is it
not? Even more interesting is the fact that there are scores of these connections,
yet the defenders of the Stratfordian faith refuse to acknowledge them,
demanding proof where there is none. Why are we not allowed to interpret and
extrapolate, but Shakspeare "biographers" (even those who begin with "Let us
imagine...") are lauded for perpetuating a myth?
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Because your "scores of connections"/theories can't trump real
evidence like: 1598, Francis Meres named Shakespeare as a playwright and poet
in his Palladis Tamia, referring to him as one of the authors by whom the "English
tongue is mightily enriched". (Montague, William Kelly (1963). The Man of
Stratford—The Real Shakespeare. Vantage Press.) He names twelve plays written
by Shakespeare, including four which were never published in quarto: The Two
Gentlemen of Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Won, and King
John, as well as ascribing to Shakespeare some of the plays that were published
anonymously before 1598—Titus Andronicus, Romeo and Juliet, and Henry IV,
Part 1. He refers to Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends"
11 years before the publication of the Sonnets. (Loomis, Catherine, ed. (2002).
William Shakespeare: A Documentary Volume. Dictionary of Literary Biography
263. Detroit: Gale Group.) The Quatros were published under his name during his
lifetime http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/
0a/MND_title_page.jpg/220px-MND_title_page.jpg and Ben Johnson attested to
his authorship in the First Folio, and there are official records as well, such as:
d" ~ entered by Nathaniel Butter and John Busby, 26 November 1607. And it
goes on, there is a TON of historical evidence, from statements by actors he
worked with to other playwrights, that he wrote the plays.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj How about Graham Holderness' *Nine Lives of William Shakespeare*.
Dr. James Shapiro's review of Dr. Holderness' book: "Required reading for anyone
interested in Shakespeare's life or in how literary biography gets written. There's
no better place to turn for distinguishing facts and traditions from more
imaginative accounts of how Shakespeare became Shakespeare. Graham
Holderness is a terrific guide and a talented writer."
These academicians are just silly. So why is everyone fussing at what Oxfordians
94/326
1/22/2015
These academicians are just silly. So why is everyone fussing at what Oxfordians
do? They are using the orthodox English department standards for historical
research.
Leah McCreery ·
Top Commenter · Cal State San Bernardino
Bonner Cutting So logic is not sufficient? Should I use innuendo and
supposition, instead of scholarship because I don't like the outcome?
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Coincidences are funny things...but they are not evidence. Sometimes, they are
not even legitimate coincidences [as I believe is the case with the alleged
"Corambis/cor unam" connection]. As for refusing to acknowledge actual
evidence, and demanding proof where there is none [making a god of the gaps],
that sounds a lot like you and your fellow Oxfordians.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 9:27pm
Jan Scheffer
All the arguments boil down to" he was middle class, so he could not possibly
have been smart/creative enough" - this is largely an emotional argument and by
no means what sceptics or Oxfordians bring forward. However, the lack of any
sign, for instance in his will, or in the life he lead as described by Diana Price or
Tony Pointon ( I am sure you have read these books since you state the 'boil
down to') makes it clear that the extraordinary experience and knowledge, literary (
the classics) , travel (Italy) makes it highly unlikely that it was Shaksper from
Stratford who used Shakespeare as his name under which he wrote plays,
sonnets and lyrical poems - never mind his supposed intelligence and/or his
creativity. We are no snobs as you suggest, we endorse the humble descent of a
great author, playwright, Ben Jonson (who by the way write the intriguing
introduction to the First Folio.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 30, 2014 at 10:44pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Jan Scheffer Patrick Meyers had never climbed K2, so he could not have possibly
written the play K2. The wealth of books about mountain climbing and climbers
accounts, talking to climbers, means nothing. He simply could not have written
such a work without doing it himself. That's your logic. Which is simply not
logical. Especially in the face of A. the fact there was school half a mile from his
middle class/tradesmen/alderman boyhood home where he learned not only how
to read and write, but the rhetoric, the classics and latin and B. actual evidence
like: 1598, Francis Meres named Shakespeare as a playwright and poet in his
Palladis Tamia, referring to him as one of the authors by whom the "English
his authorship in the eulogy of the First Folio, and there are official records as
well, such as: "Entred for their copie under thandes of Sr George Buck knight &
Thwardens A booke called. Mr William Shakespeare his historye of Kynge Lear as
yt was played before the kinges maiestie at Whitehall vppon St Stephans night at
Christmas Last by his maiesties servantes playinge vsually at the globe on the
Banksyde vj d" ~ entered by Nathaniel Butter and John Busby, 26 November
1607. And it goes on, there is a TON of historical evidence, from statements by
actors he worked with to other playwrights, that he wrote the plays.
95/326
1/22/2015
actors he worked with to other playwrights, that he wrote the plays.
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham, Francis Bacon was the "leading candidate" until the 60s and
70s, when Christopher Marlowe replaced him as the one most often suspected.
Now, it's De Vere hands down, and the reason is that from reading the plays,
Jennifer, 18 qualifications for writing them become very clear, such as a classical
education, travel in Italy, actual personal knowledge of court, a law degree, and
being close enough with Lord Burleigh and the Queen to have seen unpublished
things they kept in drawers til after Shaxper's death, and overheard conversations
not generally known about until after the Queen's death. It's not that a middle
class person couldn't write brilliant, stellar plays. He just would not have written
those particular plays, any more than David Mamet would have written the works
of Tennessee Williams.
Reply · Like ·
Jenny Caneen-Raja ·
Top Commenter · Florida State University
Jennifer Burnham What's even more amusing is how the argument has circled in
on itself. In his lifetime, Shakespeare was twitted for not being educated enough Jonson's quip about little Latin and less Greek is an example. Most men who
wrote for the theatre were --as now-- graduates of a university system that
produced more scholars than there was work available for them. But ignorance of
the quality of a public education at the time of intense pedagogical reform (Henry
VIII tried to no avail to have Erasmus permanently installed in his court) has led
current arguers to now claim his plays are too sophisticated! There is no question
that he collaborated (Middleton, Jonson, Beaumont) but this anti-Stratfordian
obsession is a silly game that keeps going because it makes money and lets
people who like cherry-picking feel like they're doing actual research.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 12:26am
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler Your "qualifications for writing them become very clear, such as a
classical education, travel in Italy, actual personal knowledge of court, a law
degree, and being close enough with Lord Burleigh and the Queen"...
This is excellent! You've just described Francis Bacon. Congrats on singling out
the prime candidate.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 12:47am
Jennifer Burnham There is no record of Shakespeare ever having had a patron,
only supposition based on the dedications to the poems “Venus and Adonis” and
“The Rape of Lucretia” to Henry Wriothesley the Earl of Southampton. Charlotte
Snopes, an orthodox scholar and biographer of Southampton, made it her life’s
work to investigate the public record offices of England for any recorded link
between Wriothesley and Shakespeare and to her great regret found NONE.
Do you have any idea of the terror of the Elizabethan police state? Do you know
how few printing presses there were in renaissance England and how few books
were published during the formative years of the man from Stratford? Apparently
you’ve never read the essays of the renaissance publishing expert Robert Sean
Brazil and perhaps I should let the Newberry Library in Chicago know that the
volumes of booksellers records they have from the Stationer’s companies are
fraudulent.
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 31, 2014 at 1:34am
Jennifer Burnham I didn't know that the man from Stratford was friends with Sir
Thomas Smith (who owned the only copy of Beowolf in the 16th century.)
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 1:51am
96/326
1/22/2015
Gerowen Arnoyed
Julie Sandys Bianchi And, to be even clearer (for this audience), Edward De Vere
lived with, and was tutored by ... Sir Thomas Smith.
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi Failing to see how any of your rather shakey points refutes
the hard evidence I presented above. The idea that *every* booksale in the London
area was tracked by the government, not to mention gifts and loans, is
preposterous. And near as I can tell, they only have lists of books that were
printed, not how they were sold. http://www.newberry.org/printing-history-andbook-arts-publications-about-newberry-library-collections And the earliest copy
of Beowulf is the Nowell Codex, which dates from 1000 BCE, though I'm not
sure what that has to do with anything.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 2:47am
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi and Jennifer Burnham, in 1563, the man who owned the
only copy of Beowulf was Lawrence Nowell, who also happened to be Oxford's
tutor in the household of William Cecil (1st Baron Burghley). (The manuscript is
bound in what is still known as the Nowell Codex.) Which makes some wonder if
the reason conventional scholarship has found no connection between
Shakespeare and Beowulf is that it was thought for a long time that this single
copy of Beowulf was missing until being "discovered" in the 18th century by
Humphrey Wanley, librarian for the fledgling library of the British Museum. But
there it was in Oxford's residence in the 1560s. Let's see, a Denmark-situated tale
of usurpation-madness-revenge? It does ring a bell. If you're bored, compare the
last words of Hamlet and Beowulf. Eerily similar in tone and content. For more
elaboration on this line of thinking see: hankwhittemore.wordpress.c
om/tag/beowulf/.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
7 · December 31, 2014 at 3:19am
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham The only Beowulf manuscript in existence, the Nowell Codex
which you refer to, was owned by Laurence Nowell, de Vere's tutor. There's a
definite correlation between Beowulf and Hamlet (even according to
Strafordians), so the whole ownership scenario is... uncanny. No?
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 31, 2014 at 3:24am
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Karl Wiberg Hamlet: "As thou'rt a man,
Give me the cup. Let go! By heaven, I’ll have ’t.
(takes cup from HORATIO)
O God, Horatio, what a wounded name,
Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me!
If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart
Absent thee from felicity a while,
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain
To tell my story....
O, I die, Horatio.
The potent poison quite o'ercrows my spirit.
I cannot live to hear the news from England.
But I do prophesy the election lights
On Fortinbras. He has my dying voice.
So tell him, with th' occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.
O, O, O, O. (dies) "
Beowulf: " 'I have no son to give my battle-armour to, but I have guarded my
people well for fifty years. No other tribes have dared to attack. I have not gone
97/326
1/22/2015
people well for fifty years. No other tribes have dared to attack. I have not gone
looking for feuds to fight in or made false promises I did not keep. There has been
no killing of kinsmen by me. I can be glad about this even though I am dying.
Now, Wiglaf, let me look on the gold I have bought with my life. I will leave life
more calmly if I can see the clear jewels and the long-lasting gold-work I will leave
to my people.'
So Wiglaf darted down the dark passage into the heart of the barrow and brought
out dishes and helmets and other treasure, as much as he could carry, to show
his lord.
Beowulf spoke. The old man was full of pain:
'I thank God that I can give my people these gifts of gold. But you must see to the
people's needs now, Wiglaf. I cannot be here any more.
After they burn my body, tell my warriors to build a great burial mound on the
cliffs that stick out into the sea. The sailors steering their ships on the gloomy
waters will see it and call it Beowulf's Barrow, and my people will remember me.
You are the last of our family, Wiglaf. All the others fell when Fate decided they
must. Now I must follow them.'
So, because they both asked others to tell their story, an extremely common motif
which is the only thing they have in common, you think de Vere must have written
Shakespeare's plays?
This is not evidence. This is really reaching.
Reply · Unlike ·
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham Yes, Jennifer. And where are these "books"? Over 300 books
survive from Ben Jonson's library. How many from "Shakespeare?"
0. As in none.
Just like there are no letters. Just like there isn't even a shred of a literary
manuscript in the Straford man's hand. Just like his daughters were effectively
illiterate - one of them could not even sign her own name. Are we getting the
picture here?
The internet did not exist then, and books at University libraries did not circulate
and were sometimes even chained to their desks.
No relevant experience. No books. No letters. A life that doesn't match the works
in any conceivable way. Are we getting the picture yet?
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter He had exposure to no books? You are really claiming that? No
books at all. He never bought a book or borrowed one from a friend. (Again, my
mother had books stacked double against her walls, yet no mention of them
appears in her will either. They went under "chattel and other goods.") Richard II
was extremely well read, yet we can attest no specific books to his ownership
either, and he was a King! Actually, before Richard III, we can assign NO books to
the ownership of any King. So we're supposed to know the contents of the library
of every "gentleman?" And women's educational standards were very different
than men's in that era and you know it. Dickens' letters to his mistress were
burned, does that mean she did not exist? And then there is the evidence, the
official records, plays published under his name, contemporary accounts and
assertions he was the author that I have cited which you cannot refute, nor have
any of equal validity to support de Veres as the author. You have nothing but, at
best, circumstantial evidence (and some of it rediculously stretched) stacked
98/326
1/22/2015
best, circumstantial evidence (and some of it rediculously stretched) stacked
against official records.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter So why couldn't Will of Stratford borrow Ben Jonson's books?
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino Have you read Ogburn (TMWS)? It's long, but you only need to
read the first half. Besides the fascinating subject matter, he's a fine writer. Wrote
David McCollough: "The scholarship is surpassing - and in the hands of so gifted
a writer it fairly lights up the sky." And: "The strange, difficult, contradictory man
who emerges as the real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, is
not just plausible but fascinating and wholly believable. It is hard to imagine
anyone who reads the book with an open mind ever seeing Shakespeare or his
works in the same way again." Operative phrase being "open mind." I was a
Stratfordian until I read this.
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham You are right; of course it's not evidence. But it's more than
interesting. Happy New Year!
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 8:09pm
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham Also, do check out the link: hankwhittemore.wordpress.c
om/tag/beowulf/ As well as https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/category/
hanks-100-reasons-why-oxford-was-shakespeare-the-list-to-date/. Some of
Hank's reasons strike me as "reaching," as you put it, but many are convincing,
IMHO. At the very least, it will help you understand your adversaries' POV.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 31, 2014 at 8:16pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Karl Wiberg I have been reading your POV for 36 hours. You all have nothing but
conjecture, assumptions (some of them outrageous), twisted words ("but what he
really meant was..."), and tenuous connections. Some of Oxfordians here have
been speaking outright falsehoods. Staffordians have offical records, published
works and contemporary statements. Wishful thinking does not trump those. The
lack of open mind is in those who cannot believe that a man from the middle
class could be a genius. (And I've already proven the "Beowulf/Hamlet"
connection to be rediculous. The only connection is that they are both Danes,
they both died, and they both asked others to tell their tale, an extremely common
trope. Moby Dick has more in common with Beowulf than Hamlet does as they
both fought monsters which killed them while Hamlet was agonizing over duty,
family and the meaning of life. In fact, scholars have traced Hamlet's origins to an
earlier play Ur-Hamlet that was being performed ten years before Shakepeare
wrote Hamlet. This was hardly the first time he'd cribbed from another play, which
is a far more substantive discussion: How "original" was Shakepeare?) And
Happy New Year to you too.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Karl Wiberg You are right...he wasn't a grain dealing merchant from Stratford. He
was an actor in the LCM and KM, and was a shareholder in the theaters where his
plays were performed. That is what the hard evidence in the historical record
establishes. Why you believe what you do is another question entirely as there
isn't a scintilla of direct or circumstantial evidence in support of your belief in
your Lord.
Reply · Like ·
99/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Heward Wilkinson · Independent Psychotherapist at Freelance Psychotherapist,
Consultant, and Writer
Come Come Jennifer this is poor stuff. No one but a fool would claim that Keats,
or DH Lawrence, Samuel Johnson, JJ Rousseau, and many others from the sticks
can develop and did develop into geniuses. The problem with Shakespeare is
simply the total lack of coherence between the life of the Stratford man and the
works, and, if I may say so, the actual congruence in enormous detail between the
life of Oxford and the works. The plays and poems are written through and
through from an 'aristocratic attitude' as Charles Chaplin put it. And GB Shaw.
And DH Lawrence. And, for good measure, the out and out democrat Walt
Whitman:
http://www.bartleby.com/229/5005.html
'WE all know how much mythus there is in the Shakspere question as it stands
to-day. Beneath a few foundations of proved facts are certainly engulf’d far more
dim and elusive ones, of deepest importance—tantalizing and half suspected—
suggesting explanations that one dare not put in plain statement. But coming at
once to the point, the English historical plays are to me not only the most
eminent as dramatic performances (my maturest judgment confirming the
impressions of my early years, that the distinctiveness and glory of the Poet
reside not in his vaunted dramas of the passions, but those founded on the
contests of English dynasties, and the French wars,) but form, as we get it all, the
chief in a complexity of puzzles. Conceiv’d out of the fullest heat and pulse of
European feudalism—personifying in unparallel’d ways the mediæval aristocracy,
its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic caste, with its own peculiar air and
arrogance (no mere imitation)—only one of the “wolfish earls” so plenteous in the
plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the
true author of those amazing works—works in some respects greater than
anything else in recorded literature.'
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Heward Wilkinson Except one honking big problem: There is no proof at all that
Oxford wrote those works. The entire thing is based on what amounts to a
conspriacy theory that everyone in the London Thetare world and the court
supposedly "knew" Oxford was the author of the works, yet kept it such a secret
that no hard contemporary evidence or statement by anyone confirms this.
Meanwhile:
in 1598, Francis Meres named Shakespeare as a playwright and poet in his
Palladis Tamia, referring to him as one of the authors by whom the "English
0a/MND_title_page.jpg/220px-MND_title_page.jpg, Venus and Adonis was
published under his name, and Ben Johnson attested to his authorship in the
First Folio, and there are official records as well, such as: "Entred for their copie
under thandes of Sr George Buck knight & Thwardens A booke called. Mr William
Shakespeare his historye of Kynge Lear as yt was played before the kinges
maiestie at Whitehall vppon St Stephans night at Christmas Last by his maiesties
servantes playinge vsually at the globe on the Banksyde vj d" ~ entered by
Nathaniel Butter and John Busby, 26 November 1607. And it goes on, there is a
TON of historical evidence, from statements by actors he worked with to other
playwrights, that he wrote the plays.
And to borrow from others...
100/326
1/22/2015
And to borrow from others...
On June 12, 1593, Richard Stonley purchased a copy of newly-published Venus
and Adonis, with a dedication signed "William Shakespeare," yet in his notebook
he wrote "Venus and Adhonay pr Shakspere."
On June 19, 1609, Edward Alleyn noted his purchase of the recently-published
Shake-speares Sonnets (as it is called on the title page) by writing down
"Shaksper sonetts, 5 d.."
Sometime in 1609 or 1610, Sir John Harington made a list of play quartos he
owned, including "K. Leir of Shakspear" (the 1608 Quarto spells the name "Shakspeare").
In 1611, William Drummond of Hawthornden noted among an inventory of his
books "Venus and Adon. by Schaksp." (the name was spelled "Shakespeare" in all
editions).
Surely these entries indicate that "Shakspere," "Shaksper," "Shakspear," and
"Schakspe(a)re," when they happened to appear, were just seen as variants of
"Shakespeare," and that nobody gave them a second thought.
The snobbery comes in because the main thrust of the Oxfordian argument is
that Shakespeare could not possibly be educated enough to write these plays
(despite there being a school half a mile from his boyhood home that taught not
only reading and writing, but Latin, rhetoric and the Classics). They have even
repeatedly claimed that he had no books and had no access to books (despite his
friend like Ben Johnson and patrons Southhampton, Pembroke and of course the
Lord Chamberlain) . Someone here even claimed that "as a commoner" he would
have never seen a noble's coat of arms. (Or course, that same someone also
claimed that no one claimed to have met him, so take that one for what it is
worth.)
As for the smilarity between Oxford's life and the works, I find it only as incidental
as the smilarity between my life and those plays. Yes, you can point to a few
individual events, like being pirates and shipwrecked, but that happened to a lot
of people. That also shows up in a lot of stories. That is really not spefiic enough
to provide anything but the most circumstantial evidence which withers in the
face of the historical record.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Philip Buchan And, if we want to play the speculation game, Southampton was
also a ward in the Burghley hosehold, and he would certainly have had a gripe
against the old man for trying to foist Oxenforde's daughter off on him, a
scenario described quite accurately in *Return From Parnassus 1* -even with a
reference to Edward de Vere himself. Of course, the play also depicts Nashe
battling it out with Shakespeare to win the patronage of Southampton, which
would, to most rational people, tend to indicate the Oxenforde was not
Shakespeare. Then, of course, there are the dedications to *V&A* and *Lucrece*,
which also show a relationship between Shakespeare and Southampton. So, if
anyone did have knowledge of Burghley and a motive for parodying him, it could
certainly have been a playwright whose patron was Southampton. Isn't
speculation enjoyable?
Reply · Unlike ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham The main source for Hamlet is thought to be Saxo
Grammaticus and his Life of Amleth. The Ur-Hamlet is speculation by scholars,
who knows, maybe even a correct one. The possible Beowulf connection is
merely interesting, but not that germane to the larger topic at hand.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham Since you brought up Venus and Adonis, may I ask... Are you
aware that the author of the poem describes a painting? Just wondering if you'd
reply yes or no, before I go on... Thanks.
Reply · Like ·
101/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Philip Buchan ·
Ann Zakelj So Shakespeare created a character named Corambis. Would it take
more than a knowledge of latin to come up with a name like that for a villain? The
only relation to Cecil's motto is that it includes the word "cor," or heart, as a part
of the name, right?
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
It's not a matter of tearing down heroes. Read the induction of Taming of the
Shrew, and tell me where you think he saw those three Italian paintings which
had never been seen outside Italy. (Hint: the answer is Italy).
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Philip Buchan Corambi[guu]s = ambiguous [having two] hearts
Even the venerable Stratfordian AL Rowse accepts the character
Corambis/Polonius as representing Burghley, so it’s not unreasonable to assume
that the character’s name was changed at a later time because it was too obvious
a slam against the most powerful man in England.
Cue: Tom Regnier
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Michelle Mauler, you write: ction of Taming of the Shrew, and tell me where you
think he saw those three Italian paintings which had never been seen outside
Italy."
A typical "Oxfordian" argument! ;) You people just don't understand genius and
imagination, the way Sandra Lynne Sparks and James Shapiro do! He didn't have
to see any paintings - he made them up! That's what we Stratfordians believe. ;)
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Easily explained: While at the Mermaid, Shax probably met
some Croatian sailor who had been to Venice and seen the paintings, and he told
him every detail, including the bonnet. There you have it.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter Chabot, Beowulf and now this??
Are you trying to end the debate? Have you had enough, or something?
Jennifer Burnham
""He was middle class, ergo he could not have possibly have written those plays.
It *must* have been someone of a higher class."
That is an extremely uninformed statement. Writers write what they know.
Whoever wrote Shakespeare had to have the knowledge from so many books that
are contained in the works. That knowledge was unavailable to the lower class
(which Shaksper was) in that time.
102/326
1/22/2015
(which Shaksper was) in that time.
Will Shaksper was mocked on stage as an illiterate pretender in his lifetime. You,
and all tourist industry supporters, refuse to recognize that fact, as ti immediately
ELIMINATES Shaksper as possible author.
read more at TheFestivalRobe.com
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Christopher Carolan
Writers are creatures of imagination. This is why Oxfordians like yourself cannot
be brought to understand their creative environment.
Some time ago, you and others were asked on ShakesVere about the nature of
Oxford's creative process. Your best answer was that he used a portable writing
table.
Will's work is not pedestrian, literal, mundane transcription of everyday events.
You and the rest of your crew of philistines have to reduce it to those dimensions
to maintain any hope of fitting it to Oxford.
If you opened your eyes to the work itself, you could stop repeating publisher's
platitudes in your attempts to describe it and start using your own understanding
to develop a valid response instead.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Tobin ·
I have heard this regiment many times and it is basically an ad hominem
argument--reverse snobbery perhaps. The important objective question is: what
could he have known and how could he have known it?
Jim Tobin ·
Jennifer Burnham: " I think this is that whole "tearing down of heroes" cultural
movement that has been popular for the last 20 years or so. Our society simply
doesn't believe in greatness anymore."
No one is questioning the greatness of the plays --or of their author. The dispute
simply concerns who that person was. Writers write about what they know and
feel. What is known about DeVere's biography corresponds more to what the
author knew and experienced.
.
Reply · Like ·
Greg Koch
Very strange that Stratford guy never receiving a dedication in any book when he was
supposedly a great poet. Maybe other authors who got their work printed just forgot WS was
the greatest of the time. Or maybe the Stratford guy was never historically important until
famous actor Garrick threw a pizza party in Stratford and the town misunderstood that the
party was to honor Garrick's Shakespeare stardom in London!
Reply · Like ·
13 · Follow Post · December 31, 2014 at 3:49am
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Greg Koch. Why would Shakespeare be the subject of a dedication? Did he
patronize other authors? Or did other authors seek his patronage? Where are
your facts?
Reply · Like ·
103/326
1/22/2015
Alasdair Brown ·
You are wrong, Greg. In 1612 John Webster dedicated The White Devil to
Shakespeare, Dekker and Heywood. "And lastly (without wrong last to be named),
the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake-Speare, M. Decker, & M.
Heywood, wishing what I write might be read in their light".
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown And there's that pesky hyphen again. Shake-Speare. Now
whatcha gonna do?
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 2:23pm
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Greg Doug Earl Koch - you outed yourself.
Alasdair Brown ·
Knit Twain. Knit, wait for someone with dandruff to come along and offer me
irrefutable proof that Shake-Speare always stands for the Earl of Oxford. Then ad
hominem myself in front of the mirror for three hours and eat not just my hat but
the complete works of Jonathan Bate.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 5:09pm
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown Hey, it's New Year's Eve. Anything's possible. I'm still waiting for
that unicorn poop :P
http://20px.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/unicorn_pooping_a_rainbow_2
0px.jpg
Reply · Like ·
Greg Koch
White Devil does not have a dedication to a great poet or a great patron.
I think you may be confused by Webster's "opinion" of other dramatists. "Reader:
... I have ever truly cherished my good opinion of other men's worthy labours,
especially of that full and heightened style of Mr. Chapman, ..."
Since he includes mediocre playwrights in the same list, we can only assume his
opinion lacks authority, right?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Greg Koch You're correct. Thanks for bringing this to our attention:
To the Reader
...
Detraction is the sworn friend to ignorance: for mine own part, I have ever truly
cherished my good opinion of other men's worthy labours, especially of that full
and heightened style of Mr. Chapman, the laboured and understanding works of
Mr. Johnson, the no less worthy composures of the both worthily excellent Mr.
Beaumont and Mr. Fletcher; and lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right
happy and copious industry of Mr. Shakespeare, Mr. Dekker, and Mr. Heywood,
wishing what I write may be read by their light: protesting that, in the strength of
mine own judgment, I know them so worthy, that though I rest silent in my own
work, yet to most of theirs I dare (without flattery) fix that of Martial:
—non norunt hæc monumenta mori.
104/326
1/22/2015
—non norunt hæc monumenta mori.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Wot happened to the hyphen?? Shakespeare. I be sad :'( The hyphen does not
play nice.
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Greg Koch I think you may be one of those people who are so dazzled by the
cultural capital associated with the name of Shakespeare that you cannot
conceive of the possibility that other playwrights may occasionally achieve the
same heights. John Webster is one such. His Duchess of Malfi is performed far
more frequently than a number of Shakespeare's plays and I simply don't
understand how anyone who has seen this or read it could possibly say that
Webster's opinions of other playwrights lack 'authority' . You are profoundly
wrong about this. Also, please tell me why you think Dekker and Heywood are
'mediocre' playwrights. Have you read or seen any of their plays? I saw The Witch
of Edmonton recently , partly written by Dekker and thought it was much more
interesting about the subject of witchcraft than Macbeth.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown Who quotes The Duchess of Malfi?
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj Is T S Eliot prestigious enough for you Ann?
Here are the first two stanzas of his Whispers of Immortality:
Webster was much possessed by death
And saw the skull beneath the skin;
And breastless creatures underground
Leaned backward with a lipless grin.
Daffodill bulbs instead of balls
Stared from the sockets of the eyes!
He knew that thought clings round dead limbs
Tightening its lusts and luxuries.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown 99.9% of the English-speaking world wouldn't recognize this.
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj So what? That poem is still infinitely more recognizable than the
irrelevant stuff Oxfordians, in their desperation, constantly attempt to dredge up
from the cul-de-sacs of history. And call me old fashioned but I would have
thought anyone with a passing interest in the great plays of the Jacobean era
would have come across Eliot’s poem at some point.
OK I’ll try again. One of the most memorable moments in The Duchess of Malfi is
when Ferdinand looks at the body of his sister whose murder he has
commissioned and says: ‘Cover her face; mine eyes dazzle. She died young.’
PD James was inspired by this line to write a best-selling crime novel with the
title ‘Cover Her Face’. I’ll leave you to pluck some figure out of the air as to how
many people know this.
105/326
1/22/2015
many people know this.
You’ll find much more on this line and on Webster’s reputation if Google really is
your friend.
I've suspected that many Oxfordians lacked knowledge of Webster - about whose
life , incidentally, we know far, far less than we know of Shakespeare’s.
You and Greg have persuaded me that ì may be right.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown I Googled. Other than "cover her face" I saw nothing that 99.9%
of English speakers would be familiar with. Okay. Let's make that 99.8%, due to
the popularity of PD James' novels... and PBS.
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj You asked me who quoted The Duchess of Malfi and I gave you two
rather good examples. For some unspecified reason, you now seem to want to
know EXACTLY how many people in the English speaking world would recognise
these examples. If Ì'm ever unfortunate enough to involve myself in a debate with
you again Ann, would you kindly state all the information you require in advance.
Thank you. In the meantime, all you have done is to confirm my suspicions that
Oxfordians engage in the peculiar practice of assessing the quality of a work of
literature entirely on the basis of the fame which has attached itself to its author.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown “I think you [Greg Koch] may be one of those people who are so
dazzled by the cultural capital associated with the name of Shakespeare that you
cannot conceive of the possibility that other playwrights may occasionally
achieve the same heights.”
“…all you [AZ] have done is to confirm my suspicions that Oxfordians engage in
the peculiar practice of assessing the quality of a work of literature entirely on the
basis of the fame and kudos which has attached itself to its author.”
So Shakespeare’s preeminence in English literature is not due to his genius, but
to an extraordinary public relations campaign. Got it.
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj "Other than "cover her face" I saw nothing that 99.9% of English
speakers would be familiar with. Okay. Let's make that 99.8%, due to the
popularity of PD James' novels... and PBS."
Dissing Webster? Just like claiming no Shakespeare plays were written after
1604, this is a bit like tattooing "I understand nothing of Jacobean drama' on
your forehead.
My gast is flabbered.
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj No, his pre-eminence is well deserved. You are forcing me to be very
blunt. You care about Shakespeare ONLY because he is so pre-eminent and
ONLY because he has been hailed as a genius. It's not his work that turns you on
-it's his reputation.
106/326
1/22/2015
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Alasdair Brown "If Ì'm ever unfortunate enough to involve myself in a debate with
you again Ann..."
Never let it be said that I was the cause of your misfortune. Ta-ta, Alasdair!
Alasdair Brown ·
Ann Zakelj Cheerio Ann! Get that tattoo removed!
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj How would whether or not Webster is quoted now have anything at all
to do with Webster's reputation at the time that his plays were written and
performed?
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino":
(Who) "Works at A multitude of Educational Institutions"
Right.
Tracking your true credentials that you are extolling, (AND your identification), is much akin
to the subject at hand : That of tracking down the true identity of the elusive Bard.
Under what capacity, exactly, do you "work" at these "Institutions"...And do any of
your...uh..."Educational Institutions" occupy a BUILDING...A PHYSICAL EDIFICE (other than
a hospital)...??
Name six.
Quote :
"The overwhelming historical and contemporaneous proof that Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare..."
There is no "overwhelming" proof...Neither contemporaneous, nor historical.
If there was, the argument would be moot.
Listen :
I am not overjoyed that scholars from either camp obviously cannot nail down indisputable
facts...Why ? Because we have so little of anything contemporaneous on either the man from
Stratford, or the man from London. You argue they are one and the same. It could well be.
The point is, you cannot prove such is the case, no matter how much you choose to believe.
I've read the two most comprehensive recent books on the subject, "Shakespeare Beyond
Doubt" (Edmondson and Wells), and "Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?" (Shahan and Waugh). It
is very clear to me that you have read neither.
The Edmondson/Wells book (the "Stratfordians") is extremely defensive. The Sharan/Waugh
book simply illuminates the extent of doubt, with no conclusions that pretend to reveal true
authorship.
I repeat. They draw no conclusions. They don't claim to know. Edmondson/Wells claim to
know; that means the burden of proof is on them and they do not have the proof. That makes
them very nervous and defensive, as you could have easily discerned, had you read their
book.
There's more then enough doubt to declare a "reasonable doubt", which is the benchmark
107/326
1/22/2015
There's more then enough doubt to declare a "reasonable doubt", which is the benchmark
and sole intent of Sharan/Waugh, and the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition.
READ both books first, then come back and reason.
I am, no doubt, no less an admirer of Shakespeare than you. One of my proudly possessed
19th century etchings is a large, signed etching of Stratford-Upon-Avon.
It would be a tragedy of Shakespearean proportion would that both we, and the true author,
have been deprived, down through the centuries, of the true author of the plays. Certainly the
greatest literary hoax.
But you know what ? Shakespeare, whoever he was, would not have been surprised.
All you've presented to this point is propaganda.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool".
"As You Like It"
- (Act V, Scene I)
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mr. Ballard, thank you for injecting some sense and sensibility here.
Your commitment to fairness, your transparent account of your judicious study,
and your insistence on a conversation informed by actual consideration of the
relevant literature, are very welcome. You are correct, in my estimation, that many
posters, including Joseph Ciolino, are woefully uninformed on the actual state of
the debate as manifested in the works you mention, among others.
I hope that you continue your studies, for you may find, as so many others have,
that although the dearth of self-evidence "facts" is great, the inquiry is
nevertheless deeply rewarding for those who really care about the works.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Roger Stritmatter"
...I feel the frustration of our mutual friend Joseph Ciolino; how could anyone
fault another who really cares about the works.
The shrinks (the "cognitive scientists") have a name for what Mr Ciolino is
indulging us with: confirmation bias. Elizabethan scholars have been so
indulging the Shakespeare/Shakspeare attribution for centuries. This is nothing
new in the lexicon of literary/historical study.
It happens in the (antique) art trade every day : One manifestation of confirmation
bias is, in fact, the aforementioned term : attribution.
I debated with one "Stratfordian" at Huff who clearly did not understand (or
neglected) the meaning of the term as it applies not only to art, but all historical
and literary circles. She simply did not understand the term, yet, ironically (?),
agreed that the Stratfordian position was basically one of "attribution".
Since I was a kid, I had harbored similar doubts, and I felt I was in good company
with previous writers who certainly carried more weight than yours truly. And I
sensed something was very wrong indeed when I first saw the now (infamous ! )
'89 Frontline documentary "The Shakespeare Mystery" and what struck me was
the very defensive body language of the Elizabethan scholar, A.L. Rowse. It was a
wonder to behold. I actually felt sorry for him; he obviously harbored doubts that
he wasn't about to expose.
Whoever "the Bard" truly was, there have been no rivals, and I don't think there
108/326
1/22/2015
Whoever "the Bard" truly was, there have been no rivals, and I don't think there
will ever be.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard. Wow. You know how to use Facebook! How proud mommy must be
now. Yes, I have worked, (taught, lectured, etc) at numerous (too many to list)
institutions of higher learning (universities) in and around the NYC area. I have
three higher degrees, although I have never studied, "Licensed Professional
Counseling," although they are giving those away with a full tank of gas at the
Hess station down the block.
I have been invited to lecture (twice) in my field at the Smithsonian Institute, so
STFU, little Jimmy. Go away, now.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard I'm sure you feel the frustration I experience. If you were to try to make
sense of the myriad proclamations of Anti-Stratfordians, particularly those who
have studied Licensing Counseling Professionalism, you would experience the
frustration, too. Although, I must admit, most of this debate has been quite fun,
and I particularly LOVE hearing you anti-strats squirm when asked for evidence,
or presented with FACTS.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard I have spent 55 years studying performing, and lecturing (among
other things) the music of Chopin. If someone came to me and said that Chopin's
works were not his own, I would, as did Mr. Rowse, assume a defensive position.
Aside from the actual truth or falsity of the claim, surely even YOU can
understand (Professional Counselor) why someone in that position would be
defensive. For you to "interpret" that as his have doubts, well, "counselor," I think
we need to investigate your degree and perhaps Mission College. I doubt, based
on your ego-maniacal claim to see into the soul of another, that I would allow you
to counsel my dog to scratch his ear.
State University
Follow ·
Jim Ballard You do know, of course, that when Rowse called Oxford a "roaring
homo," he was talking about himself, right? Rowse was one of the most famously
closeted gay men in the English intelligentsia. Everyone knew it, but it was still a
truth that "dare not speak its name." The psychology of the orthodox view of the
bard is remarkable. When Rowse giggled that Shakespeare was "abnormally
heterosexual," anyone could see the compensatory dynamic at play. It is quite
tragic, really.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino
FACT - Shaksper was mocked as an illiterate, braggart, pretender in his own
lifetime from the stage.
deal with it.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
109/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Christopher Carolan Prove your claims. That his name was Shaksper refuted by
the coat of arms application that is generally accepted by Oxfordians as
belonging to the Stratford Man and it spells the name SHAKESPERE
(pronounced with long vowels). That he was illiterate - He signed his name, his
brother and daughter signed their names. So at some point someone taught them
to form letters, be able to look at the letters and know what they meant (reading).
A letter survives addressed to William Shakespeare asking for money. So he was
not illiterate. Being a braggart and pretender, some evidence please and not the
episode in As You Like It with Touchstone and William. External references to
where he's a pretender. Pretender of what? Ben Jonson has him in a cast list of
Sejanus, so at least one reference to him being an actor. You can't just say FACT
without anything to back it up. Deal with it.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino Joe, you write: "Jim Ballard I have spent 55 years studying
performing, and lecturing (among other things) the music of Chopin."
Well, hallelujah! I have spent over twenty-three years studying the Shakespearean
authorship question as a topic in intellectual history, and wrote a PhD
dissertation at a top tier university on it. I don't know anything about Chopin. I'm
sure you are an expert on that topic. But its pretty obvious you know almost
nothing about the Shakespearean question.
So maybe a little humility would be more appropriate, huh?
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Roger, you have NOTHING. You've shown NOTHING
throughout this thread. You cannot present a coherent case for even having
doubt about the person and authorship of Shakespeare.
As for humility -- go jump in a lake. 23 years? I've had gas that lasted longer than
that. 23 years, I've read, spoke to, and corresponded with more Shakespeare and
Elizabethan scholars than you can name. But I do not judge you by your years of
study but by the fruit of your study. You have managed to convince yourself of
something for which you have no proof whatsoever. What does that tell you
about your 23 years of study?
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino It tells me that, given the choice, I would rather sit in a classroom
with Roger(e) than with anyone who's had gas for 23 years. Ever hear of
dimethicone?
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mr. Ciccarelli, Re: "the cast list of Sejanus." Stratfordians neglect to mention that
this "list" is a recollection in Ben Jonson's Works, published in 1616, 13 years
AFTER the performance of Sejanus and after the Stratford man's death. Back to
the actual Sejanus performance in 1603: Ben Jonson was "called before the
Councell for his Sejanus & accused both of popperie and treason" by Lord Henry
Howard. These are ominous charges, punishable by death. Who better than
"Shakespeare" to be called by the authorities to explain away the issues if,
indeed, he had been there in the flesh? But once again, the author of Henry IV,
Henry V, Richard II and Richard III (among other plays of court politics and court
life) is not to be found. How odd if the great playwright "Shakespeare" had really
been on the scene -- or shall we say in the scenes.
Reply · Like ·
110/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino Well, whoever wrote the works of Shakespeare, he sure had a
great sense of humor. He especially loved mocking people who were full of
themselves. Good fun, dontcha think?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino Shouting does not make your case stronger.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino"
...My 88 y.o. mother died in November Mr Wow, so she's not around to applaud
my accomplishments, and I hardly ever use Facebook. It's only a convenient link
to Disqus.
Quote :
" ...'Licensed Professional Counseling' although they are giving those away with
a full tank of gas at the Hess station down the block."
Yes. That is most definitely true. However, the "Licensed Professional
Counseling" gambit is a mistranslation to the info I actually gave them.
In point of fact, I was a California Licensed Psychiatric Technician for over ten
years.
You be sure and let me know when you're able to acquire the same license from a
corner Hess station. No doubt you'll start a Revolution.
And yes. You have most definitely "never studied". Speaks volumes for your
"three degrees of higher education".
So when you get back on your meds, try reading a little more and get over
yourself.
He wasn't a mole.
Had a lot of soul.
But when he cut loose,
He behaved like a Troll.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Roger Stritmatter"
Quote :
"The psychology of the orthodox view of the bard is remarkable. When Rowse
giggled that Shakespeare was "abnormally heterosexual," anyone could see the
compensatory dynamic at play."
...Among other tell-tale signs, there was a point when he leaned forward, nose
cocked high...body rigid...that was a textbook, dead-center giveaway for
defensive posturing...Doesn't get more classic...Amazing. What you'd like to bet
that when he reviewed his behavior, he regretted it !
Reply · Like ·
Follow ·
111/326
1/22/2015
State University
Follow ·
Jim Ballard I doubt he regretted it. He was way too pretentious to ever re-examine
his own failures.
Jim Ballard ·
...Roger Stritmatter...When all else fails, take a page from Mr Ciolino :
Grandiosity can fool a lot of folks.
Present company excluded, of course.
Jim Ballard ·
Joseph Ciolino
I love Chopin...But Beethoven and Rachmaninoff top my list...But of course I
wouldn't dare suggest my being your equal by it. Hear ! Hear !
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino"
Quote :
"Jim Ballard I have spent 55 years studying performing, and lecturing (among
other things) the music of Chopin. If someone came to me and said that Chopin's
works were not his own, I would, as did Mr. Rowse, assume a defensive position"
I admire your accomplishment. This does not preclude you from reading up on
Shakespeare in a manner befitting your previous accomplishments. Your own
defensive posturing sadly reveals you have done little research on the subject;
and in fact, for reasons known only to yourself, you project an overplayed
emotional vestment that tips the hand, and gives away a compulsive quest to
dominate at all costs, including the higher road to reason.
You once admonished someone here with a paraphrase of Shakespeare's
admonition, through the character of Bottom :
"O what fools these mortals be"
Try turning that on yourself. See how it plays in the mirror.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
Roger...Perhaps...But pretentions can fail you in short order when you're alone;
the one exception being that if one is delusional...But that, in turn, begs the
question :
Is academic pretense simply delusional ? These days, for what passes as
academia, I would not be surprised. Did you hear about the fake classes set up at
UNC for the benefit of sustaining a high quality football rooster ??!!
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting You wrote: "Re: "the cast list of Sejanus." Stratfordians neglect
to mention that this "list" is a recollection in Ben Jonson's Works, published in
1616, 13 years AFTER the performance of Sejanus and after the Stratford man's
death."
112/326
1/22/2015
Are you suggesting Jonson couldn't remember an actor in his own play from 13
years earlier?
So does that mean Jonson couldn't remember the author of The Tempest which
was published for the first time 12 years after its first recorded performance?
Awesome.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Bonner Cutting So what it was 13 years after the fact? Is Ben Jonson's memory
faulty now? Are we treating everything said by Jonson with suspicion for a faulty
memory? Couple of other questions:
What reference do you have that Ben Jonson had a bad memory so his remarks
are now suspect?
Which of his remarks can't be trusted and which can and how do you know?
Apparently, these "ominous charges" went nowhere as Ben Jonson went on to
have quite a long career after this. You state Ben Jonson was called before the
"Council" what council? The Privy Council? The Star Chamber? What body?
And can you cite this reference? Jonson certainly had a habit of getting arrested
but I've never heard of this supposed "Sejanus" scandal. Unlike Will who was
never arrested. You go on to say "Who better than "Shakespeare" to be called by
the authorities to explain away the issues if, indeed, he had been there in the
flesh?" You mentioned Ben Jonson was called before Lord Howard, you didn’t
say any of the players were called so why would Shakespeare have been present
as a defendant? If his testimony was needed it would have been solicited and
recorded, obviously it wasn’t needed. Why would an erudite and educated man
like Ben Jonson need someone else to defend his own play?
So you’re now denying that the Stratford man was an actor even though Ben
Jonson say he was. Jonson, an oft quoted source by Oxforidans is in now error,
apparently due to a bad memory? So how is Will a front for Oxford then if he’s
not an actor? You realize that your entire "theory" collapses if Will Shakespeare is
not connected to Oxford.
So first he’s an actor and a frontman, now he’s not but apparently still a front
man. Ben Jonson, a champion of the Oxfordians so much so that he’s the De
Vere’s go between in the movie “Anonymous” is now no longer reliable because
of recently discovered bad memory.
Can y’all make up your minds as to what your story is and who is playing what
part? This “theory” has more moving parts than a Rube-Goldberg machine.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli Mr. Ciccarelli. In case you've yet to notice, the Oxfordians are their
own worst enemies. i.e. They like to tank each other's research. Further i.e.
There's no consensus on what the Oxfordians think.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Knit Twain That's true. You'd think Roger would rally the troupes and try to create
a coherent narrative and presentation with fleshed out motivation, direction and
characters so their story was clear and compelling. Oh wait a minute that's what
theater directors and actors do which the Earl of Oxford never trained in. I can't
expect them to act like theater professionals when their candidate never did. He
murdered a man and was exonerated due to his family connections, was a
spendthrift who went through his family fortunes, left his first wife when he lost
interest and then belly ached to the queen when it suited him, Basically just
fluttering from one pointless episode to the next. So their behavior sounds about
right.
113/326
1/22/2015
right.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Christopher Carolan FACT: you're delusional. Deal with it.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard "Try looking in the mirror." Oh, my, what a lambaste! Oh, HOW shall I
recover?? Jim, your verbosity and personal attacks belie a lack of learning and
manners. Clearly you have nothing to say, and lack the breeding to argue
appropriately.
But I shall ignore that and simply ask, once again, for some damned evidence that
Shakespeare did not write the plays he is credited with. We've been at this for
days now and NOTHING.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard You SHOULD consider yourself my equal, or anyone else's, when
listening to music. You don't have to be "learned" to appreciate great music, you
just have to listen and be open. Being "learned," in music does not necessarily, by
itself, give me any more insight or appreciation than anyone else who has ears.
I may be able to articulate certain details or technical points, but when it comes to
true appreciation, that is accessible to anyone. Even anti-Stratfordians.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli I can't expect them to act like theater professionals when their
candidate never did.
Did you miss the list of distinguished theatre professionals who are Oxfordians
and/or anti-Stratfordians?
There were same names left off, so I'll add a few of interest:
Dr. Don Rubin (leading Canadian theatre historian)
Dr. Felicia Londre (University of Missouri Kansas City, full professor)
Kristin Linklater (Author, *Freeing Shakespeare's Voice* - her books have been
translated into multiple languages, including Russian. She is generally regarded
as the world's leading Shakespearean voice coach)
Stephen Moorer (Founder and Producer/Director, Pacific Repertory Theatre
(http://www.pacrep.org/)/ Carmel Shakespeare Company)
Ron Song Destro (Founder, http://www.osctheatre.org/OSC/
Oxford_Shakespeare_Company.html)
So, what are your credentials for "acting like a theater professional?"
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter In an appeal to authority contest, your case disappears faster
than a Twinky wrapper down a black hole.
All the heavyweight English Faculty Professors are on one side of this debate. All
of them.
Reply · Like ·
114/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Oxfraud"
Quote :
"Roger Stritmatter In an appeal to authority contest...All the heavyweight English
Faculty Professors are on one side of this debate. All of them."
Yes and I see you must be a long time member of "the-appeal-to-authority"
contest as well...
(FYI, Prof. Stritmatter is a "heavyweight" himself; he does not depend on
"appealing to authority")
What else would you call "heavyweight English Faculty Professors"...??...A
Society of Plumbers ?
You don't consider "English Faculty Professors" as "authority" figures
?...Interesting.
...And on the matter of A.I. Rouse...would you call him "heavyweight" ? If he is
exemplary of "Heavyweight English Faculty Professors", he doesn't appear to
have much confidence by it...
(What's with the Capitol Letters anyway..."English Faculty Professors" ?...You
think that gives them more legitimacy ??...exalts them more ??!!
Ridiculous.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Jim Ballard "...And on the matter of A.I. Rouse"
Tsk. You Oxfordians and surname spelling.
Alasdair Brown ·
Christopher Carolan “FACT - Shaksper was mocked as an illiterate, braggart,
pretender in his own lifetime from the stage”
Presenting that piece of information without accompanying your FACT with any
explanation at all simply means you aren’t afraid of bawling out crude slogans in
public.
I am not at all interested in your claim because you seem to be too arrogant to
even take the trouble to substantiate your FACT.
I am, however, interested in the way you present your FACT which is revealing,
and gives the lie to those anodyne PR statements Oxfordians have been putting
out in this discussion refuting accusations of snobbery.
The word ‘illiterate ’ is not pejorative - it simply denotes someone who can’t read
and write or has only very basic reading skills. There are 785 million adults world
wide who can be described as illiterate.
On one Oxfordian discussion site, it’s not unusual to find a monotonously
frequent use of this word in the company of other words such as rustic, oaf,
bumpkin , butcher’s boy, social climber, grain hoarder, ignoramus etc.- all
employed to add aggressive, emotional weight to a desperate need to believe that
Shakespeare was illiterate. And it’s extremely difficult not to conclude that what is
going on here is more like virulent class hatred than mere snobbery.
Carolan, you’re doing exactly the same thing here. Braggarts and pretenders are
115/326
1/22/2015
Carolan, you’re doing exactly the same thing here. Braggarts and pretenders are
morally reprehensible. Your nasty, weasel-syntax, underpinned by the big word
FACT, places illiterate people firmly in the same category.
Herbie Taylor · Franklin & Marshall College
Bonner Cutting It may just be a technicality but Shakespeare was probably still
very much alive when Jonson was preparing his manuscripts. The printing of his
Works started in 1615 and the plays were one of the first sections printed. Every
Man was delayed due to publication rights issues but Sejanus was not. That said,
whether Jonson's Works were printed shortly before or shortly after
Shakespeare's death, matters little - and there certainly is no reason to doubt
Jonson's memory at this point in his life. As he describes in Timber: " I myself
could, in my youth, have repeated all that ever I made, and so continued till I was
past forty; since, it is much decayed in me. Yet I can repeat whole books that I
have read, and poems of some selected friends which I have liked to charge my
memory with. It was wont to be faithful to me; but shaken with age now, and
sloth, which weakens the strongest abilities, it may perform somewhat, but
cannot promise much. By exercise it is to be made better and serviceable. " As for
Shakespeare being called in to testify on Sejanus - had not Jonson already been
taken to the wood shed on several occasions? Was he not at this point very
familiar to the officials who interrogated him. In the end Jonson apparently "kept
his ears" and there is no record of any punishment.
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Oxfraud"
Quote :
"Tsk. You Oxfordians and surname spelling."
...If "Shakespeare" can misspell his own name multiple times, and still be the
"Shakespeare" of the most profound literary works ever, then I s'pose we all get a
pass on such grievous errors...
"Oxfraud" is spelled "Oxford" by the by...Oh...I forget...You're attempting
profundity.
...And I am not an "Oxfordian", but he certainly looks better than "Skakspere of
Stratford"...
Jim Tobin ·
Joseph Ciolino , your words about Jim Ballard are highly offensive and
unprofessional. You owe an apology. (BTW, I have five earned degrees,
mentioned solely because you flaunt yours.)
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Jim Tobin"
Quote :
"Joseph Ciolino , your words about Jim Ballard are highly offensive and
unprofessional. You owe an apology"
...If only I had a nickel for every insult from a troll...Look to the internal conflict of
a man who feels he must flaunt his education on a nebulous, ephemeral cyber
commentary. The insecurity lies in his own mind, not in mine; I need no such
apology. I can only assume your bid for one is really at the behest of the
"community" of civil discourse, such that it is.
116/326
1/22/2015
John Braaten ·
Top Commenter · University of Vermont
@Knit Twain, "Do you seriously think that the survival rate for 400+ year-old records is
100%?"
If the survival rate wasn't 0%, his authorship might not be contested.
How about the sonnets? They weren't the company's property? How did two of them end up
in a house once belonging to de Vere?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
John Braaten "How about those sonnets?" Indeed.
Orthodox scholar Alastair Fowler per *Triumphal Forms: Structural Patterns in
Elizabethan Poetry* (Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 184) maintains that
the exclusion of Sonnet 136 per its self-referencing “Among a number one is
reckon’d none” suggests that “the structural pattern of the irregular sonnets
constitutes arrangement in a sequence of 153 + 1.”
He further notes (p. 185) that “153” is the sum of the first 17 natural numbers (i.e.
1+2+3+…+17).
The first 17 sonnets urge the fair youth to marry and have children. In 1590,
Henry Wriothesley (3rd Earl of Southampton) was age 17.
Sonnet 2 begins: “When fortie Winters shall beseige thy brow”. In 1590, Edward
de Vere (17th Earl of Oxford) was age 40.
====
Now, how about that *Venus and Adonis*?
Christopher Butler and Alastair Fowler per "Time-Beguiling Sport: Number
Symbolism in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis" from *Venus and Adonis: Critical
Essays (Shakespeare Criticism)*, (1997; reprint of their essay first published in
1964) wonder why the word "twenty" appears so often in V&A. And they note the
length of the poem is 1200 lines = 20 * 60 (i.e. a representation of 20 hours).
THEY come up with: "The clue to this [twenty] is given by the dedication. For
Southampton was exactly twenty years old in the year of the poem's first
appearance, 1593."
They also contend (p. 158) that V&A is structured upon "a numerological pattern,
and in particular a temporal one."
So per their calculations (p. 160) : "The number of lines for a full day and night of
twenty-four natural hours would therefore be 1032. Hence, dividing by twentyfour, we determine the measure for one hour: a modulus which turns out to be
exactly forty-three."
Funny, de Vere was age 43 in 1593.
====
It's too bad the Oxfordians don't realize their case was made for Oxford by
orthodox scholars back in 1970. I doubt there are more than 2 Oxfordians who
have ever studied Butler and Fowler's work.
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Knit Twain Thank you for this post. Actually, Oxfordian scholarship began with
the study of orthodox scholars, who did in fact make much of the case for Oxford
themselves. Stopes, Rowse, Shoenbaum, Shapiro, and Spurgeon are just a few of
the authors who have presented the case for Oxford.
117/326
1/22/2015
the authors who have presented the case for Oxford.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Caroline Spurgeon made a case for Oxford??
Cite.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler Ms. Mauler. re Stopes' work. Did she in fact find evidence among
Southampton's papers that he was acquainted with every author who dedicated
their works to him? And why would a nobleman be required to make any such
notice of commoners he may have known?
Ed Boswell ·
Top Commenter · Owner at BOSWELL DESIGN
Michelle Mauler I would include Sidney Lee in that list
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Ed Boswell
You can include Pope Joan on that list. It won't affect its credibility.
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud
Mike, regarding Spurgeon, the key point is that she was trying to test the
Baconian hypothesis. Her work is illustrative of the fact that some of the best
work in the history of Shakespearean criticism has been done in response to antiStratfordians. Spurgeon's book is quite revealing and important; it both hammers
another nail in the Baconian coffin and, inadvertently, provides much evidence
from Shakespearean image patterns that supports the case for Oxford.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter I find it hard to believe you have read her.
If you think Spurgeon's book was intended as a response to the Baconian case,
then you haven't read it. And if you think it offers any succour to Oxfordians, you
really have taken leave of your senses.
Whilst it is the first study of image clusters, what they reveal thematically and
their discriminant power to differentiate between authors, she is almost entirely
concerned with real authors, not daft pretenders like Oxford whose use of
imagery in his own undisputed work is entirely cluster-free.
In fact most of Oxford's undisputed work is entirely image-free. A few decent
examples dot an otherwise sparse landscape. But then he often had a poet at
hand to help him out. And they DID get cheques for their efforts.
If I apply Bonner Cutting's Rule of Proximity (that anything produced by two
authors in the same building must have been written by the one whose name
does not appear on the title page), then surely this is probative of Lyly or
Munday's authorship of Oxford's work.
Reply · Unlike ·
118/326
1/22/2015
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
Roger Stritmatter
Roger you really enjoy the thought of burying Bacon. Too Bad because he's your
Bard, you make it really hard on yourself by evaluating truth from zealousness. In
seeking Shakespeare Spurgeon has found Bacon, something you ought to look
into without prejudice but you've proven your not capable of such generosity.
http://www.sirbacon.org/spurgeon.htm
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
In deference to Mr. Ciolino's shouting tirade about Mr. Stritmatter "(having) NOTHING", I will
introduce the reader to the most definitive arguments from the negatory "doubter" camp,
courtesy of John Shahan and Alexander Waugh, from their book, "Shakespeare Beyond
Doubt ? - Exposing an industry in Denial" (2013).
Let's test the waters :
"Twenty-one Good Reasons to Doubt that Shakspere was 'Shakespeare' "
1.) People often think Shakspere claimed to have written the works. No such record exists.
Nor did any family member or descendant ever claim that he was the author Shakespeare.
(Not that either of his daughters would have left such a record, since neither could write.) No
contemporary indicated that they thought of him as the author until long after he died. At
least ten people who knew of both Shakspere and the author never connected the two.
2.) During the lifetime of William of Stratford (1564-1616), nobody ever claimed to have met
the poet-dramatist Shakespeare. A few people indicated at the time that they thought the
name was a pseudonym. Orthodox scholars ignore the possibility of a pen name and treat
every occurrence of the name Shakespeare as a reference to Mr. Shakspere, but no reference
to the author specifically identified Shakspere of Stratford during his lifetime.
3.) Contrary to the popular perception that Shakespeare became a prominent public figure,
no record shows that he ever addressed the public directly (after his first two dedications)
and none shows that either Elizabeth I, or James I, ever met him, or mentioned his name. As a
professional actor, we do not know any role he ever played in any play on any date. Nor does
any contemporary record say that anyone ever saw him act in any of his plays.
4.) Not one play, not one poem, not even a letter in Shakspeare's hand has ever been found.
Very few authorial manuscripts of plays or poems from the period survive, but no letters ? Mr.
Shakspere divided his time between London and Stratford - a situation conducive to
correspondence. We have letters for most other major writers of the period, and even for
some lesser ones. How is it that not one survived for the most prolific writer of them all ?
5.) William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon never spelled his name "Shakespeare" in his
life, and his name also was probably not pronounced the same as the author's name. There is
a clear, consistent difference between the spelling of the author's name on the works and the
spellings of Mr. Shakspere's family name in the Stratford church records. Even the orthodox
used to make the distinction, but now pretend the names are the same.
6.) The only writings said to be in Shakspere's hand are six shaky, inconsistent signatures on
legal documents. If these signatures are his, they reveal that he experienced difficulty signing
his name. Some experts doubt they are his and say they were done by law clerks. No two are
spelled the same way, and some say no two letters are formed the same way. His signatures
compare badly with those known writers and most actors of the period.
7.) Nobody knows how Mr. Shakspere acquired the vast knowledge found in the works. The
range would be remarkable for any man, let alone someone who never traveled or went to
university. Not that a commoner, even in the rigid caste system of Elizabethan England,
could not have managed to do it somehow, but how could it have happened without leaving
a single trace ? All we get from traditional biographers is speculation.
8.) Orthodox scholars, unable to account for how the author acquired his knowledge, fall
back on the idea that he was a "genius", and attribute it to his exceptional "imagination". But
even a genius must acquire knowledge and cannot do it simply by imagining things.
119/326
1/22/2015
even a genius must acquire knowledge and cannot do it simply by imagining things.
Academic experts on geniuses see little reason to think that Mr. Shakspere was a genius.
9.) The orthodox claim that we know more about Shakspere than other writers of his time.
The problem is not how much we know, but what we know. Over 70 documents relate to him,
but all are non-literary - church records, business dealings, lawsuits. It is incredible to think
all of these records survived, but relating to his alleged literary career are lost.
10.) The orthodox claim that the plays and poems prove Shakespeare was from Stratford. If
he was born and raised in Stratford until he was well over twenty-one, he would have had a
Warwickshire accent and dialect. Yet these are both totally absent from the works. The works
use neither the language, nor the history, nor the geography of Warwickshire.
11.) Mr. Shakspere was a money-conscious businessman who repeatedly sued over small
amounts of money. Yet he never sued over any pirated edition of his alleged plays, and
nothing shows that the author was ever paid to write, or that he ever published any play.
12.) Mr. Shakspere had a hard time getting approval for his application for a coat of arms.
This makes little sense if he was a celebrated poet, author of "Venus and Adonis" and
"Lucrece", and had a noble patron. Warwickshire poet Michael Drayton, for example, had no
trouble getting a coat of arms.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
13.) Shakespeare, the poet, wrote no commendatory verse to anyone, and no one
wrote any to him until long after Mr. Shakspere died in 1616. The mutual silence
is very odd, especially for a playwright who is said to have actively collaborated
with other writers.
14.) Allegedly a prominent playwright under James I, Shakspere was seldom
present in London. Never in his career did he own a home in London or move his
family there. Early in the reign of James I, records place him in Stratford while the
plays were being performed at court.
15.) Mr. Shakspere's detailed will contains nothing that suggests he was any sort
of writer - no books, plays, poems, letters, writing materials, or intellectual
property of any kind. Nothing about it suggests in any way that this was a man
who lived an intellectual life.
16.) When Will Shakspere died in 1616, no one seemed to notice. Not so much as
a letter refers to the author's passing. If he were Shakespeare, he would have
been memorialized by his literary peers. Even the fellow actors mentioned in his
will had no known reaction.
17.) The First Folio edition of Shakespeare's plays, published seven years after
Shakspere died, and the monument erected in the Stratford church, appear to be
a part of a deception to give the impression that Shakspere had been the author
of the plays. Supporting evidence for this claim is provided in Chapters 10-12 of
this book.
18.) Mr. Shakspere was supposedly a fulltime actor, performing in different plays
several times a week, outdoors in English weather and on annual extended tours
to the provinces. He was a theater shareholder, responsible for the business. He
maintained two households three days' journey apart, commuting over bad
Elizabethan roads. Yet he is also supposed to have written thirty-seven plays,
nearly all of them requiring extensive research often in foreign languages. There is
no other example, then or since, of a still-working actor writing plays.
19.) If the evidence were really as clear as orthodox scholars claim, they would
just make it clear. Instead they engage in personal attacks against anyone who
disagrees with them. They promote a false stereotype of doubters, and this calls
their credibility into question. These tactics of traditional scholars, and especially
of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, are intended to stigmatize and suppress the
authorship issue and make it a taboo subject. The SBT has a clear conflict of
interest and no basis to claim to be neutral or objective.
20.) By claiming that it is "beyond doubt" that Shakspere of Stratford wrote the
120/326
1/22/2015
20.) By claiming that it is "beyond doubt" that Shakspere of Stratford wrote the
works of Shakespeare, the SPT implies that the issue has now been adjudicated
and resolved; but if they had to prove their case beyond doubt in an impartial
forum, they could not do so. No impartial body has ever ruled "beyond doubt"
that Will Shakspere was Shakespeare.
21.) A petition from Cuthbert Burbage (1635) to the Lord Chamberlain, Philip
Herbert, provides strong evidence that William of Stratford was known as a
player, but not as a playwright.
...A lengthy explanation about this assertion follows this final entry of the
authors' "twenty-one reasons". I have already alluded to Burbage in one
comment, referring to extant dairies/letters that allude to De Vere...But I want
emphasize that this book is NOT about asserting or affirming who is likely to be
the prime candidate for authorship :
Quote (from John Shahan) :
"This book is about evidence and arguments that contradict claims that there is
"no room for doubt" that Mr. Shakspere of Stratford wrote the works of William
Shakespeare. It is not about who we think the real author was, or what motivated
him to remain hidden. It has nothing to do with the alternative scenario presented
in the feature film "Anonymous". Those looking for alternative candidates and
sensational scenarios should look elsewhere. Our aim is a scholarly presentation
of the case for "reasonable doubt" about Shakspere to make it understandable to
the public and to the students to whom this book is dedicated. The only
alternative we offer is that the name "William Shakespeare" was the pen name for
some other person who chose to conceal his identify."
...In my book these authors have convinced me of their goal of earnest objectivity,
without fear of challenging the established word.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
...And finally, this from the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition's list of past
personages who have also expressed doubts :
1) Mortimer J. Adler (1902 – 2001)
2) Harry A. Blackmun (1908 – 1999)
3) Charles “Charlie” Chaplin (1889 – 1977)
4) Charles Dickens (1812 – 1870)
5) William Y. Elliott (1896 – 1979)
6) Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882)
7) Clifton Fadiman (1904 – 1999)
8) Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939)
9) John Galsworthy (1867 – 1933)
10) Sir John Gielgud (1904 – 2000)
11) (Sir William) Tyrone Guthrie (1900 – 1971)
12) Leslie Howard (1893 – 1943)
13) Henry James (1843 – 1916)
14) William James (1842 – 1910)
15) Paul H. Nitze (1907 – 2004)
16) Lord Palmerston — Henry John Temple,
Third Viscount Palmerston (1784 – 1865)
17) Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (1907 – 1998)
18) Mark Twain (1835 – 1910)
19) Orson Welles (1915 – 1985)
20) Walt Whitman (1819 – 1892)
...These were great men of learning and letters, scholars and great actors of the
Shakespearean theatre, great writers and eminent practitioners of legal
jurisprudence.
I'll stack the weight of their concerns far and above Mr. Ciolino's feigning
academia on the subject.
Reply · Like ·
121/326
1/22/2015
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard 1, Assumption. 2. Conjecture. 3. Assumption. 4. Assumption 5.
Assumption. 6. Assumption. . etc. etc. .. .etc. . . ZZzzzzzz. . .
Why don't you see that none of this means anything? None of this is solid
evidence?
Why would you think that because YOU and some others "can't understand how
Shakespeare acquired his knowledge," does not mean that anyone else does?
That it does not give pause or doubt? Why do I have to accept because we have
no record of Shakespeare claiming to have written his play, that this should illicit
doubt???
Still waiting for ONE FACT. Or one solid piece of evidence that does not require a
leap of faith or grand conjecture or assumption. Once again, you have NOTHING.
After all, would a list of names of scholars and artists, and actors who believe
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare mean anything to you? Of course not. And how
many pages of names would THAT list be?
I can provide a list of names of people who think Madonna was the greatest
woman of the 20th century. Who think O.J. was innocent. etc, etc, *yawn,*
zzzzzzz.z . . . zzzz Please stop wasting our time.
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Jim Ballard Bravo!
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino
You write: "Why would you think that because YOU and some others "can't
understand how Shakespeare acquired his knowledge," does not mean that
anyone else does?"
No one does. You just don't know that no one does, because you have no
grounding in the relevant secondary literature.
"Once again, you have NOTHING."
How many times have you shouted "NOTHING" now in this forum. Shouting it
again only makes you look verbose, rude, and ignorant.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Karl Wiberg"
Thanks Karl...Keep searching. I suspect the mystery will be sol-ved in due time...
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard I wonder how many of those individuals actually invested serious time
examining documents to the extent many posters in this comment thread have?
Freud certainly read Looney but did he drill down into the documents? Twain was
well versed in the biography but it is not clear how much personal study he
conducted. Orson Wells apparently accepted that Shakespeare was a prominent
actor. In a TV interview in 1963 regarding the Ghost role in Hamlet he said the
following, "Shakespeare played it... that's why he played it because its the
122/326
1/22/2015
following, "Shakespeare played it... that's why he played it because its the
toughest part in the play...he must have been a great actor... he must have been a
great actor... its nonsense that he was a bit player... when he played the ghost its
because the ghost is the key to that play..." Yes, I am aware there is no
documentary evidence that Shakespeare played the Ghost in Hamlet - but Wells
thought he did (as do many others).
My actual intention in this post is to address the 21 reasons for doubting
Shakespeare. I wish I had the time to address them all in detail now but I will have
to limit my remarks to just one for now. I have chosen #5 to comment on:
5.) William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon never spelled his name
"Shakespeare" in his life, and his name also was probably not pronounced the
same as the author's name. There is a clear, consistent difference between the
spelling of the author's name on the works and the spellings of Mr. Shakspere's
family name in the Stratford church records. Even the orthodox used to make the
distinction, but now pretend the names are the same.
We do have MS in which other Stratford individuals refer to Shakespeare and
family members in various spellings. For example, Thomas Greene in one of the
surviving pages of his “diary” refers to “my cosen Shakespeare commying
yesterday…” but in another note he writes, “to my cousin Shakspeare the coppys
of all our oathes… “ absent the elusive middle ‘e’. In 1606 Susanna is cited for
missing communion as “Susanna Shakespeare” but a year later the parish
registry lists her name upon marriage to John Hall as “Shakspere” (or possibly
“Shaxpere” as Schoenbaum interprets the entry).
Presumedly Shakespeare’s “cosen” and the church wardens had some notion of
the family name but their spellings were inconsistent - with and without the
connecting "e".
When Dugdale recorded the names on the family memorials he records "Anne
wife of William Shakespeare..." and for Susanna has: "Susanna wife of John Hall
gent, the daughter of William Shakspere gent" but when quoting the inscription
for her he offers: "something of Shakespeare was in that.."
Then on the top of his famous Beetlejuice sketch of the monument in 1634
Digdale records: "In the north wall of the quire is this monument fixed for William
Shakespeare the famous poet". Woolsack or just a quick sketch he believed the
person memorialized was, "the famous poet".
Meanwhile, back in London...
All the way back on June 12, 1593, Richard Stonley purchased a copy of newlypublished Venus and Adonis, with a dedication signed "William Shakespeare," yet
in his notebook he wrote "Venus and Adhonay pr Shakspere."
Then on June 19, 1609, Edward Alleyn noted his purchase of the recentlypublished Shake-speares Sonnets: "Shaksper sonetts, 5 d.."
Sometime in 1609 or 1610, Sir John Harington made a list of play quartos he
owned, including "K. Leir of Shakspear" (the 1608 Quarto spells the name "Shakspeare").
In 1611, William Drummond of Hawthornden noted among an inventory of his
books “Venus and Adon. by Schaksp." (the name was spelled "Shakespeare" in all
editions).
The Blackfriars documents of 1613 refer to “William Shakespeare, Stratford upon
avon, Countie of Warwickshire, gentleman”. When the scribe was drafting that
document who did he obtain that information from? (This partially addresses #14
- but a complete discussion will have to wait.)
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino"
Quote :
"Jim Ballard 1, Assumption. 2. Conjecture. 3. Assumption. 4. Assumption 5.
123/326
1/22/2015
Assumption. 6. Assumption. . etc. etc. .. .etc. . . ZZzzzzzz. . . "
...Glad you're getting a lot of good sleep here...you need it.
But for one who feigns boredom and sleep, you nonetheless seem well engaged
and certainly...wide awake.
You do yourself a grave disservice as an interested academic by simplistic
labeling and such dismissive posturing.
Please. Show one and all the evidence you have which the doubters claim does
not exist.
The doubters are clearly stating "no such record exists". There is no
document...certainly no contemporaneous document, that unequivocally
presents concrete proof that the Shakspere of Stratford actually penned the
works, or claimed to have penned the works....
The doubters go on to say :
"Nor did any family member or descendant ever claim that he was the author
Shakespeare. (Not that either of his daughters would have left such a record,
since neither could write.) No contemporary indicated that they thought of him as
the author until long after he died. At least ten people who knew of both
Shakspere and the author never connected the two."
And your only answer to all this is :
Assumption.
Assumption ?
You have evidence to the contrary ?
The world would love to see it.
This is not to say it won't eventually come to light. Such evidence may exist.
Some where. If it does exist, it has been well hidden from public view.
Assumption, huh ?
These are not an assumptions, Mr. Ciolino. They are facts. Facts insofar as what
is universally accepted in the literary community. Why ? Because no one...no
one...has proven to the contrary. No one has ever presented such evidence on the
elusive "Shakspere of Stratford".
You keep protesting "assumption" and "conjecture" all you want. The facts will
not disappear at your convenience.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino"
Quote :
"Still waiting for ONE FACT."
One fact, huh ?
You keep harping that the doubters have "NOTHING"...
You think if you keep pitching this mantra, it will magically come true ?
Why don't you begin with the fact that there is NOTHING...not one iota of a
literary holographic sample of Shakespeare's writing...nada.
124/326
1/22/2015
There is not a single extant manuscript in Shakespeare's handwriting,...nothing...
No letters, no journal...nothing that can be definitively attributable (and I use the
word "attributable" advisedly in deference to my reference above) to the world's
greatest, most profound of writers.
There are "six signatures", none of which is in reference to his literary output..
including a sig. from a dubious, hackneyed will; a will that makes absolutely no
reference to books...no books belonging to one of the greatest minds of
history...a will that has no reference to his entire literary career...a will that has no
reference to any of his plays...
And you're attempting to tell me that none of this gives you the least amount of
pause ?
None of this astounds you in the least ?
You do not believe that any of the above FACTS...facts that you supposedly are
thirsty for and have been demanding...renders the slightest whisper of doubt ?
I say just the few facts I've given you here render a great deal of doubt.
You claim to being an academic. You say you have three degrees (for which you
claim you were capable of abnegating the usual necessity for study to acquire
them...)
If you are indeed a true academic, then you understand the absolute necessity for
critical thinking. However, your displayed emotional paroxysms and deliberate
attempts to distract and dissemble tells me that any obligatory pretense to
objectivity on your part is seriously impaired.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Herbie Taylor"
Thank you for your input.
Quote :
"Presumedly Shakespeare’s “cosen” and the church wardens had some notion of
the family name but their spellings were inconsistent - with and without the
connecting "e"."
Operative word : presumably. That is the calling card, the boat anchor, the
albatross around the neck of most, if not all, Shakespearean scholars.
And I believe it is a bit of a red herring when we discuss how others, either
contemporaneously, or beyond the Bard's life, spelled the Bard's name. Why ?
Because I want to know why Shakespeare, the greatest writer of all time, could
not seem to get his own name spelled right ... Are we kidding ? It wasn't just that
family members were inconsistent, or significant others were inconsistent....It was
Shakespeare himself that couldn't get it right. We're supposed to believe this ?
The greatest writer of all time could not spell his name consistently ??
The first time I saw his will my immediate response was : This is a joke. No way. It
is a ridiculous document to proffer as any kind of proof. Of anything. It is not
simply the inconsistencies, or questionable signature. Or the sloppy add-ons. It is
the glaring OMISSIONS.
All the above is really moot : Any literary reference is absent.
Quote :
"Then on the top of his famous Beetlejuice sketch of the monument in 1634
Digdale records: "In the north wall of the quire is this monument fixed for William
Shakespeare the famous poet". Woolsack or just a quick sketch he believed the
person memorialized was, 'the famous poet'."
125/326
1/22/2015
person memorialized was, 'the famous poet'."
Art historians have only a few vague attributions regarding the Bard's image; fact
is, they will not commit to what the Bard may or may not have looked like. The
Dugdale sketch is no exception. From 1634. (Art historians have never agreed to
or authenticated the image from the first folio) ...No. Once again, we are subject to
"confirmation bias" from a posthumous artist (Dugdale), descended by a mere
decade from the folios. In fact, none of the ubiquitous, proposed pictorial images
of the Bard have ever been authenticated; only a couple "close'
calculations...Maybe. Always maybe.
Bottom line, no one knows. And apparently Woolsack did not know either.
But what the Bard may or may not have looked like is moot as well; other than a
very generic image of a typical Elizabethan gentleman... We cannot rely on them
as regards to affirming true authorship. I wish we could. We cannot.
Quote :
"...with a dedication signed "William Shakespeare," yet in his notebook he wrote
"Venus and Adhonay pr Shakspere."...
...And do any of these supposed sign offs match the remaining few we have ?
Nope.
We have enough troubles authenticating signatures and documents from the
19th century, let alone the earlier centuries.
Quote :
"1609, Edward Alleyn noted his purchase of the recently-published Shakespeares Sonnets: "Shaksper sonetts, 5 d.."
...If one is speculating that the Bard himself may have had a deliberate hand in
name obscurity (it has been suggested that he was not that concerned about
posterity), then why is it such a stretch to consider that his own contemporaries
were 1) either misled, or 2) part of the deception.
If there was deception, I suspect it began while the Bard was very much alive, if
not he himself in collusion with the deception. It would make sense if he were
from the nobility...But that's another argument I won't explore further.
Quote :
"Sir John Harington made a list of play quartos he owned"
The publishers of the first folio, fellow theatrical contemporaries, actually
criticized the authentic accuracy of all the previous "quartos" as representing
what the Bard actually wrote.
Since, at this point, we do not have ANY first hand, holographic manuscripts... in
Shakespeare's own hand...it is foolish to speculate. We simply do not know what
constitutes "authentic Shakespeare" because we have nothing literary from his
own writing. And even so, as the folios attribute Shakespeare, this is still NOT
proof positive that they were in fact, Shakespeare.
We need primary source evidence. We do not have it.
Quote :
"The Blackfriars documents of 1613 refer to “William Shakespeare, Stratford
upon avon, Countie of Warwickshire, gentleman”. When the scribe was drafting
that document who did he obtain that information from?"
There is nothing from the Blackfriers (theatrical documents) nor the Globe (before
or after death) the confirms/substantiates true play authorship..."Gentleman" ??
We need primary source/holographic evidence from the man himself. And if he
adopted a "Shakespeare"/"Shakspere" pseudonym, that' fine...Except...We need a
manuscript, in his hand, matched with his signature, no matter how much at
126/326
1/22/2015
manuscript, in his hand, matched with his signature, no matter how much at
variance he (or someone else) may (or may not) have signed his name elsewhere.
We do not have that.
Yet.
That is the controlling issue here.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Herbie Taylor You wonder about "serious time" invested in studying the issue?
How much time have you spent studying the issue? Based on your postings
here, almost none.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger, aw, are you gonna cry? Big bad man shouted at me! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Jim Ballard ·
Joseph why do you keep behaving like a TROLL !!??
Reply · Like ·
Roger Stritmatter Thank you Roger for putting me in my place. I once wrote on
the cover of a blue book, "Hope springs Eternal" to which my professor
responded, "But Apparently not Knowledge". And so it goes - I remain a fool for
Shakespeare. By "serious time" I was only referring to some of the famous people
on any list of doubters who are cited - not the folks posting here and certainly not
yourself. Sorry if that was not clear. Serious time or not on my part - I was only
responding to item (5) on Jim's list of reasons to doubt - nothing more and
nothing less. This does not require great scholarship. The fact remains that the
elusive middle "e" and other spelling variants occur in both Stratford and
London, on family memorials. Its clear and persuasive.
Jim Ballard I was only responding to item 5 on your doubt list - regarding
spelling. Please reread my post in that light. That is the first item of doubt I would
prefer to focus on. This should not require anything from the man himself. The
spelling of Shakespeare in MS and print in Stratford and London. I would like to
focus on that one item - because as Roger suggests I am low man on the
knowledge pole. Perhaps you or Roger would like to propose a revision to the
wording of item 5 which we could then discuss.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Hi Herbie, You raised the issue of time invested in study. In answer I asked a
simple and straighforward question that might have been answered in a single
sentence. You seem to want to talk quite a bit about spelling and go out on at
length about it without answering my question. You say that I suggest that you
are "the low man on the knowledge pole." That may well be true. I'm quite ready
to change my opinion based on new data, but you haven't given me any.
A simple, "I have not ready any books on the authorship question," or "I've read
127/326
1/22/2015
A simple, "I have not ready any books on the authorship question," or "I've read
Ogburn but didn't find him convincing." Anything, really. This is called
accounting for your methodology.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Stritmatter Fair enough. I have read a lot - over a 40 year period. I became
interested in authorship attribution after having lunch with a few statistics profs
in the U Penn faculty dining room who were discussing the Federalist Papers and
the methods used by Mosteller and Wallace. I became interested in Shakespeare
authorship specifically a few years later as I was exposed to the question by
another professor while performing in a production of As You Like It, in which he
played Jaques. I read Greenwood and Looney early on and attempted to read
Ogburn but it was just too much for me ( in both generations - sorry). I have read
just about everything by Hotson (no apologies and it probably shows) and most
of Schoenbaum, Pollard, Gregg, Halliwell-Phillips, the Usual Suspects, etc. and
many issues of Shakespeare Survey. I like what David Ellis has to say about
authorship and Halliday's "Cult of Shakespeare" observing that perhaps now we
are witnessing a few "Cults of Another Name" - something to think about on all
sides of the "debate". And, yes I have read many of the articles in various
Oxfordian Journals - including your own. As for online content, I can't say I read
everything from the beginning - back when online meant list servers and even
earlier when I had access to the original Darpanet but I read a lot if it. ( By the way
- in case you are wondering - I had never posted anywhere until about six months
ago. ) No surprise - I have read a lot of stylometric papers going back a long time
(Jackson, Craig, Kinney, Bruster, Elliot&Valenza, etc and recently Fox - a paper I
highly recommend). I have a particular interest the work of Mathews and Merriam,
"Neural Computing in Stylometry" as it bares a slight kinship with my own work
on the application of Neural Networks to problems in video processing. I have
read quite a few Phd dissertations, most recently Ros Barber's which I enjoyed
because it touched on the character issue in authorship studies - which I believe
is greatly abused. Speaking of character abuse - at some point I acquired a copy
of nearly every source listed in Diana Price's book...
You asked me to say something like: "I have not ready any books on the
authorship question," "ready"? or was that some kind of authorial slip on "reedy"
- and yes I have read through thousands of back and forth posts between you
guys over a very long time. Shades of SNL ca 1976.
Methodology? Does such exist in this domain? I like to focus on actual primary
documents and what evidence exists to support the conclusions drawn from
them. Fro example, the Stratford back story on the famous "noate of corn and
malt" has an interesting historical record and it is a shame that it is not discussed
in that context - instead of "proving" that Shakespeare was a convicted grain
hoarder - which there is no documentary evidence he ever was. I prefer papers
where every claim is referenced and I always start with those before reading the
paper. I developed this habit during years spent as a peer reviewer on a few
computer science journals. My professional work (corporate R&D) was in real time
video and image processing, parallel processing, data mining and pretty much
whatever I wanted... I am currently involved in a tech startup developing a
notification wearable...
Lastly, I subscribe to the epistemic virtues - at least I try to treat others as “equals
in intelligence, perspicacity, honesty, thoroughness, and other relevant epistemic
virtues” (Gelfert). Those are my bonifides. If what I have chosen to focus on in
authorship studies is the very basic stuff it is because I believe there is still a lot
there to discover. When an authority writing on the Folger web site says that
Shakespeare met with Dethick at the Heralds office and "must have been
infuriated" by his miswriting of “Non, sanz droict” one has to wonder what hope
there is.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Herbie Taylor Exit Stritmatter, stage left.
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Oxfraud"
128/326
1/22/2015
@ "Oxfraud"
Quote :
"Herbie Taylor Exit Stritmatter, stage left."
Oh that's brilliant...And you supposedly speak for "Oxfraudians" ?
...Prof. Stritmatter apparently has little to fear from your little gem of group think
if "Oxfraudians" are so readily dismissive in favor of one who has admitted
himself low man on the Shakespeare totem pole...
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
Herbie Taylor ...How many times would you like me to address the signature
issue...? I've already explained that since we have nothing extensive to this date
on the matter of Shakespeare's actual handwriting, concerns over the spelling
issue, for all intent and purpose, amount to a red herring. The spelling variations
would be obvious to anyone who's read nothing about Shakespeare. The entire
debate embodies more than a single issue. Much more.
Time to move on.
Jim Ballard Thank you Jim - I simply chose to question Item #5 on the list you
presented of 21 reasons to doubt Shakespeare. Apparently there are now only 20
reasons to doubt Shakespeare... thank your for recognizing a red herring when
you see one. Of course I know Roger and other non-Stratfordians still feel that
spelling counts but I do consider it a small victory to have convinced you.
And I do agree that its time to move on - it takes an hour just to locate your last
post and see if anyone has commented...
Roger - in case you wander back to the thread there is no reason to respond while disagreeing, I do understand and respect your opinion on spelling. Thanks
for your patience.
State University
Follow ·
Herbie Taylor Hi Herbie: I'm glad that you have read Ellis and Price. That's a good
start.
Catching up on this comment thread and stepping back, I have to wonder: If advocates of the
traditional Stratford Shakespeare are so sure of the strength of their position … Why are you
wasting so much time and energy and emotion here, putting yourselves through this
frustration? If Stratford doubters are just loonies with no real evidence to back up their
claims, as routinely asserted -- why don’t you just ignore them?
It makes me think of a meeting of the Lewis Carroll Society I once attended. In the interest of
open-minded fairness, a small group was invited to speak about their belief that the works of
“Lewis Carroll” were really by Queen Victoria. They were, to be blunt, delusional in the way
traditional Shakespeare scholars believe non-Stratfordians to be.
Yet, what was strikingly different was the response to the doubters: The Carroll fans and
scholars listened quietly, asked few questions … and then promptly forgot about the group,
who have never been heard from again. The holders of the traditional authorship attribution
displayed none of the emotion, anger, or bitterness -- and engaged in none of the character
attacks -- that we routinely see from traditional Shakespeareans. Why? If the two cases are
identical -- delusional crackpots challenging a traditional authorship belief -- why were the
129/326
1/22/2015
identical -- delusional crackpots challenging a traditional authorship belief -- why were the
responses so different?
The only reason I can fathom: Deep-down, Carroll traditionalists are genuinely secure in their
position, in a way Shakespeare traditionalists aren’t. Why? I can only guess it is because they
have all the real-world evidence -- documentary AND circumstantial -- linking their man to
the works which Shakespeare scholars DON’T have (but wish they did):
They have documentation of Dodgson’s early education and experiences, which perfectly
coincide with the later writings of Lewis Carroll. They have documentation from teachers
attesting to Dodgson’s early genius, and to his early interest in writing. They have examples
of early writings by Dodgson which, though immature, are completely in line with the later
writings of “Lewis Carroll.” (Some of those early writings actually contain fragments which,
decades later, were incorporated into “Carroll’s” writings.) They have writings from
Dodgson’s father and siblings showing the same humor we call “Carrollian” … and showing
that Dodgson grew up in an educated, artistic, encouraging family environment perfectly
conducive to producing "Carroll". They have countless examples of private letters from
Dodgson displaying exactly the same kind of humor and interests “Carroll” showed in his
writing. They can show example after example of how the works of “Lewis Carroll” exactly
parallel and reflect the Oxford University world in which Charles Dodgson was immersed.
They have documentation confirming that certain characters in the works of Carroll were
based on individuals from the life of Dodgson -- showing a profound relationship between
the author’s life and work. They have examples of third-party acquaintances writing to each
other about how Dodgson was an author, and specifically the author “Lewis Carroll” … Etc.
There is no need for them to claim "there is no sign of the author in his work" ... or "He kept
himself hidden" ... or ... "He is universal" ... or "What difference does it make who wrote it, as
long as we have the works themselves?"
In other words … If someone proposed a mock trial in which Carroll scholars had to defend
their authorship position for 40,000 pounds, they would LEAP at the chance to make a lot of
easy money … not bluster and turn it down and “pooh pooh” it. They don’t feel the need to
argue or defend their position, let alone defend it angrily. Its strength stands for itself. If this
article was about Carroll authorship doubters, Carroll scholars would make a few jokes
among themselves and ignore it. This comment thread would probably have ten comments in
it.
Yes, there is a difference in surviving documentation from the 1800’s versus the 1500’s.
Obviously. But that doesn’t address the fundamental question: If Shakespeare authorship
traditionalists are as equally secure and sure of the strength of their own position, as they
claim, why don’t they respond in the same way? Why are you all wasting precious hours of
your limited lives here on this website, arguing with obvious loonies who don’t have a leg to
stand on? To be doing so, you must feel some threat. Why?
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Mr. DIXON ASKS:
"Why are you wasting so much time and energy and emotion here, putting
yourselves through this frustration?"
a) It's not the least bit frustrating, and b) it's great fun!
Stratfordians have been taking the tack you suggest for years and have been
accused repeatedly of "not wanting to address the issues," when in fact, it was
overwhelming lack of interest. Now that some of us have engaged them you ask,
"Why bother? They're loonies!"
As Shakespeare said, "Can't win for losing."
No, Dodgson-heads do not feel the need to defend their position, and neither had
Stratfordians until the insanity started to rear it's ugly head in academic circles. It
is now on the verge of becoming a problem. (If you care about truth, that is). Films
like "Anonymous" can take in an uneducated and gullible public.
Further YOU ASK:
130/326
1/22/2015
"If Shakespeare authorship traditionalists are as equally secure and sure of the
strength of their own position, as they claim, why don’t they respond in the same
way? Why are you all wasting precious hours of your limited lives here on this
website, arguing with obvious loonies who don’t have a leg to stand on? To be
doing so, you must feel some threat. Why?"
Since this is not a serious question but one that supplies it's own answer, and
betrays your position on the issue, I will answer it accordingly: you don't get it,
and you never will.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Now, Mr. Dixon, let me ask you --Why do YOU care so much?
Why waste time on this thread if the matter is of such little importance?
Why do you care why anyone feels strongly about any subject?
Have you ever felt strongly about a subject?
Have you ever felt the need to defend your position?
Did you consider it a waste of energy?
By the way, "Alice in Wonderland" sucks.
Joseph Ciolino "No, Dodgson-heads do not feel the need to defend their
position..."
And Dodgson-heads stlll feel no need to defend their position ... while
Shakespeare-heads apparently do. Why are they now on the defensive?
"... and neither had Stratfordians until the insanity started to rear it's ugly head in
academic circles."
So that's what it does indeed come down to -- a feeling of threat. Why would
such "insanity" gain a foothold in academic circles in the first place ... and keep
gaining interest among the general public, and among more and more undeniably
sane, gifted, reasonable people ... if there wasn't something inherently weak and
unsatisfactory about the traditional story? Why hasn't the Dodgson/Carroll
authorship "controversy" also gained a foothold in academic circles, or gone
anywhere with the general public?
"Since this is not a serious question but one that supplies it's own answer, and
betrays your position on the issue, I will answer it accordingly: you don't get it,
and you never will."
No, I sincerely meant it as a serious question. I really want to know how
traditional advocates justify to themselves all this engagement with (by their own
words) "insanity" and "lunatics." I don't think that would be fun. Carroll scholars
feel exactly the same way about Carroll doubters ... but don't feel the need to
engage. What's the difference?
And, yes, I do get it. For a long time I was very committed and attached to the
traditional story of Shakespeare. I ridiculed doubters and didn't question the
Shakespeare experts right along with the rest of them. As I saw more and more of
the real primary evidence and documentation, though, and saw how much the
traditional story is actually based on circular reasoning, conjecture, imagination,
and received wisdom, I had to admit to myself -- very reluctantly, that it just
doesn't add up. I would LOVE for the traditional story to be true -- but I just can't
believe it anymore.
Reply · Like ·
131/326
1/22/2015
Joseph Ciolino "Why do YOU care so much?" That is easy. Because I am
passionate about the truth, and I don't believe the traditional story is true
anymore. I hate intellectual dishonesty and I feel I have seen a lot of that in
traditional Shakespeare scholarship. I believe there is more than room for
reasonable doubt on this issue, and I love Shakespeare so much that I want the
truth about that writer to be explored.
"Why waste time on this thread if the matter is of such little importance?" I don't
think the authorship question is of little importance. I think it's of immense
importance because I think Shakespeare is of immense importance. It's traditional
scholars who think the authorship question is of little importance.
"Why do you care why anyone feels strongly about any subject?" Because I am
curious about human beings and interested in what people think.
"Have you ever felt strongly about a subject?" I think that's pretty obvious by
now.
"Have you ever felt the need to defend your position?" Not to people I consider
irrational, and whose ideas I consider "insane" or "delusional". Why do you?
"Did you consider it a waste of energy?" Not when I respect the people I'm
debating with, and feel I can engage with them in an honest, genuine way.
"By the way, "Alice in Wonderland" sucks." What does that have to do with
anything? Why did you feel the need to throw in such a gratuitous hurtful
comment? (Serious question: Why?)
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jonathan David Dixon You ask SO many questions. But it's good, that's how we
learn!
Look, you come on here with your "leading" and very biased questions, don't
pretend you're on some quest for the truth. You are not. Your questions are
designed to "push buttons," so be prepared to have them pushed back. Okay, it's
called being a "man." Something you are apparently not accustomed to. You
push. You're gonna get pushed back.
Of course there is a threat. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I have studied,
lectured, and performed the music of Chopin for nearly 55 years. If someone
dared came to me and said that Chopin didn't write Chopin, EVEN THOUGH
THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON, I would feel a threat -- a threat to
truth, to sanity, to knowledge. This is why I have chosen a career in academia.
Truth matters. Of course, when evidence is uncovered that proves something
false, one goes with that. But no one has done that either with Chopin or with
Shakespeare. And so, although threatened, I do not recognize any validity to the
claims of Oxfordians. If I did, I would go with it. No problem. But there are none.
And the evidence for Shakespeare authorship is abundant.
And "Alice in Wonderland," sucks. Does that hurt? Aw, little Johnny's crying. Big
bad man said naughty thing about Dodgson. Why feel hurt? Are you feeling
threatened? Why not just ignore?
Enough. Bye bye.
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
The other difference is that most Stratfordians have put in thousands of hours of
academic research whereas most Oxfordians are amateurs who have never even
seen a research paper. They just read Oxfordian books and think they've got the
whole picture. Some of the Oxfordians, and there are one or two on this forum,
132/326
1/22/2015
that have seen a research paper just skew the facts. You can't trust their research.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Timothy Beck Your "Some of the Oxfordians, and there are one or two on this
forum, that have seen a research paper just skew the facts. You can't trust their
research."
Why don't you actually dispute their research instead of spouting nonsense.
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain Interesting that you're constantly backing up R.S., know his research
well, and respond as if you've published Oxfordian bits yourself. So I did a bit of
Googling. Couple of possibles, but you wouldn't have the initials L.K. would you.
Tell me I'm right cos that would be poetry to my ears. Why the pseudonym? What
are you worried about?
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jonathan,
Can't speak for others but for myself what makes me argue the case for
Shakespeare is I hate the arrogant tone of Oxfordians and denouncing of
Shakespeare based on a biased supposition. None of the "evidence" is at all
persuasive and as far as an authorship candidate, De Vere is one of the worst. If
he were alive today Shalespeare would make a fortune filing defamation suits
against Oxfordians because of the level of vitriol. To me a man's legacy mean's
something in that he worked and toiled with others to create these plays and to
give credit for that actual work to someone who doesn't deserve it just because
some people don't think the real author is worthy is not right and worth fighting
against.
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck I simply disagree. I have seen a lot of very strong research from
anti-Stratfordians who -- instead of relying on received wisdom based on
centuries of conjecture -- have actually gone back to original documents to find
that what we've been told over and over again -- based on assumptions to make
Shakspere fit into the rest of reality -- simply isn't the case. (I've also seen a lot of
lame rubbish from anti-Stratfordians ... but that also goes for traditional
scholarship.) It seems to me that many of those devoted to the traditional story
simply have no idea what that research really is. They don't seek it out with an
open mind and actually read it. That's what I finally did, and that's what turned me
around: finding, "Holy s---, there really is something here." Instead they just rely
on traditional scholars' impressions of what that research is ... and of course that
is not going to be accurate or unbiased.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli I liked your comment for its polite, respectful tone. As I wrote
above, I simply disagree that the evidence and research -- when actually looked
at, and looked at with an open mind -- isn't persuasive. It finally persuaded me,
and I was very attached to the traditional story of Shakespeare. As I wrote above, I
would absolutely love for it to be true. As for the arrogant tone -- yes, I'm afraid
some anti-Stratfordians can sound that way. It frankly embarrasses me. But I find
many traditional scholars to be just as bad. I am so tired of the personal attacks
while ignoring the evidence -- the "snob" and "loony" and "conspiracy theory"
accusations -- when the obviously growing number of gifted, talented, intelligent,
reasonable people who have been persuaded by the anti-Stratfordian research
(now that it is getting more exposure) clearly belies that: actors, theater
133/326
1/22/2015
(now that it is getting more exposure) clearly belies that: actors, theater
professionals, historians (including Pulitzer-winning historians), legal
professionals (including a number of Supreme Court Justices), and so on ... All I
would like is an acknowledgment that there is reasonable room for doubt
surrounding the authorship -- because when looked at with an open mind, there
obviously is. But I get the feeling that traditional scholars can't grant even that
much; because if they do, then they would have to compete, and deep-down they
know they simply don't have the evidence to compete. Rather, I see more and
more traditional scholars hedging their bets and fudging by saying, "Well, what
does it matter who wrote the works, as long as we have them?" What other
authors do they say that about? I heard two very respected Shakespearean
professors say that at a lecture about a year ago, and I could only think, stunned,
"You've spent your whole professional lives on an author you care so little
about?!"
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
So Jonathan what is exactly that you find doubtful? What I find unbelievable
about Oxford is that 1. He had no theatrical training and aside from inheriting a
theater company from his father and possibly writing court entertainments he had
no connection to the theater. The writer of the plays packs them with references
to playing and has direction in the language for an actor to play both obvious
such as stating an action to subtle such as amount of stresses in a blank verse
line to indicate if an actor should be happy or sad. That level of detail comes from
someone who was an actor and trained as one not someone who just saw a play.
Secondly and more importantly how did De Vere do it. How did he write the plays
and get them to the Chamberlain's Men? Why them not his own company? Why
Shakespeare not Munday as a front man? How did that relationship even
happen? Oxfordians have never given any detail when asked the how and that is
just the start of the doubt. If they could provide some concrete proof as to how
and why it worked you have something. However, all I've ever heard well this
coincidence and that. No actual proof.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Timothy Beck L.K. Sorry not my initials. What has that person written please?
Links to my essays on Dr. Stritmatter's site
http://knitwitted2.rssing.com/chan-10650485/all_p1.html
and my who-dat essay at http://shake-speares-bible.com/2014/04/23/de-factonames/
i.e. I am NOT farnsworth.
My site is at noodlework.wordpress.com
Now, whatcha think? Thanks in advance for your nice comments.
====
As for the pseudonym, currently, I'm working incognito. My real pseudonym is
knitwitted.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Johnathan Dixon asks: " If advocates of the traditional Stratford Shakespeare are
so sure of the strength of their position … Why are you wasting so much time
and energy and emotion here, putting yourselves through this frustration?"
Indeed, a question to be asked - and when asked, the hypocrisy the position
collapses on itself into a pile of rubble.
Reply · Like ·
134/326
1/22/2015
State University
Follow ·
Jonathan David Dixon writes: "Why would such "insanity" gain a foothold in
academic circles in the first place ... and keep gaining interest among the general
public, and among more and more undeniably sane, gifted, reasonable people ... if
there wasn't something inherently weak and unsatisfactory about the traditional
story?"
This is a question to which your opponent cannot provide any rational argument.
His only argument, repeated ad nauseum in this discussion, is to attack those
among the general public, or in academia, who hold views contrary to the dogma
he maintains, with various creative ad hominem adjectives.This is perhaps the
single most significant fact about the present status of the debate. Thank you for
drawing attention to it.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck writes: he other difference is that most Stratfordians have put in
thousands of hours of academic research whereas most Oxfordians are
amateurs."
Most Stratfordians whom I have met, and that includes dozens if not hundreds,
are completely incapable of providing rational answers to the many objections
raised by the "amateur" doubters. That is why they rely on arguments like this
one, i.e. substitute appeals to authority.
As for thousands of hours, how many hours have you spent reading on this
subject? -- and I don't mean Shakspeare studies per se, I mean books like
Ogburn, Anderson, Price, etc. Not many, I would venture.
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
Jon Ciccarelli The arrogant tone of Oxfordians, Exactly right. And when Dixon
suggests that we stay in this debate because we feel threatened, it reminds me of
the playground bully who says, "You're scared of me, aren't you?" For years I've
been good friends with a very knowledgeable Marlovian and we have never
regarded our differences as anything more than a basis for chatting about the
plays and the theatre generally. Occasionally we've had jovial sparring matches
but there's never been a sense that either of us has to 'win'. Mark Rylance said
once, " Anyone who loves Shakespeare is a friend of mine." and, in theory, that is
my sentiment entirely. But, I think the majority of Oxfordians care far more about
authorship than they care (or, in some cases, know) about the plays or the theatre.
This, and the fact that they've declared a holy war on the basis of Shakespeare's
background, and their perverse interpretations of the evidence in the historical
record, seriously gets up my nose.
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter It's incredible that a man with a University position like you can
recommend a book like Anderson's. It's utterly prejudiced and if you think that's
good research then so are you. Also, if you don't recognise your penchant for
giving misleading information then you obviously don't have a clue what you're
doing most of the time. I notice that you don't recommend other books by
Marlovians, Baconians, etc. which would at least give a balanced picture of the
whole question but only ones that you believe in and want to promote. You're
evidently too entrenched in prejudice to recognise your own behavior, but I'm
actually rather amused by it all because you're arrogant enough to think that
people are too stupid to notice. Think again. They HAVE noticed!
Reply · Like ·
135/326
1/22/2015
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino"
Quote :
"Films like "Anonymous" can take in an uneducated and gullible public."
...Uh...Joseph...Had you read even the first page of the Shahan/Waugh book
"Shakespeare Beyond Doubt ?" that I quote extensively on this blog, they
unequivocally deny any substance or influence from that stupid film.
It was poorly written. Poorly directed. It clearly only wanted to cash in on the
debate.
Stop TROLLING everyone who simply disagrees with you.
For all your bluster, you need to do some serious catch up on your reading if you
really want to address the issues intelligently.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Alasdair Brown When the article first hit before New Year's I got into what I
thought was a friendly debate with Ann Z. about Susanna's supposed illiteracy.
When I kept refuting her assertions and then when I pointed out her counter
points actually helped the Stratfordian side not hers, it became vitriolic. In these
exchanges I've tried to refrain from the name calling and what not. I can concede
arrogance also on the Stratfordian side, however. I would say its usually more a
defensive reaction. Most Strats will not go into a debate with guns blazing. That's
not say it doesn't happen but when I first came across the authorship debate in
the 90's I couldn’t believe the amount of anger and arrogance coming from the
Oxfordian side and I've found that's been consistent ever since. Unless I’m
provoked or their tone is already condescending, its not my first choice, however,
if an Oxfordian get snarky with me I’ll snark back. I had an email war a couple of
months ago with one Oxforidan but when that ran its course I congratulated him
on getting a book published on a unrelated subject.
I’m all for friendly exchanges and concur with your Rylance example. Above I got
into a friendly exchange with Dixon and I asked “What is it exactly that he finds
doubtful?” and then I list my main issues with the Oxfordian case. I haven’t
gotten a response. Nor has Matt H. responded to my simple set of questions of
from the Oxfordian perspective how did this all work? How did De Vere write
something and then it get to the Chamberlain’s Men stage? What exactly was Will
Shakespeare’s role in the whole thing and how do you show that there was even
a connection between the two men?
I'd even further ask, some plays have been backdated by Oxforidans to before
William Shakespeare started working in the theater (circa 1590's) like "Comedy of
Errors" to, I believe, 1577. So how did this play get from Oxford to the
Chamberlain's Men repertoire if it was written before the company existed or the
supposed front man starting working in the theater? So far crickets on the other
"how" questions and if the trend continues they'll probably be crickets on this
new question as well.
Alasdair Brown ·
Jon Ciccarelli You end by asking an excellent question and I was delighted with
your equally awkward questions about the claim that Susannah Hall was illiterate
. No wonder your opponent became so flustered.
The most notable feature of this discussion has been the number of questions
posed to Oxfordians which they have either dodged or ignored. A comprehensive
list needs to be made of these once the debate is over.
The Oxfordians will, of course, inevitably boast they have won this debate but, in
136/326
1/22/2015
the same way that they cannot provide direct or circumstantial evidence for their
claims, they will be quite unable to provide any objective or measurable means of
justifying their claims of victory.
The link leads to an excellent short film about the best ways of debating those
with irrational beliefs. It’s about Citizen Scientists rather than Citizen
Shakespeare Deniers but all the points made apply to the latter group perfectly as
the difficulties experienced by the indefatigable Mark Johnson testify. I didn’t
choose the title of this film and apologise if it causes any offence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YezbREhH_Egas
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino "Enough. Bye bye."
Bye bye, Joseph. Try to read some books about the topic next time, and maybe
you will do better at answering Jonathan Dixon's questions.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli "I hate the arrogant tone of Oxfordians and denouncing of
Shakespeare based on a biased supposition."
I think you are confusing saying that Shakspere did not write the plays with
"denouncing of Shakespeare." Most Oxfordians I know have a much deeper and
more sophisticated comprehension of and appreciation for the genius of the bard
than your average Stratordian. They care because understanding Oxford's role in
the genesis of the works provides access to deeper levels of artistic
understanding. It is not that these levels can't be found in the best Stratfordian
criticism - for example in Harold Goddard or in some of Marjorie Garber's best
essays on the works -- but they are much more readily comprehensible when we
know who actually wrote them.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
This is a contender for the daftest thing ever said by an Oxfordian.
"Most Oxfordians I know have a much deeper and more sophisticated
comprehension of and appreciation for the genius of the bard than your average
Stratordian."
Oxfordianism is a pejorative process, an attempt to diminish the universality and
artistic genius of Shakespeare by boiling down the work until it fits the much
smaller profile of The Earl of Oxford. Oxfordian understanding of the plays,
therefore tends to be limited at best and seriously warped at worst. Its essence
comprises only an attempt to relate minor plot details to incidents in Oxford's life.
If you clicked on Alasdair's videolink, you will know that the the scientist
recommends that when dealing with unsupported, overinflated and extended
claims, the best response is to repeat a question which will elicit the ignorance
that lies behind them.
You may well agree with this, having been the victim of such a repeated
interrogation yourself. You will recall the issue concerned your own claim,
attempting to associate the poem "My Mind to me a Kingdom is" with
Shakespeare. You claimed you could discern "Shakespearean qualities" which
would be clear to anyone 'widely and closely read in the canon'.
You then dodged 10 requests (I'm being kind) to point out the Shakespearean
137/326
1/22/2015
You then dodged 10 requests (I'm being kind) to point out the Shakespearean
qualities you discerned. The account, the questions and your evasions are all
included here.
http://www.oxfraud.com/100-Dyer-consequences
We have, of course, long abandoned the idea that you are going to reply with
evidence that supports your claim. Anything you offer in evidence as a reply will
legitimately disqualify you as someone who knows what he's about on the
subject of Elizabethan literature. So silence reigns on the issue.
"They care because understanding Oxford's role in the genesis of the works
provides access to deeper levels of artistic understanding"
Perhaps you could glance back a week or two in your organ, Shakesvere. A
newcomer asked to be enlightened about this very issue, Oxford's creative
process. The best answer they got was that Oxford wrote on a portable writing
desk.
In the interests of Oxfordian scholarship, a few Oxfordians made a cursory effort
of two to track down said writing desk. This is no doubt what you mean by a
"much deeper and more sophisticated comprehension". It is also what I mean by
pejorative process.
We therefore agree on the quality of Oxfordian scholarship. Who saw that
coming?
The problem is that while 99.9% of Will's readers see the artistic genius - the
whole elephant - blindfold Oxfordians, holding onto to Will's tail, see only a
snake.
A snake with a portable writing desk, of course.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Thanks Roger for clarifying what I thought I wrote. No, I meant
the character assassination against Shakespeare the man. I've pointed out a
couple of times on the threads that this debate is like a political contest. Since
Will isn't your candidate mud is slung simply because he's the opposing
candidate.
Care to elaborate on the deeper comprehension that apparently Stratfordians are
incapable of discerning by what deeper meaning do Oxforidans derive from
"Timon of Athens"? This is part of the Shakespeare canon and De Vere is the
writer, right? So why did De Vere write this work? What larger implication based
on his life story applies here? The meaning of Hamlet, via Oxford has been
presented so let's tackle another play.
While we're on the subject of biographical details providing a deeper
understanding what does the pirate episode in Pericles mean for Oxford?
Oxfordians connect the fact that De Vere was captured by pirates and that's what
happened to Hamlet. However, in Hamlet all that happens off stage. In Pericles,
pirates actually appear so being that he was captured by pirates this episode
must mean something to De Vere. So what deeper meaning from De Vere's life
can you derive from Marina's kidnapping by pirates and being sold into a brothel?
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud (aka Mike Leadbetter) writes: "This is a contender for the daftest thing
ever said by an Oxfordian."
Thank you, Mike. This reminds me of Jonson's paraphrase, in his Discoveries, of
his lines from the folio about Shakespeare: "It is as great a spite to be praised in
the wrong place, and by a wrong person, as can be done to a noble nature."
138/326
1/22/2015
the wrong place, and by a wrong person, as can be done to a noble nature."
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli "Care to elaborate on the deeper comprehension that apparently
Stratfordians are incapable of discerning by what deeper meaning do Oxforidans
(sic) derive from "Timon of Athens"? "
Thank you for the excellent question. Rather than attempting to reinvent the
wheel I refer you to William Farina's equally excellent book:
"http://www.amazon.com/Vere-as-Shakespeare-William-Farina-ebook/dp/
B008CHB64C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421164138&sr=8-2&keywords=de+
vere+as+shakespeare"
As it turns out, Timon of Athens is one of the most autobiographical of all the
plays, especially when understood as reflecting de Vere's rather tortured
circumstances circa 1583 - a place where, stylistically, it fits rather well in terms
of the arc of the artist's development over time.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter How about the Pericles Pirate Episode?
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Mr. Stigmatta, would you ask a archaeologist, or paleontologist
how many hours he spent reading the works of Erich van Daniken?
Well there we have it. Game, set, and match, William Shakespeare, the Immortal
Bard of Avon.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard
"The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems is a
matter of conjecture and the idea that the 'authorship controversy' be taught in
the classroom are the exact equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent
design' be taught alongside evolution."
Bingo!
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter And, Stigmatta, if YOU and your conclusions are the result of
"reading some books," I may never read another book again.
Reply · Like ·
Tom Reedy ·
Roger Stritmatter There you go, folks. Still no explication of the "Shakespearean
qualities" he claims he discerns in the poem "My Mind to me a Kingdom Is".
State University
Follow ·
139/326
1/22/2015
State University
Timothy Beck Leaving aside your personal attacks, which matter not at all to me,
let's consider this:
"I notice that you don't recommend other books by Marlovians, Baconians, etc.
which would at least give a balanced picture of the whole question but only ones
that you believe in and want to promote."
Correct. I started studying the authorship as a topic in intellectual history in 1990
after viewing the Al Austin Frontline documentary, *The Shakespeare Mystery*
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/reactions/
austinresp.html ).
Over the years I've read a number of books and articles on other authorship
candidates, and once event spent an afternoon leafing through all the back issues
of *Baconiana* (1886-1970s if I recall) at one of the libraries in the Noho-Amherst
five college consortium to see what would be of enduring interesting them.
None of these books are arguments, imho, measure up. Other informed persons
may disagree with me, but in my view the only real alternative to the traditional
view of authorship is the Oxfordian one.
Sorry that you don't like that, but your demand that I should recommend bad
books that you haven't even read and don't know are bad is really a rather
remarkable show of desperation.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino You write " if YOU and your conclusions are the result of "reading
some books," I may never read another book again."
Joseph, my conclusions are the results of twenty years of study, including
reading many books and articles. As for your own intentions, you summarize the
results of your comments on this forum with great eloquence in your argument
against reading.
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli "Roger Stritmatter How about the Pericles Pirate Episode."
How about not changing the subject every other post. No response to my
comments about Timon? I posted them in response to your query, and now you
want to go on to Pericles? Do you need some ritalin?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino says: "would you ask a (sic) archaeologist, or paleontologist how
many hours he spent reading the works of Erich van Daniken?"
I'm glad you mentioned those subjects since it reminds me fondly of my days
during the 1980s as a graduate student in anthropology at the New School
(where I was MA, ABD before leaving). My experience is that anthropologists and
archaeologists have not generally been faced with a paradigm shift problem of
the same magnitude as the Shakespeareans are.
Comparing Looney, Ogburn, or Anderson, to Von Daniken is a little like
comparing Freudian or Jungian depth psychology to scientologist. Such
comparisons reflect poorly on the knowledge base of those who use them as
substitutes for actual discussion of the topic at hand, refuse to consider in-depth
accessible publications that develop at length arguments that cannot be
140/326
1/22/2015
accessible publications that develop at length arguments that cannot be
replicated on a comment discussion forum.
They will not impress serious students of the question, and as Stratford
Shakespeare Festival PR director David Prosser illustrated very well at York
University a couple of years ago (http://oberonshakespearestudygroup
.blogspot.ca/2012/04/prosser-asks-why-dont-we-study.html ), are instead an apt
way to incite further inquiry by curious student, who can readily distinguish an
emotional red herring from a zealot from a carefully elaborated and compelling
argument. So, nice try, but no your question is not even relevant.
Go fish.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter No I asked for an Oxfordian interpretation of Timon of Athens
and you provided it. Thanks. However you didn't provide one on Pericles which
was also in the original question.
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
"Other informed persons may disagree with me, but in my view the only real
alternative to the traditional view of authorship is the Oxfordian one."
C'mon Roger. Don't you sometimes just wish your candidate had lived long
enough to write all the plays instead just two thirds of them?? Don't you wish
you could find just a single item of evidence?? Don't you wish he had written
some half-decent poetry, in which you had even half a chance of discerning
Shakespearean quality??
Looney said "our case will either stand or fall" as readers are convinced that De
Vere's poetry does in fact "contain the natural seed and clear promise" of
Shakespeare's verse ..."
He couldn't find any seeds. And, of course, you certainly haven't been able to
discern any seeds either.
Surely that's a complete fail, isn't it?
Have you seriously never cast an envious glance at a better candidate?
Joseph Ciolino It doesn’t sound like you’re not the least bit frustrated or having
great fun.
“If someone dared came to me and said that Chopin didn't write Chopin”
“If” … But no one IS saying that about Chopin. No one is saying it about Mozart,
or Beethoven, or Daniel DeFoe, or Cervantes, or even Chaucer or Geoffrey of
Monmouth. It’s only Shakespeare for whom there is this nagging dissatisfaction
with the creator versus the work. Some people were saying it about Lewis Carroll
twenty five years ago, but they sure haven’t gained any traction within academe
or with the public. They haven’t made traditional advocates feel the sense of
threat you admit to.
The opposite is true with Shakespeare and Shakespeare alone: the more the case
against the traditional Shakespeare becomes known, the more undeniably
accomplished, rational, intelligent people are drawn to it; and the more difficult it
is to maintain the dismissal of doubters as “snobs” or “loons.” Why should that
be the case? The most obvious answer is: When re-assessed critically, the
traditional case is weak. And maybe it is weak because it is wrong.
141/326
1/22/2015
traditional case is weak. And maybe it is weak because it is wrong.
“And "Alice in Wonderland," sucks. Does that hurt? Aw, little Johnny's crying. Big
bad man said naughty thing about Dodgson. Why feel hurt? Are you feeling
threatened? Why not just ignore?”
I didn’t say I was hurt. I asked why you felt the need to make a gratuitous nasty
comment about Lewis Carroll’s writing in a discussion about the Shakespeare
authorship, simply because I gave the impression of liking Carroll’s writing. You
are illustrating my point: Advocates who genuinely feel they have a strong case,
with the evidence to back it up, don’t feel the need to go to bitter insults, angry
emotionality, and personal attacks on people who believe differently. They just
don’t. They ignore them.
If pointing out obvious points and asking logical questions is “pushing” … yes, I
will keep pushing, unapologetically. And if being pressed to answer logical
questions makes advocates for traditional Shakespeare go to pieces so fast …
no, that doesn’t bode well for its future.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli So Jonathan what is exactly that you find doubtful?
Jon, what I find doubtful is the whole story of “Shakespeare” as it’s presented to
us, as compared to the documentation related to the real person. Frankly, I find
much traditional Shakespeare scholarship doubtful, based on an attachment to
an emotionally appealing myth (and I use that in the bigger sense of “myth,” not
to mean “a lie”).
“Shakespeare of Stratford,” as he is presented to us, is an appealing mythological
figure; but the real person, recorded in documents from the time, was completely
different. Shakspere of Stratford was not the mild-mannered, amiable person
we’re told he was. He simply wasn’t. The records of the real Shakspere show a
ruthless businessman obsessed with money and gain, and lacking in human
empathy almost to the point of sociopathy. As discovered in the 1930's and
extensively researched by traditional scholar Leslie Hotson, he was involved with
known mobster-types -- the Elizabethan London equivalent of organized crime -being the first person named in a restraining order (“for fear of death”) placed by
one boss against a rival group. A grain dealer for at least fifteen years, he illegally
hoarded grain during a time of famine to inflate prices, angering his fellow
townspeople to the point where there was apparently talk of lynching him and
other hoarders. He and business associates tried to enclose the common lands
around Stratford for their own profit. After a fire in Stratford he and business
associates sent thugs to intimidate refugees who were living on the common
lands. He relentlessly hounded people who owed him small amounts of money,
while not paying his own debts. He was constantly nickle-and-diming (for
example, asking the city to reimburse him for the amount of wine he served a
visiting clergyman while entertaining him).
And then -- (we’re told) -- he went home and wrote witty court comedies and long
poems based on his favorite Classical authors. And the painfully self-reflective
sonnets, full of guilt and self-loathing. And “The quality of mercy is not strained
…” And KING LEAR and THE TEMPEST, which show profound empathy and
understanding for people who suffer as the result of the very kind of heartless
cruelty and ambition that … well, that he himself practiced.
As I learned about Shakespeare early on, I never heard ANY of that, as
documented as it is. I only ever heard how sensitive, “gentle,” well-liked and
unprepossessing he was.
In 2013 researchers in the UK made headlines across the world with their
astounding new assertion that … Shakspere was not a nice person; because he
evaded his taxes and ruthlessly hoarded grain during a famine for profit. Unlike
much of the rest of the world apparently, that was no revelation to me. I’d known
it for over twenty years -- because of honest anti-Stratfordian research. Only in
Shakespeare studies can something that has been known for at least a century be
considered an “exciting new discovery” -- simply because it has been ignored for
142/326
1/22/2015
all that time because it didn’t fit the mythology.
As I learned about Shakespeare, I only heard that “Shakespeare” performed for
the Queen at court with “his” theater company during the winter season, their
most prestigious engagement of the year. I never heard that, in reality, documents
show he was doing mundane business in Stratford at the exact same time “his”
theater company was performing at court.
I was told that Shakespeare showed no interest in the publication of his plays
because they were considered worthless, “like TV scripts today.” I wasn’t told that
Shakespeare’s “worthless TV scripts” were collected in a lavish volume that cost
the modern equivalent of several hundred dollars.
I only ever heard that Shakespeare was a super-genius “with a mind like a steel
trap, remembering every fact and bit of information he ever heard” (to account for
the vast knowledge in the plays). I wasn’t told that in the documents of a legal
case in which he was called as a witness, involving his own landlords, he proved
useless because he couldn’t remember anything.
When I visited Stratford in the early 1990’s I was thrilled to be standing in the
actual room in which Shakespeare was born. There was nothing there to tell me
that, in reality -- according to records from the time -- Shakspere was just as
likely (or more) to have been born in an entirely different house (now gone) in a
nicer part of town bought by John Shakspere around the time of his marriage,
rather than in the building John used for his business. Nor was I told that
Shakspere couldn’t possibly have been born in the “birth room” because John
didn’t even own that part of the building at the time.
Time and again when actual records from the time are looked at, what we are told
about “Shakespeare” turns out not to be true. Reality is constantly bent, and
“facts” made up, to fit the mythology … and then the mythology is believed and
presented as fact. And I want to emphasize again that this is coming from
someone who would absolutely LOVE for the traditional story to be true. I love
the traditional "Shakespeare" and still feel a kind of thrill at seeing the statues in
Stratford, and being in the church there -- but it's the same kind of thrill I feel on
Baker Street because I love the STORY of Sherlock Holmes living there. I was
really attached to the traditional Shakespeare ... but I've found that it simply
doesn't hold up.
Reply · Like ·
PS: Some examples of what I have found to be very good scholarship, from
primary documents, which cast doubt on the traditional story:
Have you read Robert Brazil’s in-depth analysis of the actual printing history of
Shakespeare’s plays? How in the nine years previous to 1603, seventeen
Shakespeare plays were published -- almost two a year -- (five of which were
reported on the title pages to have been edited by the author, including the
standard “good” editions of HAMLET and ROMEO AND JULIET); whereas, after
1603, only two new Shakespeare plays appeared over the next NINETEEN years
(one of which says it had made a “scape” from “grand possessors”)? Why the
dramatic change? What happened to Shakespeare around 1603 to cause the
sudden drop off in publication of Shakespeare plays and his involvement with it?
According to the traditional story, nothing. We are not to ask that logical
question. Nothing to see here.
Have you read Robert Detobel’s extensive analysis of the records of the
Stationer’s Guild (the Elizabethen equivalent of the copyright office)? Detobel
found that, contrary to traditional claims -- (again based on circular reasoning,
trying to make sense of Shaksper’s indifference to the publication of
“Shakespeare’s” works) -- playwrights did indeed have certain rights when it
came to the publication of their works. There were standard clauses and
formulations to cover those rights. (They included the right to, under certain
circumstances, stall the publication of a work until the author saw fit to proceed.)
Despite Shakspere’s extensive documented record of fighting for his rights in
court on even small matters, he never once intervened to defend his rights as an
author in the publication of “Shakespeare’s” plays.
143/326
1/22/2015
author in the publication of “Shakespeare’s” plays.
Have you read Richard Whalen’s work on the records listing the venues where
Shakespeare’s plays were performed during his lifetime? Despite the constant
depiction of “Shakespeare” as a popular writer for the public theaters and
common people, it turns out that only about a third of the performances were in
public theaters. Two-thirds, on the other hand, were at court, in private homes, at
Grey’s Inn (the legal college) and universities, in more exclusive small theaters,
and so on. Going strictly by the numbers in the record, it would seem
Shakespeare’s actual primary audience seems to have been the elite and
classically educated. You would never know that from the traditional story.
Reply · Like ·
Something else I find doubtful, of a subjective nature: I wrote below of the fact
that all my life my main circle of friends has been comprised of artistic, creative
people -- actors, writers, theater producers, storytellers in general, composers,
artists, musicians ... Shakspere, as the records really show him, simply does not
strike me as that kind of person. Neither he, nor the mythical "Shakespeare" are
believable as a creative person. It doesn't add up.
I know of no creative people who do their creative work simply as another in a
wide portfolio of mundane money-making business activities; and if anything
comes out in the records of Shakspere of Stratford it’s his laser-like focus on
making money. Someone whose primarily focus is on making lots of money in
various business enterprises -- as his seems to have been -- would AVOID the
creative fields: “Let’s see … real estate … money-lending … grain dealing …
church tithing … sparkling Euphueistic comedies … poetry based on Classical
mythology …” No. Just no. People don’t work that way.
It is definitely easy to see him as being involved in the business of the theater of
his time. That’s where the money would have been -- just like how the people
making the real money in the TV and film business now are not the writers, actors
and creative people, but the executives, producers, agents and investors.
Robert Greene's seeming depiction of Shakspere as a ruthless theater jack of
various trades, dealer in plays by others, and user and abuser of playwrights ...
and Greene's complaints in various places about "front men" and people taking
credit for others' work ... completely fits the Shakspere character as actually seen
in the records.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli "Above I got into a friendly exchange with Dixon and I asked “What
is it exactly that he finds doubtful?” and then I list my main issues with the
Oxfordian case. I haven’t gotten a response."
Just to let you know, the lateness of my response was because of being laid out
with a miserable flu that I'm just starting to get over.
Reply · Like ·
Something else that makes me doubt the traditional story, as I wrote below, is the
way traditional scholars have to keep making excuses and exceptions for
“Shakespeare” (meaning Shakspere of Stratford) and Shakespeare alone; things
they not only DON’T say about other writers, but which are the exact opposite of
how they study other writers. Also, the way they have to keep throwing out a lot
of vague non-explanations in order to try to make him somehow compatible with
the rest of reality:
Unlike any other human being, he was "universal" (whatever that is supposed to
mean). He was just an "unfathomable genius" (so -- how convenient! -- we
shouldn't even try to understand him by the standards of other real-life human
beings). At the same time, though, he also "invented the Human" (whatever that is
144/326
1/22/2015
beings). At the same time, though, he also "invented the Human" (whatever that is
supposed to mean).
This one especially does not fit with me: Unlike any other creative human being
on the planet studied by scholars, Shakespeare alone "left no trace of himself or
his real personality in his works." That even includes his sonnet cycle, which
despite all obvious impressions of being deeply emotional, first person
expressions, were REALLY just non-personal "poetic exercises on stock themes."
Aside from the fact that Shakespeare again proves to be the one exception to the
way the rest of humanity works, that’s just pure absurdity. There is a very clear
personality that shines through the works of Shakespeare. It is a philosophical,
introspective, hugely complex, wild and witty, melancholy and cynical personality
… one so sensitive it has seemingly known the depths of human despair, almost
to the point of mental illness. (Heck, in MACBETH he accurately anticipates
theories of the subconscious by several centuries.) In other words, the personality
that comes through in Shakespeare’s works is a personality very like Hamlet,
Mercutio, Jacques, Berowne, Benedick, etc. It is the same personality that comes
through in the Sonnets. The problem for traditional scholars is: it is just not that
of Shakspere of Stratford. Hence they HAVE to make the absurd claim that there
is no sign of the author in the works.
I think of something Stanley Kubrick said: You can't get a dumb actor to play a
smart character. All you'll get is a dumb person's idea of what a "smart person" is
like. Similarly, a mentally and emotionally uncomplex writer can't convincingly
create believable mentally and emotionally complex characters, let alone many,
many of them. There is nothing in the actual records of Shakspere of Stratford
which indicates that kind of complexity of personality. Again, as if in quiet
acknowledgment this, scholars have to make an exception for him and him alone.
In addition to knowing so many creative artists -- and in addition to being
something of one myself -- I am also a licensed psychotherapist, with decades of
experience working with the way real human beings' psyches, minds and
emotions work, at a really basic, nitty-gritty level. The traditional "Shakespeare,"
as presented to us, simply does not add up. He’s not a real human being.
And of course there’s the old, "What does it matter who wrote them, as long as
we have the works themselves?" Who else do the scholars claim that about? No
one … not a single creative artist whom we feel we really know something about.
Once again they have to make an exception for Shakespeare and Shakespeare
alone … simply because Shakespeare and Shaksper are so obviously
incompatible.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jonathan David Dixon Jonathan, first off thanks for the long detailed response
and not making it into a "flame war" as has been done ad nauseum in these
threads. I'm not going to go point by point on your stuff but concentrate on a
couple of things
I totally agree with you that Shakespeare needs to be looked at as a human being
and that means warts and all. People are not one thing or another, they can
hypocritical and paradoxical and they are still one in the same person. People like
Van Gough, Beethoven, Salvador Dali, Da Vinci, etc. produced amazing works
however, personally they were a bunch A-Holes. Producing great art doesn’t
mean you are a nice person, in fact historically, it usually means the opposite. The
majority of those who have made marks on history as being exceptional are
usually screwed up themselves. So the fact that you have someone who was
ruthless in business also writing poetry and plays that don’t display a single point
of view but a wide range of human experiences from love to murder, from kind
kings to ruthless tyrants, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen and actually fits
with the other artists that I mentioned.
The word genius automatically sets people apart from everyone else and that's
the start of the disconnect from a regular human being. The layers of cultural
baggage that have accumulated in the name of Bardolotry, the treatment of
Shakespeare as some kind of literary god. has over the centuries created this
145/326
1/22/2015
Shakespeare as some kind of literary god. has over the centuries created this
minor deity and in my opinion is the main reason why we have this authorship
debate for Shakespeare and not for someone else. We're force fed this in school,
told its good for us and some are going to chafe at that and look for holes in the
story. So yes, its first good to strip away that person away, I agree with you that
this later day creation doesn’t jibe with the historical evidence because it’s a false
god.
The historical William Shakespeare on the other had a family to support, had to
pay his share for upkeep of the Globe, aside from actors to pay there were
seamstresses, grocers, admission people, carpenters, and other support staff that
keep a theater company going. These are the often looked over and mundane
details that people have to deal with as they live from day to day. Also, theater in
this time was FAR from the polished rehearsal studio or acting conservatories of
today. Any good period drama catches the actual period, it was a dirty, smelly,
plague infested world that people were boxed into these urban areas. The
theaters with the exception of Blackfriars were located in bad areas of town. Its in
this environment that most of the great literature, not just Shakespeare, came out
of and other great literature has also come out of these types of environs. A look
at Henslowe’ Diary states not only the shows that he did but loans to actors,
pawn brokering, bear beating, this is the world these plays came out of.
I personally think you reading too much into your “mob example”. The fear of
bodily harm action is in response to an apprentice riot and it also names two
women and one man not just Shakespeare alone and that’s all you have. You
don’t know why these people are grouped together, it could be just guilt by
association or not. These other people never show up again as being associated
with Shakespeare so that doesn’t lend much credence to them being long time
associates but just a one off thing. Shakespeare is noted for not paying a tax bill,
yeah and the IRS audits thousands of people a year for the same thing. Its not a
major offence and something that a lot of people were guilty of. So as far as the
law is concerned that is the extent of his offenses. He was never arrested for
public lewdness, assault, murder or anything else that would suggest he was a
career criminal on the level of a mobster. Ben Jonson on the other hand murdered
a man and got off because he could read some Latin. The guy killed someone but
that apparently hasn’t affected his reputation as a literary genius and no one is
questioning his authorship.
On the subject of Shakespeare’s business dealings, the bulk of these references
come the late 1590s to 1610. This was a time when Shakespeare was working in
London in the public playhouses, private entertainments, and court
entertainments as noted by payments to the theater company that include his
name. If you just take him as an actor and theater company owner that means he
was busy for 10-11 months out of the year with the time of Lent being the most
obvious time to take a break and head back to Stratford. Even if you go with he
didn’t act as much during the later part of his career that’s a good 5-6 years
where he was busy in London and about 5 years where he still spent part time
there. Regardless of the exact breakdown, it took 3 days to get to Stratford from
London. Given this distance and time commitment how did Shakespeare both
work in London and have time to be so hands on in his business dealings? The
most logical answer is that he had either one or more people managing his
business interests back home. So is the most logical candidate? Germain Greer in
her book Shakespeare’s Wife makes a great case that it was Anne not Will who
tended to his business dealings as after all she also would have a vested interest
in its outcome. Its not excusing the cut throat practices but you have to reconcile
the fact that he was in London and things were going on in Stratford and he
couldn’t be in both places at the same time. So it makes sense that his wife Anne
oversaw and pursued the business interests. Women were not always stay at
home housewives but people who ran households. Henslow even makes a remark
about his wife bringing him some business to pawn items. So some of the
business actions may not have been done by him personally. Even so, if someone
owes you money you’re going to want it back. I really can’t speak to the grain
hording as I don’t know anything about it but its also been spouted by people
who are out to degrade Will Shakespeare the man so I find the story suspect or at
least prone to exaggeration. Again, what do you really know he dealt with
personally? You don’t. Its taking a bunch of legal listings and trying to craft an
identity profile. Its not complete nor conclusive.
Reply · Like ·
146/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jonathan David Dixon On your point about the creative side of things, I couldn’t
disagree more. I find that the historical man who toiled in a theater company with
other theater professionals to mount something like 200 to 300 separate
productions a year dealing with actors, costumes, props, fight choreography, line
memorization, blocking, accents, comic routines, repairing walls, dealing with
concessions, dealing with getting paid by Queen’s or King’s office, coordinating
tours, dealing with theatrical personalities like Kemp and probably Burbage to me
is VERY REAL. I have worked in theater for over 20 years and have acted since I
was 10. I have produced over 100 shows, acted and directed in most of them. In
what I’ve read about what James Burbage had to put up with in getting legal
recognition for his profession, the theater company dealing with an A-hole
landlord, Giles Allen, that lead to the creation of the Globe, to Will Kemp thinking
he was the bomb and then leaving the company - Its all still happening today.
This is my main argument against someone like some an Ivory tower nobleman
like De Vere. He wasn’t a theater man and I haven’t been presented with anything
that states he himself had any direct involvement in the dirty details about what it
takes to put a single show together let alone 200. The plays are FULL of theatrical
allusions, also direction in the language that tells an actor how to play a moment
and also mundane theater details like giving a lead actor a break before the final
act.
The New Historicist movement in the traditional scholarship to me is the best
thing that’s happened to the study of the plays as it tries to put them back in their
historical context to understand what were the social forces that were around
when these plays came about and how do these forces affect what’s on the page.
Something like Macbeth and the fact that it’s a Scottish story with Gunpowder
plot overtones gives it a unique flavor that came out of those times. It would feel
different if it were written at another time. You can easily enjoy Macbeth on its
own without knowing any of this and the majority of theater goers don’t know it
but it enriches the understanding of the play and as an actor playing it when you
do know about it. The plays didn’t just pop out of nowhere, they were influenced
by sources, public tastes, writing styles, even working with other writers who
could bring something else to the story. This to me smacks of someone who was
in the trench day in and day out. Who wrote parts to suit his leading man, his
buffoonish clown, his intellectual fool, his musical people and so forth. The
attention to this level of theatrical and personnel oriented detail is far too much to
believe that someone so far removed from these specific people and the
profession could have done them. These were plays written by an actor for other
actors and yes they are filled with great passages and commentary on an array of
subjects. The same areas of subject can be easily gleaned from books or the
rigorous education of the time. Shakespeare was a rich guy and the most diverse
book mart in the country was available to him at St. Paul’s.
So while I can understand your disgust and at the Shakespeare God of Letters
that was a later creation when you look at the man in the context of his time and
profession (dirt and all) working with scores of others to create theater, I can’t
think of another candidate other than William Shakespeare
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Jonathan David Dixon Speaking of myths...if you actually knew anything at all
about the documentary record, and didn't just blindly accept what others have
written about them, you would know that your statements are worthless garbage.
The "known mobster-type" was Francis Langley, the owner of the Swan Theater,
and the restraining order was filed in response to one that had earlier been filed
by Langley -- a common occurance when parties are having a dispute [the other
parties to the dispute were corrupt and venal, which you would know if you had
actually read Hotson on the subject].
The newspaper articles and the study that you cite as to grain dealings are
baloney [and, yes, I have actually communicated with one of the authors of that
study to learn that they found no new documentary evidence other than what we
have had for years]. The actual documentary record doesn't show any pattern of
grain dealing over any period of time and there isn''t a shred of evidence that
147/326
1/22/2015
Shakespeare ever hoarded grain in a time of famine, much less that the twonsmen
were ready to lynch him. There is nothing to show that he was one of the "great
engrossers" who were actually manipulating the price of grain. The only record
we have as to the amount of malt held by the Shakespeare family in Stratford is
found in an inventory of the holdings of all of the householders in the entire
town, so unless you can show that evrybody in Stratford at the time was
hoarding grain you are spouting nonsense. You need to actually look at the
documents themselves before repeating garbage. The same goes for your
statements about the enclosure of land, your myth about the fire in Stratford, and
the lawsuits.
Something else that makes me doubtful of traditional Shakespeare scholarship is
the blatant double standards and lack of intellectual integrity frequently shown by
its “leading experts.” Again, they keep changing the rules, even moment to
moment, just for Shakespeare.
What makes me think of this now is Jonathan Bate’s reaction to the abovementioned researchers’ 2013 assertion that Shakspere was a “ruthless” (as they
themselves put it) person because of his tax evasion and illegal grain hoarding:
Bate praised the research, saying that it now “offers us insight” into the grain
hoarding episode in CORIOLANUS.
Huh? Why didn’t Bate say, “It’s just a coincidence. Shakespeare didn’t write
autobiographically”? That’s what non-Stratfordians always hear when we point
out parallels between a life and the works. But if non-Stratfordians now say,
“Professor Bate, sir? So, now it’s all right to point out real-life parallels? Well,
how about the fact Hamlet is captured by pirates and left naked on the beach,
while Edward de Vere was also captured by pirates and left naked on the beach
…”
“It’s just a coincidence!! Shakespeare did not write autobiographically!”
It’s always just a “coincidence” -- a word we’re hearing a lot in these comments,
with many people forgetting that “coincidence” simply means that things
“coincide” ... and that the word “meaningless” isn’t necessarily a given, unspoken
attachment to it.
Traditionalists try to have it both ways. They insist that we are NOT to read the
works as revealing anything about “Shakespeare’s” life or personality. They
deride the attempt to look for biographical elements in the plays. He was
“invisible” and kept himself out of his works! He was the least autobiographical of
writers!
UNTIL, of course … they find something that seems a match for their man. Then
suddenly a biographical element can indeed “offer insight” into the works. If they
find words that were supposedly only used in Warwickshire -- then, yes,
suddenly the works DO reflect the author. Suddenly Shakespeare wasn’t
“invisible.” If they find the phrase “hate away” in a sonnet, that can’t be a
coincidence: it CLEARLY refers to Shakspere’s wife Anne Hatheway. Suddenly
Shakspere of Stratford was indeed a writer who drew on his life, included
autobiographical elements, and revealed himself in his works.
At the same time, though, non-believers aren’t allowed to look for the same kinds
of things. They are loonies -- or [sneer!] amateurs -- if they suggest that when the
author claims repeatedly to be “lame,” say … well, he might really have been lame.
Or that when he says he has “carried the canopy” (over the Queen, as even
traditional scholars acknowledge) he might actually have carried the canopy.
Because Shakespeare was invisible and impersonal and kept himself out of his
works! The sonnets were just non-personal poetic excercises on stock themes!
Except when he alluded to his wife in them, that is.
The constant zig-zagging and rule-changing shows that, for all their talk,
traditional scholars are DESPERATE to find biographical reflections of the author
in the works. They just can’t, so they’re forced to pretend to believe there aren’t
any. They have to invent a mythological writer who, alone among all other creative
148/326
1/22/2015
any. They have to invent a mythological writer who, alone among all other creative
people, revealed absolutely nothing of his true self in his work. When something
does seem to match their man, though, they latch on to it rapturously because
then they can breathe a sign of relief and apply the common-sense rules they
apply to any other writer. Then an author’s life can indeed offer “insight” into the
works … as Prof. Bate himself admitted, without realizing the implications.
Reply · Like ·
Speaking of Jonathan Bate, he is one of the worst for this kind of blatant doublestandarded hypocrisy. I remember a case that perfectly illustrates it: I was stunned
once to read an interview where Bate actually referred to “Oxfordians’ imagined
similarities between Polonius and Lord Burghley.”
I was stunned and could only think: Wait a minute, traditional scholars were the
ones who pointed out those similarities first, long before there even were
Oxfordians. Now suddenly the parallels are “Oxfordian” (and thus, by definition,
“imagined”)? Apparently when they realize their own research not only supports
another candidate, but actually strikes a blow against their own man, traditional
scholars can’t backpedal furiously enough. And then they dishonestly re-write
history to deny it was theirs in the first place.
So, once again, we are back to a situation in which elements in the works which
seem to parallel a real life are just “imagined coincidence.” EXCEPT, of course,
when the title of HAMLET sounds kind of like the name of Shakspere’s son,
Hamnet. In that case … well, clearly Shaksper wrote the play to deal with the
drowning death of his son, because … well, someone drowns in HAMLET too. (A
young girl, but whatever.)
“So pointing out biographical elements IS suddenly allowed again?” antiStratfordians ask. Oh, wait, no, it isn’t. We are NOT to note that in that very same
play the character of Polonius was obviously modeled on Lord Burghley, Queen
Elizabeth’s Lord Treasurer (even though traditional scholars were the ones noting
it first). Or that Polonius’ name in the first version of HAMLET (Corambus, or
“Two-Hearted”) is pretty obviously a nasty takeoff on Burghley’s motto (“One
heart, one way”). Or that Polonius’ sending someone to spy on his son in France
parallels Burghley’s sending someone to spy on his son in France. Or that the list
of advice Polonius reads to his son is very like the list of advice Burghley wrote
for his sons and wards. Or that Lord Burghley was Edward de Vere’s despised
father-in-law. Or that Edward de Vere was one of the wards subjected to
Burghley’s advice.
(Another reason this is not to be noted is: the documented punishment for any
writer “slandering” Lord Burghley -- let alone, one would imagine, depicting his
symbolic murder on stage -- was to be whipped and have one’s ears cut off. The
last I saw, the statue of Shakspere in Stratford has ears.)
THOSE are just “imagined” parallels. THOSE seemingly biographical elements
couldn’t possibly “offer insight” into the play; not in the way that grain-hoarding
does in CORIOLANUS. And we are definitely NOT to suggest that Hamlet’s
capture and subsequent release by pirates while crossing to England -- left naked
on the beach when they realized who he is -- might in any way reflect the author’s
own experience: for example, the fact that Edward de Vere was also captured and
subsequently released by pirates while crossing to England, and left naked on the
beach when they realized who he was.
Because Shakespeare didn’t write autobiographically!! He was the most invisible
of writers! He didn’t put himself into his plays or poems! Except when he did. And
wrote a whole play because his son Hamnet had died, and the legend of Prince
Amleth of Denmark appealed to him because the character had a somewhat
vaguely similar-sounding name. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a reflection of
the author’s life. The zig-zagging is enough to give one whiplash.
Reply · Like ·
149/326
1/22/2015
Related to the unbelievability of the traditional Shakespeare’s so-called invisibility
in his own works: Another claim I’ve read is, “He had an actor’s talent for
disappearing into his characters.”
That’s just not how it works. The people saying that don’t have a clue how acting
really works. As an actor you, more than other people, have to dig deep and find
the various true aspects of yourself. The writer of HAMLET obviously understood
that because Hamlet’s advice to the players is still one of the best acting lessons
you can find.
From the real writers I know, the same is true there. They don’t “disappear.”
Writers and actors put themselves forward MORE than average people. The word
you hear over and over in acting and writing classes is: to do anything really
meaningful you have to let yourself be “vulnerable.” To do any truthful work -anything that will resonate with other human beings (and Shakespeare resonates
with more human beings than any other writer) -- you have to EXPOSE yourself,
not “disappear.”
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Jonathan David Dixon
Since his knighthood, you have to go down on one knee to be rude about
Jonathan Bate.
Are your multiple, serial posts intended to distract attention from Roger's
shortcomings in the evidence department?
No one outside your camp argues that contextual and historical detail can not
shed light on the content of the plays. Your side, however, (see the arguments on
Macbeth etc) either applies such detail selectively, ignores it altogether or denies
its existence according to how problematical it is for the Earl's authorship.
Coriolanus, for example, is the favourite Shakespeare play of the Card-CarryingCommunist on the Clapham Omnibus. Yet Oxfordian 'scholars' argue that it is
Edward de Vere, up to his autobiographical tricks, portraying himself in the title
role.
If you stick to reading a plot synopsis, it's true that you can see a haughty
plutocrat in there. However, if you read the play, like Hazlitt, Marx and Engels all
did, you'll be astonished at the idea that some people believe it was written by an
Elizabethan aristocrat.
Here's Hazlitt:"Any one who studies it may save himself the trouble of reading Burke's
Reflections, or Paine's Rights of Man, or the Debates in both Houses of
Parliament since the French Revolution or our own. The arguments for and
against aristocracy or democracy, on the privileges of the few and the claims of
the many, on liberty and slavery, power and the abuse of it, peace and war, are
here very ably handled with the spirit of a poet and the acuteness of a
philosopher."
De Vere? You've GOT to be joking.
State University
Follow ·
Jonathan David Dixon writes: "Apparently when they realize their own research
not only supports another candidate, but actually strikes a blow against their own
man, traditional scholars can’t backpedal furiously enough. And then they
dishonestly re-write history to deny it was theirs in the first place."
Jonathan, thanks for bringing up this question of the constantly evolving
revisionism by which Stratfordian scholars are keeping their Titanic afloat.
150/326
1/22/2015
revisionism by which Stratfordian scholars are keeping their Titanic afloat.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jonathan David Dixon "Aside from the fact that Shakespeare again proves to be
the one exception to the way the rest of humanity works, that’s just pure
absurdity. There is a very clear personality that shines through the works of
Shakespeare. It is a philosophical, introspective, hugely complex, wild and witty,
melancholy and cynical personality … one so sensitive it has seemingly known
the depths of human despair, almost to the point of mental illness."
In saving the icon, Stratfordians must inevitably ignore or deprecate the works -which, as you so eloquently say, are vibrantly infused with personality from start
to finish.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud writes, in his usual presumptive style: "Don't you sometimes just wish
your candidate had lived long enough to write all the plays instead just two thirds
of them??"
Having just completed a book that effectively proves that the idea that
Shakespeare's allegedly last work (with the possible exception, as some claim, of
Henry 8), *The Tempest,* was certainly written in or before 1603, and having an
article appearing in a forthcoming issue of *Critical Survey* (http://
journals.berghahnbooks.com/cs/) building on the work of other Oxfordian and
traditional scholars to show that one other late play, *King Lear, was probably
written as early as 1601, I find your mewling about the chronology predictable,
but bordering on irrelevant.
The truth is that you don't know when most of the late plays were written, and
you certainly cannot prove that ANY of them were, as is often claimed, written
later than 1604. But I appreciate the fact that it is your job to make these kinds of
arguments, even if they sound increasingly hollow to anyone with a moderately
informed perspective.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud "Since his knighthood, you have to go down on one knee to be rude
about Jonathan Bate."
Is that a bit of ... um ... SNOBBERY sneaking in? ;-) If pointing out a scholar's
blatant dishonesty in re-writing his own field's history in order to erase
embarrassing truths is considered "rude" (whether he's been knighted or not) ...
Actually, I don't know what to say beyond that.
William Shaksper of Stratford upon Avon was mocked in his own lifetime on the London
stages, as an illiterate, braggart, who changed his name by a few letters in order to pretend to
be a nobleman.
read - Chapman's The Gentleman Usher. It even links Shaksper to the street in London he
lived on at the time (though the play is set in London!)
Reply · Like ·
8 · Follow Post · Edited · January 5 at 4:13pm
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Prove it.
151/326
1/22/2015
Prove it.
Jon Ciccarelli
I have - I've written extensively on the evidence - TheFestivalRobe.com.
You must read the latest on Chapman's "Chabot" btw. Words have meanings,
don'tchaknow?
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Christopher Carolan So a work of fiction is your proof?
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli It is worse than that. His idiosyncratic, entirely subjective
interpretation of a work of fiction is offered as his proof.
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli Numerous "works of fiction" from the 1590s onwards confirm de
Vere's authorship of the works. Start with the sonnets (1609) if you want to
understand this - not that there is any evidence extant that you do.
Oxfraud
Roger is here using 'numerous' with its rare, uniquely Oxfordian meaning of 'nonexistent'.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Using sarcasm I see. Didn't you say that is what someone does
when "they are starting to lose the argument but don't know it yet"? Starting with
the Sonnets (1609)". So you are stating here now that the publication that
contains the 154 Sonnets is fictional, i.e. didn't actually happen. So the whole
Oxfordian story of Oxford and Southhamton is not at all true? So you're saying
the Oxfordians that take the sonnets as personal recollections of Oxford's life
with no intended fiction content are incorrect? Not that I really care but I don't
think that stance is going to make you very popular with other Oxforidans. The
Earl of Southhamton is popular and not sure how they would take you saying
that their relationship is fictional. They may stop buying your books for that
stance.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli Don't you know, the Sonnets are the Oxfordian "evidence" that
proves Oxford was the son of Queen Elizabeth,that he later slept with his mother,
that she then gave birth to their child, Southampton, and that Oxford later slept
with Southampton. The Oxfordian "understandings" of the Sonnets and other
literary works prove [to Oxfordians] that Oxford wrote Shakespeare.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Mark Johnson Ah yes, I'm familiar with the Prince Tudor and Prince Tudor II
theory and had to suffer through its skanky depiction when watching that
152/326
1/22/2015
theory and had to suffer through its skanky depiction when watching that
abomination known "Anonymous". Didn't know Oxford slept with his own
Son/Brother/Patron, well that's a new twist. Don’t know what it is by Oxfordians
but they sure do love themselves some Southhampton. On their end never heard
of the Sonnets being fiction but they’re always a straight up biography of
Oxford’s and Southhampton’s relationship so Roger is treading some dangerous
ground by calling it fiction. He might be disowned by the whole community for it.
I find the Prince Tudor theories hysterical funny on two fronts, although they're
hysterically funny on many fronts. First, J. Thomas. Looney, the guy who started
this whole thing, hated the theory and told those who believed it to stop with the
nonsense as it would hurt the movement. Secondly, that Oxfordians seem to
think that if De Vere was Elizabeth's illegitimate kid than that automatically makes
him the rightful heir to the throne. Do they realize that's not how it worked. Henry
VIII, her father, had a recognized illegitimate kid but that didn't trump the kids
born in wedlock. In a class conscience society like Elizabethan England, where
rights of succession weren’t a given that an unrecognized bastard child was on
the lowest rung of the social ladder, lower than Shakespeare and most
groundlings. Recognized illegitimate children could inherit money and lands but
not titles.
If it were true that De Vere was the bastard kid of Elizabeth it would mean that he
was not the child of John Vere and Margaret Golding so he was born out of
wedlock and is not a legitimate heir to the Earldom of Oxford and could never be
an Earl. John Vere would have had to acknowledge his parentage with Elizabeth
to legally acknowledge Edward as his son in order to make him an heir to his
money. Being that he died when Ed was a kid would make it a bit difficult to do
this. Also, Elizabeth would have to do the same thing in order to be legally
recognized as her offspring, however this recognition would never make him an
crown prince. Since neither of these people acknowledged their parentage and if
his illegitimacy were true, Edward would lose all of his titles and remaining
fortunes that came with the Earldom. While some members of court would love
the fact that a male was born to Elizabeth, the fact that he would have born in
secret and the product of an affair, few would have rallied around him simply
because of the social stigma of being associated with the product of such a
scandal. Even more ammo considering that many in England and outside thought
Elizabeth a bastard herself. So if the main Prince Tudor story were true and he
decided to exercise his claim, Edward De Vere would become a nobody in
Elizabethan society. So he would have nothing to gain by being the illegitmate
son of Elizabeth and have everything to lose. If she got him to recognize the
parentage, then he might have some footing for tenuous support otherwise, he’d
be SOL.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
In the spirit of this thread where you make unsubstantiated claims and back them
up with stories of fiction I would like to claim that Edward De Vere, The Earl of
Oxford was actually a space alien from the distant planet Gooptda and had many
a sexual relation with dogs. I will back up this claim by writing a work of fiction.
So everyone if you ever come to a dead end in your research and know in your
gut something to be true just write a piece of fiction about it to make it true.
Because like our old boy Eddie used to say "Nothing is truer than truth" and you
can make up your own truth simply by calling it fiction.
Jon Ciccarelli
So - you are unaware of censorship in Tudor times? You should read Patterson.
So - you are unaware of the use of allegory and allusion to convey the news of
the period blacked out by censorship? This is accepted in all academic circles.
In Tudor times, say the wrong things, and you hands or ears are cut off.
Defenders of the Tourist Industry will have believe this did not effect the behavior
of writers. Pretty foolish to believe that.
153/326
1/22/2015
of writers. Pretty foolish to believe that.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Christopher Carolan What writers had their hands or ears cut off for saying the
wrong things? Jonson was arrested for sedition, nothing physically happened to
him and he was released from prison. Didn't seem to affect his career either as he
went on to write masques and become the equivalent of the poet laureate. He did
have his thumb branded but that's because Jonson killed a man. Was the
supposed front man, the "illiterate, braggart" as you call him ever arrested for
sedition or had his hands or ears cut off? Why not? Could it be that there was
nothing seditious in the plays that would prompt such an arrest or mutilation?
Those who were truly of a seditious nature like Robert Campion weren't jailed for
a bit and then released. They were executed, and sometimes drawn and quartered.
Yes allusion and allegory are used to comment on contemporary events it still
doesn't directly show that the lies you spout about Shakespeare were true. You
can't even get the guy's name right. It was Shakespeare there was no Shaksper as
attested by England's College of Arms.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli Edmund Campion + Robert Southwell = Robert Campion
Get your Jebbies straight!
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ann Zakelj You're right Ann, Screwed that one up. Welcome back to thread BTW
haven't seen you post in a few days. Still doesn't change the gist of the post
though. Mr. Carolan needs to back up his claims of mutilated poets due to
sedition.
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli writes:"Mr. Carolan needs to back up his claims of mutilated poets
due to sedition.:
Jon, I suggest you follow Chris's suggestion and beg, borrow, or steal a copy of
Patterson's "Censorship and Interpretation." It is a very impressive work by a
thoroughly orthodox Shakespearean scholar. I reviewed the book in 1993: http://
www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/shakespeares-censored-personality-byroger-stritmatter/
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Sorry Roger you're not his lawyer. He made the statement
about mutilations and he needs to show how he came to that assessment.
Jim Ballard ·
...Heads up folks !
There are now nearly 1500 comments on this blog.
Not a single one successfully refutes the first two paragraphs of this Newsweek article...I will
quote them here as a reminder :
"The greatest ongoing investigation in literary history has been caused entirely by William
154/326
1/22/2015
"The greatest ongoing investigation in literary history has been caused entirely by William
Shakespeare’s thoughtlessness. He left no paper trail. Not a single poem or letter or play has
ever been found in his own hand. We have just six shaky signatures. His will mentions no
books, plays or anything else to suggest the balding Stratford businessman was also a
writer.
His personality, love interests, movements are all a total (mystery). The documents relating to
his life are all of a legal nature. Nobody ever recognised Shakespeare as a writer during his
lifetime and when he died, in 1616, no one seemed to notice. Not a single letter refers to the
great author’s passing at the time."
Anyone thinks different...Show me.
Show me any comment here that SUBSTANTUALLY refutes the first two paragraphs, or any
part of the first two paragraphs.
Show me.
And then try to convince me there are no doubts about authorship.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Not a single one successfully refutes the first two paragraphs of this Newsweek
article.
In your opinion, Jim. In your opinion. Doubtless, many would disagree.
In MY opinion, nothing in the article or within this thread SUBSTANTIATES the
claim that De Vere wrote the works of Shakespeare.
Nothing in those two paragraphs warrants repudiation. They do not prove or even
cause doubt about the identification of the true author, William Shakespeare, the
Immortal Bard of Avon. Look at those sentences. They are an embarrassment of
supposition, suggestion, and hyperbole, and lies. Yes, lies.
"Shakespeare's thoughtlessness." Suggests, what? Clairvoyance should be
relied upon as a tool for research?
Tired of saying the same things over and over but where are the manuscripts of
Kyd, Beaumont and Flecther, Chapman, Dekker, Heywood, Marston, Webster, or
somebody by the name of Ben Jonson? The silliness of this argument must
cause even the most open-minded to laugh at the premise. As for the remaining
paragraph -- you can't be serious. That no one seemed to notice his death, again,
compare to contemporaries and then read the eulogies that do exist, attesting
fully to his authorship.
Jesus, what color is the sky the world of you Oxfraudians?!?
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Hand D in Sir Thomas More has been matched to the 6 extant signatures http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Thomas-Cambridge-LibraryCollection/dp/1108015352. So there's a manuscript..
The will mentions no books, so what? Does Oxford's library contain books on the
colloquial terms for Warwickshire weeds? Both Cymbeline and Hamlet contain
those references. Does De Vere's library contain references to glove making?
Merry Wives of Windsor contains a reference to a glover's pairing knife.
While we're on the subject a lot has been made of De Vere's access to books. Can
it be proven that his library contained Holinshed's Chronicles and all of the
sources used for the plays? Not supposition or inference can all of the sources
used for the plays be found in De Vere's library? What exactly IS in De Vere's
library?
155/326
1/22/2015
library?
Francis Meres recognized William Shakespeare as writer of 12 plays, Ben Jonson
refers to him as a playwright in his Timbers and Discoveries and in the First Folio
backed up by his fellow players Henry Condell and John Hemings.
In 1500 posts nothing has been shown for the following:
1. What exactly connects De Vere to William Shakespeare the player.
2. How was Shakespeare the player a front man?
3. Proof that such an arrangement existed between De Vere and Shakespeare.
4. How exactly did the Front man process work?
5. When De Vere finished a play, how did it get to the Chamberlain's Men stage?
6. Why was a man like Shakespeare with no connection to De Vere the front man
and not Munday or Lyly who had direct ties to Oxford?
7. Why would a supposedly learned man like De Vere entrust his works to an
illiterate buffoon?
8. No proof that Shakespeare was an illiterate buffoon.
9. No proof that actors were illiterate and learned their lines by someone
repeating it to them and that this practice was done in the Chamberlain's men.
10. No proof that the members of Stratford's town council were all illiterate
11. No proof has been put forward to prove that Shakespeare's daughters were
illiterate.
12. No explanation as to why Michael Drayton, another London based playwright
was visiting Shakespeare's son-in-law for medical advice.
13. No explanation for how De Vere knew the printer Richard Field, the Stratford
home town boy mentioned in Cymbeline.
14. No explanation for how specifically De Vere was an actor or could become
intimately familiar with the profession of playing.
15. No direct evidence that the name of William Shakespeare was a specific
pseudonym for De Vere.
I sure a more thorough survey of the threads will yield more unanswered
questions. It can become the 100 things I learned from talking with Oxfordians.
Roger Parris ·
Joseph Ciolino
A man who has published as many untruths here as you have ,Jo-Jo,should no
longer be befouling these pages.with fake charges that other people are lying
For instance no qualified forensic expert in the entire world has ever
identified.hand D as being tha t of William Shakspere of Stratford on Avon.In fact
when they held the moot court on the subject ,the Strats attorney had ,in all
honesty to withdraw their claim.His clients couldn't give him the name of a
scientifically recognized expert willing to back them.
You could ,of course ,be man enough to apologize or perhaps you could get Mark
Johnson to identify.
And there was that howler about William Basse seeing Chaucer,Spenser and
Beaumont buried next to each other in Westminster Abbey..They aren't even
close.
And that other one about Sir George Buc consulting William Shakspere about the
authorship of "George-a-Green" That's like writing that the police once consulted
Jeffrey Daumer on the identity of a cannibal killer.
156/326
1/22/2015
"George-a-Gfreen" is by Robert Greene,period.Buc went to see trhe management
of the Rose Theatre which had dealt with Greene since the eighties.They
unhesitatingly identified their man.Three of the play's four editors have
unhesitatingly identified the author as Robert Greene.Moreover double-ending
and vocabulary tests show that it is later than any other certainly identified .
Greene drama.
Shakspere simply lied in his teeth.by claiming that, with the force of an oath
("teste'),
that he knew the play was an amateur production written by a preacher who
played the lead..Unfortunately,for the all the force of his oath,Will couldn't
remember the non-existent preacher's name,ofr apparently the names of any
other of the amateurs
who would have been involved in this non-existent production.
Why did Will lie? Simple . Robert Green died denouncing an "upstart crowe
beautified in our feathers." In 1597 R.B.( the poet Richard Barnfield ) publically
repeated the charges.At that time, or shortly thereafter, Robert Greene's last
known work made its appearance .on the Rose stage.
In 1595 Buc had had a similar nasty experience with one "W.S." (whom Buc was
at that time unable to identify) "some felon" (as Buc described him) who had
taken his dead friend's play,"Locrine" out and published it.
Interestingly the felon had padded out the old play with a large number of
quotations also found in another play by Robert Greene("Selimus").Of course Buc
was over at the Rose in a flash when Barnfield's words called his attention to yet
another identifiable purloined plume involving Robert Greene.He now knew the
felon's identity.But Greene and his friend Charles Tyrrel were long dead and there
was nothing Buc could legally do about it.
And now your howler for today .There is a complete manuscript in Ben Jonson's
handwriting.It is a masque which was careful preserved at Wilton House by the
Pembroke fam ily.Ever heard of them,Jo-Jo.?
So they saved their Jonson papers and threw out their Shakespeares? Brilliant
argument Jo-Jo.
Roger Parisious
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Jon Ciccarelli "
Quote :
"Hand D in Sir Thomas More has been matched to the 6 extant signatures -So
there's a manuscript.. "
Matched ?? Are you kidding ?? And ...uh...to WHICH of the six dubious
signatures are you referring..??...because none of the sigs match each
other....What are you talking about ? There has been no definitive, unequivocal,
peer reviewed affirmations on "Hand-D"...(or on any of the sigs, for that
matter...The "will" is a joke...)...AND, if there was such affirmation, the question
still remains :
WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE ?... "So there's a manuscript" ?...Nope... Because the
rest of the writing on "Hand-D" certainly does not match whomsoever this
"Shakespeare" character was.. Have you actually SEEN...HANDS -ON and
TESTED...Hands-On... this so-called "manuscript" ?
If not, all you're doing is engaging in confirmation bias; quoting all the VESTED
parties from Internet cyber-space...Wow... I'd say raising the bar on your
estimation of "proof" should be you next project.
"Can it be proven that his library contained Holinshed's Chronicles and all of the
used for the plays be found in De Vere's library?"
How is one supposed to "prove" that such and such materials were in such and
such a library, at such and such a time, without complete, unbroken provenance ?
You honestly believe ANY library will be fully intact, (royalty/nobility
notwithstanding), after four hundred years ??
157/326
1/22/2015
Folger comes close, but they're barely over a century of collecting.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino "
OK. One more time :
Fact #1 :
He left NO (LITERARY) PAPER TRAIL. That is a fact. To date.
You have any (LITERARY) paper trail in hand ? Show me. The whole world would
love to see it.
Fact #2 :
"Not a single poem or letter or play has ever been found in his own hand." That is
a FACT. To date.
Do you know better ?
Show me. The whole world would love to see it.
Fact #3 :
"We have just six shaky signatures."
"Hand-D" now claims seven dubious, shaky signatures, but NONE of the sigs
have "proven" anything but adding more confusion to the arguments.
You have another signature, attached to a LITERARY MANUSCRIPT ??...
Fact #4 :
"His will mentions no books, plays or anything else to suggest the balding
Stratford businessman was also a writer."
You have CONTEMPORANEOUS, HOLOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE contradicting this
FACT :
Fact #5 :
"His personality, love interests, movements are all a total (mystery). "
Even the Strats admit to too many gaps to sustain an honest, scholastically viable
bio on this guy.
You have CONTEMPORANEOUS, PRIMARY SOURCE LINEAR EVIDENCE on
Shakespeare's life ?
Show me. Because nobody does...The whole world would love to see it.
Fact(s) #6 and #7 :
"Nobody ever recognised Shakespeare as a writer during his lifetime and when he
died, in 1616, no one seemed to notice."
You have CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE to the contrary :
158/326
1/22/2015
Fact #8 :
"Not a single letter refers to the great author’s passing at the time"
That is a FACT.
You have PERIOD, PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE to the contrary :
These ARE NOT MY OPINIONS. They are facts.
To date.
"To date" means NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED CONTEMPORANEOUS or
PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE has yet come to light which clearly and
UNEQUIVOCALLY contradicts the above facts.
Now I'm done here...Pending, no doubt, your font of unequivocal evidence that
contradicts all or any of the above facts...Otherwise, you're just trolling and
blowing smoke.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
...You guys are using the "De Vere" argument as a deflection to what I posted.
The only mention of "De Vere" in the article is on that stupid film, which Shahan
and Waugh, and myself, have disavowed. Their book(s) are not about De Vere.
Neither is the article.
For the record, I'm not convinced either way about De Vere , but as Prof
Stritmatter has truckloads more of experience/knowledge than myself or either of
you guys, I would defer, certainly consider, his judgment heads above most of the
drive-by commentators on this blog.
The Professor could ultimately be wrong about De Vere in the long haul; my own
experience has long informed me that anything antique is inherently suspect;
interpretation can be deceptive and usually flies below peer review radar : This is
not rocket science, and by that I mean the reverse connotation of this common
admonition. Because it is, indeed, not rocket science, whoa beyond he or she
who wades in on a claim of "facts", without considerable trepidation and
"scholastic" scrutiny.
The average Shakespearean devotee/scholar knows what the academics, most
especially the "Statfordians", have or do not have as genuine evidence.
All that Shahan or Waugh (and several others) argue is that there is substantial
doubt to sustain, and justify, further investigation.
The reactionary, compulsive defensiveness of the "Stradfordian" scholars to any
further investigation speaks volumes to me, and that alone tells me, yes, most
definitely, that further investigation is warranted.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jim Ballard Sir Thomas More is a collaboration of several authors so it has several
examples of different handwriting, hence calling the sample Hand D because
there is a Hand A, B and so forth. That's is what the book I cited goes into, the
handwriting analysis which has been peer reviewed. There is no signature in
Hand D so there is no 7th signature. It contains 3 long pages of handwriting for
the play that matches the 6 signatures. You statement about "There has been no
definitive, unequivocal, peer reviewed affirmations on "Hand-D". is false because I
gave you a book where that's what was done. You question whether its a
"manuscript", its a hand written version of play. Exactly what is a "manuscript"
159/326
1/22/2015
"manuscript", its a hand written version of play. Exactly what is a "manuscript"
from this era supposed to look like?
"If not, all you're doing is engaging in confirmation bias; quoting all the VESTED
parties from Internet cyber-space." - I sent you a link for a book published in
1923, don't think the Internet was around at that time. What about your
"confirmation bias"? Aren't you doing the exact say thing? You're espousing the
views of Waugh, Shahan and Stritmatter. Citation is a form of "confirmation bias"
where you support your point with the position of someone else. Something
done in scholarly, legal and a whole bunch of other circles.
"Can it be proven that his library contained Holinshed's Chronicles and all of the
used for the plays be found in De Vere's library?" - I point this out because the
article states "No books" where left in William's will to which I retorted "So What".
You point out "how can anyone show these books were in De Vere's library".
Using your own logic, how can anyone show that these books WEREN'T in
Shakespeare's library? You can't prove what either man had or didn't have so the
whole lack of books thing argument is pointless which applies to your "Fact 4".
No literary paper trail? Meaning no plays or poems in his handwriting? Again,
Hand D in Sir Thomas More his handwriting in a play. However the same can't be
said for Marlowe (or was it Marley), Webster, Middleton, Fletcher - Where are their
literary paper trails i.e holographic poems and plays? As for a paper trail
connecting the name Shakespeare to plays how about the financial registry of
King James I?
FACT: The registry of King James gives 4 and a half yards of scarlet cloth to
various players, ya know actors, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillips and William
Shakespeare which the registry spells as SHAKESPEARE and can be viewed here
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html. This same registry also
names as a poet a guy called Shaxberd for plays performed in Christimas 1604
and they were Measure for Measure, Love’s Labors Lost and Comedy of Errors . If
the king registry recognizes the player "Shakespeare” being a poet for those plays
then the passage by Francis Meres ties the name Shakespeare to plays like Two
Gentlemen of Verona and King John. Is that enough of paper trail?
Applies also to your fact 3 No play in his hand - again "Sir Thomas More". As the
play is a COLLABORATION there is other handwriting present, however, William
Shakespeare's handwriting is also in it. If "shaky" signatures (no pun intended)
are an issue for you take a look at the this link http://www.pbs.org/
shakespeare/evidence/evidence99.html, this is section of the legal registry for
Stratford recording Shakespeare's marriage application. The handwriting is a that
of a clerk who's profession is to WRITE things. His handwriting is a scrawl and
quick, kinda like those signatures you dislike so much. If you take this bit of
handwriting out of context you'd come away with the same conclusion that this
guy is illiterate or couldn't be a writer, but he's a clerk.
"Fact 5" - Yeah, who wouldn't want to know what the guy thought or have
something more personal. So what? What do you know about Thomas
Middleton's personal views on religion, politics, love etc. or John Webster, or
John Marston? However, no one is using this lack of knowledge as basis for
authorship denial. How would something like this survive? Personal journal?
Letter? and these are easily lost. So the lack of it means nothing.
Fact(s) #6 and #7 :
"Nobody ever recognised Shakespeare as a writer during his lifetime - Again
Refuted by the Kings Registry of 1604 Christmas that identified the Poet of
Measure for Measure and Comedy of Errors to Shaxberd. Francis Meres identifies
Shakespeare as the author 12 plays.
Fact #8 :
"Not a single letter refers to the great author’s passing at the time" - By letter you
mean personal correspondence? True, no personal letter survives unless you
count the reference by John Hall at his passing. What "Letter" i.e. personal
correspondence refers to the passing of George Peele, John Fletcher, Philip
Masinger? Life was different then there wasn't an instant notice and outpouring
160/326
1/22/2015
Masinger? Life was different then there wasn't an instant notice and outpouring
of attention at someone's death. Monuments and tributes took time as is the case
with his church monument and the First Folio which identifies William
Shakespeare as the writer and an actor in the plays.
You state that the point of the Shahan-Waugh book is to provide a reasonable
doubt, however, I don't see a reasonable doubt and by the way you may want to
read past authorship points of contention as they are the exact same things as
what the article cites, i.e. Shahan and Waugh are simply recycling what others
have already said, ya know "Confirmation bias" and its been refuted again and
again and again.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jim Ballard Jim, While we're on the subject of refuting assertions no one has
countered the list posted above so here it is again.
1. What exactly connects De Vere to William Shakespeare the player.
2. How was Shakespeare the player a front man?
3. Proof that such an arrangement existed between De Vere and Shakespeare.
4. How exactly did the Front man process work?
5. When De Vere finished a play, how did it get to the Chamberlain's Men stage?
6. Why was a man like Shakespeare with no connection to De Vere the front man
and not Munday or Lyly who had direct ties to Oxford?
7. Why would a supposedly learned man like De Vere entrust his works to an
illiterate buffoon?
8. No proof that Shakespeare was an illiterate buffoon.
9. No proof that actors were illiterate and learned their lines by someone
repeating it to them and that this practice was done in the Chamberlain's men.
10. No proof that the members of Stratford's town council were all illiterate
11. No proof has been put forward to prove that Shakespeare's daughters were
illiterate.
12. No explanation as to why Michael Drayton, another London based playwright
was visiting Shakespeare's son-in-law for medical advice.
13. No explanation for how De Vere knew the printer Richard Field, the Stratford
home town boy mentioned in Cymbeline.
14. No explanation for how specifically De Vere was an actor or could become
intimately familiar with the profession of playing.
15. No direct evidence that the name of William Shakespeare was a specific
pseudonym for De Vere.
Since I refuted the assertions that you reposted from the article (a form of
confirmation bias BTW), perhaps you can refute some of these. Not really
interested in that you claim you're not an Oxfordian. He seems to be the "man of
the hour" and you support Stritmatter so by association you support their case.
Balls in your court!
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Jon Ciccarelli"
Why do you keep harping at me about De Vere ? That is NOT what this article is
161/326
1/22/2015
Why do you keep harping at me about De Vere ? That is NOT what this article is
about. Nor is it the subject of Shahan/Waugh's book.
De Vere may or may not be the Bard; but he certainly looks better than "Shakspere
of Stratford", about whom there is absolutely no glimmer of literary function or
allusion.
As I've said in other comments here, I have not yet made up my mind on the
matter, Professor Stritmatter's experience and academic brilliance
notwithstanding. I'm sure the professor is waiting in such stupor and angst of
Shakespearean proportion until I do take a position...
But you are clearly attempting to deflect and dissemble, and blowing a lot of
smoke in the process. If you think I'm going to waste my time unraveling all your
convoluted, misleading diatribe...well just carry on your delusions with someone
else.
Another certainty is you demonstrate that you haven't a clue what constitutes
peer review, and choose to neglect the enormous lack of contemporaneous and,
yes, even primary source evidence that would otherwise immediately affirm the
London bard without further discourse...
Say it again : "So what"..."So what"....
Wow. That really gives you weighted authority on the subject.
I blush by your admonition.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Jim Ballard says "De Vere may or may not be the Bard; but he certainly looks
better than "Shakspere of Stratford", about whom there is absolutely no glimmer
of literary function or allusion."
Sorry, but this statement is ridiculous. Why don't you read Matus and
Schoenbaum, and then come back and tell us there is no evidence for
Shakespeare of Stratford. And why don't you quit making an argument by appeal
to an alleged authority.
State University
Follow ·
Jim Ballard "Matched ?? Are you kidding ??"
Uhu.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson " Why don't you read Matus and Schoenbaum"
Been there, done that. Reviewed Matus in 1992/93. Consult Schoenbaum
regularly. In 1991, following the Frontline documentary in which he appeared up
against Charlton Ogburn, Schoenbaum revised his Shakespeare's Lives (orig.
published in 1975) and added the statement:
"It is tempting to despair of ever bridging the vertiginous expanse between the
sublimity of the subject (ie the works) and mundane inconsequence of the
documentary life."
So pretending that Schoenbaum had a fixed and invariant position on these
matters is unhelpful. He was, before he died, moving rather decisively in the
direction of more open inquiry. That is why he ironically referred to Matus as the
"mother of all books" on the authorship question. He knew full well that Matus
162/326
1/22/2015
"mother of all books" on the authorship question. He knew full well that Matus
had not resolved anything; he had merely restated the received prejudices of the
industry.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli You are an expert at asking irrelevant or unanswerable questions!
The best evidence for answering your questions is found in As You Like It 5.1.
(http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/as-you-like-it-first-authorshipstory/) Please read it and get back to us with your interpretation.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter You never cease to amaze with your purported ability to read
minds, including mine. I wasn't pretending anything about Schoenbaum...merely
pointing out that he had written a book setting forth the evidence, as had Matus.
The evidence set forth establishes a prima facie case for the proposition that WS
of Stratford wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare. In contrast you
have speculation, assumption, coincidence, and peculiar interpretations of literary
works. Good luck with that.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jim Ballard First off there is no one by the name of Shakspere of Stratford or
whatever other variation you're spelling it, the last name is Shakespere or its
phonetic variant, the more commonly accepted Shakespeare. The college of arms
application that pertains to Will's family spells it as such. This office is the official
keeper of English family names and lineages and they legally recognize it as such.
So if you accept that this coat of arms application applies to Will of Stratford then
the name is Shakespeare.
Secondly, fine take De Vere out of the argument altogether the rest of your
"doubtful", hence the stuff brought up by Shahan and Waugh and the authors
such as Ogburn and Anderson that they picked it up from, are refuted even more:
#1: No reference to being a poet/playwright in his lifetime.
Except for these within his lifetime references
* Christmas 1604 Registry of King James I naming Shakespeare as a "Poet" and
naming plays in the Shakespeare canon such as Measure for Measure and
Comedy of Errors.
* Francis Meres in a 1598 published catalog names Shakespeare as the author of
12 plays such as Henry IV, Part 1 and Comedy of Errors.
* The reference in the first part of the Road to Parnassus play that mentions
Shakespeare as the author of Venus and Adonis.
* All the title pages that list William Shakespeare as the author of plays later
corroborated by The First Folio.
* The title pages for Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece with dedications
written by William Shakespeare
#2: He left no hand written poems or plays Except for this set of handwriting:
Handwriting in the collaborative play Sir Thomas More which was peer reviewed
numerous times and results have been published not just in the book i sent you a
link on but elsewhere since 1923. Peer review means that the results have been
independently verified by other recognized scholars studying the same subject
163/326
1/22/2015
independently verified by other recognized scholars studying the same subject
and that's what that book goes into and other books since 1923.
#3 Why was his passing not noted at the time he died?
Except for the First Folio and its related dedications among other posthumous
notations
This isn't the time of CNN where people instantly know when someone dies.
There were responses but not as immediate as today because that's what they did
in that era. What exactly is the First Folio if not a response to Shakespeare's
death? The book that names William Shakespeare as the author and as an actor
in the plays, corroborating the King James I's financial registry that named
Shakespeare as a poet and player and contained other dedications to him being a
playwright. Using the same "Free Pass" line of reasoning what playwrights or
poets received immediate recognition upon their death and was this the norm?
Also what timeframe would constitute 'Immediate reaction" and how do you get
this figure in relation to the era?
In other words, how about this simple exercise:
Notable Poet A dies, :
Question 1: In the Jacobean era, how long after they die is this poet to be
recognized?
Question 2: In what form does this recognition take?
Question 3: Are there contemporaneous examples that match the parameters in
questions 1 and 2?
Question 4: What is the norm for length after death and medium to be recognized
for the average Jacobean poet?
Question 5: How does William Shakespeare differ from all of the above?
As for you other points yes those are true but do not provide doubt for the
following reasonsWhy did Shakespeare never leave any written account about how he felt about
things?
Why would he does this? Some people kept diaries, others didn't. The other
playwrights and poets that I mentioned did not leave their thoughts either but
they get a free pass and William Shakespeare doesn't. Why exactly? No one was
required to make personal observations and some people like today are private
and keep to themselves. A posthumous reference to Shakespeare recorded by
John Aubrey mentions "he was not a company keeper" meaning he would usually
keep to himself so why would a private person leave copious letters or journals?
Not everyone is going to be like Samuel Pepys or Ben Jonson.
Why did his will not mention books?
Just because others mentioned books in their wills doesn't mean that everyone
else had to follow suit. There was no requirement to make specific mentions of
anything. In his will it refers to household stuff that was left to his daughter
Susanna, a large book collection could have been among them or not. Books
used to write the plays could have been kept with the theater company, we don't
know. My example about De Vere having certain books that pertain to knowledge
about Warwickshire and your subsequent point about how could a library
possibly stay together after 400 years proves my point. You don't know what he
owned, you don't know what De Vere owned. After Shakespeare's death as with
anyone else property gets divided up, sold off, etc. All of the books including
Ovid, Holished, Boccacio as sources for the plays were all readily available to
anyone who could buy them. Shakespeare was a rich man for most of his adult
life so he certainly had the means and the theater company certainly had the
means to keep a library. So the whole book point is meaningless as you can't
prove anything by it. His will does mention bequests to three of his actor
colleagues, John Hemings, Richard Burbage, and Henry Condell tying
Shakespeare of Stratford to the theater associated with these men and that player
list in King James I's registry.
164/326
1/22/2015
list in King James I's registry.
The only ones I see blowing smoke is the author of this article, Shahan and
Waugh and you. You rattle off a bunch of "facts" that I've either refuted outright
as being totally false or shown you that they don't establish doubt because they
were common place with other contemporary authors. You mention peer review
but do not define it nor give an example however, I've given you a book that is a
peer review published in 1923 and other peer review of the same evidence is
readily available. So what is this "enormous lack of contemporaneous evidence"
that I'm missing and how did you arrive at this list? What contemporaneous
evidence for other Elizabethan/Jacobean poets and playwrights have that William
Shakespeare doesn't and what constitutes "lack of"?
And now Jim back to you.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Asking questions about how an arrangement worked that
Oxfordians say existed is irrelevant? Are they unanswerable because the
arrangement didn't exist, cannot be proven to have existed and from a conspiracy
stand point makes no sense? From a conspiracy standpoint, it makes more sense
to have a trusted confidant like Munday who is a playwright put out another play
as opposed to an unnrelated simpleton suddenly putting out an erudite play.
Yes, I've read the idea that William is the country bumpkin in As You Like It which
from a business standpoint doesn't make any sense. De Vere writes a play, wants
to keep it secret and get Shakespeare to be the frontman. That;s the arrangement
that they've agreed upon why would De Vere then make fun of Shakespeare in As
You Like It for sticking with the plan? That's like making fun of your mechanic for
fixing your car.
This is your best "evidence" on the subject of the frontman? Where the article's
author Alex McNeil says multiple times in the article "may", "possibly,
"conjecture" and other speculative words? Try again, Roger. The Oxfordian
hypothesis is that De Vere wrote under a pseudonym with Shakespeare as his
front man. What does the hypothesis put forward as to how these two men met,
what was their arrangement and how did the average play get from the page to
the stage? If your hypothesizing the arrangement existed then how did it work?
Jim Ballard ·
...Thanks Roger....Saved me the grief. Funny how these busy detractors keep
baiting and switching. I'm done with them.
You can't argue with a Baptist preacher. They have zero intellectual vestment,
only emotional. And mercenary. Like religious fanatics (a very close parallel if you
ask me), they feign knowledge, disseminate ignorance.
Some call it a bipolar phase. Sometimes it will pass. Sometimes not.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli The reason that Stritmatter and Ballard can't answer your questions
is because there is no coherent explanation for their theory. They don't have any
evidence, so any responses to your relevant questions would be worthless
speculation, like much of the rest of their theory. So they make their excuses and
dodge away before their faith can be put into question.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Mark Johnson I'm quite aware which is why I continually hammer at the
unanswered questions of asking how it all worked to show the poverty in their
case. This also goes to your argument of circumstantial evidence. building
165/326
1/22/2015
case. This also goes to your argument of circumstantial evidence. building
coincidences to a logical conclusion.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jim Ballard "They have zero intellectual vestment, only emotional. And mercenary.
Like religious fanatics (a very close parallel if you ask me),."
Only emotional and mercenary, huh? I'm not the one who has been yelling FACT,
FACT, FACT and going on verbal tirades on this thread when presented with
contrary evidence. You started this thread asking for retorts to the items in the
first two paragraphs of this article and I provided them. TWICE. We're you not
expecting a response? Were you posting just to post?
You on the other hand have not responded to my queries about what you mean
by "enormous lack of contemporaneous evidence" that apparently other
Elizabethan/Jacobean poets and playwrights have that William Shakespeare
doesn't and what exactly constitutes "lack of"? Nor any retort to the question
model of what constitutes the proper time after a Jacobean poet dies that he
should receive laudatory notices, what form that should take, contemporaneous
examples to back that up and how that differs than what happened with
Shakespeare.
"they feign knowledge, disseminate ignorance" - You making statements as
"FACT, FACT, FACT" with nothing to back it up is ignorance. I provided you
verifiable facts and that is knowledge, I believe you have this quite backwards.
You asked to not bring Oxford into this and on my last post I said fine take him
off the table, just dealing with the questions posed by the article and
Shahan/Waugh's book. However, instead of engaging in a debate you go on
tirades, call me bipolar, you religiously cling to your "Facts" and do everything
that you accuse me of doing.
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson No one doubts that there is a "prima facia" case for Stratford. For
those who like monuments are content with superficial evidence, the case is
closed. For those with more deeply inquiry minds, it is open, and the Oxfordians
are producing more and more compelling evidence to support their case.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli writes: "I've read the idea that William is the country bumpkin in As
You Like It which from a business standpoint doesn't make any sense."
Interesting that you make this claim but your posting shows know evidence of
the relevant literature. From past experience, I would speculate that you are
probably making this up, or that you may have skimmed the McNeil article to
which I supplied a link and now want to make it appear that you were already
familiar with this matter.
For the record, this idea was initially proposed by a Stratfordian, William Jones:
Shakespeare Quarterly, 04/1960, Volume 11, Issue 2.
Your reply about "business sense" does not directly address any of the
arguments, from those made by Jones to those made by McNeil. Since it it no
way explicates the evidence being considered (namely the text of the scene), it is
not a rational argument, but merely a restatement of your abiding prejudice.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
166/326
1/22/2015
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter : "No one doubts that there is a "prima facia" case for Stratford.
For those who like monuments are content with superficial evidence, the case is
closed [sic]. For those with more deeply inquiry [sic] minds, it is open, and the
Oxfordians are producing more and more compelling evidence to support their
case.
Again, you should stay far away from legal terms, as it is quite obvious that you
don't have a clue as to what they mean. A prima facie case isn't based on
"superficial" evidence, whatever it is that you might mean by that word.
Additionally, the establishment of a prima facie case does not close the case; it
sets up a rebuttable presumption which may be countered by actual evidence.
You don't have any actual evidence, much less "compelling" evidence -- in fact,
as has been shown at this very site, you don't have any evidence at all, direct or
circumstantial, to support your case. You have coincidences which you appear to
believe provide incontrovertible proof.
Your double standard as to the treatment of evidence is quite remarkable.
Documentary evidence, witness evidence, and tangible evidence in the historical
record are superficial, but your coincidences, speculations, and interpretations of
literary works are treated as incontrovertible evidence and proof of your case.
That you think you have even made a case is hilarious.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Mark Johnson"
"Mark Johnson"...right...or whomsoever you are...your Google/Wiki knowledge of
prima facie may sound impressive to bumpkins who have zero experience with
the law, but if you try to enter into a major civil tort action with the weight of
prima facie as your sole means of pursuit, not only will you never find a 101 law
student to even refer your case, you have already lost your case before you enter
the attorney's office.
You completely missed Roger's point. He wasn't saying the arguments were
closed, he was saying that for those Strats who are convinced by the superficial
"evidence", e.g., the Stratfordian monument, then their case is closed insofar as
they accept only the superficial evidence.
Which of course points to the white elephant in the room :
The lame excuses by Stratfordian supporters for avoiding a mock public trial on
the matter are only rivaled by their compulsive mantra that Oxfordians are
neglecting "evidence" which they themselves do not have.
Pepo Cestero ·
Top Commenter · UPR Recinto de Ciencias Medicas
The works of "Shakespeare" are so precise about multiplicity of scenarios that would require
an extremely well travelled person with a an unbelievably ample education and contemporary
knowldge. Difficult to assign into one single person of the epoch - noble or son of a glove
maker. It is like the James Bond character, every incredible feat he does has been done by a
human at least once; but it is difficult to believe that one single person could hold all the
Olympic records, together with all the NBA, NFL and all MLB records and have graduated
Summa Cum in Medicine, MBA and Law from Harvard and all branches of Engineering from
MIT and so forth. And on top of that be an almost unknown person, that left very little or
nothing to trace his persona; in a place where there is tons of information on lesser
contemporary poets and writers. It is more credible of a person acting as an editor of multiple
authors under a name, real or pen name, Shakespear or Shakepeare.
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann ·
Oxford was indeed an extremely well-traveled person with an unbelievably ample
education and contemporary knowledge. Yes, I agree. It boggles the mind to think
that the great author was an almost unknown person, who left very little or
167/326
1/22/2015
that the great author was an almost unknown person, who left very little or
nothing to trace his persona; in a place where there is tons of information on
lesser contemporary poets and writers. Good insight.
Reply · Like ·
13 · December 31, 2014 at 2:39am
State University
Follow ·
Pepo, very interesting observations. But I would strongly suggest that the vast
majorityof the works established in the Sh. canon (95 + % are the work of one
person. This is my opinion after writing a PhD dissertation on the Bible allusions
in the plays, which are pretty consistent in all the plays and markedly distinct
from other writers of the period. Check out Mark Anderson's book, *Shakespeare
By Another Name* for the going theory.
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 31, 2014 at 3:20am
Pepo Cestero ·
Roger Stritmatter Agreed the uniformity could be explained by the single or
perhaps two persons acting as "editor" who is also a very capable and educated
person that gels all the input sources into one. Also necessarily all the works
don't need to come from a different author, for many of the plays spin around
essentially the same subject. or very similar sources. Cervantes was an
extraordinarily brilliant contemporary writer, but never demonstrated so much
insight into so many diverse themes. What I have no doubt is that all the works
ascribed to Shakespeare are a literary treasure to enjoy.
Reply · Like ·
Pepo Cestero ·
Howard Schumann Thanks for your kind words. Cervantes was as brilliant a
writer as Shakespeare, definitely not as versed; both equally great, both from
culturally developed nations, both died the same day - from Cervantes it is known
even the brand of diapers his mother used, from Shakespeare almost nothing is
known. There is something about S that needs some explaining.
Reply · Like ·
Cheryl Eagan-Donovan
Interesting that you mention James Bond, Pepo, because two years ago it was
revealed that the author Ian Fleming based the character on a real person, a
British spy during WWII, notorious for his wartime adventures and his love life. De
Vere as the author of the Shakespeare canon incorporated details from his own
life and those of his contemporaries, at court in England and during his travels in
Italy and France. My film NOTHING IS TRUER THAN TRUTH documents De
Vere's travels and makes the case that all great writers are products of access to
great books and imitation of the masters, life experience, and relentless revision.
This the key to recognizing the author behind the pseudonym.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Cheryl Eagan-Donovan Looking forward to seeing your film on tv and enjoying
its impact. O, wait, I should say I'm in it before the anonymous "Oxfraud" accuses
me of self-promotion. ;)
Reply · Like ·
Barry R. Clarke ·
Top Commenter · Oxford, Oxfordshire
From my recent Brunel University PhD work, which involves an intense analysis
of three Shakespeare plays with the Early English Books Online database for rare
phrases (those that appear in less than 1 in 588 EEBO texts) in relation to those
authors who shared their use, I conclude that Francis Bacon (who has 27 works
in EEBO) contributed to The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, and The
Tempest. These connections, having focused on rare phrases, are very strong.
168/326
1/22/2015
Tempest. These connections, having focused on rare phrases, are very strong.
There are also good connections to the work of Thomas Dekker, Thomas
Heywood, and Thomas Nashe.
There have been other studies that have pointed to contributions from other
writers of the period such as George Wilkins for Pericles (MacDonald Jackson
'Defining Shakespeare', OUP, 2003), Thomas Nashe for Henry IV, Pt 1 (Gary
Taylor, ‘Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of Henry the Sixth, Part One’,
Medieval and Renaissance Drama, 7 (1995), pp.145–205), and Thomas Middleton
for All's Well That Ends Well (Laurie Macguire and Emma Smith, ‘Many hands – A
new Shakespeare collaboration?’, Times Literary Supplement, 19 April 2012,
p.13).
I do not conclude for a single originator of the entire Shakespeare work, I think a
conspiracy theory is unnecessary (I think Shakespeare's company later acquired
some plays from the Inns of Court), and my view is that there are many hands in
these Shakespeare plays. For these three plays, not one return occurred from
Oxford's eight poems in the database (in Richard Edwards, The Paradyse of
Daynty Deuises (1576), STC: 7516). This does not suggest to me his noncontribution. Since he hasn't enough data in EEBO I conclude that his
contribution cannot be demonstrated one way or the other. Bacon DOES have
enough data to conclude one way or the other.
I'd like to see the single originator conspiracy theory idea dropped in light of this
evidence. I'd like to see an acceptance that Oxford's contribution to any play is
not testable. I'd like to see an acceptance that there are plays in the First Folio
that Shakespeare of Stratford did not originate.
For a summary of the PhD work see the "Developments" book here:
http://barryispuzzled.com/shakepuzzle.html
The entire PhD thesis and the data it relies on is also freely available here for
inspection.
Reply · Like ·
Pepo Cestero ·
Thanks to all of you Cheryl, Roger, Howard and Barry for such interesting and
illustrative dialog - I am considering it my Epiphany present. Cheryl: Thanks for
the info about Bond, I missed it on the news, but I always suspected JB was
based on somebody, not a totally fictitious character as was the common
knowledge. Considered that very likely the writing was based on a person with
special talents, but definitely not at the level of the literary character. Getting back
to Shakespeare, I want to establish that I am neither savvy in literature nor much
less a scholar. I am a Plastic Surgeon by training that loves history, enjoys good
reading and sometimes excerts commonsense. Regarding Shakespeare I have not
even scraped the tip of the iceberg, much less what lies under water of his works,
I am talking purely on commonsense. As far as I know Imhotep (around 2,000 BC)
was the first man to master all of human knowledge of his time, and Aristotle (300
BC) was the last man to hold all human knowledge in a single person. Ever since
human knowledge has expanded so much that not a single human has come
close to achieving such a feat. DaVinci, probably the greatest polymath who
excelled in many of human endeavors as a painter, sculptor, architect, engineer,
inventor, musician, mathematician, cartographer, vivisectionist-anatomist,
geologist, botanist, and yes he was also a writer, and I doubt that he could have
ever written what Shakespeare wrote. DaVinci was over a century ahead of
Shakespeare at a time when human knowledge was expanding at an exponential
speed,so it is almost impossible (don't like the word impossible by itself) that a
single person could not only have so much knowledge and insight, but also
capture the customs and feelings of such diverse situations and cultures, being
these last ones something that is seldom written in depth and you must have
been there to get the essence. I believe that “his” works are the result of the
collaboration of many talented and brilliant minds, most likely working with an
equally brilliant “editor”. Some sets of plays have such cohesive elements that
point to a same contributor; others are so distant that somebody else most have
written it. If one collaborator was a dominant figure, or the glue that seems to
hold them together was due to some form of editor, is something to behold b
169/326
1/22/2015
hold them together was due to some form of editor, is something to behold b
scholars like you. By what I have read in this dialogue from various well informed
scholars it is my impression that you are all right and have identified several of
the most likely integrators of the “Shakespeare Team”. My experience with
antique maps and the first writings about the “new world” in the early XVIth
century is that the writing, illustrations and cartographic information was
published by people who never went to the new world, but rather sat at the docks
or where the sailors and travelers gathered and obtained information from them,
taking notes and making drawing and illustrations of the information obtained
from them. As I write this I start to imagine a group by all of you in a "tertulia"
over some coffee or hot chocolate on this theme.Cheryl I would greatly appreciate
if you let me know when and where your work will go on air. Thanks
Reply · Like ·
Ed Boswell ·
We know that Oxford employed two heavyweights, Anthony Munday, and John
Lyly, as personal secretaries, among others. We also know he used a secretary
who developed an early version of shorthand, to keep up with the Earl. I don't
think Oxford worked at home after work, with pen an quill, alone and without
assistance, as the Stratford myth supposes. I think DeVere's voice is the voice we
hear as Shake-speare's, and I think he's the principal person behind the canon,
which seems to me to be the work of more than one person, based upon the
volume and quality of the works alone.
Reply · Like ·
Pepo Cestero ·
Ed Boswell you were able to put it better than me and in less words. Best Regards
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ed Boswell If Oxford had Anthony Munday and John Lyly, two recognized,
professional playwrights as his personal secretaries than why were neither of
them the front man for Oxford to disseminate his plays? How or why do you
make the leap from two established playwrights to having a front man who has
been described by Oxfordians as illiterate and as a rustic clown? Both of these
playwrights outlived Oxford, so either of them could have carried on as the
frontman, Munday by almost 30 years, A response to "Why Shakespeare as the
front man" question has been Oxford had to distance himself as not to draw
attention to his involvement in the plays. However, what will draw more attention
an established playwright simply putting out another work or someone with no
literary connections, who is known to have the IQ of dirt suddenly writes a
runaway best seller? Also, if the plays were so seditious and dangerous then why
was William Shakespeare never arrested or questioned about them? Ben Jonson
and others did time for the "Isle of Dogs". Given this fact it would seem the whole
"front man" thing was a waste of time. If Oxford wanted to write plays in secret
there were easier ways to go about it but since no one was arrested or did jail time
for writing Shakespeare's plays, indeed, there was no need.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Kah · Works at Artist
The claim that he was incapable of writing the plays is pure snobbery. History is replete with
individuals with genius, despite their lack of advanced education.
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann ·
The relevant question is not - who could have written the plays and sonnets? The
relevant question is - who did? If so-called snobbery is the major issue you have,
your case is in serious trouble.
Reply · Like ·
11 · December 29, 2014 at 8:53pm
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
170/326
1/22/2015
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Ann Kah, history certainly is replete with geniuses who lack education. But do
those geniuses base their works on classical Greek literature? Do they pepper
their writings thickly with quotations from same? Do they make obscure heraldry
jokes or base entire plays on minor points of succession law? Do they parody law
school, or use lawyer's techniques to make their arguments? Do they make
frequent references to paintings they never saw, lands they never traveled to, or
choose historical settings they never read about? No.They don't. Oxfordians
don't look at the plays vaguely as "genius." We look at them the way we look at
other plays, as reflecting the opinions, experiences, and education of their author.
Reply · Like ·
24 · December 29, 2014 at 10:31pm
Carol Jean Jennings · University of Minnesota
Michelle, this sounded extremely interesting until you offered up Oxford as the
author.
Michelle, this sounded extremely interesting until you offered up Oxford as the
author.
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Ms. Kah, The problem with your post "history is replete with individuals with
genius, despite their lack of advanced education" is that, in this case, the works
of "Shakespeare" display a high level of erudition and exceptional educational
attainment. One of many difficulties is that many of the sources of the
Shakespeare works were not translated (at that time) from Latin, Greek, French
and Italian -- not to mention the Russian linguistic elements in Love's Labor's
Lost. Stratfordian orthodoxy accounts for this problem by supposing unknown
translators, making these supposed translations visible only to the man from
Stratford.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
6 · December 29, 2014 at 11:29pm
Top Commenter
Ann Kah, for lack of evidence relating to any formal education, Stratfordians have
posited (at least) three scenarios: a) he was a genius, sprung fully formed from the
head...water of the River Avon, b) he was an autodidact, learning on-the-fly as a
soldier, law clerk, etc. during his "lost years" or c) he was a veritable sponge,
soaking up information from every well-traveled, anonymous denizen of the
Mermaid Tavern. Unfortunately for Strats, these possible scenarios, alone or
overlapping, could never account for the depth and breadth of knowledge
exhibited in the canon.
Reply · Like ·
Mike Wilhelm ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter · Wayne State University
You are correct, Ann. In 500 years there will be someone who insists that
McCartney and Lennon were really Bernstein and Segovia. "A couple of yobos
from Liverpool, Puleeze!"
Reply · Like · December 30, 2014 at 5:39am
Michael L. Hays ·
Howard Schumann Everyone understand that anti-Stratfordian snobbery is the
main motive for the conspiracy theory. It comes disguised as the impossibility of
someone of intelligence and interest being unable to educate himself and to learn
about foreign places by the many books and much conversation about foreign
places in a major international trading center. Consider that even you have
learned, or so you think you have learned, since leaving school that Shakespeare
171/326
1/22/2015
learned, or so you think you have learned, since leaving school that Shakespeare
is not the author of the play. I would bet that you have acquired a lot of data on
that point--how can that be?
Keith Smith · University of Pennsylvania
Michelle Mauler
Well said. I claim no expertise in the matter, but, as I understand the Oxfordians,
they don't argue that an unlettered genius can't write great plays, but rather that
he couldn't have written those plays because quite independently of their merit
they're clearly the work of an educated author.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 7:20am
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Michael L. Hays Your paragraph is a fine example of hindsight bias; i.e. seeing the
"world" as we do in the 20th and 21st centuries, not as it was in the 16th century.
It's almost as if Mr. Hays (and other Stratfordians) believe that every town in
Elizabethan England had a Carnegie Library!
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 4:14pm
Michael L. Hays ·
Bonner Cutting you did not know what you are talking about. I am the last person
to exercise "hindsight bias" since all of my scholarly work in the period is based
on its perspective and I do battle with people with the real "hindsight bias" and
with people like you who who do not understand what they read. For example, I
did not talk about "every town'; I referred to a "major international trading center"-London, to you. I have some expertise in book publication and literacy at the
time,--which is more than you can claim. You assume with your "hindsight bias"
that they had few books and talked little about them. If you need conspiracies,
tune into Fox News and stick your nose into its theories, about which no one
needs to know anything, just like you.
Michael L. Hays ·
Bonner Cutting Please specify "the Russian linguistic elements in Love's Labor's
Lost." The world is holding its breath for your reply (or your evasion).
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 12:51am
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mr. Hays, Please don't hold your breath! I'd hate to see you suffocate! Check out
The Oxfordian journal on the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship website. Then look
for the excellent article "From Russia With Love" by Dr. Rima Greenhill of
Stanford University.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 10:34pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Is it your opinion that Shakespeare, the author, was not a genius?
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson No, that is not my opinion.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
I would have to disagree [surprise]....I think the author of the Shakespeare works
was very much a genius.
172/326
1/22/2015
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson You said: "Is it your opinion that Shakespeare, the author, was not
a genius?"
I replied: "No, that is not my opinion."
You replied: "I would have to disagree [surprise]....I think the author of the
Shakespeare works was very much a genius."
<befuddled here>
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Ad hominem attacks to one side, Ann Kah, please give me an example of a genius
who had no access to the tools of his trade until he was over 18?
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
"@ "Joseph Ciolino"
Quote :
"Jim, your verbosity and personal attacks belie a lack of learning and manners"
Manners. Oh. That's a good one.
So we are now diverting our attention to guidelines from Emily Post...
...My verbosity ??...It is your verbosity that is spread all over this commentary section. Is this
the ole "turn-the-table" trick, trying to make me the heavy ? A little projecting...are we not ?
It is your credibility on the matter of Shakespeare that I am challenging; I'm not making any
personal side remarks about your mother, as you have about mine.
Personally, I feel bad that you appear to have a compelling need to be extraordinarily
defensive about Shakespeare, in much the same manner as Prof. Rouse....
You keep harping that the doubters have "NOTHING"...
You think if you keep pitching this mantra, it will magically come true ?
Why don't you begin with the fact that there is NOTHING...not one iota of a literary
holographic sample of Shakespeare's writing...nada.
There is not a single extant manuscript in Shakespeare's handwriting,...nothing... No letters,
no journal...nothing that can be definitively attributable (and I use the word "attributable"
advisedly in deference to my reference below) to the world's greatest, most profound of
writers.
There are "six signatures", none of which is in reference to his literary output.. including a
sig. from a dubious, hackneyed will; a will that makes absolutely no reference to books...no
books belonging to one of the greatest minds of history...a will that has no reference to his
entire literary career...a will that has no reference to any of his plays...
And you're attempting to tell me that none of this gives you the least amount of pause ?
None of this astounds you in the least ?
You do not believe that any of the above FACTS...facts that you supposedly are thirsty for
and have been demanding...renders the slightest whisper of doubt ?
173/326
1/22/2015
I say just the few facts I've given you here render a great deal of doubt.
You claim to being an academic. You say you have three degrees (for which you claim you
were capable of abnegating the usual necessity for study to acquire them...)
If you are indeed a true academic, then you understand the absolute necessity for critical
thinking. However, your displayed emotional paroxysms and deliberate attempts to distract
and dissemble tells me that any obligatory pretense to objectivity on your part is seriously
impaired.
Again. For reasons known only to you. Sir."
Reply · Like ·
7 · Follow Post · Edited · January 7 at 1:18am
Jim Ballard ·
...PS...In regard to your reference to the universality of music appreciation, I will
respond in kind to the Facebook e-mail you sent me. It is a subject dear to me, as
apparently it is to you.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Joseph Ciolino"
Quote :
Assumption. 6. Assumption. . etc. etc. .. .etc. . . ZZzzzzzz. . . "
...Glad you're getting a lot of good sleep here...you need it.
But for one who feigns boredom and sleep, you nonetheless seem well engaged
and certainly...wide awake.
You do yourself a grave disservice as an interested academic by simplistic
labeling and such dismissive posturing.
Please. Show one and all the evidence you have which the doubters claim does
not exist.
The doubters are clearly stating "no such record exists". There is no
document...certainly no contemporaneous document, that unequivocally
presents concrete proof that the Shakspere of Stratford actually penned the
works, or claimed to have penned the works.
The doubters go on to say :
"Nor did any family member or descendant ever claim that he was the author
Shakespeare. (Not that either of his daughters would have left such a record,
since neither could write.) No contemporary indicated that they thought of him as
the author until long after he died. At least ten people who knew of both
Shakspere and the author never connected the two."
And your only answer to all this is :
Assumption.
Assumption ?
You have evidence to the contrary ?
The world would love to see it.
This is not to say it won't eventually come to light. Such evidence may exist.
Some where. If it does exist, it has been well hidden from public view.
Assumption, huh ?
174/326
1/22/2015
Assumption, huh ?
These are not an assumptions, Mr. Ciolino. They are facts. Facts insofar as what
is universally accepted in the literary community. Why ? Because no one...no
one...has proven to the contrary. No one has ever presented such evidence on the
elusive "Shakspere of Stratford".
You keep protesting "assumption" and "conjecture" all you want. The facts will
not disappear at your convenience.
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
Roger...
...Water off an old duck's back...
Quack ! Quack !
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
[ Don't know how yours got duplicated...And mine deleted ! ]
Chuck Semple · Spalding University
Something to bear in mind in discussions like this: 'It ain't what we don't know that causes
us trouble; it's what we DO know for certain, but just ain't so.'--(variously expressed and
attributed.)
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Very apt comment, Chuck.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 3:21am
Bob Grumman ·
Roger Stritmatter Roger! I have to say that YOUR comment was almost as apt as
Chuck's! Way to go!
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 9:14pm
State University
Follow ·
Bob Grumman Thanks Bob.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 9:33pm
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
Daniel Borstin's version describes Oxfordianism to a T.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of
knowledge."
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud It's Daniel Boorstin.
175/326
1/22/2015
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj Of course it is.
And when he's right, he's right.
William Arthur Fenton ·
Top Commenter · Uni. Wolverhampton
Upper class toffs, who just can't accept the fact that Bill wasn't a rich, highly privileged,
landed gentry type.
Damn this country is still so cursed by the 'great' class division. To anyone American - please
- be thankful you got away from most of this in the Revolution; and consider that you have
no idea of how pervasive the aristocracy's claim on all things high and intellectual actually is
here, even in 2015. It's also not coincidental that England has, for some time, held strong
prejudices against the Midlands. "It's where all the thick, dirty, horrible-speaking physical
labourers come from. How can anything beautiful come from there."
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann ·
Sort of like Walt Whitman, huh? The issue is evidence. The class thing is just a
straw man devised by folks who cannot defend their position based on the
issues..
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
21 · December 29, 2014 at 5:59pm
Top Commenter
William Arthur Fenton, we Oxfordians have been replying ad nauseam to
comments such as yours above with one simple statement: We doubters do not
claim that a person of the lower-class (anywhere!) is incapable of writing great
literature; we claim that this particular man, William Shakspeare of Stratford could
not have written what we refer to as the Shakespeare canon.
Reply · Like ·
23 · December 29, 2014 at 6:14pm
Ann Zakelj It's strange that it's mostly Oxford research that wants to put
authorship into the hands of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
Your 'evidence' is all circumstance and supposition; whereas arguments against
can provide title pages, testimony, not to mention records. You lot require a
conspiracy to show how this Shakespeare man has been blindfolding the world
for centuries with his great lie.
They probably aren't teaching deduction and scientific-like reasoning so well in
the old anachronism that is the British higher education system of Oxford and
Cambridge. It's probably why top American universities are trouncing them of late
in polls and global respect.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
3 · December 29, 2014 at 6:43pm
Top Commenter
William Arthur Fenton "Your lot"? ;-) I find it amusing that Stratfordians are wont
to throw the conspiracy theorist "insult" at Oxfordians when, in fact, the age of
Elizabeth was replete with conspiracies! It's not that far-fetched to deduce that
something sinister was going on, what with heads rolling... and some not.
You may be interested in knowing that many of our (read: Oxfordian) scholars
have scientific and legal backgrounds, great foundations for the analysis of the
canon and its contemporary literature.
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 29, 2014 at 7:09pm
Ann Zakelj What, a conspiracy of this magnitude to keep hidden the real identify
176/326
1/22/2015
Ann Zakelj What, a conspiracy of this magnitude to keep hidden the real identify
of a popular playwright? An entire fabrication of documents and testimonial
accounts, all for this. Sounds rather far-fetched to me when you consider the
work required, for such a trivial gain.
The convergence of evidence isn't in your favour.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 29, 2014 at 8:26pm
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
All traditional biographies of Shakespeare are 99% supposition. That's the
essence of problem.
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 29, 2014 at 9:12pm
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
I am anything but upper class, and so are most of those who have noticed that
Shakespeare was probably Edward de Vere. The problem isn't social standing or
status. There are plenty of nobles who can't write for toffee, and there are lower
class people, such as William Faulkner, who write very well. The issue is
education, access to source material, and the nature and messages in the plays
themselves. Hamlet has a Prince's eye view of the world, yet writes extra material
for the plays to perform in their play. That's a big clue right there--I'm sure the
Murder of Gonzago didn't have a byline proclaiming, "additional material by
Hamlet." Moreover, the plays tell De Vere's life story. It's worked into every play.
Either he wrote the plays, or William Shaksper spent his entire life following De
Vere around with a notebook jotting down everything he did and used it in the
plays. Except that had he done that, he wouldn't have had time to write the plays,
or earn his own living, or hang around at the Globe or at that tavern where he
miraculously "picked up" law, court slang, military slang, various languages,
details about Judaism, Italy, and Elizabeth's private life and conversations.
Reply · Like ·
9 · December 29, 2014 at 10:26pm
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mr. Fenton, I must correct this often-repeated bit of misinformation. The Stratford
man lived in affluence in a mansion house. As per his will and documents of his
real estate purchases in the public record, his estate should have been valued
conservatively at 2,000 pounds. Historians classify a person from that time as
"middling rich" if their estate is between 200 to 500 pounds. With an estate 4
times the outer limit of this designation, he was certainly a "rich" man. Funny that
with all this wealth, he didn't leave a shilling to the Stratford Grammar School,
something mandated for a local boy made good.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 29, 2014 at 10:36pm
State University
Follow ·
Howard Schumann Indeed. William Fenton may find this useful: http://shakespeares-bible.com/2011/10/26/walt-whitman-on-shakespeare/. The article
details Whitman's many remarks over the years about the authorship question.
His skepticism was shared by many American Renaissance thinkers, including
Emerson, Melville, and Hawthorne. Of course, according to Mr. Fenton, these
must all have been "upper class toffs."
What a stupid losing argument.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj Well, maybe he *could have,* in the best of all possible worlds, and if
he happened to be the biggest class snob in English history, and if he was so out
of touch with reality that he could have written "thus have I had thee as a dream
doth flatter, in sleep a king, but waking no such matter...." -- in other words, he
177/326
1/22/2015
doth flatter, in sleep a king, but waking no such matter...." -- in other words, he
found it metaphorically plausible to imagine that he was having an affair (or
involved in some other relationship) with a royal.
Otherwise, no, one would have to conclude with Whitman and Chaplin et al. that
at least he did not do so and other theories need to be considered.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Your "Historians classify a person from that time as "middling
rich" if their estate is between 200 to 500 pounds." is sadly inappropriate.
The source of your statement, Christine North "Merchants and Retailers in
Seventeenth-Century Cornwall" in *When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and
Interpreting the Probate Records of Early Modern England*, ed. Tom Arkell, et al
(2000): p. 300 reads as: "For those of middling wealth (£200-499), ..." which
reflects Ms. North's Table 15.4 (p. 297) re "Comparative value of possessions
mentioned in inventories, Value range (N): <£50 (31); £50-199 (35); £200-499
(18); £500-999 (3); £1,000+ (5)". i.e. 92 inventories.
Ms. North has reviewed (pp. 285-86) probate documents of 111 merchants and
retailers in Cornwall in the first half of the 17th century, 92 of whose probate
inventories have survived.
So do tell, how do 92 inventories of merchants and retailers in Cornwall impact
and classify William Shakespeare of Warwickshire as (per you) "4 times the outer
limit of this designation, he was certainly a "rich" man."
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 3:21pm
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
For those of you who are new to these threads, the comment above is Knit
Twain's usual modus operandi. She finds the "source" of information and then
does her dandiest to wreak havoc on the source. I suggest that if she has a beef
with this authority (which she found in the footnote to my article on the Stratford
man's Last Will and Testament) she could spend a few years in archives, digging
out her own information.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
5 · December 30, 2014 at 4:22pm
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Your "I suggest that if she has a beef with this authority"... I'm
sorry, but can you not read? I have no trouble understanding Ms. North's thesis
(pp. 285-86): "This chapter explores the circulation and retailing of consumer
goods in Cornwall in the first half of the seventeenth century and offers an
additional regional insight to supplement work previously undertaken on mercers
in Oxfordshire, Shropshire and elsewhere. It is based upon analysis of the
probate documents of 111 merchants and retailers, 92 of whose probate
inventories have survived."
i.e. You have sadly misrepresented Ms. North's thesis by suggesting the results
of her study have an impact upon Will of Stratford in any way, shape or manner.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Ms. Cutting, BTW, have you ever wondered why no other
Shakespearean scholar has used several of the studies you use to interpret the
last will and testament of Will of Stratford? And what was your reason for citing
any studies that have nothing to do with Warwickshire?
Consider your *Brief Chronicles* essay (p.171): "The question of who served as
an amanuensis in writing out wills has been addressed by Margaret Spufford in
*Contrasting Communities*, and it appears that wills were often written by village
scribes performing a neighborly service." (fn 21)
178/326
1/22/2015
"(fn 21) - Spufford, Margaret *Contrasting Communities English Villagers in the
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries*, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press,
1974, 320-334. In the chapter "Wills and Their Writers," the scribes under
discussion are predominantly ordinary citizens, though Spufford notes that
village scribes could "range from the lord or lessee of the manor to the vicar,
curate, church clerk or churchwarden to the schoolmaster, a shopkeeper, or any
one of the literate yeoman or even husbandmen in a village who could be called in
to perform this last neighborly office for a dying man." (333)."
Perhaps you missed the following per Dr. Spufford (pp.320-34): Chapter entitled
"Wills and Their Writers - Orwell, Dry Drayton and Willingham" i.e. three villages in
Cambridgeshire.
Dr. Spufford specifies per village the number of wills (and time period) used in her
search to identify scribes:
p. 323: Orwell - "Between 1543 and 1700, ninety-nine wills of which the originals
survive were proved in the Consistory Court although until the 1580s, the
'originals' were mostly office copies, and therefore useless for these purposes.
p. 328: Dry Drayton - "Fifty-four originals survive which were written between
Elizabeth's accession and 1630."
p. 328: Willingham - "There are nearly 250 wills written between the 1570s and
1700 by an identifiable scribe..."
i.e. Dr. Spufford's study rests entirely in Cambridgeshire. Her thesis per her
Introduction (p xxii): "What I have attempted to do is to give some kind of general
survey of the population of the whole county of Cambridge..."
Again, I'm sorry, but just how does a study on Cambridgeshire impact a man from
Warwickshire?
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 5:01pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
The essence of the problem is that Oxfordians deny the actual evidence, or
totrture it beyond all recognition to fit their preconceived notions, and then
contend that the case for Shakespeare is 99 % supposition. The really humorous
thing is that Oxfordians do this while failing to admit that their own theory is 100
% supposition, entirely lacking in actual direct or circumstantial evidence.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 7:29pm
Jan Scheffer
William Arthur Fenton Reading your comments, I wonder how much of Oxfordian
literature you have read, for instance, have you read Mark Anderson's
'Shakespeare by another name?' The mysterious Willam Shakespeare' by
Charlton Ogburn, or William Ray's 'Shakespeare in Italy?' . If not, would you
dare? Can you explain the lack of any literary trace in William Shaksper from
Stratford, even in his will? May I refer to one of the most distinguished doubters,
Winston Chuchill who, when he was offered the book 'Shakespeare Identified, as
the 17th Earl of Oxford' by J. Thomas Looney (1920) made a dismissive gesture,
remarking "I don't want my myth tampered with".
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 11:15pm
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
William Artur Fenton, we didn't really get away with it. Our classes are as stratified
as yours. I am lower class and my sympathies tend to lean rather to the left. I'd
love it if I were defending an authorship claim by a disadvantaged person, but the
plays simply do not support that in any way.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 12:03am
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Ms. Cutting. Per your article “Alas, Poor Anne: Shakespeare’s
“Second-Best Bed” in Historical Perspective” The Oxfordian XIII (2011): 76-93:
179/326
1/22/2015
“Second-Best Bed” in Historical Perspective” The Oxfordian XIII (2011): 76-93:
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/
Oxfordian2011_cutting_poor_anne.pdf
(1) Cutting p. 84: “In addition, approximately three quarters of men who made
wills left their widows their principal dwellings.(fn 80)
fn 80 – Erickson, p. 163. “The principal piece of property a man had to give to his
wife was usually his house and land.”
==Amy Louise Erickson *Women and Property in Early Modern England* (2002)
Erickson p. 163: “The principal piece of property a man had to give to his wife
was usually his house and land. Approximately half of all men who made wills
mentioned land (see Chapter 4), but only one quarter specifically mentioned their
dwelling house. The widows of the 75 per cent of men who did not mention a
house probably continued to occupy the conjugal house during their lifetimes. If
the house was copyhold or freehold, they had a right to freebench or dower,
respectively.”
(2) Cutting p. 84: “In early modern England, women were appointed the sole or
co-executrix of their husband’s estate over 75% of the time.(fn 83)
fn 83 - Erickson, p. 158. In 14 locales spanning a variety of geographical areas
throughout England, the percentages of women as executrix vary from 46% to
96%. Houlbrooke (cited below) puts these statistics at 63% to 96% depending
on the jurisdiction, p. 136.
Erickson p. 158: Table 9.1 Proportion of wives named executrix 1414-1710
[Note: Dr. Erickson gives per cents for “Sole”, “Joint” and “Overall” but I am
listing only her “Overall” rates]:
1. Lincoln 1280-1500 (# of wills = n.a.) – c.80%
2. Bristol 1381-1500 (# of wills = n.a.) – 82%
3. Canterbury 1414-43 (# of wills = 116) – 78%
4. Suffolk and Norfolk 1372-1540 (# of wills = 97) – 46%
5. King’s Langley, Herts 1523-1659 (# of wills = 74) – 69%
6. Salisbury 1540-1639 1540-1639 (# of wills = 362) – 81%
7. Abingdon, Berks 1540-1720 (# of wills = none given) – 74%
8. Bungay, Suffolk 1550-1600 (# of wills = 83) – 73%
9. South Elmham, Suffolk 1550-1640 (# of wills =163) – 63%
10. London Late 16th century – 1603 (# of wills = n.a.) – >80%
11. Sussex and Lincolnshire 1579-1689 (# of wills = 76) – 77%
12. Selby, Yorks 1634-1710 (# of wills = 156) – 96%
13. Rural Yorkshire 1640-90 (# of wills = 70) – 89%
14. Sevenoaks, Kent 1660-85 (# of wills = 39) – none given (“Sole” = 67%;
“Joint” – none given)
I don’t know what Houlbrooke p. 136 shows.
Irrespective of the fact that none of the above locales have anything to do with
Warwickshire, numbers 1-4, 8, 10, 12-14 have nothing to do with the year 1616.
BTW, it is never proper to combine per cents among a group into one final per
cent as per your above “over 75% of the time”.
Special thanks to those who peer-reviewed the above article.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Dr. Stritmatter, How does the peer-review process work at the
Oxfordian journals *Brief Chronicles* and/or *The Oxfordian*? It seems those
journals publish without reviewing an essayist's sources. As you very well must
know, the onus is on the journal's editor to verify all such sources are being
properly used as well as verify the integrity of all quotes. In your professional
opinion, is it proper methodology to refer to scholarly studies that have nothing
to do with one's thesis as per Ms. Cutting's two articles on Shakespeare's last
will and testament? Admittedly, I do find it odd that these journals would tank its
reputation by publishing such obvious misrepresentations of scholarly studies.
180/326
1/22/2015
reputation by publishing such obvious misrepresentations of scholarly studies.
I am sorry, but I have asked before how the Oxfordian peer-review process works
and I've yet to receive an answer. What are the Oxfordians hiding? Aren't these
journals the publications of non-profit organizations? And don't such
organizations claim to be academically-minded? Thanks in advance for your
response.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
William Arthur Fenton Actually, as was demonstrated nearly a hundred years ago
(http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/etexts/looney/00.htm) the
"convergence" of evidence does just that:
"The predominating element in what we call circumstantial evidence is that of
coincidences. A few coincidences we may treat as simply interesting; a number of
coincidences we regard as remarkable; a vast accumulation of extraordinary
coincidences we accept as conclusive proof. And when the case has reached this
stage we look upon the matter as finally settled, until, as may happen, something
of a most unusual character appears to upset all our reasoning...."
Even then the standard response of orthodox scholars was, "just like the counsel
for the defense of a criminal faced with a mass of mutually corroborating
evidence against his client, and making the best for what he feels to be a weak
case. That is, he points to the inconclusiveness of this, that, or another piece of
evidence, viewed by itself, and seeks to divert attention away from the manner in
which the different elements fit in with one another."
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 9:31pm
State University
Follow ·
William Arthur Fenton What, in your opinion, is the difference between a
conspiracy and a government policy? And why do you assume that the
authorship problem results from one, and not the other?
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 9:37pm
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mr. Fenton, To respond to your "conspiracy of this magnitude" comment. For
those of us who have studied the evidence, it's not a matter of a conspiracy, but a
matter of history and sociology. I call your attention to two fairly recent books:
The Watchers by Stephen Alford and Plots and Plotters in the Reign of Queen
Elizabeth I by Francis Edwards, S. J. In these books (and others) you can read
about the constant treason plots designed by William Cecil, Lord Burghley -plots that were "popping like boiling mud in thermal springs." Lord Burghley's
"greatest hit" was the beheading of Mary Queen of Scots, a result of the
Babington plot. The warrant for Mary's execution, written in Lord Burghley's own
hand, is displayed at Hatfield House, the home of his son Robert Cecil, Lord
Salisbury. To continue: "These two methodical, patient and intelligent men,
masters of statecraft, though not over-endowed with moral conscience as
ordinary mortals would understand it, determined to an extraordinary degree not
only the course of history but also of historiography." Must I spell it out? The
Cecils were men who could manage conspiracies of far greater magnitude than a
mere pen-name and cover story of a writer.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 31, 2014 at 11:16pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Howard Schumann If the issue for you really was actual evidence, you would
have quit long ago in despair. The issue for Oxfordians such as yourself is
actually denial or manipulation of evidence.
181/326
1/22/2015
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Looney didn't know what actually qualifies as circumstantial
evidence and neither do you.
Jan Scheffer
Jan Scheffer In my reaction to Mr. Fenton I made a mistake, the book and writer I
meant were Richard Paul Roe : 'The Shakespeare Guide to Italy, Roe travelled
extensively in Italy researching the topical references in the - many - plays that are
staged there (Two Gentlemen.., The Merchant, Romeo and Julia etc) this book
makes it ever so clear that Shakespeare must have travelled there himself,
experienced things and seen them with his own eyes, in order to acquire such
specialized knowledge. Of course, when reading or watching the Merchant you
know that the playwright had intimate legal knowledge must have attended one
of the Inns of Court. Back to Hamlet: his, Edward de Vere's, two nephews were
the 'Fighting Vere's' Horace and Francis ( Horatio and Francisco) in service of
Prince Maurice, of the Lowlands. Oxford's brother-in-law, Peregine Bertie, later
Lord Willoughby was an ambassador to Denmark and met a courtiers by the name
of Rosencrantz and Guldenstern. There are hundreds of topical references in the
plays - and many personal ones as described, from his tumultuous life with many
conflictuous and traumatic aspects which are referred to in the sonnets: an
obsession with his loss of good name. They are so abundant that one must
exclude coïncidence.
Reply · Like ·
Bob Grumman ·
Ann Zakelj How is it that we know about all the conspiracies going on in
Elizabethan England from what is called historical evidence, but know about the
authorship conspiracy ONLY from the vacuous assertions of conspiracy
theorists?
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Bob Grumman I quibble with your first assertion in that we probably don't know
about *all* of the conspiracies, but to make a more cogent point here... We can
deduce from the plays of Oxford's contemporaries, two being Ben Jonson and
George Chapman, that the true authorship was an open secret. Far from being
vacuous assertions, some of the the writings of Vladimir Nabokov also point to
Oxford. Rather than expound (which I admit I am not qualified to do) I continue to
hope that two experts in this area will come forward and make their cases.
By the way, do you believe in the single bullet theory? Or that Earhart and
Noonan's plane is at the bottom of the Pacific? Or that Hitler and Eva died in the
Berlin bunker? Merely rhetorical question...
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson You say: " Roger Stritmatter Looney didn't know what actually
qualifies as circumstantial evidence and neither do you."
To which one might ask if you ever say anything new, or just keep repeating your
dogma over and over again.
I hope you understand that routinely insulting people, as a response to
arguments for which you have no better answer, is the best way to make yourself
look like a narrow, petty, self-absorbed sort of lawyer who gives a bad name to
your profession. I would wish better for you, but you are the master of your own
domain and will have to make due with your own judgments about what
constitutes a defensible position.
I wonder why, if I'm so bad at understanding and marshaling circumstantial
182/326
1/22/2015
I wonder why, if I'm so bad at understanding and marshaling circumstantial
evidence, I have well over 20 articles on Shakespeare, early modern studies, and
the authorship question, published in peer reviewed academic journals, including
a number published by Oxford University Press.
How many have you published and where can we find them so we can evaluate
your use of circumstantial evidence?
As for your attack on Looney, its very easy to beat up on dead man. It makes you
a real hero, I guess, in the eyes of the Oxfrauds.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter Roger Stritmatter As always, all you Oxfordians have to do to
win the lack of evidence argument is actually produce some that meets a sane
definition of circumstantial evidence and supports your case for Oxford's
authorship.
The reason we keep asking is that you keep refusing to answer.
The reason you keep refusing to answer is that you haven't any evidence.
You just carry on waving your CV about.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud Thanks...I was going to answer Roger's childish rant [beating up on a
dead man / makes you a real hero???], but you have done so already. I would only
add that it is rather comical to see Roger attack someone else for "routinely
insulting people." In truth, I wasn't insulting Roger or Looney, merely pointing
out their lack of understanding as to the concept of circumstantial evidence. It is
a technical term, and I would not expect Roger or Looney to understand it,
although one might think that Roger might have grasped it now since we have
discussed it so often [as you state, in response to the failure to produce any
actual, circumstantial evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Mark Johnson I know I jumped the gun there but the hazards to navigation round
here are such that you have to take advantage of any holes in the clouds.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Oxfraud Thanks, Oxfraud, Mark Johnson. You have the situation well in hand.
Game, Set, Match, the Immortal Bard of Avon.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Karl Wiberg "All traditional biographies of Shakespeare are 99% supposition.
That's the essence of problem."
Really? The quartos published in his lifetime and specifically naming William
Shakespeare as author are not supposition -- they are fact. The attributions to
Shakespeare by contemporaries who knew him are not suppositions -- they are
FACTS. The tributes by Ben Jonson, the greatest literary scholar England has
ever produced, naming Shakespeare as author of his plays, is not supposition -it is FACT.
See? These are FACTS, not supposition. No Stratfordian is forced to say, "We
183/326
1/22/2015
See? These are FACTS, not supposition. No Stratfordian is forced to say, "We
believe the quartos were published with Shakespeare's name on it." No AntiStratfordian can claim, "there are no eulogies, or contemporary attributions to
William Shakespeare as author of his plays."
But a Stratfordian can easily proclaim that there is no contemporary attributions
to de Vere as the author of Shakespeare's plays. Because there are none. FACT.
And so, Stratfordians are stuck with absurd claims like this from Mr. Ballard,
above,
17) The First Folio edition of Shakespeare's plays, published seven years after
Shakspere died, and the monument erected in the Stratford church, appear to be
a part of a deception to give the impression that Shakspere had been the author
of the plays. Supporting evidence for this claim is provided in Chapters 10-12 of
this book."
"appear to be" --- appear to be? To whom? Not me. Not to the majority of
Shakespeare scholars and amateurs scholars.
"part of a deception," --- evidence?
"to give the impression that," The impression to whom? Huh? This is supposed
to make me jump up and shout: Yes! De Vere was the true author! The first Folio
"APPEARS" to be a deception!!!! A deception!!!"
Anti-Stratfordians APPEAR to be completely grossly misguided. Much more
evidence of that than for de Vere.
William Arthur Fenton
"You lot require a conspiracy to show how this Shakespeare man has been
blindfolding the world for centuries with his great lie."
From Ben Jonson's Epicene.
" Tru. I, and he says it first. A pox on him, a Fellow
that pretends only to Learning, buys Titles, and nothing else of Books in him.
Cle. The World reports him to be very learned.
Tru. I am sorry, the World should so conspire to belye him."
Jonson tells us there was a CONSPIRACY (he uses the very word) to make an
unlearned man who buys titles appear learned.
Mr. Fenton - who is Jonson talking about?
Why would there be a conspiracy to portray an unlearned man as learned?
Like most defenders of the tourist industry - you use the word 'conspiracy' as if
to prove it could not have occurred - whereas Jonson's use of the word 'conspire'
PROVES that your knowledge of Tudor times is lacking.
Jonson tells us there were conspiracies specifically aimed at portraying an
illiterate as literate. Why do you DENY the evidence FROM THE JONSON's own
pen?
Barbara Cole Horowitz
Hey, not for nothing....I've had a crush on Michael York from way back when so if he's
funded the "Doubters" side I'm going with him. I'll take his classy snobbery any day
184/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Alasdair Brown ·
To Barbara Horowitz. Barbara, without any doubt, that is the best comment on
this thread!
Deep down, underneath all the layers of BS, every Shakespeare denier has their
own irrational, emotional and completely ridiculous reason for holding the
position they do. You are the very first anti-Stratfordian I have encountered who
is completely open and honest about their own emotional, irrational and
ridiculous reason. I salute you and trust others will follow your example.
State University
Follow ·
Alasdair Brown hmmm...all this time debating on the internet, and still relying on
ad hominem accusations of "irrational and ridiculous reason"? My my.
Reply · Like ·
9 · December 30, 2014 at 5:07pm
Alasdair Brown ·
Roger Stritmatter My my, I got off lightly there considering you have been known
to call people 'ignorant as dirt'.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 30, 2014 at 5:30pm
View 11 more
Barry R. Clarke ·
Brunel University is referred to in this article and a PhD awarded there in January 2014 puts
the case against Shakespeare on solid ground for three of the plays. It's entitled "Francis
Bacon's contribution to three Shakespeare plays", see http://barryispuzzled.com/
shakepuzzle.html for a free download of the PhD thesis and a summary of it in
"Developments".
Reply · Like ·
Thank you, Barry, for sharing tyour manuscript. I look forward to reading it, and I
would appreciate learning more about your methodology.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 29, 2014 at 11:22pm
Sorry about that little 't'!
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 29, 2014 at 11:23pm
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
"To write with powerful effect, he must write out the life he has led, as did Bacon
when he wrote Shakespeare." Mark Twain
And then there's the only Shakespeare Private notebook on record, The Promus,
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/notebook.html
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
1 · December 29, 2014 at 11:45pm
Top Commenter
Look forward to reading a researched academic argument for a change. The
motive of an investigator (rebellion against authority, distaste of the lower
classes) seems to me to be irrelevant. Only the facts matter.
185/326
1/22/2015
Timothy Beck Read "I Come to Bury Shakspere" by Steven Steinburg 2013 Cafe
Padre Publishing edition has the most complete current referenced factual
argument by an authorship doubter, and "The Truth About William Shakespeare:
Fact, Fiction and Modern Biographies" by an orthodox believer David Ellis. 2013
Edinburgh U Press.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 3:10pm
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
I gotta say I don't really get this obsession with Oxford. I can't see where the case
is (and I've read many books about him). Take a good look at him! He's an
emperor with no clothes! It's as if people are so desperate to unseat Shakspere
they'd accept almost anyone else. All you need to know is that Oxford's letters
lack any hint that he had a significant intellect. I could write better than him
before I even left school! Check them for yourself and you'll see what I mean.
Oxfordianism is a religion not a serious academic alternative. Get real, people!
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Timothy Beck Can you top this?
To my loving friend Thomas Bedingfield Esquire,
one of Her Majesty's gentlemen pensioners.
After I had perused your letters, good Master Bedingfield,
finding in them your request far differing from the desert of your labor,
I could not choose but greatly doubt whether it were better for me
to yield you your desire, or execute mine own intention
towards the publishing of your book.
For I do confess the affections that I have always borne towards you
could move me not a little.
But when I had thoroughly considered in my mind
of sundry and divers arguments,
whether it were best to obey mine affections or the merits of your studies,
at the length I determined it better to deny your unlawful request
than to grant or condescend to the concealment of so worthy a work.
Whereby as you have been profited in the translating,
so many may reap knowledge by the reading of the same,
that shall comfort the afflicted, confirm the doubtful, encourage the coward,
and lift up the base-minded man, to achieve to any true sum or grade of virtue,
whereto ought only the noble thoughts of men to be inclined.
And because next to the sacred letters of divinity,
nothing doth persuade the same more than philosophy,
of which your book is plentifully stored,
I thought myself to commit an unpardonable error,
to have murdered the same in the waste bottoms of my chests;
and better I thought it were to displease one than to displease many:
further considering so little a trifle cannot procure so great a breach of our amity,
as may not with a little persuasion of reason be repaired again.
And herein I am forced like a good and politic captain
oftentimes to spoil and burn the corn of his own country
lest his enemies thereof do take advantage.
For rather than so many of your countrymen should be deluded
through my sinister means of your industry in studies
(whereof you are bound in conscience to yield them an account)
I am content to make spoil and havoc of your request,
and that, that might have wrought greatly in me in this former respect,
utterly to be of no effect or operation:
and when you examine yourself what doth avail a mass of gold to be continually
imprisoned in your bags, and never to be employed to your use?
186/326
1/22/2015
I do not doubt even so you think of your studies and delightful Muses.
What do they avail, if you do not participate them to others?
Wherefore we have this Latin proverb:
Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter.
What doth avail the tree unless it yield fruit unto another?
What doth avail the vine unless another delighteth in the grape?
What doth avail the rose unless another took pleasure in the smell?
Why should this tree be accounted better than that tree,
but for the goodness of his fruit?
Why should this vine be better than that vine,
unless it brought forth a better grape than the other?
Why should this rose be better esteemed than that rose,
unless in pleasantness of smell it far surpassed the other rose?
And so it is in all other things as well as in man.
Why should this man be more esteemed than that man,
but for his virtue, through which every man desireth to be accounted of?
Then you amongst men I do not doubt,
but will aspire to follow that virtuous path,
to illuster yourself with the ornament of virtue.
And in mine opinion as it beautifieth a fair woman
to be decked with pearls and precious stones,
so much more it ornifieth a gentleman
to be furnished in mind with glittering virtues.
Wherefore considering the small harm I do to you,
the great good I do to others, I prefer mine own intention
to discover your volume before your request to secret the same;
wherein I may seem to you to play the part
of the cunning and expert mediciner or physician,
who, although his patient in the extremity of his burning fever
is desirous of cold liquor or drink to qualify his sore thirst,
or rather kill his languishing body,
yet for the danger he doth evidently know by his science to ensue,
denieth him the same.
So you being sick of too much doubt in your own proceedings,
through which infirmity you are desirous to bury and insevill
your works in the grave of oblivion, yet I, knowing the *discommodities
that shall redound to yourself thereby
(and which is more, unto your countrymen)
as one that is willing to salve so great an inconvenience,
am nothing dainty to deny your request.
Again, we see if our friends be dead,
we cannot show or declare our affection
more than by erecting them of tombs;
whereby when they be dead indeed,
yet make we them live as it were again through their monument;
but with me, behold, it happeneth far better,
for in your lifetime I shall erect you such a monument,
that as I say [in] your lifetime you shall see
how noble a shadow of your virtuous life
shall hereafter remain when you are dead and gone.
And in your lifetime, again I say,
I shall give you that monument and remembrance of your life,
whereby I may declare my good will,
though with your ill will as yet that I do bear you in your life.
Thus earnestly desiring you in this one request of mine
(as I would yield to you in a great many)
not to repugn the setting-forth of your own proper studies,
I bid you farewell. From my new country muses at Wivenghole,
wishing you as you have begun, to proceed in these virtuous actions.
For when all things shall else forsake us, virtue yet will ever abide with us,
187/326
1/22/2015
For when all things shall else forsake us, virtue yet will ever abide with us,
and when our bodies fall into the bowels of the earth,
yet that shall mount with our minds into the highest heavens.
By your loving and assured friend,
E. Oxenford
Reply · Like ·
7 · December 30, 2014 at 5:19pm
State University
Follow ·
Lorenzo Geraldo
Twain later clarified that he had doubts about Bacon. Walt Whitman, although an
avowed skeptic and anti-Stratfordian, presciently denied the Baconian
proposition, preferring instead an at that time still unidentified "wolfish earl."
O course, in the last century abundant credible evidence has appeared, much of it
now available on the web, showing why Oxford is a much more plausible author
than Bacon ever was. As for the link between life and powerful art, that is the
strongest point that the Oxfordians have. I recommend Mark Anderson's book if
you want to study the relationship between the plays and the life of the author.
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
I found the Mark Anderson book to be extremely poor as it assumes from the
beginning that de Vere is the writer Shakespeare. Not exactly impartial thinking!
It's perfect for the believers, though, who don't care how good the evidence is as
they already think de Vere did it.
In the last century abundant circumstantial evidence for de Vere has appeared but
it is overstating the case to call it credible. It relies heavily on the gratuitous
assumption that an idealized pseudonymous lone writer was infusing his work
with biographical details. Without this rather dubious assumption de Vere has no
case. I'd rather believe that the Stratford man himself wrote all the work. At least
there's evidence he went somewhere near a Shakespeare play!
Considering the time and effort Oxfordians have spent scraping around for facts,
it's evident that they've failed to nail the case for him. It's not a lack of intelligence
at their disposal either: it's actually a lack of facts. So I ask the question: Are
people so desperate to find an alternative to Shakspere that they'll accept a
nothing argument? Face up to it. The emperor de Vere has no clothes!
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 11:05pm
Jan Scheffer
Timothy Beck Your sentence "... an idealized pseunonymous lone writer was
infusing his work with biographical details" asks for some consideration. Is it
possible that someone, a writer, playwright writes something without any
biographical detail? Is, for instance, one's phantasy guaranteed, wholly free of
anything biographical? However, the point I want to make is the opposite: many
of Shakespeare's plays, in particular Hamlet, were - I think, I am convinced written out of a necessity to get these things, these details out. He (Oxford)
needed to take revenge on his father-in-law, Burghley as Polonius, of Leicester,
Claudius, who took out a lease on Oxford's father's lands two weeks before his
(mysterious) death in 1562. This is just why knowing the background of the
author deepens your understanding of the plays. To this courtier, who's estate
was sapped by queen Elizabeth (and Leicester) and Burghley (who married him to
his duaghter, Anne (Ophelia) in order to elevate his family name to an earldom,
writing these plays was a necessity, not writing would probably have driven him
insane, it was the one way in which he could bring out, in some way, what had
happened to him, only not under his own name. Take an interest in DeVere's
biography, then read Hamlet again, is my advise. Finally: he was defenitely not a
'lone writer', there were about fifty dedications in books to him. Gabriel Harvey
and John Lyly likely served as secretaries to him.
Reply · Like ·
7 · December 31, 2014 at 12:27am
188/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
7 · December 31, 2014 at 12:27am
Top Commenter
Timothy Beck What do you know about the Stratford man? Stick to the facts
only. Write them all down on a sheet of paper. Let's make it legal size. You won't
fill the page. And that's a fact.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 1:48am
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Anne Zakelj ... But Shakespeare's name is on the First Folio! Stratford is also
mentioned in the dedications. Even his fellow Kings Men players are mentioned.
That's an advantage he has over Oxford. A massive advantage!
Jan Scheffer ... The idea that Oxford was putting his biographical details in the
Shakespeare plays is a gratuitous construction. Even if the details in Hamlet
relate to him, why would it have to be him writing about him? There's an
argument that the night-time disturbance of the Puritan Malvolio in Twelfth Night
mirrors a case that appeared before the Star Chamber in 1601 involving the
Puritan Sir Thomas Posthumus Hoby and William Eure in Yorkshire (see Sir
Dunbar Plunket Barton, Links between Shakespeare and the Law, 1929, pp.62-3).
Sir Toby Belch is the culprit in the play. Does this mean that Sir Thomas wrote the
Twelfth Night scene? Of course not. Sorry but it's a weak argument.
This is why the academics have stopped listening to the Oxford case. The
evidence isn't strong enough. All that Oxfordians have is a misguided enthusiasm
and it's not enough.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Timothy Beck Yes, I agree that having the name Shakespeare on the FF gives the
man from Stratford a huge advantage, one that Oxfordians have been trying to
overcome these many years. It's interesting to note that of the first 13 plays
published, the first six were anonymous. The name Shakespeare pops up in
1598. But Shake-speare (with a hyphen) was used in about a third of the title
pages of the quartos. Oxfordians contend that a hyphenated name indicates a
pseudonym. A pseudonym for whom? Gabriel Harvey, in a dedication to de Vere
described him as: "vultus tela vibrat" - "your countenance shakes spears."
Oxford's circle of friends surely must have been aware of his pen name, so this
little Latin tribute served as an inside joke for all of them. So basing the
authorship on the use of the name Shakespeare has its problems. The "massive
advantage" is leveraged by those who cannot (or will not) admit that a
pseudonym was used.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 12:39pm
State University
Follow ·
Carol Jean Jennings Carol, if you want more serious reading, you might want to
try this website: http://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj What seems unusual now in regard to the absence of a name on a
publication might not have been unusual then. Also, I think the idea of Pallas
Athena the spear shaker was used quite a lot in those times.
Interestingly, I've been checking out the PhD link at the top of the thread and I
notice that the Oxfordians' Tempest research has been shown to be incomplete!
Seems we Stratfordians have been right all along, as the play's link with the
Bermuda shipwreck now seems to be a nailed on certainty. Well then, those
Oxfordian researchers who have been in error should now stand up and be big
enough to admit it. People have respect for intellectual integrity, and presumably
they wouldn't want to be saddled with a reputation for misrepresenting the
189/326
1/22/2015
they wouldn't want to be saddled with a reputation for misrepresenting the
evidence and demeaning the honest efforts of others.
Barry R. Clarke ·
Well, I suppose we all have a common aim of finding out what happened 400
years ago so I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year! :)
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Timothy Beck Here is the link to a more recent look at the problems relating to the
dating of The Tempest:
http://shakespearestempest.com/2013/08/book_news/couldnt-put-it-down/
#more-271
(I see that the Clarke article is dated 2011.)
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj "Yes, I agree that having the name Shakespeare on the FF gives the
man from Stratford a huge advantage, one that Oxfordians have been trying to
overcome these many years."
Translation. Yes it is an advantage that the wetness of water tends to support the
idea that water is wet. But Oxfordians have been trying to overcome this and
prove that water is dry by...[insert your favourite Oxfordian technique].
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud Agree entirely. If you look at the people who support the Oxfordian
religion they tend to be highly suggestible. They don't need particularly strong
evidence to believe something that they hope is true. And reading Jan Scheffer's
post above it's clear that the smallest hint that Oxford had secretaries writing for
him can so easily be elevated into a full-blown fact! It's extremely poor research
methodology and its done largely by amateurs who think if they can popularize
an idea then that automatically makes it into knowledge! It's a nothing case put
together by people who are blind to their own over-interpretation of the facts. In
other words, these people NEED to believe it.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
Thank you, Dr. Clarke. While I am an Oxfordian, I, and the late Jon Michel to
whose work I substantially contributed ,have always maintained that there is solid
evidence linking Francis and/or Anthony Bacon to Shakespearian production in
the 1590's.I follow your work with the greatest interest and respect.
Reply · Like ·
Jan Scheffer
Timothy Beck I did not say that 'Oxford was putting his biographical details in
Shakespeare's plays', I stated that - to me - Oxford needed to get what had
happened to him in his - difficult, conflictuous, partly traumatic - life out and that
the ways in which he could do this were limited, simply because writing what
happened to him in his own name would have been suicidal. To me, there was an
urge to get this out, we may look at it in the sense that writing Hamlet (and
Merchant, All's well.. Coriolanus..and ) was therapeutical to him. As I stated
before: a writer cannot 'escape' his own history in his writings. Of course I read
Shakespeare with the idea of the unconscious in mind: what was suppressed and
for how long and what happened when it came to the surface. In Oxford's case
for instance the realization that the Queen, whose courtier he was, as well as
Burghley and Leicester had been sapping his estates - partly leading to his loss
of good name , which I read in the sonnets. By the way: why 'Oxfordian religion'?
190/326
1/22/2015
of good name , which I read in the sonnets. By the way: why 'Oxfordian religion'?
why so insulting?
Reply · Like ·
Jan Scheffer
Oxfraud Why do you use a pseudonym? Why did Edward de Vere use a
pseudonym?
Reply · Like ·
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
Roger Stritmatter
Where did you read of Twain's Doubt of Bacon's Shakespeare Authorship? It
couldn't be in his 1909 publication "Is Shakespeare Dead" a year before his
death. Edward de Vere did not possess the humanistic capabilities or the wide
ranging brilliance of Francis Bacon's mind & philosophy which is saturated
throughout the Shakespeare Plays. There are many contemporaries like Ben
Jonson who were close literary associates of Bacon's and regaled him as an
outstanding Poet-Philosopher. This is evident in the eulogy tributes by Bacon's
"Good Pens" in Manes Verulamiani: (Shades of Verulam)
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj
Timothy Beck Here is the link to a more recent look at the problems relating to the
dating of The Tempest:
http://shakespearestempest.com/2013/08/book_news/couldnt-put-it-down/
#more-271
(I see that the Clarke article is dated 2011.)
Thanks Ann.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Lorenzo Geraldo Have you ever considered putting paragraph breaks between
your ideas? But yes, in answer to your question, the line about Twain being a
Brontosaurian just happens to be from the very book that you name. If you had
read the book, you might know that.
Like Whitman, Emerson, Melville and Hawthorne, Twain was already a postStratfordian.
As for your statements about de Vere, dare one ask how you've come to these
conclusions. Because as someone who has studied his life for twenty years, it
does occur to me that you are shooting from the hip. Be careful or your will hit
your foot.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck , you write: T"his is why the academics have stopped listening to
the Oxford case."
Your chronology is ass-backwards.
Actually, most of them have never started and know less about it than you do.
But if you think that they are not perking up their ears now, some of them
anyway, the most alert and open-minded, then you are quite mistaken. True,
many will fight rather than switch. As has been said, paradigm shifts proceed one
191/326
1/22/2015
many will fight rather than switch. As has been said, paradigm shifts proceed one
funeral at a time....
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter I see you're a PhD. OK, I respect that, but I have a question for
you. Are you someone who is in search of the truth or do you have a fixed point
of view, no matter what new facts jump up?If you're an Oxfordian then that surely
answers the question, doesn't it? No matter what new information there is, you
will not change your views to fit it. I suspect in that case you might ignore
evidence that doesn't fit your paradigm. It's not how an objective researcher
would work, it's how someone following a religion would think. You'd then be the
same as Stanley Wells who has his own religion of which he is the Pope. You
might wish to accuse him of being intransigent (I'm guessing) but if you're an
Oxfordian then you have to be two of a kind. I'd love to see you come out and say
on this forum that the evidence isn't nailed on for Oxford (because it isn't).
BTW1, As for me, I'm not actually with any camp but I just think there're more
facts for Shakespeare than Oxford but there is a reasonable doubt that needs
investigating.
BTW2 are you using this forum to sell books? I've seen a link to one of them here
several times. That's another thing: if you're in this to make money it will corrupt
your judgment. Naughty!
Reply · Like ·
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
Roger Parris
Shakespeare Shows Up The Earl of Oxford
in All's Well That Ends Well
http://www.sirbacon.org/oxfordallswell.htm
Reply · Like ·
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
Roger Stritmatter
I did read Anderson's book and it reminded me of Blavatsky's creative channeled
work, all circumstantial ideas but no evidence presented. I also watched
Emmerich's "Erroneous" I mean "Annonymous" and just don't understand his
motivation to sabotage the Oxford case with fictional conjectures.
Reply · Like ·
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
Timothy Beck
It is obvious that Roger Stritmatter and many other Oxfordians are incapable of
having objectivity in the authorship subject. After all Stritmatter's livelihood
depends on making newbie Oxies that he and others can sell their books to and
have their conferences where they can pat each other on the back counting how
many new adherents they have hustled. But at the core they are an insecure lot,
their zealousness to minimize an argument is not done in the best interests of fair
play and objective scholarship.
I was an Oxfordian myself for a time and went to meetings because the
authorship for the Stratford man was so poor. But the same issue of needing a
milk cow to keep the game going is what the Oxies and Strats have in common.
But beyond the issue of economics I did further research and found the evidence
of Bacon's authorship much more compelling than the Oxfordian & Stratordian
view. I was also turned off by the maniacal arrogance of many of the Oxfordians
demonstrated by their limited knowledge of the best case evidence for the
Baconian position. But I will mention that two published Oxfordians one now
deceased have confided in cordial emails that they could see Bacon's authorship
in several plays.
It's also interesting to note that there was very limited interaction/correspondence
192/326
1/22/2015
It's also interesting to note that there was very limited interaction/correspondence
between DeVere and Bacon. We know that Ben Jonson had the highest
admiration for Bacon and they did collaborate. There are many Elizabethan
contemporaries that recognized Bacon's playwriting and poetry skills and are on
record for saying so. I doubt that any stylometric research based on Bacon's
writing would include his Promus notes, a notebook that every Authorship
researcher should know about instead of ignore. But when your livelihood is
based on being right to make profit, to prove what you already know then
ignoring one of the most significant Elizabethan source documents to the
authorship is a predictable human response.The fault in human nature to observe
without preconception and the passing on of a bias was discussed by Bacon in
his Advancement of Learning/Novum Organum as The Four Idols.
Stritmatter would have us believe in his misleading rhetoric that the Baconian
heyday was long ago but that's not the case at all as evidenced by the steady
stream of new books by contemporary and prolific Baconians such as Richard
Wagner, Peter Dawkins, Nigel Cockburn, Mather Walker and now Barry Clarke.
There are many other new Bacon authors who have published work as well and
they have continuous websites.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Lorenzo Geraldo For a while, I also was interested in Bacon. However, reviewing
Dr. Stritmatter's findings on the little to nil correspondence between Bacon's
usage of the Bible in his work (per Dr. Porter Cole's dissertation) and biblical
allusions found in the Shakespeare canon (per Shakespeare and the Bible
scholars Shaheen, Milward, Noble, Carter, and Wordsworth) have proven that
Bacon could not have written the Shakespearean works.
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain Doesn't take much to convince you, then. That's why I said earlier that
Oxfordians are highly suggestible.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Timothy Beck Your "Knit Twain Doesn't take much to convince you, then. That's
why I said earlier that Oxfordians are highly suggestible." re Bacon's usage of the
Bible vs Shakespeare's usage.
Why don't you dispute Dr. Stritmatter's report instead of contributing nothing
intelligent.
Greg Koch
I like to see that traditional biographers are more open-minded about what Shakespeare had
to know based on the details in the plays. This is something they usually fail at, often bitterly.
They tend to satisfy any special knowledge or training the Stratford guy required by saying
his "friendship" with Southampton covers all bases. I wonder if they tried using a calculator?
- Southampton was mewling and puking when the Stratford guy was already beyond
schooling age.
Reply · Like ·
Susan McCosker · St. Leonard's Academy
2 smoking guns: the performance of Richard II on the Saturday, February 7, 1601 by the Lord
Chamberlain's Co. the day before the Earl of Essex's Rebellion. which included the taboo
"Deposition Scene.." Subsequent inquiries by the Privy Council to members of the company
resulted in no consequences. Shakespeare was not present at the inquiry The second
smoking gun is "The Poet Ape" by Ben Jonson, 1616. Read it..
Reply · Like ·
193/326
1/22/2015
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
The Poet-Ape makes no reference to Shakespeare. It is more likely about de Vere,
certainly describes the quality of his writing. Furthermore, saying it is about
Shakespeare it makes no sense in view of Jonson's specifically addressed praise
of the Immortal Bard of Avon.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Joseph Ciolino According to Oxfordians, If De Vere is the writer behind the plays
and Will is just the front man simply taking the credit, then Will is not doing any
of the writing. So if Ben Jonson is calling "William Shakespeare" a "Poet-Ape"
than he would be referring to person writing the poetry aka imitating a poet so the
"Poet-Ape" reference is really about De Vere not Will. Also, wasn't "William
Shakespeare" actually a pseudonym so Jonson again is attacking De Vere not Will
for being a Poet-Ape. How cheeky for him to be attacking an earl, doesn't Jonson
fear retribution from the bankrupt earl's legions of private secretaries? Apparently
not, as Ben Jonson would again insult "Shakespeare" in his "Timber: and
Discoveries" and wished "Shakespeare" had blotted out a thousand lines.
Apparently according to the Oxfordian theory, Ben Jonson called De Vere, writing
as "Shakespeare" a Poet-Ape and wished he edited himself more. Yes quite the
smoking gun. But according to the same Oxfordians, Ben Jonson has a bad
memory so all of his statements are now suspect. This bad memory was
apparently discovered - just yesterday.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jon Ciccarelli My head is spinning. . .
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Joseph Ciolino Seriously. The Oxfordian story has enough plot holes that it
would rival a piece of Swiss cheese. Of course, being that their poster boy never
trained in the theatre, I can't expect his followers to come up with a coherent
narrative.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jon Ciccarelli No doubt. However, these anti-Strats are far from ignorant or
frivolous people. Indeed, they are learned, intelligent and have much knowledge
of the issue. So, how can they be so very wrong? Okay, that was biased. Let me
re-phrase: how can we be of such disparate camps on this? We're all looking at
the same information, no?
It seems to boil down to the question of -- "What constitutes evidence?" For
some reason we have two entirely different definitions of what that means. What
you and I see as absurd and long debunked, (i.e., Burghley as Polonius) they see
as proven fact. Similarly, why is the question of "How could Shakespeare, the son
of illiterate commoner, who's education is in question, have possibly
accumulated the enormous amount of knowledge he displays in his plays, which
causes paroxysms of doubt in the anti-Strat, have no meaning or importance for
me whatsoever? Lastly, how is it that the publication of the quartos and
multitude of contemporaneous attributions to Shakespeare as author, anchor us
Stratfordians in such secure waters, and yet mean little or nothing to the
"anti's"???
Who is missing what here? What's going on? Someone ought to do a un-biased
(yeah, right) study of this phenomenon.
194/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Joseph Ciolino Someone had asked, I think it was Knit (too many posts to keep
track of) why attack William Shakespeare and I mentioned the reason was a
backlash against Bardolotry. The idea of worshiping Shakespeare as some new
age god of letters and where its force fed to us in school. "You have to know this
because its good for you" sort of sentiment. So in approaching the material they
may have an inherent bias against Will and look for chinks in the armor. The best
way to build up your own candidate is to tear down the opponent. So anything
contrary to their fervent belief that their guy is the right author they don't want to
listen. Besides, in their heads there’s an excitement to being part of movement
that looks to shake academia to its core.
Two things that make me shake my head: Getting behind candidates like Bacon I
can understand - learned statesman, actually wrote intelligent stuff and lived to
1621. Marlowe, actually a playwright and there’s a romantic adventure notion to
faking your own death and fooling the authorities. However, the more I hear
about the actual Edward De Vere the more he comes across as a really repulsive
human being so it’s a bit weird to me that so many people rally to his cause.
The second issue flows from the first in it surprises me how many theatre people
buy into this. I can understand where a lay person might hear about
Shakespeare’s supposed lack of education and think “yeah, there’s something to
it”. However, when actors like Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi get on the
bandwagon and think that a fellow actor was incapable of writing plays when the
plays are so full of theatrical touches and references. Anyone who has acted
knows of that guy in your show who is also writing their own one-act or full
length shows. These actors do this partially because they have an itch to write
but also to give themselves acting opportunities. Even further, any production is
a collaborative effort that requires tons of input from a myriad of people. So its
weird especially, when you stop and think about Shakespeare writing for specific
actors in his company like Burbage or Kemp and these actors, like Rylance, that
just won’t accept that one of their own is capable of writing these plays and in
situations that they would be very familiar with.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Are we going to change Christopher Marlowe's name to Christopher Marley? That's the way
he signed his name in the ONLY signature he left. Spelling wasn't consistent in the early
modern era but the family name is Shakespeare not Shaksper or some other variation.
We have 6 signatures that have been matched to three extensive handwritten pages in the
“Sir Thomas More” manuscript. So the guy who wrote those 6 signatures wrote for a play
that was being developed for the London stage - http://www.amazon.com/ShakespearesThomas-Cambridge-Library-Collection/dp/1108015352. This same manuscript was
reviewed by Edmund Tilney, the Master of the Revels, the man who approved if a play could
be performed or not. His successor, George Buc, sought out William Shakespeare to ask him
who wrote a play he was interested in and he recorded in his own diary that William
Shakespeare said that it was a clergyman who had also performed in the play. Two men,
whose job it was to oversee the playwriting industry in London, respectively attest to William
Shakespeare being a playwright and with knowledge about who was working in that
industry. Ben Jonson, worked as a playwright for 30 years, spoke of Shakespeare as a
playwright. So William of Stratford upon Avon was recognized but several people as having
been a playwright so the notion that he wasn’t is complete BS.
William's brother Gilbert and his daughter Susanna also signed their names to court
documents. The 6 signatures mentioned above are all from legal documents attesting that
William read over the document he was signing and understood its contents. If Gilbert,
William’s younger brother, his daughter and William could all sign their own names, read and
attested to wills, court records, mortgages, etc., then how exactly were they all illiterate?
William and Gilbert’s father John was a councilman and Mayor. How exactly do you hold
positions like that if you can’t read legal correspondence from Queen Elizabeth’s court,
approve of payments to city officials and vendors or just do day to day municipal business?
John ran his own business making high end leather gloves. How do you order supplies, keep
195/326
1/22/2015
John ran his own business making high end leather gloves. How do you order supplies, keep
the books, and fulfill custom orders if you can’t read or write? Going further how does an
actor get their part and memorize lines if they can’t read their roles? Why hire someone like
that? The answer to all of the above is that William and the whole Shakespeare clan could
read and write.
If there’s such a fervent movement afoot to discredit William Shakespeare and the scholars
are “running scared” then why did the movie “Anonymous” tank at the box office? Good to
Stanley Wells for not accepting this obvious ploy for publicity by this fringe group. It DOES
matter who wrote the plays. They were written by an actor named William Shakespeare for
other actors and on occasion he worked with other playwrights to create theatre. These
WERE NOT created by some aristocratic twit who was a known murderer and wartime
deserter
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Susanna Hall's scribbling was described by a paleographer as a “painfully formed
signature, which was probably the most that she was capable of doing with the
pen.” Judith signed her name with a mark. Both daughters of the greatest writer
in the English language, and both functionally illiterate.
Reply · Like ·
12 · December 30, 2014 at 2:00am
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Most of Stratford's aldermen and town council were illiterate, and they did just
fine, because their job was not about shuffling papers. Gilbert could read, but
none of Shakespeare's other family could, and they got by ok in a world that
didn't really expect everyone to be literate. Clerks read the document to them and
they signed with their mark. Many actors, like Nick Tooley, the original Juliet,
learned their roles by rote. That is one reason plays were so often written in verse.
George Buc asked Shakespeare who wrote a play. That does not prove that
Shakespeare wrote a play. It doesn't even prove Buc thought Shakespeare had
written any plays. We don't know which play Buc was even asking about.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
5 · December 30, 2014 at 3:57am
Care to cite that "painfully formed" signature reference? Crazy scrawls from
educated professionals abound from Doctors to Teachers and that doesn't
indicate their level of literacy or education. One person's opinion (that already
sounds biased) against the signer doesn't take away from the fact that Susanna
knew lettering and how to form them. What exactly does “functionally illiterate”
mean? You either know how to read and write or you don’t. The level of reading
comprehension or how often one does read or write will vary but you either were
instructed in how to write and recognize English or you were not. She wrote a
signature so she received instruction in lettering and had the ability to read her
own writing – so she was literate. Susanna would have to know what she was
signing to attest to it which in this case was slander suit that she herself brought
against a man who accused her of adultery, which by the way she won
("Shakespeare: A Life". By Park Honan pp. 291-2).
Can you cite a reference to where Nick Tooley was illiterate and had to learn the
part by having another person read to him? How about a reference Tooley even
played Juliet or that this reading to an actor was a practice that theatre companies
did? From a business standpoint why would you hire an actor, especially a young
one who you are making an investment in to take other parts down the road as
they grow up who can’t read? The time and money that would be wasted paying
two people (the literate one and the illiterate one) to “learn” a single part in not
realistic from a financial or time management standpoint.
Philip Henslow, who ran the rival theatre company The Admiral's Men, noted in
his business diary to have produced 6 different plays a week. That's with the
same group of 20-30 men and boys and usually learning new material with some
repeats ("Shakespeare: The Evidence" by Ian Wilson p. 75). That’s a different play
everyday that you had to rehearse and perform and that included double ups,
196/326
1/22/2015
characters with accents, you also had to learn comic routines, sword
choreography, elaborate costume changes, etc. They had to produce not only for
their public stage but for private showings at court, in rich households and at the
law schools. With all of the prep work that goes into producing a single play let
alone 25-30 in a single month,10-11 months out of the year (250-333 plays a
year) why would a business waste their valuable time and money hiring an
illiterate actor who could not do the job?
Marks were used by those who were illiterate but also by those who were literate
as a form of short hand. This can be likened to someone using a rubber stamp
signature today. So anyone signing with a mark without any corroborating
evidence is inconclusive. Being that Susanna was literate, her father and uncle
were literate why would Judith be illiterate? The circumstantial evidence for
Judith would be that she was literate. Do you have a reference to most of
Stratford council being illiterate? Clerks as support staff in any administrative
scenarios were used but do you have any reference that that’s how municipal
business in Stratford was conducted?
If Gilbert could read why wouldn’t the rest of his family be able to? Why single
him out, just because his signature survived?The Shakespeare siblings were
close in age as were Susanna and Judith. If one child was educated in how to
read and write why wouldn’t the others get the same instruction as well?
We DO KNOW what play that George Buc was asking about and it was called
“George a Green, the Pinner of Wakefield" (Contested Will by James Shapiro p.
224)”. George Buc sought out a theater professional named William Shakespeare
to ask about the author of a play written 10 years earlier. Why would he ask any
random old actor about a playwright? Buc asked someone who he knew could
have the information about a playwright - another playwright. Also, as I
mentioned above Shakespeare's 6 existing signatures are a match to the Hand D
addition in the "Sir Thomas More" manuscript overseen by another Master of the
Revels - Edmund Tilney. So William Shakespeare who wrote the 6 signatures,
wrote the Hand D addition to a PLAY overseen by the man who approved plays.
So Will of Stratford was a playwright.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 4:01pm
Jon Ciccarelli Interesting how you mention Henslow's diary; a theater history
treasure that mentions nearly everyone active in London's Elizabethan theater
except Shakespeare.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 2:16am
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli Sir Granville George Greenwood in his book Shakespere's
Handwriting quotes an earlier source, Sir E Maunde Thompson's Shakespeare's
England in which he describes Susanna's writing as "painfully formed" and
Judith's marking an X. Do you need a link? Here's Susanna's attempt: http://
www.shakespeare-authorship.com/images/SusannaHall.jpg
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 12:52pm
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli I seem to recall an anecdote (?) where a book was supposedly given
to Susanna by a visiting dignitary (a woman, as I recall) and this instance was
used by Stratfordians as proof of her literacy. Does this sound familiar to you? (I
can't seem to find it...)
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 1:00pm
Julie Sandys Bianchi You're right Henslowe doesn't mention Shakespeare in his
diary nor does he mention Edward de Vere as a playwright or actor. The non
mention of Shakespeare is another point against De Vere if you go with the whole
pseudonym hypothesis. If De Vere was using that name as either a straight out
pseudonym or with a front man or both the fact that Henslowe doesn't mention
197/326
1/22/2015
pseudonym or with a front man or both the fact that Henslowe doesn't mention
him at all works against him.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ann Zakelj I've seen the signature a few times. I can read her name which is more
than I can say for many signatures both modern and past that I've seen.
Greenwood's comment is aesthetic one in that he didn't care for the penmanship
and that's all it is. The point is that she is that she wrote the signature so she
received instruction in what letters are, how to form them and how to interpret
them hence she was literate. How often she read and not read is pure speculation.
I don't recall anything about the dignitary anecdote you mention so can't
comment on that. With Judith the best you can say is that its inconclusive as
both literate and illiterate people signed with marks. However, given that her
sister, father and uncle all signed their names meaning they received instruction
in reading and writing so why wouldn't Judith have received the same?
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli But in the case of Judith, an attorney wrote her full name beside her
mark. Why would he do that if she was capable of signing? But let's assume that
all of what you say is true regarding both daughters' literacy. Why would Will,
whose female characters were witty and learned and oftentimes superior to their
male counterparts, not give his own family members the opportunity to *excel*
intellectually? Then there's this, via Diana Price, an account of the meeting
between Susanna and Dr Cooke, translator of Dr Hall's casebook: [He went] "...to
see the Books left by Mr. Hall. After a view of them, she told me she had some
Books left, by one that professed Physick, with her Husband, for some mony. I
told her, if I liked them, I would give her the mony again; she brought them forth,
amongst which there was this with another of the Authors, both intended for the
Presse. I being acquainted with Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them
were her Husband's and shewed them her; she denyed, I affirmed, till I perceived
she begun to be offended. At last I returned her the mony." What do you make of
it?
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ann Zakelj
Yes the attorney wrote her name. I assume to identify who the mark belonged to.
Why did others who could read and write use a mark instead? Maybe it was a
preference, we don't know why nor can we glean it from looking at the mark. I
worked in an office where my boss rubber stamped her signature on every
business letter where she could have just signed her name. It wasn't any
excessive level of signing documents either just occasional letters. She had
gotten used to doing it years before and the habit stuck, could be the same here.
I'm not sure what you're getting at by not allowing them to excel intellectually. Do
you have some evidence that he suppressed either daughter desire to go to
school or discouraged intellectual pursuits? On her tombstone Susanna is
described as being witty (intelligent) above her sex I don't see that as being
intellectually suppressed, quite the opposite it sounds like she was allowed to
pursue intellectual pursuits.
As for the doctor episode, I find it interesting as I wasn't aware of it so its
interesting hearing about that conversation but it sounds like they were having a
disagreement on what handwriting was John Hall’s. In fact it attests that Susanna
could read. The scenario is that Doctor Cooke arrives at the house to collect some
books. Susanna mentions that there are other ones as well, one specifically on
Physick and gets books for him, how would she know what books to give him if
she couldn’t read what they were? John Hall’s library probably had a lot of books
how would she know which ones were the ones to give? They had a
disagreement was about hand writing it was not that she brought him some
unrelated book. It wasn’t like he was expecting a book on “Physick” and she
brought him a book on gardening. She also knew enough about handwriting to
198/326
1/22/2015
brought him a book on gardening. She also knew enough about handwriting to
recognize it as her husbands, make that assessment and stand by it. Whether she
was mistaken or Cooke was mistaken we can’t tell.
She could write her name, was described as being intelligent, married a doctor,
was able to make a judgment on his hand writing vs someone else’s and knew the
books were about physic. Doesn’t sound like an illiterate, intellectually
suppressed woman to me, in fact quite the opposite.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli - "Doesn’t sound like an illiterate, intellectually suppressed woman
to me, in fact quite the opposite."
Oh?
'Tis a pity
That one so witty
Left behind not
One word pretty...
Or little ditty.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli Think about it... Dr Hall never mentions his famous father-in-law,
yet describes his patient Michael Drayton, a contemporary of Shakespeare, as "an
excellent poet" in his journal. Hall and Drayton are two of ten eyewitnesses who
saw nothing, according to Ramon Jimenez. I found his paper fascinating...
http://politicworm.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/jimenez-10-eyewitnesses.pdf
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 6:53pm
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli Behold Susanna's epithaph! More doggerel from the same people
who brought you Shakspeare's!
Here lyeth the body of Susanna, wife of John Hall, gent., the daughter of William
Shakespeare, gent. She deceased the 11 day of July, Anno 1649, aged 66.
Witty above her sex, but that's not all,
Wise to Salvation was good Mistress Hall,
Something of Shakespeare was in that, but this
Wholly of him with whom she's now in blisse.
Then, passenger, hast nere a tear
To weep with her that wept with all
That wept, yet set herself to chere
Them up with comforts cordiall?
Her love shall live, her mercy spread
When thou hast nere a tear to shed.
Daughter of William Shakespeare, gent.???? That's it? Gent.?
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 6:57pm
Ann Zakelj You complain about doggerel on Susanna’s grave and start off your
post with that dreck? Okay. Whether you like the poetry or not that's what was
said about Susanna and your story with Doctor Cooke supports that assessment.
Also, why would someone make this up about her after she died? I can see the
logic in a conspiracy if you’re trying to build up Will but his daughter, who cares?
The only logical conclusion is that the grave attribution is true.
"That's it? Gent?" What’s that supposed to mean? You do understand that its
the family's rank (Gentleman) because of the coat of arms right? Are you invoking
the old snobby argument because Will wasn’t an earl he's incapable of tying his
shoes? I thought you said elsewhere on these threads that Oxfordians didn’t
199/326
1/22/2015
shoes? I thought you said elsewhere on these threads that Oxfordians didn’t
have a problem with “lower born” people having genius just Will Shakespeare.
Apparently you do have a problem with his lower social status by that comment.
What exactly is John Hall supposed to say about his father-in-law? The
“Shakespeare Reputation” was not entrenched until decades after he died. The
people to fawn over at the time were Ben Jonson (the poet laureate), John
Fletcher and Francis Beaumont who were the best selling dramatists at the time.
Notice that in the Restoration era (period immediately following the English Civil
War and reopening of the theatres – 1660s) Shakespeare’s plays were heavily
adapted and merged. “Much Ado About Nothing” and “Measure for Measure”
were merged where Claudio and Benedick became brothers. “Two Noble
Kinsmen” was adapted to become “The Rivals”, text and characters were added to
“The Tempest” and became “The Enchanted Island” and new scenes were added
to “Macbeth”. As hard as it is for us to understand the plays were not treated as
the classics they are today and were shelved or modified to suit the tastes of the
Restoration era. Just before Will's death "Shakespeare" was on the same level or
slightly better known than Drayton. For Hall and Drayton, it sounds like John Hall
is just paying Drayton a complement as opposed to being a gushing fan which
matches what one would say about a minor celebrity.
While we’re on the subject of Drayton, what was a London based playwright and
poet doing visiting a country doctor like John Hall? Couldn’t Drayton have gone
to more local doctors in London? Instead he shows up at the home of a man 100
miles from London? Why exactly? Could it be he’s visiting the guy’s father-inlaw, a fellow playwright and poet? You like to bring out the anecdotes well there’s
the famous one about Shakespeare’s death. The one where Drayton, Ben Jonson
and Shakespeare were out drinking, eating pickled hearings and Shakespeare
caught a cold and died a couple of days later. This story was collected by
Nicholas Rowe in 1709 for the first official Shakespeare biography as by the early
1700s the reputation was starting to get entrenched. I don’t really buy into the
whole thing as sounds like an embellished story however, there’s probably some
nugget of truth in it. Why Drayton and not some other poet/playwright? Sounds
like Drayton was a visitor, supported by the fact that Hall examined Drayton and
from this its quite possible Jonson was also a visitor. So this story might have
happened but became embellished however, it ties famous poets to the man in
Stratford, not De Vere. Care to strengthen the Stratfordian case some more?
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mr. Ciccarelli: I marvel that Stratfordians posit the defense that Shaksper's
daughters could read but not write. There is no evidence that they could do
either, but the lack of a well formed signature by Susanna and Judith's "pig's tail"
mark are hard evidence that writing was not a skill they possessed. Is it not odd
that the daughters of a writer did not learn to write? Moreover, it brings to mind
Portia's line from MV: "She [Portia] is not bred so dull but she can learn." Yet the
supposed writer of this line had two daughters back in Stratford who were, so far
as the record shows, "bred so dull..."
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 11:35pm
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate my attempt at a little levity, but the
point you missed is that both Will’s and Susanna’s epitaphs are totally
incongruous with the high praise that should have been paid to a poet of
Shakespeare’s stature and to his daughter. The two pieces of doggerel (par for
the course, I suppose, for the Stratford deceased) are not much better than my
“dreck.” Did the greatest poet-playwright of his time abdicate all of his literary
skills when he retired to Stratford? Was he that self-effacing that he wouldn’t
have written elegant elegies for himself and his family members? Perhaps these
are trivial matters, but when coupled with the fact that no paper trail exists for
either of them, it becomes yet another problem for Stratfordians.
On the purchase of the coat of arms… Are you aware that the grantor of the arms
was accused of greed for handing them out to undeserving (“base”) persons,
among them Shakspeare? Then there’s the dropped comma and the butchered
Latin of the motto. It’s no wonder that Ben Jonson mocked it (and more…) in his
200/326
1/22/2015
Latin of the motto. It’s no wonder that Ben Jonson mocked it (and more…) in his
own little comedy. No snobbery here, just pure enjoyment of a scene of socialclimbing that’s fit for the vaudeville stage.
“What exactly is John Hall supposed to say about his father-in-law?” Anything
regarding a literary career? Oh, like… “Dear daddy-in-lawe gave to me a
booke…”? You certainly do resort to a kind of literary-historical sleight-of-hand
when trying to explain away Hall’s silence. It’s just a matter of common sense to
me that a son-in-law would give his wife’s illustrious father at least some
recognition.
I’m not sure what anecdotes you’re referring to (that I like to bring out). If you’re
referring to the Jimenez paper (did you get a chance to read it?) I assure you, he’s
not into anecdotes.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Do you realize that we only have one of the volumes of medical cases
compiled by Dr. Hall? Are you aware of the fact that they were written in a form of
shorthand that caused the publisher of the one volume we do have so much
trouble in deciphering the writing that Hall's assistant had to become involved in
the printing.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Your exercise in presentism is quite remarkable.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson And your point is....? Are you saying that Dr Hall could have
written about his father-in-law in another of the volumes? Or that there are, in
actuality, as yet undeciphered references to his f-i-l in the extant volume? Is that
it?
Get to it, man! You have some work cut out for you! (By the way, how's your
Latin?)
Reply · Like ·
Richard Agemo ·
Follow
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, but Shakspere didn’t.
William of Stratford was christened “Gulielmus Shakspere.” There are six
surviving signatures of this man. All of them spell his last name without the ‘e’
that would make the ‘a’ sound long, as in “shake.” Furthermore, the second
syllable of the name is always spelled so it is spoken with the “er” sound as in
“her,” or the “air” sound as in “pair,” not the “ear” sound as in “spear.” Stratford
Will never signed his name “Shakespeare.” Why? The simplest explanation is that
his last name was Shakspere, not Shakespeare.
Those that argue that Stratford Will was Shakespeare but spelled his name
Shakspere, point to Christopher Marlowe, who once signed his name “Christofer
Marley,” and other contemporary references that spelled “Marlowe” as “Marly” or
“Marlin.” Or they cite the example of Shackerley Marmion, an early 17th century
dramatist whose name sometimes appears as “Shakerly.” They also look to the
anonymous 1592 play, Arden of Feversham, in which one of the villains is called
“Shakbag,” sometimes spelled “Shakebag.” None of those examples support that
Shakspere wrote Shakespeare.
Unlike the difference between “Shakspere” and “Shakespeare,” the spelling and
pronunciation of the first syllable of “Marlowe” doesn’t change in the variations.
Moreover, we have just one surviving signature of Marlowe’s, but six for
Shakspere. One can pronounce both “Shackerley” and “Shakerly” with the short
‘a’ since the second syllable is “er.” In any case, that name is not an example of a
201/326
1/22/2015
‘a’ since the second syllable is “er.” In any case, that name is not an example of a
long ‘a’ sound remaining after the ‘e’ is dropped. “Shakbag” is an old word of
mid-Yorkshire dialect meaning “a lazy roving person; a vagrant.” That’s the
correct spelling and that’s how it appears the vast majority of times in Arden of
Feversham. Adding the ‘e’ creates a misspelling. Those who argue “Shakbag” as
proof that Shakspere wrote Shakespeare therefore must also argue that
“Shakespeare” is a misspelling of “Shakspere,” which is absurd.
In fact, we have contemporary evidence that attributing the plays to William
“Shakspere” or “Shakspeare” was a mistake. A 1608 quarto of King Lear names
the author as “William Shak-speare.” Subsequent quartos correct the name to
“William Shake-speare.” As Mark Anderson shows in “Shakespeare by Another
Name,” in Elizabethan times a hyphen often signaled that a name was a
pseudonym.
Hundreds if not thousands of editions of Shakespeare exist, but only a tiny
fraction of them name the author as “Shakspere.” In 1868, Charles Knight edited
“The Works of William Shakspere.” In the early 1900’s, Funk & Wagnalls
published “The Complete Works of William Shakspere.” Clearly, the idea that
“Shakspere” was the Bard’s correct name never caught on, simply because it
wasn’t the correct name. The errant “Shakspere” editions serve as further proof
that William Shakspere of Stratford wasn’t the Bard.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli What I don't understand is why the anit-Stratfordians have to trash
William of Stratford. Their attacks on him amount to a hate crime.
Why don't the Oxfordians just present their evidence for their candidate? i.e. Why
do they waste their time (and ours) telling us what we already know... mainly, that
there are few surviving records relating to Will of Stratford.
I suggest the anti-Strats' tactic to discredit Will of Stratford by any means
possible is, not only offensive to those of us who value honest scholarship, but
detrimental to their own cause.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ann: So you're saying that Will of Stratford wrote the elegies on his and his
daughter's grave? The guy who Oxfordians say wasn't a writer, is that correct?
How would he have written an epitaph for Susanna if he died decades before she
did? According to you he was supposed to write an elegy for himself? Why
exactly? On the John Hall side he paid a complement to Drayton in his journal
after examining him its not a personal diary. So if John Hall were to make some
similar statement about his father-in-law in this journal it would after examining
him? Hall examined a poet and paid him a complent and a small one at that. Hall
wasn't a literary critic so why would he make a comment about Shakespeare in a
medical journal? A personal diary I can see. Hall happened to examine a poet
Drayton and made a comment about it. Which brings me back to a question you
didn't answer: why was a London based playwright, Drayton, visiting a doctor
based in Stratford?
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli No, I am not saying that Will wrote that doggerel and you know it.
Grief fills the room up of my absent child,
Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me,
Puts on his pretty looks, repeats his words,
Remembers me of all his gracious parts,
Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form;
Then, have I reason to be fond of grief?
Fare you well: had you such a loss as I,
I could give better comfort than you do.
202/326
1/22/2015
I could give better comfort than you do.
After having penned these words, it strains credulity to think that Shakespeare (or
any one of his many literary friends) would have allowed such low-brow verses to
serve as epitaphs.
Drayton grew up in Warwickshire and was connected to a wealthy family near
Stratford, which he visited frequently. Dr Hall could have treated him there. I don’t
see this as a stumbling block. Why do you?
Reply · Like ·
Jan Scheffer
Knit Twain You are incorrect in saying that 'there are few surviving records of Will
of Stratford'. There are many surviving records from William Shaksper, as we
know most of them related to legal and business dealings, to taxes and real
estate. The picture that arises from these documents, as described by Diana Price,
Tony Pointon and Steven Steinberg (I came to bury Shaksper) is that of a clever
businessman, who acquired substantial wealth. He may have been an actor but
there are no records, his will included, that point to any literary activity. For that
reason a number of people, Winston Churchill included, have expressed doubt,
which, I think, may rightfully be called 'reasonable'. Reasonable doubt that this
man Shaksper wrote the plays, poetry and sonnets under the name
'Shakespeare'. The introduction to the First Folio, which is so often referred to as
'proof' of Shaksper's authorship, appears a clever attempt to disguise the identity
of the real author - although Ben Jonson provides some clues as to who he is.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Jan Scheffer Your "The introduction to the First Folio, which is so often referred
to as 'proof' of Shaksper's authorship, appears a clever attempt to disguise the
identity of the real author - although Ben Jonson provides some clues as to who
he is."
What are those clues?
Anything like this:
Per Jonson’s First Folio poem:
line 17 “I, therefore, will begin — Soule of the age!”
The next set of 16 lines occurs just before
line 71 “Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were”
which is the 54th line after line 17.
71 is the inverse of 17
54 is the age de Vere died
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
I'm speculating [as everyone else is doing on this issue] and saying that it would
be no surprise if his wife didn't recognize that strange script as being her
husband's writing. I'm also saying that we may never know if Hall mentioned WS
unless we find that other volume. The volume that we do have concerns medical
cases which occurred after Shakespeare's death. As for my Latin, it is not
anywhere near as good as it used to be. I have forgotten too much of what Fr.
Tolbert and Mr. Lafleur drummed into my head, although I can still recite a
Ciceronian oration.. It is funny that you mention this. Just the other day I was
wondering if it might be possible to locate my old textbooks to see if I could
regain some of what I have lost. How is your Latin?
Reply · Like ·
203/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
The “Stratford Man” has firmly been connected by both Oxforidans and
Stratfordians as having applied for a coat of arms so the family name could be
elevated to the social rank of “Gentleman”. Regardless of accusations of issuing
coats of arms to base born persons which simply means those not of noble birth,
nothing more derogatory,The College of Arms is the highest office in England
charged with keeping track of official family names and histories. An image of the
"Stratford Man's" application can be viewed here - http://
theshakespeareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/college-of-arms.jpg. The
name in upper right hand corner is pretty clear and its spelled SHAKESPERE.
If you accept that this document belongs to the "Stratford Man" than you accept
how the family name appears on this document and this is how the family named
is spelled. So what appears here is the "Official Family Name" - SHAKESPERE.
You have the word "SHAKE" not "SHAK" and the remainder is "SPERE" like
SPHERE, not SPER or SPUR. In English pronuciation an “E” on the end of word
usually makes a vowel long sounding not short. SPERE is a long E. Making an "E"
long sounding can also be done by putting an “A” next to it. So a variation on the
Stratford Man’s official family name as recognized by England's College of Arms
is SHAKESPEARE. So the pronunciation and spelling is not Shaksper, not
Shakspr or whatever other convoluted derogatory spelling you want to put on it.
The application, despite the "base born" controversy was NEVER repealed so the
application is official and therefore the legally recognized name.
Many people have large first names and last names that are abbreviated when
being signed and that will vary from document to document ( I have one myself
that I've mangled quite a bit). However, this is the highest office in England that is
charged with being the OFFICIAL keeper of family names and they verify its
SHAKESPERE. They trump everything else.
So unless you don't accept that the "Stratford Man" applied for a coat of arms
and was granted the social rank of Gentlemen then you need to spell his name as
Shakespere or its grammatically correct variant - Shakespeare. By Oxforian logic
concerning the spelling of names there must have been one man by the name of
Shaksper and some other guy named Shakespere who applied for a coat of arms
but I don't hear many on these threads saying that.
So in any future postings get the man’s name right, the college of arms certainly
did.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ann Zakelj Yes, the grief lines from "King John" are a better requiem that the
epitaphs on the graves of Will and Susanna. However, those words from
Constance are meant to display a mother's grief for a missing child that as far she
knows is dead not as an epitaph to appear on a grave. BTW Arthur is not dead by
that point in the play. Those words are personal grief, the epitaphs are more
generalized sentiments toward the deceased. Why would they even be on the
same level of emotion? The man who wrote the "King John" lines couldn't have
written Susanna's epitaph as he would have dead for decades so their quality in
comparison to those appearing in King John is moot. The "Good Friend" lines
could have been written by someone else but there's no proof one way or the
other who wrote them.
As for Michael Drayton,why seek out Dr. John Hall, the son-in-law of an
unconnected “grain merchant” out of all the doctors in London, Drayton's native
Hartshill, the nearest larger town of Nuneton or the nearest city of Leicester?
Nuneton is less than an hour walk from Hartshill and Leicester is 6 hours by foot,
even less I’d imagine by horse. If you walk from Hartshill to Stratford it would
have taken you 10 hours, even by horse that’s quite a time investment to go to
see a doctor. This area of England, then as now, is not some remote rural area but
highly populated and I’d imagine lots of doctors to tend to said population.
Why would a London based playwright like Michael Drayton go to see a doctor
from a town that is 10 hours out of his way when he’s visiting his relatives? Why
not seek medical treatment in either London and around his hometown? The only
204/326
1/22/2015
not seek medical treatment in either London and around his hometown? The only
logical answer is that he knew or knew of John Hall through a personal
connection, that personal connection Hall’s father-in-law – Will of Stratford. So
how do a London playwright and a Stratford based grain merchant make a
connection? They make a connection because Will is a fellow playwright working
in London. Is it another coincidence that it happens to be Michael Drayton who is
drinking with Will and Ben Jonson when Will catches the fever that kills him? In
the story its not John Fletcher, not Francis Beaumont, not Phillip Massinger or
Thomas Middleton or another more notable playwright but Michael Drayton. Even
if the story is an embellishment, why is Drayton associated with the episode and
not some other more famous playwright to make the story sound better? Its
because Drayton had a personal connection to Will of Stratford, corroborated by
Drayton visiting Dr. John Hall where Hall noted it in his journal. John Hall was a
man who Drayton had no other business visiting unless he knew him through a
mutual connection.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Knit Twain Couldn't agree more. You catch more flies with honey than you do
with vinegar. I think the reason for the attacks and the whole authorship
controversy is a backlash against Bardolotry, the cult of worshiping Shakespeare
as some god that blessed us mortals with his genius. This got started in the early
1700s and in some ways has been going ever since. It was something George
Bernard Shaw lampooned and despite his own over sized ego, he was right.
We're often force fed Shakespeare in school and as like anything that were told as
kids "This is for you're own good", some will rebel against it, even wind up hating
it.
Like in politics, the best way to build up your candidate is by tearing the other
one down, even if it undermines your own candidate, like the Oxfordians do:
Will of Stratford is an idiot who can barely put two words together however, he’s
sufficiently erudite enough to pass for a learned playwright as the Earl’s
frontman. So which is it? Is he an illiterate moron from a family of illiterate
morons or is he not?
De Vere was a recognized playwright of court entertainments but he also has to
write in secret and not be associated with any plays whatsoever even though he
praised, IN PRINT, as being a playwright of comedies. He can’t take credit for
“Shakespeare” comedies that are regularly performed at the royal court even
though he has reputation as a comedy playwright for royal entertainments for fear
of death. Why exactly?
Shakespeare is both a pseudonym but it’s the name of an actual guy working in
the theatre and somehow hyphens (a method that printers used break up this
long name) magically spells out De Vere.
My personal approach is that Will Shakespeare was a human being, warts and all.
He was thoughtful to observe people in all their glory and nuance in order to
recreate them both as a stage actor does and as a writer creating real personalities
out of pen and ink. I’m an actor and I know the sometimes insurmountable
obstacles that come with producing plays. For me, this resonates in the plays, as
the writer understands THE THEATRE not a writer who just happened to see
plays or had his family’s title associated with a theater company.
Everyone is going to have a different take away from seeing or reading the plays
but remember they were written by a person like yourself who had to earn a living,
buy food, clothes, pay bills, got cold, hot, celebrated holidays and not some
intangible entity of the “greatest writer ever”. Go beyond the bust on the mantle
put some flesh, bone and clothes on the guy in his own time period and you find
he’s not so removed and more relatable than you ever thought possible.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Bonner Cutting In Susanna Hall's signature, for which you can actually read the
205/326
1/22/2015
Bonner Cutting In Susanna Hall's signature, for which you can actually read the
full name, you have 6 letters which make the full name. Who taught Susanna how
to spell out these letters? How did she know that an "S" is an "S" and an "L" is an
"L" or that putting these strange symbols in the right combination in both upper
and lower cases would spell out her name? How would she know this if she were
illiterate - being unable to read or write? How do you write something and at the
same time not have the ability to write or understand what you wrote is correct?
The most logical answer is she received instruction on how to form the signature
and knew that it was correct (also known as reading) so Susanna was literate. So
if Susanna could read and write why wouldn't her sister Judith, only three years
younger than her, not have received the same instruction? People who were both
literate and illiterate signed with marks so Judith's "pigtail" is inconclusive.
If you want further circumstantial evidence for Susanna's literacy look back in this
thread. Your fellow Oxfordian Ann provided an anecdotal episode where Doctor
Cooke, an associate of Susanna's husband came to her house to collect some
books. Susanna mentioned that there was another book on “Physick”, i.e.
physical conditions of the body, that Doctor Cooke might be interested in. There
was handwriting in this book that Susanna said was not by her husband and
Cooke said was by her husband. The disagreement was noted by Doctor Cooke
as having gotten little contentious and he didn’t press the matter any further. So
Susanna had to first know what books to provide for Doctor Cook for his visit to
her house, know that there was a book on “Pysick” and had to pull that, and
know that the handwriting in this book was not her husband’s. How does
Susanna do all this is if she can’t read? An illiterate woman would have greeted
Doctor Cooke, brought him to the library and said “Have at it, because I can’t
read. I won't be of any help to you”. No instead she knew what books to pull, that
there was a book on physick and was able to discern someone’s handwriting. All
indications that she was able to read which is corroborated by the fact that she
was able to write her name.
Again, if Susanna could do this there is no reason why Judith couldn’t either.
Why educate one child and not the other, especially if they’re living in the same
household and they’re living arrangement remains the same for years.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli Re: coat-of-arms. It’s ironic that someone so at ease with heraldic
terminology that he uses it effortlessly throughout the canon, would make the
grand faux pas of petitioning that his coat-of-arms be blended with that of the
Ardens, a petition dismissed on the basis of lack of entitlement. Seems like a
thwarted attempt at reaching the next rung of the Stratford social ladder. Did
Shakspeare use the patois of heraldry without knowledge of its application?
Moreover, a writer inspired by Livy, Plutarch and the incomparable Ovid would
surely have winced at the Latin. Then there’s the Sogliardo farce…
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
Jon Ciccarelli Stop, yet again , exposing your ignorance by relying on James
Shapiro's even more ignorant blatherings.
George-a-Green is by Robert Greene. To whom Buc attributes it on the very same
title page which Shapiro, and you, so misleadingly quote. Buc received his
information from
Edward Juby who was general dogsbody to Philip Henslowe of the Rose where
George-a-Green was then playing. They had been dealing with Robert Greene
since the eighties , could not possibly be mistaken, and had no conceivable
reason to lie.
William Shakspere swore with force of an oath that he knew the play was an
amateur production written by a pastor who acted the lead. Unfortunately for all
the force of his oath Will couldn't remember the author's name thereby
deliberately making it impossible for Buc to check up on his story.
Any question which one of his informants Buc believed?
And there is much worse the play is filled with Robert Greene vocabulary as was
again shown by a vocabulary test made by Wayne Shore of Duke University
around the turn of this century. Moreover, it contains the highest known doubleending ratio of any play directly attributed to Robert Greene by a contemporary.
206/326
1/22/2015
ending ratio of any play directly attributed to Robert Greene by a contemporary.
If Will is to be believed an unknown amateur genius whose name he couldn't
remember created both Robert Greene's style and the accelerated double ending
years before Robert Greene and Kit Marlowe. What a crock.!
And that is also the stylistic judgment of three of the play's four editors.
You need to get yourself a more reliable expert, Jon.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Richard Agemo What about the character of "Black Will" in Arden of Faversham?
Your point about Shakebag could be convincing if the character's literal partner
in crime was not a guy named Black Will. So in the same play, you Black Will and
Shakebag. Also see my posting about the coat of arms application. The college of
arms recognizes the family name as Shakespere with the long vowels. The college
doesn't randomly assign you a name, you have to prove your lineage and how
you want the name to appear. So this document is the legally recognized family
name for the realm of England. So if Will of Stratford pursued the application his
family name is Shakespere or the phonetically similar Shakespeare not Shaksper.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ann Zakelj A faux pas when creating a new coat of arms to bring in the mother's
side of the family? That's the idea, to connect your family with other nobility and
notable service to the aristocracy so the application can be accepted. Creating the
application is an attempt to move up not only in the Stratford social ladder but
the entire country. So if that's what you're supposed to do in such an application
how is this behavior unexpected? Its like making fun of someone on their tax
return for adding in income from a business that they own, its what you're
supposed to do. What's the French Fluer de-Ley doing on the coat of arms of the
kings of England? Its to denote their claim to France so coats of arms changed
due to circumstance.
At ease with heraldic terminology, such as what? I don’t know how to fix a car but
I’m familiar with the names of various engine parts and know basically how the
motor works. What’s your point? So you’re accepting that the application for the
coat of arms connects to Will of Stratford and that his name is Shakespere not
Shaksper right? Because it doesn’t say Shaksper on the application. Also,
regardless that someone questioned whether the coat of arms should have been
granted, it was never repealed. It there was any teeth to the protest why didn't
that happen?
I actually like the Sogliardo joke "Not Without Mustard" its a good lampoon on
the motto not unlike trading barbs in the Poet's war of the early 1600s. I got
admit it’s not the best I’ve heard either but its what they went with. No
accounting for taste. However, if Jonson knows who De Vere really is why
lampoon his front man? What does Johnson gain by it? Also, the lampoon joke
matches up with Jonson’s passage from his Timber: or Discoveries, where he
comments that Shakespeare never blotted out a word and Jonson would (wished)
he had blotted out a thousand. So here Jonson refers in the same witty skewer
that he did the Sogliardo moment, however, we’re to believe he’s talking about
two different people. Also, how dare Jonson do that to an Earl, wasn’t he afraid of
some sort of retribution. After all, if he was still living and knew the secret
wouldn’t people close to De Vere be ticked off at him and retaliate? No Jonson
didn't seemed to be too concerned, probably because he was making fun of dead
friend who was not nobleman.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Parris Stop, yet again? I've never seen you respond to a posting of mine so
what are you referring to? Well, if the George a Greene reference is in error due to
Shapiro not getting it right, I will have to verify or not and that's a cautionary tale
for anyone commenting on this. We're only as good as the sources we cite, but
the title of the play is not the point of the George Buc episode. George Buc, the
Master of the Revels, went to William Shakespeare to ask about a play. Why
207/326
1/22/2015
Master of the Revels, went to William Shakespeare to ask about a play. Why
would Buc do that?Why would the man, whose job it is to approve or reject plays
go to this specific guy to ask about an old play? Could it be he thought that
Shakespeare would know? If I have an electrical problem in my house, I'm not
going to ask a doctor on how to fix it, I'll go to an electrician. So using the same
logic here Buc had a question about an old play and he went to someone that he
thought would best have the answer. Why ask him then?
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli "At ease with heraldic terminology, such as what? I don’t know
how to fix a car but I’m familiar with the names of various engine parts and know
basically how the motor works. What’s your point?"
You’ve made my point. I can decipher the legends on ancient Greek coins, but I’d
be hard pressed to cobble together a sentence in classical Greek. You and I know
the anatomy, but not the physiology. Shakespeare’s facility with the terms of
heraldry indicates a depth of knowledge far beyond that of mere vocabulary. It’s
an integral part of his thought process. He knew its application, something which
must have been nurtured from birth, not stumbled upon in the pages of a book or
casually overheard in a tavern. While you see it as an opportunity for him to link
his family to “other nobility,” the whole coat-of-arms scenario smacks of vulgarity
and a desperate need to elevate oneself above one's station.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Probably not as good as yours, but I do have my Latin textbooks
from high school and I still remember a few declensions and conjugations. After
all these years (more than 50!) I can honestly say it still comes in handy.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Ms. Z. Your "would make the grand faux pas of petitioning that his
coat-of-arms be blended with that of the Ardens, a petition dismissed on the
basis of lack of entitlement. Seems like a thwarted attempt at reaching the next
rung of the Stratford social ladder." is incorrect.
Per Wikipedia: "In heraldry, impalement is a form of heraldic combination or
marshalling of two coats of arms side by side in one heraldic shield or
escutcheon to denote a union, most often that of a husband and wife, ..."
Per the 1599 Confirmation of the Grant of Arms to John Shakespeare: "... and we
have lykewise uppon an other escucheon impaled the same with the auncyent
arms of the said Arden of Wellingcote, signifeing thereby that it maye and shalbe
lawefull for the said John Shakespere gent, to beare and use the same shieldes of
arms single or impaled as aforesaid, during his naturall lyffe ; and that it shalbe
lawefull for his children, yssue, and posteryte (lawfully begotten) to beare, use,
and quarter and shewe forthe the same with theyre dewe differences in all lawfull
warlyke factes and civile use or exercises, according to the lawes of arms and
custome that to gent, belongethe, ..."
HTH
====
You can see a sketch of the impaled coat of arms at (p. 35) https://archive.org/
stream/cu31924013147313#page/n67/mode/2up
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj, you write: " Dr Hall never mentions his famous father-in-law..." Not
208/326
1/22/2015
Ann Zakelj, you write: " Dr Hall never mentions his famous father-in-law..." Not
correct. He mentions him as having died in 1616. He says "my father-in-law died
on Thursday." Now you see why the Stratfordians are so impressed by this
evidence.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli This is a seris of enlightening and informative posts, so I "liked"
several of them. It may be my imagination, but it seems to me that as the
conversation continues, your comments are more substantive and less defensive
than they were a couple of days ago. If I'm wrong about that, then I apologize for
thinking that you may have started to realize that sometimes the Oxfordians do
have some chops in the discussion.
You write: "Well, if the George a Greene reference is in error due to Shapiro not
getting it right, I will have to verify or not and that's a cautionary tale for anyone
commenting on this. We're only as good as the sources we cite."
Shapiro got so many basic facts wrong in that book that it is difficult to know
where to begin in tabulating them, but one might start from his claim that the first
appearance of the hyphenated name is on the 1593 quarto of Venus and Adonis.
Sorry. How an a famous Columbia professor get that wrong. He could only have
gotten it wrong by 1) failing to look at a facsimile of the quarto, 2) assuming he
already knew the answer, and 3) needing that to be the answer because of the
patently ridiculous argument he makes based on that factual error. Shapiro is
gifted teller of tall tales, not a reliable scholar in any sense of that phrase.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Correct. I bow to your superior intellect. I should have added:
"...as a writer/playwright/whatever..." ;-)
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Ms. Z. Can you give a cite please for your statement re John
Shakespeare's coat of arms: "of petitioning that his coat-of-arms be blended with
that of the Ardens, a petition dismissed on the basis of lack of entitlement."
Thank you.
Richard Agemo ·
Follow
Jon Ciccarelli Your argument would mean that your "Shakespeare" couldn't even
spell his own name.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain After summarizing John Gough Nichols' restrictions (found in The
Herald and Geneologist vol. I) regarding the Shakspeare-Arden of Park Hill claim,
CC Stopes in her Shakespeare's Family argues (successfully or not is a matter of
opinion) that John was indeed entitled to the original "impalement" of the Arden
arms. Records show, however, that the Shakespeare's coat-of-arms was blended
with a less aristocratic branch of the family, the Ardens of Wilmecote.
It’s interesting to note Stopes’ comment: “Whether or not the grant of the
impaled Arden arms was completed before his [John’s] death, there is no record
of his using them. Whether his son ever used the impalement we do not now
know, but it does not appear on any of the tombs or seals that have been
preserved. But the Shakespeare arms have been certainly used.”
209/326
1/22/2015
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Thank you for the cite. Now again, how does this boil down to your
statement "a petition dismissed on the basis of lack of entitlement."?
And, just for the record, what Ms. Stopes "believes" or not via her argument is
irrelevant. The Grant of Arms was confirmed by the Office of Arms, London, in
1599. i.e. Documentary proof.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Richard Agemo: No it doesn't mean he couldn't spell his own name but that he
did what so many others have done over the centuries, sign his signature in a
quick and abbreviated manner. Doctor and lawyer signatures have become
notorious for being unreadable to the point that its an accepted stereotype.
However, no one ever suggests that those same lawyers and doctors are illiterate
or cannot spell their own name. My point about Shakespeare's application is that
both he and his father put it in motion supplying needed family information so a
coat of arms would be granted. If they went through all the effort to put in this
application to an office whose job it is in a class conscience society to record and
keep track of family names and lineages then the family name on the application
is the correct one. The college of arms accepted it and despite any protests to it
being granted it was never rescinded. So if you accept the coat of arms as
belonging to the man from Stratford then his name is Shakespeare full stop and
should be referred to as such. Shaksper does not exist any more than Marley so
the whole different versions of his name is worthless line of reasoning. Unless
you don't accept that the application belonged to the man from Stratford in
which case yoy have two separate men, one named Shakespere whis has the coat
of arms and title of gentleman and another named Shaksper who wrote the
signatures but I don't see anyone rallying around that idea.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain I do not disagree with your statement that a coat-of-arms was granted
to John.
The lack of entitlement refers to the first petition for the blending (my
terminology, because I’m not about to get mired in the terminology of heraldry) of
John's arms to a more aristocratic line of the Arden family, the Ardens of Park
Hill, which was definitely turned down. The additions/changes made for AofPH
were scratched out and the symbols for a less aristocratic branch of the Arden
family were substituted. This is fact, not conjecture on the part of Stopes, who
cites Gough Nichols. If you have a quibble, it should be with him.
The author's effortless use of heraldic terminology implies more than just a
knowledge of words, as I attempted to explain above to Mr Ciccarelli. It exudes
nobility. Shakespeare's petition smacks of self-promotion. And then there's the
butchered Latin. It just doesn't jibe.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj re Your research on John Shakespeare's coat of arms. Great. So how
does this prove Edward de Vere wrote the works of Shakespeare? Wouldn't it be
more productive for your cause if you (and your friends) just produced your
evidence for de Vere?
Reply · Like ·
Richard Agemo ·
Follow
Jon Ciccarelli So I guess "Shakespeare's" birth, marriage, and funeral records all
misspell his name, too. Quite a coincidence.
210/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Richard Agemo The record at birth spells the name as SHAKSPERE which can be
viewed here http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/WilliamShakespeare.html
The record at marriage spells the name as SHAKPEARE or looks more like
SPAEEARE or SFAEEARE which can be viewed here http://www.pbs.org/
shakespeare/evidence/evidence99.html
The record at death is SHAKSPEARE which can be viewed herehttp://
findingshakespeare.co.uk/our-little-life-is-rounded-with-a-sleep
Three different spellings of the same individual's name by obviously three
different people given over the time span of 50 plus years and the marriage listing
is a civil record. The marriage listing is especially mangled where the “H” looks
more like an “F” and the “K” looks like a lower case “e” and the following “ea”
they appear like a Greek AE combination. The spelling at first glance looks more
like SPAEEARE. This marriage listing was written by a clerk whose job it was to
write family names on legal records however, he couldn’t be bothered with
spelling those names correctly or neatly. He even screwed up Ann Hathaway’s
name and switched it for “Whatley” an entirely separate family who was there
registering for something else. You can see Whatley in the image and THAT's not
even spelled correctly. If you took the scribe's handwriting and put the same spin
that Oxfordians put on Will's and Susanna's signature's you think he was
illiterate too because of how terrible and "scrawled" it is. Here in this ledger is a
person whose profession it is to WRITE and whose handwriting and care of detail
was horrible, crazy huh?
So the image of the clerk’s entry proves my point. Here you have a man who’s
JOB it is to record names and his handwriting is sloppy and mangled. Just like
scores of others over the centuries that have quickly written out their signatures
or the names of others in a hurry, its messy, real and human. If you just go by the
names for birth, marriage and death at face value and by exact spelling, the names
don’t even match up so by this Oxfordian reasoning you’re talking about 3
different people.
So if you accept the coat of arms application and these 3 entries as the NAME of
the Stratford Man, what is the conclusion that you draw? Either you are dealing
with 4 entirely different people OR the spelling of the name which like the
MARLOWE/MARLEY example was never consistent. With the 4 spellings you
have 4 individuals, unrelated to the Stratford Man, over the time period of 50
years who wrote the same name very differently. So this shows that as a practice
among regular people the spelling of names was not consistent. Today, spelling
is standardized and with the advent of typewriters and computers you wouldn’t
have to rely on bad or rushed signatures. Such typos wouldn’t be an issue.
BTW, in all three instances the suffix of the name is the long “E” SPEARE not
SPER or SPUR or SPR. John and Will made an application where they had to
prove themselves to be of a family worthy of a coat of arms and they college had
to recognize that family. As stated its spelled SHAKESPERE, which fellow
Stratford home town boy Richard Field whose named in Cymbeline used
SHAKESPEARE on the printings of Venus and Andonis and the Rape of Lucrece.
All of this shows that the spellings of the names varied and the practice was
widespread not just to the Stratford man. However, its still the one man. So the
man's name is William Shakespeare.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain "So how does this prove Edward de Vere wrote the works of
Shakespeare?" It doesn't. And no Oxie here ever said it did.
"Wouldn't it be more productive for your cause if you (and your friends) just
produced your evidence for de Vere?" That would be akin to cultivating good
habits and not giving up the bad. Simplistic, perhaps, but you need both to
211/326
1/22/2015
habits and not giving up the bad. Simplistic, perhaps, but you need both to
succeed. (Besides, Mark Johnson would just tell us that it's not real evidence.... ;-)
)
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Your "but you need both to succeed." i.e. trashing Stratman and
presenting evidence for de Vere.
Big question... How did the plays, etc. get from de Vere to Stratman? Thanks for
your nice comments!
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain I prefer "iconoclasm" over "trashing." The Big Question can't be
answered. Yet.
Oxfraud
Ann Zakelj I prefer 'failing to damage' to 'iconoclasm' or trashing.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Your "The Big Question can't be answered. Yet."
Well, why not?? The Oxfordian theory has been around nearly 100 years now.
What's the problem?
So what do you get if the Oxfordians actually use Dr. Stritmatter's (and Dr.
Waugaman's) research on the de Vere Geneva Bible?
Consider why Oxford disposed of the bulk of his estate. He marked verses in
Matthew 6.19-21 which suggest to "Lay not up treasures for yourselves upon the
earth ... But lay up treasures for yourselves in heaven ... For where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also. "
Now, consider Sir George Buc's description of de Vere as "a magnificent and a
very learned and religious man"
Then, consider Dr. Stritmatter's find of several marked verses related to the
Catholic admonition to perform good works to God in secret.
Wouldn't you say the disposal by Oxford of his earthly goods is an act of charity?
Didn't the recipients of such goods benefit from Oxford's generosity?
So why is it so hard to accept that Oxford did not want to be possessed of
anything with his name on it (including the works of Shakespeare)? AND that he
gave those works to Will of Stratford as an act of charity? Finally, consider how
Stratman benefited from such charity. Wasn't he able to finally move his family
out of his parent's house?
Again, the Oxfordians' need to attack Stratman is, not only offensive, but
destructive to their own cause.
Reply · Unlike ·
Barry R. Clarke ·
On the Present State of the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
The following comments are informed by my recent PhD work at Brunel University under the
excellent supervision of Professor William Leahy, although the following views are entirely
my responsibility (see http://barryispuzzled.com/shakepuzzle.html).
212/326
1/22/2015
Although Shakespeare's name is on the First Folio and other quartos, recent work
investigating other contributors (e.g. George Wilkins suggested by MacDonald Jackson,
'Pericles'; Thomas Middleton for 'All's Well That Ends Well' in MacGuire and Smith, Times
Lit. Supp, 19 April 2012) indicates that Shakespeare's name on a work is not an accurate
record of contributors. So the issue of what other names had a hand is worthy of
investigation. There is no doubt that referees of academic journals are reluctant to entertain
other contributors, no matter how good the evidence, especially if they do not belong to the
popular set of contemporary dramatists, and this is one reason why I record my protest here.
I'd like to see an end to this dogmatism.
Having said that, academic resistance is being encouraged by uninformed claims that cannot
be justified. For example, it is meaningless to assert that this or that candidate singlehandedly originated the Shakespeare canon. There is no test that can be devised to support
that claim. It is better to argue for a contribution for which a stylistic test can be applied.
From my own work, it seems to me that a rare phrase test using the Early English Books
Online database is the best way forward as tests of stylometry involving word or part-word
frequencies are highly dubious (word choice and spellings at the time were at the mercy of
editorial intervention). Unfortunately, since Shakespeare has no prose works in the EEBO
database and the Earl of Oxford has too little data, neither of them can be ruled either in or
out with a rare phrase test. So it makes little sense to argue for Shakespeare's complete
elimination as author or Oxford's complete ownership.
To my mind, the Oxfordian case rests mostly on subjective readings of certain plays. Even if
Hamlet was about him, why could someone else not have written it? For The Comedy of
Errors he has no evident connection to the 1594-5 Gray's Inn revels, as indicated above a
stylistic test of his work against the plays is not possible, and he was dead when references
to the 1609 Sea Venture shipwreck were inserted in The Tempest (I have new Tempest
research on this). Furthermore, if one is looking for an outstanding mind to write
philosophical nuggets, Oxford is not a personality that should immediately spring to mind. I
strongly advise people to research other authors of the time before making a judgment.
Having read many of the posts on this forum it is sad for me that the main Oxfordian
researchers seem less interested in the truth of what happened 400 years ago than in making
unfounded rhetorical statements to recruit for their campaign. I can provide a link to a
website where a paper of mine has been misrepresented to suit their case. It's propaganda,
it's intellectually dishonest, and I think it should be resisted with all the energy at our
disposal.
It's time for a more sensible approach ...
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
Thanx for your input. I'm just a mere "doubter"...
...So if I am reading between the lines correctly, you essentially are suggesting
that the name "Shakespeare" was so adopted and printed as a pseudonym (at the
behest, presumably) of more than one, if not several, writers.
Not asking you to use the infamous "P" word, as I just did...Only asking for a little
more clarity.
Bear in mind that even the publishers of the first folio (1623) heavily criticized the
contemporaneous quartos for their inaccuracy, (implying) that the quartos were
not their chief source...Or that possibly they relied solely on actual play
manuscripts which certainly would have existed at the time. At any rate, no such
manuscript has come down to us as of today...
Where are they?
One lame excuse I heard (it may have been on the '89 Frontline documentary but
I'm too lazy to look up the transcript at the moment) was that :
"Well...all the (actual) play scripts would have all been worn down by the
players..."
...I'm in the antique paper trade, and I can say unequivocally that that is really
213/326
1/22/2015
...I'm in the antique paper trade, and I can say unequivocally that that is really
lame...!!
Reply · Like ·
Barry R. Clarke ·
Jim Ballard Thanks for your message, Jim.
Actually, I don't suggest an organised conspiracy of writers who sought out
someone to act as a mask. I think play manuscripts that came out of the Inns of
Court were picked up by Shakespeare's company, perhaps with no knowledge of
the originator(s), and sent out to other dramatists for revision. While in modern
times, it would be an outrage to give no acknowledgment to the originator, in the
early 17th century there was no tradition, for example, of placing an author's
name on a playbill. I quote Parker and Zitner “In a letter of 1699 John Dryden
describes the listing of Congreve’s name on the playbill of The Double Dealer as
unprecedented.” [R. B. Parker and S. P. Zitner, Elizabethan Theater, Essays in
Honor of S. Schoenbaum (Associated University Presses, 1996), p.130.] We
might conjecture why no one protested but it could simply be the case that once
a piece had been played at an Inns of Court revels the originator(s) lost interest in
it.
If you are in the antique paper trade you might be interested in the MS known as
the 'Tapster' fragment that went on sale at Sotheby's in 1992. It resembles a
tavern scene in Henry IV, Pt1 and was found in the binding of Homer's 'Odyssea',
3rd edition (dated c.1556-1600). A UK Home Office handwriting expert, after
comparing the style with 30 notables of the period, declared it to be by Francis
Bacon. If it is, then it shows that he wrote plays (he was certainly involved in
writing dumb shows for the Inns of Court's 'The Misfortunes of Arthur', 1587-8).
You can inspect the images here:
http://barryispuzzled.com/Baconplay.html
and even clearer ones here:
http://barryispuzzled.com/HenryMS01.pdf
Barry R. Clarke ·
Jim Ballard As for your question where are the manuscripts I would suggest that
we don't need them. The advantage of having original manuscripts would be to
carry out a handwriting test, a comparison of style against that of notables of the
period. However, another comparison of style is possible. My PhD work has
developed a technique called Rare Collocation Profiling (RCP) where a play is
forensically examined, phrase by phrase, to discover which ones were rare in
relation to contemporary documents (in this case, they had to appear in less than
1 in 588 documents in the Early English Books Online database EEBO). I then
looked for the authors (in EEBO) who shared the use of these rare phrases. In this
way, for the play in view, a DNA-type profile could be constructed for those
authors who share at least three rare phrases with the play.
I've carried out this test on The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, and The
Tempest, and have discovered that Francis Bacon records a significant number of
matches. If there was a revision of the first two plays after 1594, then Thomas
Heywood and Thomas Dekker emerge as contributors, and there are strong hints
that Thomas Nashe was an early contributor to Love's Labour's Lost (he was
certainly a source). As for The Tempest, Francis Bacon records 13 rare parallels (3
before and 10 after 1610). The method is an extension of work by Brian Vickers
(although he doesn't test for rarity nor does he advocate that Bacon went near a
Shakespeare play) and my external examiner is an expert in authorship attribution
methods. See http://barryispuzzled.com/shakepuzzle.html
Follow ·
214/326
1/22/2015
State University
Follow ·
Jim Ballard, you write: even the publishers of the first folio (1623) heavily
criticized the contemporaneous quartos for their inaccuracy, (implying) that the
quartos were not their chief source...Or that possibly they relied solely on actual
play manuscripts which certainly would have existed at the time."
Its pretty well established that the editors of the folio -- almost certainly Ben
Jonson & Co., relied in part on published folios and in part on unpublished
manuscript materials for the folio copy. The dig at the quartos should not be
taken very seriously, as it is in significant measure simply an advertising ploy by
the publishers.
As for the loss of manuscript materials, the evidence suggests that early modern
literary types did not place the same value on manuscript materials that we might;
most surviving manuscripts are of plays that never appeared in print. Once a play
was printed, the valuable paper was usually recycled for other uses. Was there, in
the case of Shakespeare, a policy of destroying the manuscripts once they were
printed? Possibly. But such a theory is probably not needed to explain the
absence of surviving manuscripts.
Jim Ballard ·
Roger...
Yes I did suspect the self-promo angle; by the same token they were less eager to
explain their sources, which is a bit odd, don't you think, as the folios represented
a memorial homage to their friend...?
"Was there, in the case of Shakespeare, a policy of destroying the manuscripts
once they were printed? Possibly. But such a theory is probably not needed to
explain the absence of surviving manuscripts."
Not convinced. Something should have survived. Cheap pulp didn't come along
til the 19th century. All the above scenarios notwithstanding, human nature alone
informs me someone salvaged something tangible, accompanying an author's
name, and passed it down to generations as a "keepsake"...Assuming, of course,
there really is just one name with which we are (or will ever be) confronted.
In fact, I suspect there actually is somebody out there hoarding, waiting for the
most opportune moment...Allow me to indulge my fantasies !
BTW, what do you think of the so-called "Hand-D" ? I haven't seen it first hand,
but good digital close-ups suspiciously look like pulp to me, not period
paper...??!...
Jim Ballard ·
Barry R. Clarke ...
Quote :
"As for your question where are the manuscripts I would suggest that we don't
need them. The advantage of having original manuscripts would be to carry out a
handwriting test, a comparison of style against that of notables of the period"
Don't need the manuscripts.
First time I've had that one tossed in the bag, and I would have to strongly
disagree.
If we had, in front of our faces, several (or merely a few) holographic manuscripts,
accompanied by additional signatures, "forensically" verifiable, it would make all
the difference in the world.
215/326
1/22/2015
Fact is, we don't have such manuscripts. We have nothing. Period. Only
derivative hints, tempting side bets, fanciful speculation...But actually : nothing
that really equals proof- positive : "Shakespeare"
The finding ( or revealing) of a manuscript is arguably the most critical evidence
that is glaringly absent from our eager grasp...
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Jim Ballard The manuscript that you are looking for that can be compared to
signatures is the play Sir Thomas More. Its as you say proof-positive. It was
revealed over 100 years ago and the Hand D section has been verified to match
with the extant signatures. Not all of the handwriting in it matches as it was cowritten with other authors but the handwriting section identified with Hand D
proves that the guy with the shaky signatures contributed to a play in London.
This same manuscript contains notations from Edmund Tilney the Master of the
Revels, the government official in charge of approving plays BEFORE they could
appear on a public stage. He adds notes for the authors to rework the beginning
of the play. So this shows the manuscript was a play being worked on by
playwrights in London and one of them was William Shakespeare.
http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-Thomas-Cambridge-LibraryCollection/dp/1108015352
Jim Ballard ·
....The title to this article is very misleading; other than that, I'll have to give it a 6+ for some
objectivity. No big surprise there, considering "Newsweek" 's capacity for "journalism".
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
So a lot of the Oxfordian commentary on here has centered around that the author had to
know things that the fictional man known as "Shakspr" or whatever way you're spelling it
today couldn't possibly have known. This is the cornerstone of John Looney's thesis that
got this party started in the first place. The author had to be well traveled (usually Italy), have
a knowledge about royal courts and pursuits, a university level of education in the classics,
etc. The aforementioned items are in the plays however, where did De Vere learn the other
things in the plays?
1. Where did De Vere learn the trade of the theatre? Where did De Vere learn how to act? The
plays are filled with comments about being an actor such as the following.
Hamlet’s advice to the players “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action”
Richard III’s dissembling speech to Buckingham
“GLOUCESTER
Come, cousin, canst thou quake, and change thy colour,
Murder thy breath in the middle of a word,
And then begin again, and stop again,
As if thou wert distraught and mad with terror?
BUCKINGHAM
Tut, I can counterfeit the deep tragedian;
Speak and look back, and pry on every side,
Tremble and start at wagging of a straw,
Intending deep suspicion: ghastly looks
Are at my service, like enforced smiles;
And both are ready in their offices,
At any time, to grace my stratagems.
Macbeth “A poor player” reference in the tomorrow speech
These are not offhanded references but things actors do and are recognizable to an actor.
Where did De Vere learn how to do accents, character imitation & impostering, stage
blocking, stage fighting, etc. These things are not just "picked up" but they learned and
honed. Where did De Vere get into the profession of being a player? Also why were the plays
216/326
1/22/2015
honed. Where did De Vere get into the profession of being a player? Also why were the plays
performed and owned by the Chamberlain’s Men/King’s Men when Oxford has his own
company called “Oxford’s Men”? Why weren’t the plays performed by his theatre company
instead?
2. The lowlifes and redlight districts in the plays. As much as “the court” is described in the
plays, houses of ill repute and dens of vice are also described. The brothel in “Pericles”, the
Boar’s Head tavern in the “Henry IV” plays, the prostitution scenes in “Measure for Measure”.
So where did De Vere rub elbows with this type of people to get the gritty feel of their world
right? These scenes casually speak of veneral diseases and robberies, where and when
exactly did this Ivory Tower nobleman get his ‘street cred’ from?
3. Non-noble characters. How did De Vere write people like Petruchio, Mistress Quickly, the
soldier John Bates from Henry V, Bottom and Quince from “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”,
Phoebe and Audrey from “As You Like It” and scores of other non-aristocratic characters
who never occupied life at court? How did he replicate these people when he never lived in
their world?
4, The Warwickshire/Personal Stratford References, Golden Lads and Chimney sweeps
referring to Dandelions in “Cymbeline”, weeds known as Dead man’s fingers in “Hamlet”, a
beard like a glover’s pairing knife in “The Merry Wives of Windsor”. Richard du Champ aka
Richard Field, a Stratford hometown boy mentioned in "Cymbeline"
These items, plentiful in the plays, indicate that the author was a man who was very familiar
with the acting profession so much that he was an actor and knew what it was like to work
with actors, knew about middle and lower class people sufficiently to create fully
recognizable people, was familiar with the seedier side of their world and was familiar with
terms native to Warwickshire. Funny that would fit a man of a middle class background, who
worked in the theatre, lived at times on the wrong side of the tracks, was from a Warwickshire
town and was familiar with what a Glover's pairing knife was. That would fit William
Shakespeare of Stratford, Eddie De Vere not so much.
So where did this incredible candidate as the true author get the life experience to write
about the items above? I suppose he could have read about them as books were widely
available on a whole host of subjects through the Stationer's book market at St. Pauls's.
Alas, though we don't have records of De Vere owning books about Warwickshire, acting,
middle and lower class people/criminals or glovemakeing.
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann ·
Edward de Vere was born to a mother of prominent literary associations (Margaret
Golding) and a father who kept an acting company (the Earl of Oxford's Men) that
his son inherited; Edward de Vere's father also was one of the early nobleman
patrons of the theatre and a patron to John Bale, one of the early writers of the
history play, the genre with which the writer known as Shakespeare is widely
regarded to have begun his own playwriting career.
Oxford ran two theatre companies and was a patron in the fields of religion,
philosophy, music, medicine and literature. de Vere owned the lease to the
Blackfriars' Theatre, was an acknowledged poet and playwright himself, was a
patron to players and was a playhouse producer. He provided dramatic
entertainment for the court at Whitehall. According to the writer of The Arte of
English Poesie (1589), he was known, however, as a courtier who did not reveal
the authorship of the works he wrote.
Scholars regard John Lyly and Anthony Munday as writers who exerted
prominent influence on Shakespeare. Both, interestingly enough, were employed
by Edward de Vere. Anthony Munday was Oxford's secretary and an actor in
Oxford's Men; the playwright, John Lyly, was also a private secretary to Oxford,
and he and Oxford co-produced plays. No evidence has ever been uncovered to
establish that Lyly and Munday even knew Will Shakspere of Stratford-UponAvon.
Reply · Like ·
14 · December 31, 2014 at 12:03am
DeVere had plenty of opportunity to learn about botany and native plants from
217/326
1/22/2015
DeVere had plenty of opportunity to learn about botany and native plants from
England's leading botanist, John Gerard who tended Lord Burghley's gardens (In
case you didn't know, the 17th Earl of Oxford was the ward and son-in-law of
Burghley.)
Robberies: actually in May 1573 a famous highway robbery took place involving
three of DeVere's men at Gads hill..the same place that Falstaff committed robbed
in Henry IV part 1.
Piracy: DeVere was abducted by pirates and left naked on a beach...just like
Hamlet.
Lowlife: De Vere traveled extensively between his various English properties and
in Europe. Do you think he never looked out of his carriage window or stopped at
a pub? The Boar's Head? Really? How about the Blue Boar...the DeVere family
crest?
Reply · Like ·
12 · December 31, 2014 at 2:30am
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Where did De Vere learn about theatre? His father owned a theatrical company-two, actually. De Vere also had a company. Oxford's Men and Leicester's Men
were joined together to form the Queen's Men. Oxford was a very active patron of
all of the arts, including theatre. It should also be mentioned that students at
Cambridge put on plays back then, and it's reasonable to assume he made one
among his classmates. Speaking of his classmates, he'd have heard them talking,
and most of them were not noblemen. He could have heard about "dead men's
fingers" and "chimney sweepers" and other talk from any servant, or from half his
classmates. He seems to have been a gregarious person, open to conversation
with all sorts, and interested in every kind of person. His father-in-law complains
about the "lewd companions" (actors, writers, artists), he keeps company with. He
maintained Fisher's Folly as a place for artists and writers, until forced to sell it.
As for "chimney sweepers"--the man had servants and listened to them talk. He
wrote lords, ladies, servants, and soldiers particularly well. He couldn't seem to
get the hang of businessmen. And now you come to mention Hamlet, that is a
play in which a prince knows a playing company very intimately, and writes extra
material for them to play. Hamlet is Shakespeare's most autobiographical play,
but there's nothing in it that in any way relates to life in Stratford. It's uncannily
reflective of Oxford's life, though, down to the last character.
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
BTW, Petruchio does nothing a noble would not do. His house is full of servants,
and his attitude is much like Oxford's own attitude and behavior in life.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 3:05am
Top Commenter
Fisher's Folly was across the street from an insane asylum and a stone's throw
from the theaters and bear-baiting rings. Both Robert Detobel (via Hanno
Wember) and Michael Morse have presented papers at recent SOF conferences
that indicate Oxford's intimate acquaintance with the seedier side of his world.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
7 · December 31, 2014 at 1:12pm
Howard Schumann Edward De Vere being associated with theatre in the form of
being a patron of the arts and being associated with Oxford’s men is certainly not
in doubt, however lending your name to a company of players doesn’t make you
an actor. The same way if you give a large endowment to a college and they name
the science building after you doesn’t make you a scientist.
Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, Henry Carey, Lord Hudson and Lord
Chamberlain and Charles Howard of the Admiral’s Men were all patron of the arts.
Anyone who supports an artistic venture (sees a play, buys a painting or song,
etc) is a “patron of the arts” that doesn't make you an artist. These same men had
218/326
1/22/2015
etc) is a “patron of the arts” that doesn't make you an artist. These same men had
no direct involvement in their respective companies. Henslowe and Howard didn’t
have board meetings to discuss what plays they were going to the following
season it was up to Henslowe who actually ran the company. The only
connection the company had to the lord is to perform in their household and
represent their name in good fashion. However my point was that De Vere he has
no instruction in being an actor which is what the references that I point out
show. The play passages are specific references to what an actor does on stage.
The plays are full of stage convention that accommodate mundane things like
giving a lead actor a rest as Hamlet and Macbeth disappear in act 4 of their plays
before the final climax or the long knocking scene with the Porter in Macbeth to
give him a chance to get out of his bloody trappings and back into night clothes.
You say De Vere owned the lease on the Blackfriars Theatre. You mean the theatre
that James Burbage (Richard Burbage’s father) BOUGHT for £600? The one that
Richard and his brother Cuthburt leased to children’s companies for 10 years
until they took over in presenting plays in 1609? So the theatre that was OWNED
by the Burbages, LEASED by them to other companies, and used for their theater
company’s productions, you mean that one? How exactly did De Vere own the
lease on this theatre when it was solely the purchase of the Burbages? The
Blackfriars was large district not a single building so anything in the area was
known as “Blackfriars”.The Blackfriars theatre was even described as being part
of the upper frater of the old monastery that gave its name to the district,
meaning it was an upper floor theatre. I’m unfamiliar with De Vere owning a
theatre in that area. He may have owned a house in the Blackfriars area as Henry
Carey and other nobility did but again just because he owned a theatre doesn’t
mean he was an actor who worked day in and day out with other actors to
produce shows. You say he was a playhouse producer what plays did he produce
then? Where? For who? Who were the actors involved? Did he just write for
them? Did he act? Direct? What exactly did De Vere do in the hands on
“producing” of these shows?
John Bale started a trend and others picked it up. Did De Vere write Marlowe’s
(Marley's??) “Edward II” or anyone else’s history plays? Ferdinando Stanley
supported Thomas Nashe, does that make Stanley a satirizing pamphleteer? No,
it doesn’t. If De Vere is an acknowledged playwright and he produced plays with
John Lyly than why did he not accept credit for writing other plays? The secret is
out he’s a playwright recognized by Francis Meres as well so why not accept
credit after all if its public knowledge who’s he fooling? You either publish and
perish or you stay silent but he did both? Apparently nothing happened to De
Vere after performing the other entertainments so why would other plays be an
issue? These same plays that were also performed at court.
On that point of the frontman, if Anthony Munday was a personal secretary to De
Vere and Munday was an established playwright and a member of Oxford’s Men
and one who had a writing career spanning almost 40 years than why wasn’t
Munday the frontman for Oxford? Here you have an established playwright with
an immediate connection who De Vere could have established a one on one
relationship with and farmed out plays to with no one the wiser. No, instead of
this he picks someone who other Oxfordians have characterized as an illiterate
twit with little to no connection to the theatre and with a company that De Vere
had no connection with. You have a recognized playwright, you have a company
but yet you chose another guy who’s apparently not a playwright and with a rival
company? How does that work?
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 3:48pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Howard Schumann Oxford never "ran" any theater companies at all. This is a
misrepresentation of "patronage".
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 4:47pm
Julie Sandys Bianchi On the plants its not the fact of knowing the plant but the
colloquial name used in Warwickshire and not in London. If De Vere hung around
John Gerard, the leading Botanist, wouldn’t Gerard have told him the Latin
classifications of the plants as opposed to a slang term for them and not local
219/326
1/22/2015
classifications of the plants as opposed to a slang term for them and not local
slang at that? Why use a Warwickshire term for weeds in a play set in Denmark?
Why use a Warwickshire term for weeds in a play taking place in Wales? If De Vere
wanted to get colloquial than why not use slang native to London or his native
county? No its for a county that he had no affiliation with but Will Shakespeare
did. Also, no response on the Richard du Champ or the glover’s pairing knife?
Personal connections to Shakespeare’s family and a former Stratford resident.
On the robbery didn’t know that about De Vere’s men getting robbed in Gadshill
so that’s interesting, point in your favor there.
Piracy: Hamlet was captured by pirates but wasn’t left naked on a beach. In the
play Hamlet actually got the pirates' trust and they worked for him to get back to
the court to get in touch with Horatio. There are pirates in “Pericles” are they
autobiographical as well? Was De Vere trying to kill a princess and some pirates
randomly showed up to save her? Was this how the pirates captured him? Why
would “Hamlet” be autobiographical and not "Pericles" this if dealing with pirates
is so important? You actually see the pirates in "Pericles" you don't in "Hamlet"
Lowlifes: Sure De Vere could have stopped into a tavern, talked with locals, read
books on highwaymen and so could Shakespeare with the court. His company
performed at court, in the houses of rich patrons and law schools for over 20
years, he could easily have observed court functions, talked with the support staff
who worked these events and such and read books on the doings of kings and
princes to obtain knowledge of the court. So if De Vere could cross the border
and learn about the lower tier Shakespeare could have done the same. So the
entire class argument is moot.
Boarhead: There were lots of crests with Boars. Dragon, Lions, Birds, uses of the
same animals get used on lots of crests.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 5:04pm
Michelle Mauler Theatre/Patron of the Arts: As I mentioned in another response
on this thread a nobleman having his name on a company doesn’t make them an
artist. Oxford, Leicester, Stanley et al. had nothing to do with actually running a
theatre company let alone acting on a stage or knowing what to do on a stage.
Anyone who bought a ticket to the Globe, Rose, Curtain, etc. was a “Patron of the
Arts”. This didn’t make the average groundling the next Richard Burbage just
because he patronized the playhouse.
Students putting on shows: Yes students from grammar schools to universities
put on shows, usually in Latin, but there’s no evidence that De Vere participated
in this or that they were performed during his time at Cambridge. Its an
interesting speculation but it has nothing to back it up. So unless you have
something concrete to tie De Vere to an actual play produced by students you
might as well say he hung out in the university library or in his room, its just as
plausible and unprovable.
Yes, Dead man’s fingers and Chimney sweeps could have been picked up from
classmates or servants provided they were from Warwickshire, but why use those
references and not something that the audiences in London were more familiar
with?. And conversely Will Shakespeare could have picked up court practices
simply by witnessing the public receptions of dignitaries and other nobles which
were held in public in front of Queen Elizabeth and King James. Nobles in their
own houses also did this where everyone who happened to be in their court
would witness the receiving and leave taking of guests, messengers and other
court news. Beyond that De Vere could have read about Dead man’s fingers, just
as logically as Shakespeare could have read about court intrigues. So the whole
class argument is a dead end as either man could EASILY have obtained
information about the life people who were not of their social station.
The only points in my original post that are not a dead end are Richard du Champ
and the glover’s pairing knife. Two personal connections to William of Stratford
AND NOT De Vere.
Hamlet: This is brought out as the most biographical play tying to De Vere
220/326
1/22/2015
Hamlet: This is brought out as the most biographical play tying to De Vere
however, its not very biographical. The play specifically mentions that Hamlet is
30 years old when he loses his father, De Vere was 9. Hamlet is a crown prince, De
Vere is an Earl. These are two very different ranks and let’s not get into the whole
Prince Tudor II thing that was a hypothesis that even Looney hated. De Vere was
captured by pirates but going by another thread response he was abandoned by
said pirates on a beach naked where Hamlet became their leader. Did De Vere’s
mother marry his uncle? No, don’t think that happened. Aside from lending his
family title or going to see some plays, there’s nothing to connect De Vere so
intimately to a group of actors or that he would even know what is involved in
being an actor or the rigors of producing a play.
As for connecting it to Will Shakespeare of Stratford, his son was named Hamnet,
a variation on Hamlet or Amleth. The Dead men’s fingers reference to a
Warwickshire plant is in “Hamlet”.
Gregarious person – where do you get that from? De Vere murdered a cook, wrote
in a letter complaining about how much he disliked Italy and its people and
couldn’t wait to get out of there, complained about his assignment during the
Spanish Armada, and abandoned his first wife. Yeah, sounds like a great guy
Petruchio: “Petruchio does nothing a noble would not do. His house is full of
servants, and his attitude is much like Oxford's own attitude and behavior in life.”
You know who else you’re describing – William Shakespeare of Stratford-uponAvon. Someone who had a large house with servants and had to tend to running
that house. Petruchio is the son of merchant known for his business dealings
that takes over his father’s estates and when not dealing with his wife is
constantly mentioning business. There’s even a haberdasher in this play where
Will’s brother Gilbert was a haberdasher. This description of Petruchio fits Will
Shakespeare the business man and householder more than a nobleman who
squandered his family fortune. Reaching for straws on the biographical side,
maybe, but no more than grasping for biographical straws in “Hamlet”.
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli writes "Oxford, Leicester, Stanley et al. had nothing to do with
actually running a theatre company let alone acting on a stage or knowing what
to do on a stage."
You don't know this. He worked more closely with John Lyly than any other
individual from the period, including during the 1580s when Lyly was the payee
for the Queen's Company, the earlier incarnation of the Lord Chamberlain's men
of the 1590s. His relationship with the players is perhaps comparable to that of
Hamlet. Please stop making claims that depend on proofs you can't demonstrate.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 10:14pm
Jon Ciccarelli ·
So Roger what plays did John Lyly work so closely with De Vere on? Titles?
Where were they performed, who were the actors involved? Please provide some
direct proof that De Vere was "hands on" in producing plays where he would
know what its like to be an actor or know the actual work it takes to put together a
stage production. Please provide some proofs for your claims.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
I would be very interested to see the evidence for the claim that Oxford "worked
more closely with John Lyly than any other individual from the period, including
during the 1580s when Lyly was the payee for the Queen's Company," and
finding out what exactly that work involved.
Oxfraud
221/326
1/22/2015
Oxfraud
You have to admire the way that Roger shouts a strident "You don't know this..."
before stating as fact something that he doesn't know.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson says:
"I would be very interested to see the evidence for the claim that Oxford "worked
more closely with John Lyly than any other individual from the period, including
during the 1580s when Lyly was the payee for the Queen's Company," and
finding out what exactly that work involved."
Read B.M. Ward's 1928 biography, preferably in conjunction with the prefaces to
Warwick Bond's edition of Lyly's plays, and Josephine Waters Bennet, “Oxford
and Endymion,” PMLA 57 (1942), 354-69 -- which Richard Dutton calls "“one of
the most convincing of topical allegorical interpretations of an Elizabethan play.”
This later piece shows convincingly that Lyly's Endymion, perhaps his most well
known play, is about Oxford's relationship with the Queen and even contains a
subliminal reference to the 1586 annuity of a thousand pounds that the Queen
conferred upon him for unknown services rendered.
That Lyly was Oxford's secretary throughout most of the 1580s is well known
and beyond dispute. I should clarify that Lyly was not the only payee of the
company, but he was on at least one occasion (out of only a few recorded
instances), and also it is well known that in 1583-84, during the 1st incarnation
of the Blackfriars playhouse, Lyly was Oxford's right hand man in those
productions.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud Nice one, "Oxfraud." Very in keeping with your name.
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson Oxford never "ran" any theater companies at all. This is a
misrepresentation of "patronage".
The first part of your statement is empirically untrue, according to several leading
theatre historians.
It is true that "patronage" could take many forms; in its most basic form it simply
meant supplying resources, including protection (and sometimes censorious
regulation) and heraldic "colors" for a troop; but Hamlet, for example, is a patron
of a higher order, who actually instructs the players in their acting -- from
experience, obviously -- as well as being a concealed author for those same
players.
Oxford, likewise, is generally considered to have been a much more "hands on"
manager type, having worked closely with Lyly during the 1580s at Blackfriars
and other venues. He also acted himself, provably in masques and probably in
other theatrical contexts.
As early as 1570, in his prefaces to Cardanus Comforte, the metaphor of theater
comes spontaneously from his pen when he writes:
"Wherefore considering the small harm I do to you, the great good I do to others, I
prefer mine own intention to discover your volume before your request to secret
the same; wherein I may *seem to you to play the part* of the cunning and expert
mediciner or physician, who, although his patient in the extremity of his burning
fever is desirous of cold liquor or drink to qualify his sore thirst, or rather kill his
222/326
1/22/2015
fever is desirous of cold liquor or drink to qualify his sore thirst, or rather kill his
languishing body, yet for the danger he doth evidently know by his science to
ensue, denieth him the same."
https://hankwhittemore.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/reason-no-11-part-onewhy-oxford-was-shakespeare-his-prefatory-letter-for-cardanus-comforte-isshakespearean/
That this phrase, "play a part," is a characteristically Shakespearean idiom can be
discovered by anyone with online access to "Shakespeare searched," and has
been validated by Anne Richter among other mainstream scholars.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter None of that is evidence for the claim that Oxford "worked more
closely with John Lyly than any other individual from the period" in matters
regarding the theater, or that he ran a theater company. Do you have any actual
evidence to support your claims?
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Mark Johnson Yes, he has evidence. He believes it.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino Oxfordism is a belief system in which one speculative
interpretation, no matter how unsupported by the text itself or by actual evidence,
no matter how subjective it may actually be, no matter the fact that it is informed
by a preconceived belief that Oxford was Shakespeare, is claimed to be
corroboration for another speculative interpretation [equally faulty], eventually
yielding a conclusion as to what are to be considered conclusively proven matters
of fact. This is the process which yields what Oxfordians identify as "evidence".
And Oxfordians see nothing at all problematic in such a practice.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Well that gives a little detail on Lyly, Oxford not all. He probably
did this and he probably did that, any definites when it comes to Oxford's acting
prowess? When he did he learn to act? Was he a clown type, leading man, in
between? Did he take women's parts in his youth? Does he appear on any cast
lists? Where are records of Oxford making payments to Lyly or any other
playwright for a play in a public playhouse or even managing books like
Henslowe or any other act of actually managing a theatre? William Shakespeare
was a documented member of a single acting company for nearly 20 years and
noted as an actor by Ben Jonson.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Howard Schumann I know and have met many patrons in the field of music,
particularly opera, and they knew less about opera than I know about building a
spaceship. Being a patron means nothing. But this is typical Anti-Strat logic, that
because THEY think it should be that way, well, that's the way it was. . . de Vere
was a patron so he must be knowledgeable in the field. Nonsense. His writing
shows us what a simpleton he was. Not sure he was learned in anything, really. At
best, you can say he was a producer who may have had an genuine appreciation
of theater. He certainly couldn't write for it.
Reply · Like ·
223/326
1/22/2015
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Mark Johnson Yes, Mark, I have been saying that all along here. That which
causes doubt or "constitutes proof," to the Oxfraudian is a matter of complete
indifference to myself or any Stratfordian, for lack of a better term. I do not
understand why. Why does the question of Shakespeare's education cause such
doubt for some and for me is absurd. Or, the issue of Oxford's life being reflected
in Hamlet? To me, is it complete silliness, having a read all the arguments. To
them it is a cause for shouting, "Eureka"! Oxfraudians suffer from a fundamental
different understand of the definition, purpose, and function of "evidence," and a
complete misuse of the concept of "coincidence."
Joe Lewis · Temple University
I sometimes wondered how Shakespeare came to know about high and low society, all kinds
of trades and professions, with (presumably) little formal education. Then I started reading
Dickens, whose formal education came to an early end but whose knowledge of human
activity was as broad as Shakespeare's, at a remarkably young age. Shakespeare and Dickens
were both geniuses. They didn't grow up in lavish surroundings or with exemplary
educations, but their knowledge and talent were rarely matched. So I see no reason to
question whether Shakespeare was the author most of us have always thought he was.
Reply · Like ·
The difference between Dickens and the man from Stratford is that the
circumstances of Dicken’s life are reflected in his work. Dickens’ writing is
colorful, but it doesn’t display any arcane knowledge of the social circumstances,
personalities and places he describes. And, compared to Wm. Shakspere for
which there is no surviving evidence of any schooling,there is an actual record of
Dickens having been educated at a time when the country was taking greater
interest in seeing that its children were schooled: Here, from The Oxford Reader's
Guide to Dickens which states that Dickens' education “began in Chatham, where
he was a pupil at a dame-school -- a deficient private establishment with an
unqualified woman at its head, similar to the one run by Mr. Wopsle's great-aunt
(GE 7). Then in 1821 he moved on to the Rev. William Giles's School, where his
experiences were more positive. He parted with Giles in 1822, when the Dickens
family transferred to London, and in 1824, when they moved into the Marshalsea,
Dickens went to reside with a Mrs. Roylance, the original of Mrs. Pipchin (DS 8).
His formal schooling resumed in 1825, when he was sent to Wellington House
Classical and Commercial Academy, run by the sadistic William Jones, who was
the original for Mr. Creakle, and whose school was the inspiration for Salem
House (DC 5-7). Dickens's experiences prompted two other recollections of
Wellington House: in his essay "Our School' he noted that Jones ("the Chief")
had a penchant for ruling ciphering-books, and then "smiting the palms of
offenders with the same diabolical instrument" (HW 4, 11 October 1851); in a
speech of 1857 he remarked that it was Jones's business "to make as much out
of us and put as little into us as possible" (Speeches 240). There were, however,
positive aspects to Dickens's time at the school: he spoke well of the English
teacher, Mr. Taylor, who had features in common with Mr. Mell (DC 5-7, 63), and
the Latin master, who "took great pains when he saw intelligence and a desire to
learn" (HW 4, 11 October 1851). By the time Dickens left in 1827 he had won the
Latin prize."
Reply · Like ·
11 · December 30, 2014 at 3:21am
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Joe Lewis, you're forgetting one thing. Dickens was a voracious reader. His
parents were highly literate, and he had access to whole libraries of books,
including Shakespeare, which didn't even exist when Shaksper was a tot.
Shaksper was born to illiterate parents in a bookless town. It was still mostly
bookless when David Garrick went there in 1762 to stage his Shakespeare
Jubilee. The imagination needs stimulation. Shakespeare was fluent in several
languages, none of which he could have learned in Stratford. He was familiar with
224/326
1/22/2015
languages, none of which he could have learned in Stratford. He was familiar with
hundreds of books, none of which were available in Stratford. All of his learning
and literary exploration, which Dickens did before he was 13, Shaksper had to
wait until after he was 18, to begin. It flies in the face of everything we know
about learning language.
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 31, 2014 at 2:45am
Bob Grumman ·
Julie Sandys Bianchi The difference is that Dickens wrote journalistic novels,
Shakespeare imaginative plays. Not that Dickens had no imagination, only that it
was significantly different than Shakespeare's. But, come to think of it, is there
anything more of Dickens's life in A Tale of Two Cities than there is of
Shakespeare's in any of his histories? Actually, that's not a great question. Why?
Because we know too little of Shakespeare's life to be able to pick out details of it
that may have made it into his plays.
One odd detail of his life did make it to many of his published plays, though: his
name.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 9:12pm
Ed Boswell ·
Dickens had access to public libraries, which did not exist in Shaksper's time.
Dickens would have had the access only had by royals and scholars from the
16th century. No dictionary as such for the English in the mid to late 16th century
either. Many Englishmen could read english, but were nearly incapable of writing
with a pen and quill. Shakespeare's canon is filled with literary allusions and
references, many of them only available in books at sky high prices in foreign
languages. Comparing Dickens to Shakespeare, in order to buttress the case for
the glover's son from Stratford weakens his case considerably. Note that Oxford
had the greatest tutors in the realm, and resided at estates that had world class
libraries. The most renowned botanist in England tended the grounds at Cecil
House, and Oxford spent much time with him, which reveals why WS described
flowers and plants so well. Oxford went to law school, and went to every city
depicted in the Italian plays. His uncle translated Ovid, WS's main classical
influence. His in-laws received the dedication to the First Folio. Any honest
examination of the facts leads one to Oxford's door, and away from the Stratford
tourist trap.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Ed Boswell None of which is evidence.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Ed Boswell You know what did exist in Shakespeare's time - open air markets
outside the Stationers in St. Paul's Churchyard where books were sold. You
could buy any of the books that are sources for the plays. So William of Stratford
had access to books, translations of Ovid and books on gardening being among
the available catalogs. Do you have any references for these "sky high" prices?
Will of Stratford was a rich guy, which apparently is a bad thing according to
Oxfordians, so he could buy books. So whatever books Oxford had access to so
did Will. BTW Will's father, John, started out life as a farmer and his mother was
the daughter of a land owning farmer, ya know people who plant things. He could
have picked up terms for flowers and plants from them. Golden Lads, ChimneySweepers, and Dead men's fingers, are colloquial terms for plants for Will's native
Warwickshire that appear in the plays. De Vere wasn't from Warwickshire and a
learned botanist wouldn't use colloquial terms, he use the proper term or Latin
classification. BTW the way, New Place, the house that rich Will bought had an
extensive garden, another place where Will could have picked up gardening.
Reply · Unlike ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Has anyone actually ever READ a poem by de Vere? I mean one currently attributed to him.
225/326
1/22/2015
Has anyone actually ever READ a poem by de Vere? I mean one currently attributed to him.
It's like reading a teenagers love scribblings compared to Shakespeare. Laughable. Check
this out:
"Come hither, shepherd swain!
Sir, what do you require?
I pray thee show to me thy name;
My name is Fond Desire.
When wert thou born, Desire?
In pride and pomp of May.
By whom, sweet boy, wert thou begot?
By fond conceit men say."
He may as well have written, "Roses are Red; Violets are Blue. . ."
What a joke.
What kind of idiot could possibly believe this is from the same mind that gave us Lear, or
Dick II, or III, or Hamlet.
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Joseph, 1) many of De Vere's "poems" are song lyrics. Like the one you're
quoting. 2) most of the poems that come down to us are juvenalia, written when
he was first at court at age 11-14, before iambic pentameter became the norm.
When you see one that's in galloping fourteeners or trochaic tetrameter, you're
probably looking at a song. If you're going to quote De Vere, try this excerpt on
for size:
"Who worketh most to their share least doth fall,
With due desert reward will never be.
The swiftest hare unto the mastive slow
Oft-times doth fall, to him as for a prey;
The greyhound thereby doth miss his game we know
For which he made such speedy haste away.
So he that takes the pain to pen the book,
Reaps not the gifts of goodly golden muse;
But those gain that, who on the work shall look,
And from the sour the sweet by skill doth choose,
For he that beats the bush the bird not gets,
But who sits still and holdeth fast the nets."
Probably written in 1576, when he was 26.
Reply · Like ·
9 · December 30, 2014 at 1:09am
Mike Leadbetter
Michelle Mauler Nice work, Michelle. So, the line :"For he that beats the bush the bird not gets"
is a solid contender for The Worst Line of 16c Verse award. Scanning through my
Oxford 16c Verse, I can't find anything as 'not good' as that. As verse goes, it's
just about as good as it 'not gets'.
And you want to attribute it to Shakespeare in his prime?
Well. There goes your entire case.
All of it.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 11:22am
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
226/326
1/22/2015
Institutions
Stephen Moorer If this is the best de Vere has to offer, um. . .er. . . please. Put it to
rest.
Mike Leadbetter
Michelle Mauler Nice work, Michelle. So, the line :"For he that beats the bush the bird not gets"
is a solid contender for The Worst Line of 16c Verse award. Scanning through my
Oxford 16c Verse, I can't find anything as 'not good' as that. As verse goes, it's
just about as good as it 'not gets'.
And you want to attribute it to Shakespeare in his prime?
Well. There goes your entire case.
All of it.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 11:22am
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Stephen Moorer If this is the best de Vere has to offer, um. . .er. . . please. Put it to
rest.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Michelle Mauler If it weren't such an awkward piece, and kind of silly, I would
laugh at what appears to be a Herculean effort to "sound" poetic and profound.
Please. And those alliterations! Hilarious.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Stephen Moorer Come up with ONE sentence that de Vere wrote that has the
brilliance and depth of Titus. I hope you are joking by the comparison.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
In J. T. Looney's *"Shakespeare" Identified* he wrote that the Oxfrordian "case
will either stand or fall" on whther or not readers could be convinced that de
Vere's poetry did in fact "contain the natural seed and clear promise" of
Shakespeare's verse.
Case closed.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 7:39pm
Stephen Moorer - debate point aside - don't knock Titus. It is a beautiful tribute
to the ancient Greek tragedy written as a Biblical allegory of redemption through
the sacrifice of sons, and the rise of Lucius as the first Christian king of Britania
who shows mercy in the sparing of Aaron's son.....
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 7:42pm
Steven Thomas Sabel Thoroughly agree on "Titus". I directed it last year and even
227/326
1/22/2015
Steven Thomas Sabel Thoroughly agree on "Titus". I directed it last year and even
played the lead part in another production. Its over the top and bloody and has
some amazing lines. Youtube Patrick Stewart doing the "Weeping Welkin" scene
in John Barton's Players series and its a tour de force. Of course, this does beg
the question that I haven't seen posited on any of these comments - Where did
De Vere learn about Theatre? A lot of comments have gone on about his
knowledge of Italy and the court, falconry Where did he learn how to be a player?
How to create drama with other actors in mind, Hamlet's advice to the players Where did he learn that?
Jan Scheffer
Mike Leadbetter Still apart from the aspect of subjectivity in judging (the quality
of) prose or poetry, do you not think that people develop, over time, over
experience, over reading, over..living? "Can you play the piano?" - "I do not
know, I never tried". How old do you think Oxford was when it dawned on him
that his father was probably murdered?
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 12:43am
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson Your opinion is not shared by many, especially those who have
read both Looney's work and the plays/poems.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Mike Leadbetter And that doggerel was written when he was 26 years old. Yikes.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Many of those who have read the plays don't share the opinion
that Oxford's known verse doesn't "contain the natural seed and clear promise"
of Shakespeare's verse. What a beautiful circular argument you have going there.
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Mike Leadbetter And yet, once you couldn't even spell your own name.
Oxfraud
Mark Johnson "Those who have read Looney's work and the plays/poems. "
That's about five people altogether isn't it?
Oxford is a mediocre poet and a writer of dull prose.
The line I quoted from Michell Mauler's extract would have engaged the gag reflex
of the author of the canon. It is one of the worst lines of poetry EVER to make it
into print.
The fact that it can be offered as an example of Oxford's poetic genius tells you
everything you need to know about What Oxfordians know about poetry and the
evolution of verse in the 16c and 17c.
A close approximation to nothing. That's what they know.
Even the great panjandrum himself, Roger Stritmatter PhD can't discern
Shakespearean quality in Elizabethan verse, as he demonstrates here:http://www.oxfraud.com/100-Dyer-consequences
228/326
1/22/2015
http://www.oxfraud.com/100-Dyer-consequences
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Stephen Moorer Not to mention Edward III, if the Riverside editors are to be
trusted (and in this I think they are) - a far inferior play to the under-rated Titus.
Also let us note that foolish Stratfordians tried to canonize the wretched,
probably 18th century dog, *Cardenio/Double Falsehood.* What a joke.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Mark Johnson "Many of those who have read the plays don't share the opinion
that Oxford's known verse doesn't "contain the natural seed and clear promise"
of Shakespeare's verse. What a beautiful circular argument you have going there."
No, that is your circular argument. I look forward to discussing this point with
you in a couple of years after the professional forensic linguists have had a look
at this problem.
Playing subjective aesthetic "he said, she said" games is all well and fine, but
ultimately this question will need to be resolved by more objective independent
judges.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter This is not circular logic at all. That it escapes you, Roger, does
not make it circular. And who are these "objective" judges. Anyone who is not an
"anti-Strat" is deemed by you to be of small mind. Now THERE'S circular logic!!
Tom Reedy ·
Joseph Ciolino Don't look for too much reality-based comment from Roger. He
goes to bed every night expecting to see TV cameras and reporters on his lawn
the next morning.
Ed Boswell ·
I wish you had a collection of poems written by you when you were 15 or 16. Or
even 26 for that matter. I'm sure they would be world-class, and equal in quality
to poems written after forty winters came and went
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Ed Boswell Yeah, Ed. That proves de Vere wrote Shakespeare. Right on. That we
mature with age yes, that proves beyond a doubt that de Vere was the man.
Ed, show me the speech, the poem, the phrase, or even the line that was written
by de Vere that you can honestly say, "Wow. This reads just like Shakespeare."
I've been looking for it for years and haven't found it. It doesn't exist.
Joseph Ciolino Othello act 1 scene one- Iago speaks
229/326
1/22/2015
Joseph Ciolino Othello act 1 scene one- Iago speaks
"For, sir,
It is as sure as you are Roderigo,
Were I the Moor, I would not be Iago.
In following him, I follow but myself.
Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,
But seeming so, for my peculiar end.
For when my outward action doth demonstrate
The native act and figure of my heart
In compliment extern, ’tis not long after
But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve
For daws to peck at. I am not what I am."
A letter from Oxford to William Cecil Lord Burghley on 30 October 1584.
“But I pray, my Lord, leave that course, for I mean not to be your ward nor your
child. I serve her Majesty, and I AM THAT I AM, and by alliance near to your
Lordship, but free, and scorn to be offered that injury to think I am so weak of
government as to be ruled by servants, or not able to govern myself. If your
Lordship take and follow this course, you deceive yourself, and make me take
another course than yet I have not thought of. Wherefore these shall be to desire
your Lordship, if that I may make account of your friendship, that you will leave
that course as hurtful to us both.”
Shake-Speare's Sonnets- published in1609 our "Ever-living" Poet
Sonnet 121
Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost, which is so deemed,
Not by our feeling, but by others’ seeing.
For why should others’ false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?
Or on my frailties why are frailer SPIES,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I AM THAT I AM, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own.
I may be straight though they themselves be bevel;
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown;
Unless this general evil they maintain:
All men are bad and in their badness reign
This does give us grammar, syntax, sentiment and thematic similarities.
We have to take these passages into consideration.
As students and scholars, we have an obligation to continue uncovering
everything we can about Oxford and his connection to the works.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Mike Leadbetter This is what I don't understand re "And you want to attribute it
[Oxford's poems] to Shakespeare in his prime?"
WHERE are Will of Stratford's early poems? If attribution of early poems defines
who wrote Shakespeare, then why does Stratman not have to present his for
inspection?
That Oxford's poems prove he did not write Shakespeare is one of the stoopidest
arguments the Strats have come up with.
Hugs, knit
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Knit Twain Another big difference.
Will made effective use of the waste paper basket. As any published poet (except
230/326
1/22/2015
Will made effective use of the waste paper basket. As any published poet (except
Wordsworth) will tell you, this is the key skill in building a reputation.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud You know, you use Oxford's poems against him just like the Oxfordians
use Stratman's last will and testament against him. i.e. Neither has what the other
has, nor does either prove authorship. But, apparently, it's F-U-N to rip to shreds
ANYTHING relating to the other which has survived, especially when it's doesn't
prove anything.
i.e. Stop wasting everybody's time with such silliness.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain Sorry, but the two situations [Oxford's poetry and Shakespeare's will],
and the way that they are used in this debate, are not at all similar. As to Oxford's
poetry tending to prove that he wasn't Shakespeare, your argument is with
Professor Steven W. May. Perhaps you should actually read his analysis before
claiming that it is a waste of time.
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Sorry, I wasn't suggesting poems and a last will are the same
thing. BOTH sides are using whatever facts remain for their opponent to say he
could not write the works of Shakespeare. Strats use de Vere's poems and his
character against de Vere, while Oxies use Shax's last will and missing school
records against Shax.
As for Dr. May's requirement that prior poems must be reflected in the works of
Shakespeare to prove authorship, my opinion still stands. It's stupid to suggest
such.
Oxfraud
Knit Twain Again, this is actually a difference between the two sides and not a
similarity.
In the case of the bequests to editors and fellow actors in the will, Oxies say, on
the basis of no evidence whatsoever, 'aha! if you were as alert as us you would
realise that these were added afterwards'.
They claim the absence of things they would like to have seen in the will has
probative force. However, the inclusion of things in the will which are probative is
merely part of a mirage which only they are smart enough to spot. This is endemic
to Oxfordian argument. In the case of the FF dedication, they say 'aha! when
Jonson says *this* he actually means *that*'. Black is white and vice versa.
The absence of school records or books in the will iare both irrelevant to the
authorship debate. If they were discovered, Oxfordians would simply say 'aha!
this doesn't prove anything because...' And what's more, they'd probably be right.
Either way, as evidence of authorship, these issues are invalid.
There are no school records of any kind so OF COURSE there are no records of
Will's attendance at KE6. Petrarch, the other great sonneteering eponym, had one
of the finest libraries of the early Renaissance but none of the items in it made it
into his will. Does this disprove his authorship of his sonnets?
In the absence of any actual evidence, call it what you will - 'making a God of the
Gaps', extemporising, lying, invention, evidence-manufacture - Oxfordians are
forced to claim this type guesswork as valid construction material in their case.
But it isn't.
231/326
1/22/2015
But it isn't.
So one of the main tasks of someone arguing against them is to show, like Ann
with her hat, that this material is invalid. You would like to think that someone
wouldn't look at a photograph of a plane tree planted by Verona's Town Council
in the 1980's and say "that's part of a sycamore grove seen by Oxford in the
1570's". Yet there are Oxfordians willing to say exactly that.
Which is why we are here today after 100 years of their nonsense.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Knit Twain As a matter of fact, Knit, Looney himself stated that his case
depended on finding that Oxford's known poems would contain the seeds of
Shakespeare's verse. Saying something is "stupid" without having read the
analysis is not a valid approach -- which is shown by your mis-characterization of
Professor May's argument regarding Oxford and authorship.
Alasdair Brown ·
Knit Twain It's certainly not a stoopid argument Knit. Shakespeare was an
extraodinary poet and it is perfectly possible to detect remarkable stand-out
talent in the writing of teenagers. I know this because I've been on a panel of
judges of a national poetry competition for kids aged between 13-18 and spent a
fortnight reading three thousand poems. I might have put the young De Vere's
poems on the long list because of technical competence, some evidence of
euphony and the ability to sustain a simple metaphor. But in terms of original
insight, memorable imagery, stimulating ideas and something that strikes one as
an authentic response to lived experience - no way would he have ended up in
the final three. Budding Shakespeare? You have to be joking. See also my post
elsewhere about detecting genius in adolescents' poetry where I cite a a very early
Keats poem as an example and John Middleton Murray's remark that Keats was
our only poet who was like Shakespeare.
Barry R. Clarke ·
I am astonished as to the number of people on this forum who believe that de Vere was a
more formidable intellect than Francis Bacon. All I can think is, they must read nothing but
Oxfordian books which are so gushing with enthusiasm that people are completely taken in
by it all. Try reading up on other notables of the period before forming a judgment.
I don't argue for Bacon's origination of the Shakespeare work here, only that he had far more
marbles than Oxford ever had. Francis Bacon not only became Lord Keeper of the Seal but
was at one point Regent of England. He published Novum Organon a critique of knowledge,
wrote Sylva Sylvarum which is basically an encyclopedia of everything, and published three
versions of his Essays which are still quoted today. And for those who like to think that
Oxford was the only one with connections to Burghley (for Polonius in Hamlet), Bacon was
in regular correspondence with him (as were others). Even Looney records that "some of his
[Lord Burghley’s] sportive sayings have been recorded by Bacon" [Looney, Shakespeare
Identified, p.469]. Ben Jonson praised "the greatness that was only proper to himself
[Bacon], in that he seemed to me ever, by his work, one of the greatest men, and most worthy
of admiration, that had been in many ages" [Jonson, Timber: or Discoveries]. The Archbishop
of Canterbury, Dr Tennison, said "Nature gives the World that Individual Species, but once in
five hundred Years" [Baconiana, 1679].
Come on people! Marlowe was smarter than Oxford even after Marlowe died ... in 1593!
Reply · Like ·
Geoffrey Green ·
Top Commenter · Broomfield, Colorado
Mr. Clarke, who is arguing that one person is “smarter" or had a "more formidable
intellect" than another on this forum? The question for you should be who is
most likely to have written the works of “Shakespeare."
Reply · Like ·
232/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Geoffrey Green ·
Mr. Clarke, I think you yourself said, "I think it is more relevant to look at the facts
rather than the opinion of this or that individual.”
Are you suggesting that it is a **fact** that Francis Bacon was smarter than
Edward de Vere and that it is a **fact** that only the smartest person alive could
write the works of Shakespeare? Or are these your opinions?
Reply · Like ·
Lorenzo Geraldo ·
Geoffrey Green
Francis Bacon is probably one of the smartest people ever born to this Earth and
there are numerous reasons for his high intelligence. It just happens to be that
the author of Shakespeare had to be of high intelligence and so it's no
coincidence that their unsurpassed vocabularies arguably the greatest in the
English language are the same
Reply · Like ·
Geoffrey Green ·
Lorenzo Geraldo—
Barry Clarke said (and I paraphrase) that he was astonished at the number of
people here who believe that de Vere was “smarter" than Bacon (whatever that
means). I am not one of them, you are not one of them, Mr. Clarke is not one of
them. I asked him who he had in mind and what this would have to do with
authorship of Shakespeare's works. There are plenty of people here that think
that Edward de Vere was also pretty smart and had other qualities that make him a
good, or even the best, candidate for the the authorship of Shakespeare’s works.
Maybe this is astonishing to Mr. Clarke or you, I don’t know. It is astonishing to
me that you are able to determine that Bacon’s and Shakespeare’s vocabularies
are the same—that should settle the issue, if true. Congratulations.
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Geoffrey Green All the Oxfordian evidence relies on a selective interpretation of
the plays. That's not evidence it's a reading. As has been said many times here,
you'd need to know nothing about other leading minds of the period to see
Oxford as special. Oxfordianism is a religion adopted by highly suggestible
people who are good at ignoring counter evidence.
State University
Follow ·
Lorenzo Geraldo Their vocabularies are not at all "the same" in many critical
regards. But I agree with the rest of what you write.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck What is the basis for this claim? What Oxfordian books and articles
have you read in order to reach this conclusion?
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Well let's start with the Mark Anderson book. It's a sermon for
the believers. Any work that assumes its conclusion (that Oxford wrote all the
Shakespeare work single-handed) from the very first page cannot be taken
233/326
1/22/2015
Shakespeare work single-handed) from the very first page cannot be taken
seriously. But I bet the impressionable swallowed it whole.
Reply · Like ·
Barry R. Clarke ·
Roger Stritmatter "Their vocabularies [Bacon and the Shakespeare work] are not
the same". If you're interested in checking the evidence together with the original
sources then I can point you to my detailed PhD research that shows that your
assessment about the rare phrase parallels between three Shakespeare plays and
Bacon's work in the EEBO database needs to be better informed.
http://barryispuzzled.com/shakepuzzle.html
It's grounded on the scientific method in that it's a test repeatable by anyone with
access to the EEBO database. It even has the characteristic of allowing Bacon to
be ruled out (but he wasn't). A world authority on authorship attribution methods
has checked its validity. As you will be aware, evidence of this quality cannot be
found for Oxford. I look forward to receiving information as to where you think
the errors are in the above method.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck You write: "Geoffrey Green All the Oxfordian evidence relies on a
selective interpretation of the plays."
Please note that this claim presupposes that you are familiar with "all the
Oxfordian evidence." Please explain to us how you gained this knowledge. List
the books you have read. Thanks.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter Like anyone else, he simply has to look at one of the many
Oxfordian replies to Mark Johnson's frequent request for three items of evidence.
Doesn't take more than a minute.
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud "Doesn't take more than a minute."
This is a brilliant summary of the Oxfraudian methodology.
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter I've got to hand it to you, you're an absolute master at dodging
the questions that really matter. I see you've been asked several times on this
forum to present evidence to back up your bombast but again and again you
avoid them. All you seem to be interested in is selling your book and promoting
other Oxfordian literature. The more intelligent visitors to this forum should by
now be fully aware that although you strut around as though you own the place,
you can't actually back up your case. Only the gullible are going to be taken in by
it all. Are you too blind to see it Roger, the Emperor Ox (or is it ass?) actually has
no clothes!
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Barry R. Clarke"
234/326
1/22/2015
"I don't argue for Bacon's origination of the Shakespeare work here, only that he
had far more marbles than Oxford ever had."
Bacon was a very brilliant man, but he was a lousy writer...My albino dwarf rabbit
still writes better prose than Bacon ever dreamed he could do, and Bucky's been
deceased for...what...since '89...OK...I'm not good at math...
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck You say: " It's a sermon for the believers." That summary does not
suggest that you have either read the book or understood its argument. Nor does
it explain why so many who were not "believers" before reading it, were
convinced afterwards that it makes an effective case for Oxford's authorship.
Making a credible argument against a point of view presupposes being able to
articulate that point of view first. You apparently cannot do that yet.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
The First Folio, the first attempt at a Complete Works of Shakespeare’s plays is often touted
by Oxforidans as a dead give away that the volume is actually a dedication to Edward De
Vere. They will often note that the dedications, especially from Ben Jonson are often couched
references to the earl, that the Droeshout image is suspect and most of all that it was
dedicated to De Vere’s married relatives and they were responsible for it. However, lets take a
closer look at this famous book and to start one item that seems to be conveniently
overlooked by Oxforidans that appears at the beginning of the volume along with all the
dedications. This is the list of principal actors. Here is a link to that image http://
internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/stage/acting/actorlist.html:, the Folio is extremely
clear as to what this list is “The Names of the Principal Actors in all these plays”
At the head of this list is “William Shakespeare”. So the people who put together this tome
are acknowledging that there was a man named “William Shakespeare”, not some other
strange spelling, and he was an actor in all of the plays that appear in this volume. Now
according to Oxfordians, the First Folio was not an effort commissioned by actors John
Hemings and Henry Condell, who also appear on this list, but by those that the book is
dedicated to William, Earl of Pembrooke and Philip, Earl of Montgomery. So if these two men
are responsible for putting the volume together they are acknowledging that an actor named
William Shakespeare appeared in all these plays. By this same line of Oxfordian reasoning
these same earls apparently also wrote a dedication to themselves in this volume and made it
look like it was written in the words of Hemings and Condell. Offhand, I can’t think of
another publication where a member of the aristocracy either wrote or put together a book
and dedicated it to himself. Talk about vain. This seems contrary to all other books of the era
that were dedicated to other aristocrats. Not only are these earls vain, they are impersonators
and forgers as they are pretending to be actual actors writing the dedication in the words of
these men, which would be fraud.
Now putting aside that Oxfordians are saying that the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery
are vain and liars, Oxfordians claim that De Vere wrote under the pen name of William
Shakespeare “thy will shakes a spear” and all that business. Thus any mention of the name
William Shakespeare in print means its actually De Vere. They say that a hyphen denotes the
pseudonym. However, the name William Shakespeare as a writer does not appear in its
hyphen form in the First Folio nor does it appear with a hyphen on several quartos and the
dedications of “Venus and Adonis” and “The Rape of Lucrece”. So does this mean that
whenever the name appears without a hyphen that that volume is not by De Vere ? Are only
the publications with the name William Shakespeare containing a hyphen the work of De
Vere? This is not entirely clear. If only those published works where a hyphen appears is a
work under the pseudonym and not when it doesn’t appear, it would seem by Oxforidan logic
that both De Vere and some other guy named William Shakespeare are both writing versions
of the same plays.
However, returning to the actors list what are we to make of it? No other name appearing on
this list from Richard Burbage to John Rice has been claimed or shown to be a pseudonym.
So even if “William Shakespeare” is a pseudonym of Oxford’s, the earls of Pembroke and
Montgomery, according to Oxforidans, are acknowledging that De Vere also acted in all the
235/326
1/22/2015
plays in the volume as it so clearly states. This would mean that Edward didn’t act in
“Pericles” as this play was not included in the First Folio.
So when did De Vere find time to do all of this acting and how come no one ever thought it
was strange an Earl was acting on the public stage and never noted it? De Vere must have
been quite the master of disguise if that’s the case to avoid detection over a roughly 20 year
period. The De Vere actor hypothesis is little strained as there was another actor by that same
name working in the same company. The spelling of this actor’s name verified by Oxfordians
as “Shakespere or Shakespeare because they accept his coat of arms application and that’s
how the name appears on it. Since there are not two listings of “William Shakespeare”
appearing on the list it must mean there was only one person doing the acting so who was it
the Earl or the guy from Stratford with the coat of arms application?
Taking the Oxfordian interpretation of the First Folio the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery
impersonated other men, had the time to put together a volume of plays for a theater
company not associated with themselves but with King James and all for their relative De
Vere who at the time of publication had been dead for nearly 20 years. They go on to say that
De Vere was also an actor in all of the plays even though there was another actor already in
the company by the same name and being that Oxfordians acknowledge the coat of arms
application was not named Shaksper but Shakespere. You would think that if there is any
merit to the hyphen hypothesis that Pembroke and Montgomery would have ensured to have
it in the listing "MR. William SHAKESPEARES Comedies, Histories & Tragedies" and not in
the actors list to differentiate but that's not the case here. This is what the convoluted
protestations of Oxforidans comes to accusing innocent men of arrogance and fraud in print
and creating paradoxes with names and improbable situations for their candidate to be in.
The real purpose of the First Folio is best described by the men who ACTUALLY put it
together John Hemings and Henry Condell and in THEIR own words “”Guardians; without
ambition either of selfe-profit, or fame: onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, &
Fellow alive, as was our S H A K E S P E A R E , by humble offer of his playes,…” Now it was
an expensive project and its reasonable to assume that John and Henry wouldn’t have
refused any profit to cover their costs but their main goal was to honor their Friend and
Fellow actor’s memory. Its this sentiment that is so often forgotten in all of this authorship
debating, that these were real people who worked with a flesh and blood man and that man
was worthy of Hemings and Condell's time, money and effort to ensure a fitting tribute.
That’s why it matters who wrote the plays. It’s a fitting, hard won legacy by someone who
worked and toiled to create them and not one to be randomly assigned to an emperor with no
clothes just because a few people happen to think he’s a better choice.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon, you say: " that the volume is actually a dedication to Edward De Vere." I
cannot tell from this "summary" that you have read or understand any of the
secondary literature which you assure your readers you are refuting, and certainly
your comments offer no credible reason for thinking that you have done so.
You go on and on and on, and almost every sentence in which you purport to
contradict "the Oxfordians" is a straw man. I hope you are convincing yourself.
You are not making credible or responsible arguments and therefore have said
nothing deserving of a detailed response.
However, if any readers are interested in a serious discussion of the folio as
evidence, this review-essay on Leah Marcus' 1988 *Puzzling Shakespeare* might
be a good place to start:
http://shake-speares-bible.com/2013/12/22/puzzling-shakespeare-still-relevantafter-all-these-years/
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter *Deep sigh* This Oxfordian obsession of yours is getting to be
a monotonous one-string tune now, Roger. No one is going to take you seriously
unless you remove the Ox-colored filters from your spectacles. That should allow
you see what else is going on around you so that you can put your 'facts' in
236/326
1/22/2015
you see what else is going on around you so that you can put your 'facts' in
perspective. I suppose it's worth continuing in the hope of persuading the lost
and bewildered. Religion can be a genuine comfort to some.
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck Is it to much to ask of you to write a comment that is not larded
with prejudicial language like "obsession," "monotonous," etc.
Also, if you can please somehow indicate clearly which post you are referring to,
that will help readers to follow the conversation. If you are responding to the
immediately preceding comment,there is no evidence that you read the linked
article before responding.
I urge you to do so. Substituting ad homimen adjectives for conversation about a
common reading may relieve some of your emotional distress, but it does not
advance the discussion. Now what it is that you wanted to say, either about Leah
Marcus *Puzzling Shakespeare*, or my review of it? Please quote so that readers
can be confident that you are responding to what others have actually written,
not your distorted straw man version.
Thanks for sticking to the topic and editing out your meaningless exclamations.
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter I feel perfectly justified in holding a mirror up to your behavior.
Not least there is your penchant for deliberately misleading the reader. I've seen a
bizarre statement by you on one thread claiming that Mark Rylance is an
Oxfordian. I've seen people (e.g. Mark Johnson) asking you to provide evidence
for dubious assertions of yours which you don't respond to even though there is
evidence you have seen the post because you comment about a different matter
on that thread later. And there are many other complaints here about you
misleading people with false facts. So long as no one challenges your behavior
then the unknowing reader will be duped.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger, Roger, Roger...you repeatedly accuse others of personal attacks yet
continually harp on me and others personally without even answering the
questions posed. The First Folio is a tribute to the legacy of a man that it names
as William Shakespeare as both an actor in all the plays and also as their writer. I
was simplying reiterating that Oxfordians think this book is actually a tribute to
De Vere and make a lot about the fact that its dedicated to his relatives. So aside
from pointing out these stupid coincidences what I'm interested in knowing is
how exactly did the volume come about. Did the earls put it together themselves
and impersonate Hemings and Condell? Did Hemings and Condell work for the
earls and therefore knew about De Vere? What is the Oxfordian explanation for
how the folio came to be with the involvement of the esrls and Hemings and
Condell with them naming William Shakespeare as both a writer and actor? Did
De Vere act in all of the plays as the Folio would suggest if he was working under
the alias of Shakespeare? If so why did no one take notice of this? If not and Will
Shaksper was the actor than why does the name not appear that way in the
actor's list? What is the story according to Oxfordians to this paradox. Is that
plain enough for you or are you going to fall back on personal attacks? I'm not
interested in coincidences that appear to link De Vere to the Folio. I'm asking for
details on how it took place. Is that a concrete enough request?
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli I see that you are still in denial about the significance of Leah
Marcus' devastating expose of the folio. I you want to discuss her analysis of the
237/326
1/22/2015
Marcus' devastating expose of the folio. I you want to discuss her analysis of the
folio, I'd be happy to do so. Your continuning to reiterate the obvious about the
folio, as if the obvious was all there is, doesn't really advance your argument. As
for your question about impersonation, I am simply reporting what is well known
to any historian of Shakespearean studies, which is that for almost two hundred
years, starting with leading scholars like Malone and Steveens, students of the
folio have known that Ben Jonson wrote, at the very least, large parts of the
dedications with the names of Heminges and Condell attached to them.
It is for you to explain why this would be case under your belief system.
For anti-Stratfordians, the answer is reasonably clear: it was to create a fictional
link between the folio and the actors, when in fact the bulk of the manuscript
materials for the folio came from the archives of the de Vere family or the
Jacobean court.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck You write: "Not least there is your penchant for deliberately
misleading the reader. I've seen a bizarre statement by you on one thread claiming
that Mark Rylance is an Oxfordian. I've seen people (e.g. Mark Johnson) asking
you to provide evidence for dubious assertions of yours which you don't respond
to even though there is evidence you have seen the post because you comment
about a different matter on that thread later."
You may wish to review the misleading character of your own remarks before
being so critical of others.
You refer to my "penchant for deliberately misleading the reader," and then offer
examples of statements made by others, as if they had been made by me. Are you
really incapable of noticing your own failure to abide by common standards of
decency in a discussion - namely not to hold persons responsible for things they
did not say, and instead impute to them remarks made by others? I've never said
Mark Rylance was an Oxfordian. What I have said, a deliberate truth to the best of
my knowledge, is that Mark Rylance is anti-Stratfordian, who began as a
Baconian but lately seems to be more open to various alternatives, including
Oxford. That puts him miles ahead of you in his understanding of the topic.
Next you move on to unspecified "dubious assertions" for which, you claim, Mark
Johnson has asked me to render clarification. But since you don't say what these
are, you give the impression that these matters are either so inconsequential that
you can't be bothered to remember them, or that you really don't want to talk
about them out of fear that I might actually have some credible answer. You
prefer to personalize the discussion and avoid specifics, apparently. In any case,
you seem to be speaking to yourself more than you are attempting to have a real
conversation.
It may very well be the case that I have missed some of Mark Johnson's
challenges in the conversation, or chosen not to reply to them for some reason.
However, if these lacuna bother you so much, by all means lets discuss them. If
you would be so kind as to remind of the ones you feel most exorcised about, I
should be happy to offer the best answer I can give.
on edit 1/12/15: I am still waiting for clarification of what I supposedly didn't
answer.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter So Ben Jonson, the man who made sure to separate himself
from other Johnsons by removing the "h" in his last name. The man who
compiled his own folio collection of his plays, the man who wrote "An Ode to
Himself" and perhaps can take the title for the most vain man of the
Elizabethan/Jacobean era, didn't take credit for writing the Hemings/Condell
dedication? The dedication has no poetic flow whatsoever. Its a plain spoken
238/326
1/22/2015
dedication? The dedication has no poetic flow whatsoever. Its a plain spoken
matter vs. Jonson's usually grandiloquent verses so how do you even connect
the two?
Secondly, If Jonson was effectively lying in print to create this connection why
did Jonson then skewer "De Vere as Shakespeare" in Timbers and Discovery
especially when knowing he was skewering his social better? He knows about De
Vere, willingly covers up the authorship but makes fun of him and also his front
man by the Sogliardo episode? Also if he knew that De Vere was the real writer
and Will Shakespeare wrote nothing than what is the Poet- Ape reference about?
This is usually meant as a jab at Will, the guy who according to Oxfordians never
wrote. So Jonson was calling De Vere a Poet-Ape since he actually did the
writing? That's two examples of him denouncing an earl and he never feared
retribution from people close to the earl?
Your statement "the bulk of the manuscript materials for the folio came from the
archives of the de Vere family or the Jacobean court." is a hoot. Can you prove
this? So you're saying that there are manuscripts of the plays that reside directly
with the De Vere family. We know who the printers of the First Folio are so do you
have any proof of a direct connection between a member of De Vere's
family/household and the printers involved?
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli You write: "So Ben Jonson....didn't take credit for writing the
Hemings/Condell dedication?"
Right. That was his job. He had already dedicated his Epigrams to folio patron
Pembroke in 1616 by insisting on his capacity to write "in cipher" -- i.e. with
whatever discretion a job required. In this case the job was to do exactly what you
seem unable to imagine him doing, i.e. publishing his own dedications creating
the fiction of the Hemminges and Condell link to the folio.
"why did Jonson then skewer "De Vere as Shakespeare" in Timbers and Discovery
especially when knowing he was skewering his social better? "
This is your interpretation. You may wish to reread the book more closely. I don't
claim to fully understand all of Jonson's motives or his manners of expression,
but if you think you understand *Discoveries* (*Disoveries* and *Timber* are not,
as you seem to suppose, two different books, but alternative titles for the same
book, I think you haven't read it carefully or often enough.
"Your statement "the bulk of the manuscript materials for the folio came from the
archives of the de Vere family or the Jacobean court." is a hoot. Can you prove
this?"
No, I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you prove they came from
somewhere else by the same standard? No, you can't. You may wish to stop
demanding proofs that you cannot satisfy.
An abundance of circumstantial evidence, with which you are evidently not
familiar, does, however, support my conclusion.
"do you have any proof of a direct connection between a member of De Vere's
family/household and the printers involved?"
I'm glad you ask that question, and I appreciate your willingness at least
temporarily to set aside your aggressive denunciations of authorship skeptics to
raise questions like this. This one is especially dear to my heart, since the answer,
resoundingly, is "yes."
I've already posted this link at least once in this discussion, but since you asked
somewhat nicely, here it is again:
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/bestow-how-and-when/
239/326
1/22/2015
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
Guilty once again. Coincidence, speculation and fabrication passed off as
evidence. Lists demanded by etiquette passed off as praise...etc etc etc.
I particularly enjoyed Herbert weaselling his way into control of the King's Men by
becoming Lord Chamberlain, thus trumping His Majesty's claim because they
were called The Lord Chamberlain's Men, eight years earlier.
0/10.
Jason Frost
Has Stanley Wells seen this latest work from Bill Leahy's camp? And how about the SBT's
"Head of Knowledge and Research" Paul Edmonson?
http://barryispuzzled.com/Developments.pdf for summary
http://barryispuzzled.com/PhDThesis.pdf for complete dissertation
It's well researched stuff so why are they not taking any notice?
Reply · Like ·
Barry R. Clarke ·
I notice that several commentators, even Oxfordians, are pointing out that the case for
Oxford as a concealed originator of the Shakespeare work is based on circumstantial
evidence. What makes a circumstantial case weak is when a similar case can be constructed
for other candidates. This has been done for Neville, Bacon, Marlowe, and even Shakespeare,
and these constructions are just as good as each other. To be convinced of one of these
cases, one needs to ignore the fact that a similar type of case is possible for others. I think
the evidence needs to be better than this and it seems to me that the best type of evidence
we have is a stylistic test against the plays. See http://barryispuzzled.com/shakepuzzle.html
for the latest PhD work on this from Brunel University.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Barry,
It may be true that all these cases are "circumstantial," but comparing the Oxford
case to these other three candidates as you do creates a false equivalency, since
the abundance and character of the circumstantial evidence for the Oxfordians is
overwhelmingly more persuasive.
One of these candidates (Neville) has been argued only in one deeply flawed and
problematic book written to take advantage of the intellectual ferment resulting
from Ogburn's 1984 *The Mysterious William Shakespeare,* which continues up
until the present -- and the other two never gained the assent of the most
perceptive students of the question.
Even at the height of the Baconian movement in the late 19th century, Walt
Whitman, for example, pointedly refused to endorse Bacon, despite his fierce
post-Stratfordian ethic: http://shake-speares-bible.com/2011/10/26/waltwhitman-on-shakespeare/
I agree with you that stronger work needs to be done in the field of forensic
linguistics to test various authorship theories, and this is already underway. But
such "stylistic" evidence as we already have firmly negates the Baconian theory.
It is difficult to disagree, for example, with the opinion (on this topic at least) of
240/326
1/22/2015
It is difficult to disagree, for example, with the opinion (on this topic at least) of
J.M. Robertson, who over a hundred years ago contrasted the characteristic
styles of Shakespeare and Bacon: In Shakespeare "we find infinite verve and
vivacity, fluency and fire, endless fecundity of phrase, image and epithet." What
we shall not find in Shakespeare's prose, maintained Robertson, was that
distinguishing feature of Francis Bacon's mind and mental habits -- "a great
architectonic prose" (490; emphasis added).
I quoted this passage in my 2001 University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation
on the Oxford Bible, already linked to elsewhere in this conversation, in an
appendix treating the "style" question.
Best of luck in your inquiry, and congratulations on your PhD.
Reply · Like ·
Barry R. Clarke ·
Roger Stritmatter Thank you for your message. I think it is more relevant to look
at the facts rather than the opinion of this or that individual. Francis Bacon was at
the Gray's Inn revels when The Comedy of Errors had its first known performance
there. The evidence that Love's Labour's Lost was intended for the revels but
cancelled is also strong. Bacon almost certainly wrote for these revels and there
are convincing (appear in less than 1 in 588 EEBO documents) rare phrase
parallels between these two plays and his work. He also controlled the Gray's Inn
players who (due to Shakespeare's exclusion) performed The Comedy of Errors.
I invite you to examine my PhD data here http://barryispuzzled.com/
shakepuzzle.html (my external examiner is a world expert on authorship
attribution methods).
I think that your assessment that "the abundance and character of the
circumstantial evidence for the Oxfordians [as concealed originator] is
overwhelmingly more persuasive" is (1) biased (sorry), and (2) an oversimplification. With respect to (1), I notice that you were asked elsewhere on this
forum if you would be willing to change your mind if evidence against Oxford's
involvement appeared. I understand the point to be that if the answer is 'no' then
in that case it would not be possible for you to make an objective/balanced
assessment of the facts. It was then pointed out that in maintaining that you are
an 'Oxfordian' the answer has to be 'no'. I have no difficulty with such a question.
I have willingly adjusted my position as to the extent of Bacon's involvement
during my research and accept that others had a hand. As far as (2) is concerned,
demonstrating origination is highly problematic as linguistic analysis can only
support arguments for a contribution. So it is meaningless (in the logical
positivist sense) to make claims for origination when there is no test that could
negate its possibility.
When you refer to 'the Oxford case' are you maintaining that he was the sole
originator of the Shakespeare plays? If so, could you please point me to the
evidence as to where the 17th Earl of Oxford fits into the 1594-5 Gray's Inn revels
picture (for example, in contrast to Bacon, there seems to be no evidence that he
wrote for these revels or had any connection to the Inns of Court players)? I
appreciate your congratulations.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Barry R. Clarke I am not denying that you can find elements of circumstantial
evidence supporting Bacon's authorship.
I'm quite familiar with a number of them. Most informed scholars, however, now
regard the Bacon theory as defunct when measured against the case for Oxford.
You are welcome to continue your adherence to the Baconian view, and I certainly
respect your awareness that there is a Shakespearean question that requires a
solution, but I think you are going to be more and more disappointed as time
goes on and the evidence for de Vere continues to accumulate and to attract more
and more adherents.
241/326
1/22/2015
and more adherents.
Reply · Like ·
Barry R. Clarke ·
Roger Stritmatter The question I asked you was this. If you are going to maintain
that Oxford originated all the work, what connection does he have to the 1594-5
Gray's Inn revels? I invite you to either present the relevant facts or retract your
universal claim for Oxford.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter
Dr. Stritmatter. Didn't you correlate the biblical allusions in Bacon's work with
those in Shakespeare and found little to nil correspondence between the two?
Wouldn't this be an excellent reason to delete Bacon from the list of candidates?
For the record, I note you also correlated such biblical allusions in Marlowe's
works and came to a similar conclusion.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter
Dr. Stritmatter. Didn't you correlate the biblical allusions in Bacon's work with
those in Shakespeare and found little to nil correspondence between the two?
Wouldn't this be an excellent reason to delete Bacon from the list of candidates?
For the record, I note you also correlated such biblical allusions in Marlowe's
works and came to a similar conclusion.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter "of circumstantial evidence supporting bacon's authorship. I'm
quite familiar with them. Most informed scholars, however, now regard the Bacon
theory as defunct when measured against the case for Oxford. "
Not true. At least Bacon lived long enough to do the work. Oxford's death in
1604 disqualifies him.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Knit Twain Correct on both counts.
And there is an interesting story involved with the Bacon part of the research.
After I had appeared on a local talk radio show in Western Massachusetts while
still completing my dissertation, a friend named Christine Stevens got a phone
call (don't ask me now why the call went to her, but it did....) from the widow of Dr.
Porter Cole (yes, named after the Jazz legend), whose 1950 Oxford University
Press PhD dissertation was on Bacon's biblical references.
Dr. Cole's widow explained that this dissertation was expressly, although not
openly, written in part to test the Baconian hypothesis. Given the taboo nature of
the authorship question, the dissertation doesn't discuss this part of the
motivation, but according to her it was a significant motivation for the work.
With the help of my friend Virginia Renner, then still the head of reader services at
the Huntington Library, I acquired a copy of the dissertation and used it in my
own work.
242/326
1/22/2015
own work.
It does convincingly document that the pattern of Bible allusions in Bacon's work
is incompatible with the hypothesis of his authorship of the Shakespearean
plays, a fact that contrasts dramatically with the high correlation my dissertation
documented between the de Vere Bible annotations and the Shakespearean Bible
allusions.
This is the kind of think that I suspect Geoffrey Green is alluding to when he tells
Barry Clarke, above, that what matters is not who was "smarter" (whatever such
vague terms mean), but who the evidence points to.
Francis Bacon was a very smart man, there's no doubt about that. There's also
very little doubt, for many compelling reasons, that he was not responsible for the
Shakespearean works.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Thank you for your reply, Dr. Stritmatter. Your "It does
convincingly document that the pattern of Bible allusions in Bacon's work is
incompatible with the hypothesis of his authorship of the Shakespearean plays, a
fact that contrasts dramatically with the high correlation my dissertation
documented between the de Vere Bible annotations and the Shakespearean Bible
allusions."
This is exactly why I don't understand your critics' attempts at denying a
remarkable correlation between the marked verses in de Vere's Geneva Bible and
biblical allusions in Shakespeare. I note they (in particular, the Oxfrauds)
continually pronounce your findings in error, yet not one of them has ever
attempted to study the sources of your findings (namely, Dr. Naseeb Shaheen, Fr.
Peter Milward, Richmond Noble, Thomas Carter, and Charles Wordsworth per
their studies on Shakespeare and the Bible).
Furthermore, said critics are known for making a mockery of Certified Document
Examiner Ms. Emily Will's report on the handwriting in the de Vere Bible. I have
pointed out numerous times that IF Ms. Will was unqualified (as per the Oxfrauds
criticism) to render such opinion, then they should contact her certifying board
and file a complaint.
I have also suggested they hire their own Certified Examiner. And I have explained
your attempts to have the Folger Shakespeare Library subject the Geneva Bible to
ink tests, and that all such requests have been denied.
I understand the Oxfrauds (and others) need to discredit the Oxfordian thesis, but
they are sadly and highly biased when it comes to assessing your findings on the
de Vere Bible. Their refusal to study your sources is totally and completely
unscholarly.
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Oxfraud. Well said! Have one or posts been removed and others substituted in
here? Look at Roger Stritmatter's above post "It may be true that all these cases
...". It was posted 15 hours before the message before it! This message is in
between two identical messages. Tampering or what?! Someone in charge of the
message board obviously doesn't like Roger Stritmatter being backed into a
corner he can't get out of.
State University
Follow ·
Knit Twain You write: "not one of them has ever attempted to study the sources
of your findings (namely, Dr. Naseeb Shaheen, Fr. Peter Milward, Richmond
Noble, Thomas Carter, and Charles Wordsworth per their studies on Shakespeare
and the Bible).
243/326
1/22/2015
Furthermore, said critics are known for making a mockery of Certified Document
Examiner Ms. Emily Will's report on the handwriting in the de Vere Bible. I have
pointed out numerous times that IF Ms. Will was unqualified (as per the Oxfrauds
criticism) to render such opinion, then they should contact her certifying board
and file a complaint."
Indeed the critic's knowledge of the study of Shakespeare's bible references
might productively be compared to that of a parrot denouncing Noam Chomsky
for having a big vocabulary.
As for their statements about Ms. Will, hah! In the years since serving as a
consultant on my dissertation, Ms. Will's reputation has grown considerably, and
it is fair now to say, I believe, that she is one of the most respected forensic
document analysts in the United States. I have recently retained her on another
project and look forward to sharing the results of that study in the near future.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Timothy Beck states: "Someone in charge of the message board obviously
doesn't like Roger Stritmatter being backed into a corner he can't get out of.."
Huh? Remind me, what was the corner I was "backed into" that led to your latest
conspiracy theory?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud How does it "disqualify him"? Don't be shy, tell us how. This is one of
my favorite topics.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Timothy: Hi. Navigation hereabouts is tricky though it has to be said one of
Roger's other favourite habits is revisiting long comment threads after everyone
has left, trying to undo some of the damage by having the last word.
As a prelude to your favourite subject, let's start with your opening claim, shall
we?
"Most informed scholars, however, now regard the Bacon theory as defunct when
measured against the case for Oxford. "
Can we have some evidence of this, please? Cite a few of these informed
scholars. Non-Oxfordian, of course.
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Jesus, you certainly are devious! It's like dealing with a
delinquent child. OK, this message board is a maze so let's choose one on this
thread to start with:
"If you are going to maintain that Oxford originated all the work, what connection
does he have to the 1594-5 Gray's Inn revels?"
The world is waiting with baited breath to see if you disappear down your rabbit
hole again. Oxfraud. I get your point, on the other hand at the time the challenge
is issued and the viewing is at its height, a lot of people will realise that he can't
answer it. At the later time, when few people visit, the only people who will notice
his attempt to save face is us. Everyone else is left with the impression that his
evidence is weak.
244/326
1/22/2015
evidence is weak.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Timothy Beck Ah but he will offer links to his contributions, claiming victory. If
you have a look at the ShakesVere board, you will see them actually celebrating a
triumph over Mark Johnson on the subject of evidence. Custer wins the Battle of
Little Big Horn - shoot me, scalp me and stake me out on an anthill if I'm lying.
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud claims "Oxford's death in 1604 disqualifies him." I notice you didn't
mention the Tempest. A couple of years ago it would have been reflexive for you
to do so, since it has always been agreed by most Stratfordian scholars that a)
The Tempest was the last work written by the bard; b) it was written in or around
1611. Pity you can no longer make that argument.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter You're right Tempest is not the last play. Shakespeare wrote
two other plays after that with a playwright who didn't become active until 4 years
after Oxford died. All is True and the Two Noble Kinsmen. Of course you'll
probably bring up the old Oxfordian gag of other playwrights picking up an earlier
work and updating. Perhaps you can show where that updating took place.
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli writes: "You're right Tempest is not the last play."
Actually, I didn't say it wasn't his last play. I rather implied that it was not written
in 1611, but sometime before 1604. I won't post the link to the evidence for this
as one of your colleagues will reflexively respond by accusing me of promoting
my own work.
As for dogmatically claiming that The Tempest was not the last work, you have no
serious basis for that claim. No one knows when either of the two plays you cite
were written. Nor have you any evidence that "the playwright didn't become
active until four years after Oxford died." This claim suggests a need for serious
remediation of your knowledge base.
"Perhaps you can show where that updating took place."
I think that's your job.
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
Are you trying to break the record for unsupported claims in one thread?
You were about to give me a list of 'informed scholars... [who] now regard the
Bacon theory as defunct when measured against the case for Oxford.'
Your book on The Tempest is a whole volume of unsupported contentions which,
as I recall, in its comprehensive survey of possible Tempest source material, omits
one of John Donne's masterpieces, written after personal experience of a
Tempest in the Azores in 1597. It's also my recollection that you denied its
existence when I first pointed out the omission whilst your co-author first jumped
to the conclusion that I was referring to A Valediction Forbidding Mourning, then
had the brass neck to say it had been deliberately omitted because Donne's work
245/326
1/22/2015
had the brass neck to say it had been deliberately omitted because Donne's work
was 'generic' and part of what she called a 'storm set'.
You can't contradict this statement either "almost every informed scholar has
completely ignored Stritmatter and Kositsky's book on The Tempest'.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud a list of 'informed scholars... [who] now regard the Bacon theory as
defunct when measured against the case for Oxford.'
I was? Maybe in your fantasy I was. I'll leave informed readers to do their own
research on that topic.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
The key to conspiracies is you got to keep them simple. The less people that know about
what you don't want them to know the better, ya know. So the unsung hero of the
Elizabethan period, Eddie "gotta keep my writing a secret" De Vere even though he's written
plays that are so great they've disappeared and been recognized in print by Francis Meres as
a comedic playwright , D'oh! has plays hot off the press and has to get them down to the
playhouse but can't let people know its him. What's the best way. Well, he's got his personal
secretary Anthony Munday, he's an established playwright, Eddie's got a theatre company Oxford's Men, that's it! Have a secret meeting with Anthony to be the front man.
Eddie will write them, Tony will take credit and the theatre company will put them on bing,
bang, boom.
No wait, that sounds ridiculous. Let's instead have Eddie farm out the plays to a company
he's has no connections with and get a guy who everyone knows is a complete moron. Yeah,
that's it., that makes more sense The moron who barely has enough education and brain
power to get him through the front door, we'll give it to him and he'll take credit. How all this
is this happening when Eddie's gotta to traveling to Italy and avoiding Burley and his "exwfie", well let's figure that out later. Don't worry Eddie will get the credit, we'll inserts some
hyphens and that'll tell everyone that its really him.
So, having some fun with the whole "Oxfordian theory" but it does beg the question. Why
wasn't Anthony Munday, an established playwright, a member of Oxford's men and allegedly
De Vere's secretary the frontman for the plays? Why Shakespeare? If De Vere really wrote the
plays, why the overly elaborate plot when it was so simple to do it this way?
Reply · Like ·
First of all, note that Shakspere was only 12 years old when Eddie was in Italy.
Secondly, don’t you think a better front-man would be someone few people
would suspect? Why would it have been a good idea to have any of his known
associates serve as his public foil? Cuz the less people that know about what you
don't want them to know the better, ya know.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 10:16pm
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli,
Its nice to see the clear evidence for your cognitive dissonance. That shows that
you may actually be learning something from the exchange and reconsidering
some of your assumptions. That is all to your credit, imho.
As for your concluding questions, there are many possible answers to them.
Maybe you can think of some of them.
Reply · Like ·
246/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Occam's Razor seem to escape Oxfordians.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 11:11pm
Jennifer Burnham Speaking of Ockham’s Razor, perhaps some razor sharp
Stratfordian may want to consider the simplest answer as to how is it that every
Shakespearean play set in Italy takes place in a city that the Earl of Oxford visited
on his lengthy sojourn to Europe and that every Italian city he didn’t visit is also
not used as a Shakespearean play setting?
How coincidental is it that the work of De Vere’s family physician Dr. George
Baker, The "New Jewel of Health" has been cited by orthodox scholars as the
source of references to alchemy in the plays, or that Baldesar Castiglione’s "Il
Cortegiano," that is, "The Book of the Courtier," with its 1100 word introduction
in Latin by Edward de Vere is often cited as “Hamlet’s Book” by orthodox
scholars, or, as has been mentioned somewhere in these long threads, that Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, indisputably a thematic workhorse in the Shakespeare canon
was translated by de Vere’s uncle Arthur Golding?
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi A. Because Shakepeare was a writer and he chose famous
cities in Italy in which to set his Italian stories, much like writers who have never
been to Russia write about Moscow, Kiev and St. Petersburg.
B. Assuming that no one else on the planet read Ovid (especially if they had been
edicated in Latin, as the school half a mile from Shakespeare's boyhood home
taught their students) or knew about alchemy is not a simple premise, especially
given their popularity at the time. And just because de Vere wrote a forward to the
Book of the Courtier, that does not mean he was the only one who read it. And
find me an orthodox, non Oxfordian, scholar who calls The Book of the Courtier
"Hamlet's Book."
(Again, this is a classist assumption that Shakespere never had access to books,
never talked to anyone knowlegable to learn things.)
What is a simple premise? That Shakespeare wrote the plays as reflected in the
official records and contemporary accounts.
Bob Grumman ·
Roger Stritmatter You can be sure Roger won't help you.
Jennifer Burnham Sorry, I mixed up two of the Italian books De Vere had
translated. Cardenus Comforte. The book is dedicated to him (rather than his
having written the intro as I mentioned regarding “The Book of the Courtier”,
although Dr. Mary Margaret Toole also believed that that book was responsible
for the shaping of Hamlet’s character.) Joseph Hunter and Hardin Craig are
among the orthodox scholars who have referred to Cardenus Comforte as
“Hamlet’s book.”
And about Hamlet and Ockham: what is your simple explanation for the
coincidence that De Vere was kidnapped by pirates, thrown off a ship and was left
naked on the shore just like Hamlet or that his brother-in-law as ambassador to
Denmark was assisted by two Danes named Rozencrantz and Guildenstern?
Reply · Like ·
247/326
1/22/2015
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi Niether Edward Windsor or Robert Cecil were
amabassadors to Denmark, and Rosencrantz and Gyldenstierne were common
names among Danish and Swedish nobolity, two of whose members visited
England in 1592.
And again, you ignore the whole idea of people reading books and learning from
others.
Let me put it to you the way I put it to Roger Stritmatter:
What is more likely? That this was a fraud perpetuated by everyone in the court
and London theatre scene years after the death of both men to protect
Oxford's...what? Reputation? It's not like Shakepeare was seditious. As I said
earlier he was a good little Tudor propagandist. So what was the point of de Vere
and everyone else hiding his involvement for so long, especially when de Vere
published his own works and had his own theatre company? Which noteably was
not the first company to perform most of these plays. So de Vere had his own
theatre company, but still gave to plays to the Lord Chamberlain's Men to
perform.
Or is it more likely the plays were just written by William Skapespeare, as the
records state.
Records such as: In 1598, Francis Meres named Shakespeare as a playwright and
poet in his Palladis Tamia, referring to him as one of the authors by whom the
"English tongue is mightily enriched". (Montague, William Kelly (1963). The Man
of Stratford—The Real Shakespeare. Vantage Press.) He names twelve plays
written by Shakespeare, including four which were never published in quarto: The
Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Won, and King
263. Detroit: Gale Group.) The Quatros were published under his name in his
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham Do you know that Occam's razor states? I'd be curious about
your definition.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham
"What is more likely? That this was a fraud perpetuated by everyone in the court
and London theatre scene years after the death of both men to protect
Oxford's...what? Reputation? It's not like Shakepeare was seditious."
Ah, there you go with your assumptions again, Jennifer. What makes you so sure
248/326
1/22/2015
Ah, there you go with your assumptions again, Jennifer. What makes you so sure
"Shakespeare" was not seditious? Have you even read *Venus and Adonis,* for
example?
"you ignore the whole idea of people reading books and learning from others."
I can't speak for Julie, but I can assure you that I have NEVER ignored the "whole
idea of reading books." And, in fact, the Oxfordians have often discussed the
issue of books as one source (along with life experience) of the Shakespearean
problem. As Tom Regier cogently indicates above, the absence of any books in
the Sh. documentary record is a significant part of the evidentiary problem.
By contrast, the testimony of Oxford's books confirms with new evidence the
hypothesis of his authorship. I would post a link to this, but the last time I offered
you a link, you rudely accused me of trying to profit from this question, without
(so far as I could tell) even examining the free contents of the link or reading the
reviews of the book in question.
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter In essence, Occam's Razor states that the explanation that
makes the least assumptions, or is the simplest, is most likely the correct one.
And the Oxfordian argument is built on nothing but assumptions.
We have the existing historical record repeatedly stating William Shakespeare as
the author of these plays and sonnetts...and we have Oxfordian's incredibly
convulted theory held up with no hard evidence at all. None.
And you are a fine one to accuse people of making assuptions given how much
of your agrument stands on them. You think because no books were cataloged in
his will, he never had any or access to any (particularly through his known
patrons of Earls of Southampton and Pembroke, or the patrons of the
Chamberlain's Men). As I have pointed out before, even in modern wills, unless
books are specifically given to someone, they are counted as "chattel and other
goods." Just because they are not mentioned in her will, that does not mean my
mother did not have books stacked two layers deep against her walls.
But if we are to use your reasoning, where are the manscripts in de Vere's hand?
Where are his signed publications? Where are the records stating "They
performed King Lear by Edward de Vere." If you are going to use the, "the
absence of evidence is the evidence of absence," then your own argument falls
flat in its face because of the lack of evidence that de Vere was the author.
And how is Venus and Adonis seditious? (Licentious perhaps, but seditious?) He
did a very admirable smear job of Richard III, the man QEI's grandfather usurped.
He was a good little Tudorist.
Oh wait, I just found *your* paper on the subject....So the association of Venus
with QEI (rather than just the power of love or women over men) was considered
seditious? Then why wasn't Shakepeare, who boldly signed his name to it,
dedicating it to his patron, arrested then? Seriously, if de Vere was using
Shakepeare to say seditious things without getting in trouble, why didn't
Shakepeare get in trouble?
And BTW- That's yet another document that states William Shakepeare was the
author.
And the last time you offered me a link, I read it and then poked it full of holes.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham I thought you would say that. It is not correct. The correct
original thought is that the hypothesis that most simply explains *all the
evidence* is to be preferred. The second part is not optional. See why?
249/326
1/22/2015
evidence* is to be preferred. The second part is not optional. See why?
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Yes, because you are wrong: http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html Trying to claim your
assumptions are "evidence" doesn't fit the "simplest explanation" that Occam
Razor is speaking of. Who wrote Shakepeare's plays? The shadowy figure at the
heart of a mass conspiracy of silence with no hard evidence to prove its
existence, or the guy in the historical record. What is simpler? What makes the
least assumptions? And it is simply shameful that someone claiming to be a
college professor would engage in such sophistry. Seriously. You have only
discredited yourself through this.
Also noting you ignoring the rest of my post, just as you ignore the historical
record.
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham Peregrine Bertie was married to De Vere's sister Mary. He was
an Elizabethan Ambassador to Denmark and he worked with men named
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I did not address book learning because I have
already expressed my views on the topic several times in these threads. The
distillation: Lack of time to read, lack of access to books, lack of of evidence of
book ownership. Your repeated cut and pastes of the mathematician and cleric
Francis Meres citation doesn't convince me that there was a playwright
christened at birth with the name William Shakespeare anymore than you are
convinced by my repeated comment that the theater manager Phillip Henslow,
one of the best record keepers of Elizabethan stage, NEVER mentioned a
playwright named William Shakespeare in his copious diaries and account books.
You might find interesting a new book by an orthodox Shakespearean scholar,
David Ellis called "The Truth About William Shakespeare." His work analyzes the
meager evidence of the man from Stratford as playwright from the viewpoint of
one who believes that Shakspere was the author. Then hold your nose and
compare that work to a new work of an Oxfordian named Steven Steinburg "I
Come to Bury Shakspere" and you will see that the question of authorship is a
valid one regardless of which belief you hold.
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Julie Sandys Bianchi Bingo!
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham: Your comment "It's not like Shakespeare was seditious" is
entirely mistaken. You further characterize the writer of the works we know as the
Shakespeare canon as simply a "good Tudor propagandist." I suggest you study
the books referred to in my earlier post by historians Alford and Edwards, and (if
you can find it) the remarkable book by Curtis Breight: Surveillance, Millitarism
and Drama in the Elizabethan Era. The realities of Tudor England are chilling!
Under the Regnum Cecilianum, writers were heavily censored, regulated, and
punished. One might wonder how "Shakespeare" survived to write Henry IV Part
2 after his attack on the House of Cobham in Henry IV Part 1 -- much less a work
of major sedition like Richard II with the deposition scene.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that I
am wrong. Your sentence, typically, flies off the handle without a clear point. To
reiterate what I said, Ockham's point is that the hypothesis should explain all the
250/326
1/22/2015
reiterate what I said, Ockham's point is that the hypothesis should explain all the
evidence, not some of it, and when it only explains some of the evidence (and this
includes so-called "negative evidence", such as when the Dog didn't bark), then
the honest researcher re-examines his or her own hypothesis and tries another to
see if it might offer a more comprehensive explanation.
For the life of me I can't understand why a grown woman, who carries on on the
internet as you do, can't comprehend that simple principle and must start
gabbling on about the "assumptions" of other people without even specifying
what you mean by that.
It is not an assumption to point out, for example, that the pattern of publications
of the play quartos, is a problem for the orthodox hypothesis. If you would like
further explanation of what I mean by this, I'd be happy to supply it, on the
assumption that you can at least make an effort to be polite for a change and
recognize that your own assumption that you are talking to people who know
less than you do about the topic under discussion.
Even honest Stratfordians, those few who are acquainted with the evidence,
admit that the publication facts of the quartos are a problem. Most still insist, on
the other hand, that many of the plays were written after Oxford died, so that
would be strong suit if you wished to have a real discussion about Ockham.
Try writing a sentence that doesn't include a false generalization about the point
of view you are contesting. It may make you feel more humble, but that would -- it
appears -- be a salutory beginning to your new year.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Bonner Cutting Was the supposed frontman ever arrested for sedition? No, Will
was noted for not paying a tax bill and being mentioned in connection with a riot,
however no arrest ever came from these. Ben Jonson, on the other hand, was
arrested for sedition for the play "The Isle of Dogs", Will Shakespeare was never
arrested for sedition. Why not? Could it be that the plays weren't seditious? If
that's the case what did De Vere had to worry about and not take credit? During
the "Richard II" presentation tied with Essex rebellion, it was company member
Augustine Phillips not Shakespeare who was brought in for questioning and then
released with no charges filed.
Oxfraud
Jennifer Burnham You're right. He really doesn't know what Occam's Razor is.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter You're right in my 'cognitive dissonance' I have learned a
couple of things in conversing with your fellow Oxfordians and they support the
Stratford case.
Michael Drayton, a London playwright, is examined by Dr. John Hall, Will of
Stratford's son-in-law. A doctor that Drayton would not have known of otherwise
if not through their mutual connection - Will. Why would a playwright living in
London and having family connections to Hartshill, Warwickshire travel 10 hours
out of his way to go a town and see a doctor he had absolutely no connection
with when he could have seen a doctor in London, in his hometown, in the
nearby city of Leicester or any place in points between London and
Warwickshire? Could it be that his fellow London playwright, Will Shakespeare
turned him on to John Hall? Answer: Very likely.
Also, Susanna and her book lending with Doctor Cooke, Cooke was interested in
books that John Hall owned and called on Susanna. She pulled the books for him
and also mentioned that there were others that he might be interested in,
specifically a couple that dealt with physick of the body. This same book(s) had
some handwriting in that Cooke took to be that of Hall and Susanna didn't think
so. In this interesting episode Susanna, the allegedly illiterate daughter, was able
251/326
1/22/2015
so. In this interesting episode Susanna, the allegedly illiterate daughter, was able
to go to her husband's study, pull books for a visiting doctor, know about other
books in her husband's library that the doctor would be interested in, pull them,
and know enough to not only recognize markings inside these books as
handwriting but also know it wasn't her husband's. How in the world does
Susanna do all this reading but she's illiterate. Answer: She's not!
Your’re right Roger. You do learn the most amazing things when talking with
Oxfordians, thanks for the insight. Oh BTW still waiting on those play titles that
John Lyly and De Vere worked so closely on and what exactly De Vere did to
produce those plays that made him so intimate with the profession of acting.
While you're at it why is the name of Richard Du Champ aka Richard Field, the
printer from Stratford, off handedly named in "Cymbeline" and why is there
another off handed reference to a glover's pairing knife, a tool that would be
familiar to the son of a glover, in "Merry Wives of Windsor"?
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Julie Sandys Bianchi Yes, because giving plays to a complete moron and
convince the public that this illiterate and boorish person is a learned playwright
would certainly not draw attention as opposed to your direct friend who is an
established playwright. Which draws more public attention, Stephen King
releasing yet another horror novel or a guy with an IQ of 80 suddenly writing a
best selling and erudite novel?
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli Or better yet, Jon, why would that same physician, who brags
about treating the Warwickshire poet John Drayton, when his much more famous
father-in-law died, only write in his extensive diaries, words to the effect that "my
father-in-law died today"?
Now there is a mystery worth contemplating. Yes, John Hall owned books. And
your anecdote, if you would be so kind as to cite a source for it, would tend to
support Susan's "greater literacy." But as for this saying anything at all in support
of the traditional view of the bard, no, it rather tips the other way, doesn't it, since
we have a record of Hall's owning books, but none of his father-in-law doing so.
Your argument is a precise analog of David Kathman's contradictory claims that
1) the reason for the dearth of documentary evidence for the Stratford man is that
evidence didn't survive for "middle class" persons, and 2) Boasting about how
the surviving Richard Quiney Latin letter proves the literacy of the neighborhood.
You guys can't have it both ways.
As for what you're waiting for, frankly, I don't really care. What you are waiting for
is your problem. Some of us are not waiting - we're doing real research, not just
parroting the accumulated "wisdom" of a dying paradigm.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Oxfraud You are as good as a chorus these days. O how have the mighty fallen.
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham Jennifer, did you answer my question about whether or not
you have even read *Venus and Adonis*? Be honest now.
252/326
1/22/2015
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter You really don't know what Occams' Razor is as you keep
defining it incorrectly and then drawing conclusions based on your incorrect
understanding. It isn't Occam's for a kick off. Just like Will and the
Shakespearean Sonnet, Occam earned the title by being the best practitioner.
It starts with Aristotle "we may assume the superiority, all things being equal, of
the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses." passes
through Occam's own version "pluralities should never be posited without
necessity" and ends up in a variety of definitions such as Bertrand Russell's
""Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for
inferences to unknown entities."
All of them inimical to Oxfordian theory. Especially the last.
I have one hypothesis. The plays were written by the man whose name appears
on them, who is known to actors, other playwrights, The Master of the Revels, the
editors of the First Folio, all who wrote dedications, his theatrical legatees, his
fellow parishioners, those who erected his monument and everyone who
subsequently referred to his work as William Shakespeare of Stratford-uponAvon.
You have hundreds of non-interconnecting hypotheses, many of them selfdefeating.
I win.
BTW, you need help with your insults which have become distressingly feeble. If
you can't find anyone to help on your side, I could consult for a small fee.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Why Thanks Roger, That's a real complement being compared
to Dave Kathman. I find his research very interesting, not always informative as he
would like to think but still a good read. As for "paroting" we're dealing with a
finite time period, with the same people and the same sources so DUH the same
points of reasoning are going to come up again and again. I could accuse you of
paroting Charlton Ogburn and Mark Anderson, where does that get us?
By the Quiney letter, I was referring to Will’s literacy not that of the whole
neighborhood. Why would you write a letter to a man, especially asking for
money, if he can’t read it? Who is going to read it him? According to Oxfordians,
Will’s entire family is illiterate, who would respond to Quiney’s inquiry, he
obviously expected one and he didn’t mention, “I hope so and so gets this so
they can read it to you”, no. Quiney wrote it expecting Will to read it. Obviously
Quiney expected some sort of response, who was going to answer the letter?
On John Hall not gushing about his famous father in law, do the siblings or
friends of famous celebrities gush about the celebrity as a fan would? No, the
celebrity is that’s person’s father, sister, etc. not some “famous person”. Hall
treated Drayton who to Hall was not a family member or close friend but Hall
admired his work, that’s it. He’s a fan not a family member. Its still begs the
question how did these two men know each other in the first place?
John Hall remarked his father-in-law passed away, that’s it. You don’t know his
state of mind when he wrote that or what he thought of Will so there’s nothing
solid that you can derive just by the simple marking of his death. John Hall wasn’t
a literary critic he was a doctor, it wasn’t his job to eulogize someone in poetry
and what would be his outlet? Today, when celebrities pass away, there’s
obituary columns, internet postings, TV and radio interviews that a celebrity's
immediate relatives have to mention their feelings and what the person should be
remembered for. When Robin Williams passed away, did his wife or kids get on a
medium and gush specifically about what movies he made or specific comedy
routines? No, his profession is a given. If any grieving relative responds at all its
pretty short and to the point and usually its about what the person meant to them
not their profession.
253/326
1/22/2015
not their profession.
As for the Susanna Hall reference, it comes from your fellow Oxforidan Ann
Zakelj. In an eariler thread response she posited what I though of this passage:
“Then there's this, via Diana Price, an account of the meeting between Susanna
and Dr Cooke, translator of Dr Hall's casebook: [He went] "...to see the Books left
by Mr. Hall. After a view of them, she told me she had some Books left, by one
that professed Physick, with her Husband, for some mony. I told her, if I liked
them, I would give her the mony again; she brought them forth, amongst which
there was this with another of the Authors, both intended for the Presse. I being
acquainted with Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them were her
Husband's and shewed them her; she denyed, I affirmed, till I perceived she
begun to be offended. At last I returned her the mony." What do you make of it? “
So my take on this is Doctor Cooke, as he says, goes to the house of Susanna
expecting to view some books of her husband’s. To set up the meeting he would
have to send an inquiry to Susanna Hall. How is this simple act done? Can’t
telephone her and he can’t just show up unannounced. He doesn't mention an
assistant or other go between. He would have to send a letter about setting up an
appointment as people did before the advent of phones when calling on
someone. So who would read this letter if Susanna and presumably Elizabeth, her
daughter are both illiterate? Doctor Cooke shows up to view these books, who
pulled them for him? Again, according to Oxfordians no one in the house is
literate so how would Susanna know what books to give him? Cooke says that
during the visit Susanna notes that there’s a book on Physick he might be
interested in and gets it for Doctor Cooke. How does she know this book is about
Physick? How does she even know what book to pull? They then get into a
disagreement about whether the handwriting in this book belongs to John Hall or
not. How does she know what handwriting is? How does she know enough
about the handwriting to recognize it as her husband’s, even if she may be
mistaken? All of the above could not be achieved if Susanna were illiterate.
You mention wanting to do new research. I have to admit I never knew of the
Doctor Cooke story or the Michael Drayton connection until coming to this thread
so I will agree with you that Oxfordians do provide a valuable service in furthering
Shakespeare research by bringing up what to others might seem like trival bits of
information. However, both of these points hurt the Oxfordian case not help it as
it casts doubt on Susanna’s illiteracy and by association Judith’s illiteracy and
begs the question, what was a London playwright doing visiting a Stratford
based doctor with no mutual connection other than a person who is reputed to
be another playwright working in London.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Dr. Stritmatter's site http://shake-speares-bible.com/
Is anyone else getting the following:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to
handle the request.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Looks like his site is back. Thanks to everyone who was concerned.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Looks like your site hacker had some extra fun. Any chance you
could fix the following essays please:
http://shake-speares-bible.com/2014/04/23/de-facto-names/
254/326
1/22/2015
http://shake-speares-bible.com/2014/04/23/de-facto-names/
knitwitted is the author; not farnsworth
Also, it looks like your hacker removed knitwitted as author from my other four
essays
[Links to essays at http://knitwitted2.rssing.com/chan-10650485/latest.php ]
Thanks again very much for your help! Bestest wishes! knit
Reply · Like ·
Michael L. Hays ·
"Nobody ever recognised Shakespeare as a writer during his lifetime." The writer of this
article is not qualified to write it. He has no background in the relevant documents, not only
their existence, but also their meaning in the context of their times. For example, Francei
Mere's "Palladis Tamia"(1598) is a contemporary document and mentions Shakespeare as a
dramatist of comedies and tragedies. The entire enterprise is another conspiracy theory
impervious to facts--suitable for, and attractive to, those attuned to the nuances of Fox
News tirades and Tea Party tweets. I wish that those who waste their time and everyone
else's with this drivel were competent and content to read his plays.
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann ·
The writer was referring to William of Stratford, not the great author.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 30, 2014 at 5:33am
Michael L. Hays ·
Howard Schumann please clarify. The writer reports that the anti-Stratfordians
believe that there was a Shakespeare of Stratford and someone else in London
who used the same name as a cover. The writer also reports that others like
Shakespearean scholars believe that there was one man who lived and died in
one place and worked in another. So the writer discusses both sets of beliefs by
balancing them as equally credible.
State University
Follow ·
Michael L. Hays
"So the writer discusses both sets of beliefs by balancing them as equally
credible."
This is a methodology I recommend in cases where the evidence is inconclusive
or conflicted. You may wish to try it some day.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Michael L. Hays
"So the writer discusses both sets of beliefs by balancing them as equally
credible."
This is a methodology I recommend in cases where the evidence is inconclusive
or conflicted. You may wish to try it some day.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Michael L. Hays
255/326
1/22/2015
This is posted on behalf of Robert Detobel, a highly perceptive and extremely well
read German Oxfordian, who agrees with me that for your own welfare you need
to put a sock in your own mouth sooner rather than later.
Mister Hays,
May I waste a little more of your precious time? Only a little more, a little more.
After all, your appeal “to put up or shut up was immediately followed by an
invitation: Cite a passage’incomprehensible’ without knowing the ‘correct
author’. There are several passages in Shakespeare that are ‘incomprehensible’
without knowing the ‘correct author’. I’ll limit my answer to two examples, one
from the sonnets and one from a play - just not to have your time squandered for
too long by a ‘conspiracy monger’.
SONNETS
No doubt the poet’s Christian name was “Will” (Sonnet 136). And then there is
the “mountain of evidence” as one participant in this discussion put it; and then,
as another put it , “it is only necessary to examine and accept the direct and
circumstantial evidence” and not to heed “mere coincidences”, even if they pile
up as high as a mountain. “Will” was the highly revered playwright, Will was the
deeply admired poet, Will was the widely recognized author.
See Francis Meres. By the way, did you remark that Meres also mentioned John
Marston’s Pigmalion and Everard Guilpin’s Skialetheia – the latter was probably
not yet published when Meres’s Palladis Tamia was registered – without naming
them? Edmund Spenser published The Shepherd’s Calendar in 1579 under the
pseudonym Immerito; the author of The Arte of English Poesie does name that
work but does not name Spenser by name, not even by pseudonym. Anonymitiy
and pseudonymity were repected.
But back to the sonnets, to Will, your Will shining in the broad daylight of the
age, sitting, visible to the whole world of reasonable men, the whole world
purified from the “drivel” (your term) of “conspiracy mongers” (again your term)
on the mountain of evidence.
How did this same Will perceive himself?
Sonnet 71 “Nay, if you read this line/ remember not the hand that writ it…”;
Sonnet 72: “My name be buried where my body is/And live no more to shame nor
me nor you”; Sonnet 81 “From hence your memory death cannot take/Although
in me each part will be forgotten. Your name from hence immortal life shall have/
Though I, once gone, to all the world must die”… how that? “Buried under a
mountain of evidence” (not your own term this time?).
Are these passages comprehensible if “your Will” is the “correct author”?
THE PLAY?
Where to begin? Touchstone and As You Like it? Some passages in Hamlet?
No, I opt for a passage in Love’s Labour’s Lost (Act I, 2):
Armado: And therefore apt, because quick.
Moth: Speak you this in my praise, master?
Armado: In thy condign praise.
Moth: I will praise an eel with the same praise.
Armado: That an eel is ingenious?
Moth: That an eel is quick.
Armado: I do say thou art quick in answers; thou heat’st my blood.
Moth: I am answered, sir.
Armado: I love not to be crossed.
Mr. Hays, is this absolutely comprehensible to you? It was not so to Richard
David, the editor of the play in the Arden series. It was probably not so to Alfred
Harbage who, in his article “Love’s Labour’s Lost and the Early Shakespeare” in:
Philological Quarterly XLI 1962, p. 23., judged some jokes in the play execably
bad” and “curiously open-ended”. Yet, orthodox scholars have delivered the key
256/326
1/22/2015
to the understanding of the passage, they have failed to use the key for opening
the door. Several scholars – orthodox scholars – have pointed out that the
subplot in LLL echoes the Harvey-Nashe quarrel.
Harvey attacked Dr. Andrew Perne, Dean of Eely, who “crossed” his career and
nicknamed him “Eel of Eely”. Nashe hailed Dr. Perne for the same reason Harvey
detested him. Many exchanges between Armado (Harvey) and Moth (Nashe) are,
in my view, only comprehensible against the background of the Harvey-Nashe
quarrel.
But if we know that the Harvey-Nashe quarrel informed the play and its author do
we know that Shakespeare was not “the correct author”? And if not, who was the
“correct author?”
The Harvey-Nashe quarrel, Ronald B. McKerrow, editor of Nashes’s works, wrote,
was an offshoot of the Oxford-Sydney-tennis court incident in 1579. However,
the root of the quarrel was not this incident, but Harvey’s “Speculum
Tuscanissmi”, his libel on Oxford.
The name Shakespeare nowhere occurs in it. At the centre is the patron of the
Euphiusts, the Earl of Oxford, even according to orthodox scholarship.
Dear Mr. Hays, the present “conspiracy monger” does not want to prey any longer
on your time unless expressly invited to supply more instances.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Michael L. Hays Amazing when you touch that sore spot, how the whole
conspiracy worked, you are instantly drowned in abuse and screeds of Oxfordian
boilerplated nonsense.
Always happens. It does mean you a landing your punches though.
Reply · Like ·
Maynard Mack · Retired teacher, U of M at University of Maryland
Joseph Ciolino put very well a small part of the vast evidence that Shakespeare was
Shakespeare. Snobbery lies behind a lot of the resistance to the facts, that a well educated
but not upper class boy could become a great imaginative writer. Schoenbaum published
most of the evidence in 1975. There is tons of it, including many contemporary references,
but Conspiracy holds an irresistible hold on some minds, so the Deniers will have to be
answered...apparently forever. (Note the sly move to refer to those who know the facts as
"Stratfordians," as if "Shakespeare" (granted, spelled lots of ways as was common then) was
too powerful a name to allow! "Stratfordian," "Oxfordian:" take your pick...if you don't care
about the facts.)
Reply · Like ·
Maynard Mack! My goodness. I had to consult the record to learn that the scholar
of the same name was your father. And, regarding the name of the author under
discussion: It was Tennyson who said of Ulysses, "I am become a name." The
same could be said of the Bard. And, as HE said, "What's in a name?" "Oh, be
some other name." "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The Great
Man was well aware of the 'name' controversy.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 12:00am
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Maynard Mack, there is not "tons of evidence." I've read Schoenbaum, and it's all
conjecture. All of it. And some of it is wrong. Stratfordians are constantly
dragging out that "upstart crow" business, which does not refer to Shakespeare
at all. Two years earlier Greene ranted the same way about Edward Alleyn, "proud
like Aesop's crow, being prank'd with the feathers of others." He wasn't talking
about Shakespeare. He was talking about Edward Alleyn, who DID steal plays
from other theatres, stiff playwrights on their pay sometimes, and had started
257/326
1/22/2015
from other theatres, stiff playwrights on their pay sometimes, and had started
writing his own plays. He was a famous actor/manager who may have owed
Greene money. Greene had no beef against the Stratford man--he'd never even
heard of him.
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 30, 2014 at 1:02am
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler 1598, Francis Meres named Shakespeare as a playwright and
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler 1598, Francis Meres named Shakespeare as a playwright and
Reply · Like ·
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham, very well-spotted. I do not think Meres is referring to the
Stratford man. He first says Oxford is first among those writing under some other
name, and calls him the best for comedy. And then he brings up Shakespeare and
calls HIM the best, and mentions his "sugar'd sonnets among his private friends,"
anticipating knowing giggles from those private friends who possessed, along
with those sugar'd sonnets, knowledge of who the author really was. He had to
mention the author by both names, though he could only name the actual works
258/326
1/22/2015
mention the author by both names, though he could only name the actual works
under Shakespeare's name without insulting the earl he'd just praised.
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler ...I'm just going to leave that rediculous stretching there as
evidence of how weak the Oxfordian case is.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 11:53am
State University
Follow ·
Carol Jean Jennings Thanks for bringing in Juliet's very apt line, "a rose by any
other name would smell as sweet." Shakespeare is obsessed with this theme. I
wonder why that would be? Is it possible that he understood the problem we are
debating/discussing long before we did?
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 9:43pm
Jennifer Burnham Dear Jennifer, how selective, I wonder, is your appeal to the
literal words of texts going to be? (Meres, once you dip a little beneath the
surface, is as ambigous as everything else in this saga.) Besides that, apart from
the King Lear you cite, and Pericles (which is not in the FF) there are no new plays
entered to the Stationers Register from 1604 to the publication of Othello in
1622, and at least sixteen plays are held back during that time, to appear in the
First Folio, we have also, in the Ben Jonson panegyric, a statement about
Shakespeare's contemporaries. On the Stratfordian dating model, they should of
course be Jacobean, contemporary with the period of the Great Tragedies and the
Final Comedies. But what do we read? O dear!!
Elizabethans exclusively:
That I not mix thee so, my brain excuses,
I mean with great, but disproportion'd Muses,
For if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee surely with thy peers,
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line.
Then, again, we have the genesis of Hamlet. About 1600 say the Stratfordians.
But you, with your fidelity to the text, will overrule them. You will, rightly, point to
Nash's reference in the Preface to Greene's Menaphon:
http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Nashe/Preface_Greenes_Menaphon.pdf
where you will quote to us the following:
'yet English Seneca read by candlelight yields many good sentences, as Blood is
a beggar, and so forth, and if you entreat him fair in a frosty morning, he will
afford you whole Hamlets, I should say handfuls, of tragical speeches. But O
grief! Tempus edax rerum, what's that will last always? The sea exhaled by drops
will in continuance be dry, and Seneca, let blood line by line and page by page, at
length must needs die to our stage, which makes his famished followers to
imitate the kid in Aesop, who, enamoured with the fox's newfangles, forsook all
hopes of life to leap into a
new occupation, and these men, renouncing all possibilities of credit or
estimation, to
intermeddle with Italian translations,....'
and so remind us, with Margrethe Jolly
http://www.amazon.com/First-Two-Quartos-Hamlet-Re
lationship/dp/078647887X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie
=UTF8&qid=1420093523&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=the+quart
os+of+Hamlet+%2B+M+Jolly
that Hamlet, in an early form, was extant in 1589 or before. And also, you will
remind us, in a text alluded to in Act V of A Midsummer NIghts Dream, that
Spenser, in the Tears of the Muses (1591), alluded to one who is clearly
Shakespeare, as having ceased writing,
http://www.bartleby.com/153/20.html
'And he, the man whom Nature selfe had made 205
To mock her selfe, and truth to imitate,
259/326
1/22/2015
To mock her selfe, and truth to imitate,
With kindly counter under mimick shade,
Our pleasant Willy, ah! is dead of late:
With whom all joy and jolly meriment
Is also deaded, and in dolour drent. 210
In stead thereof scoffing Scurrilitie,
And scornfull Follie with Contempt is crept,
Rolling in rymes of shameles ribaudrie
Without regard, or due decorum kept;
Each idle wit at will presumes to make, 215
And doth the learneds taske upon him take.
But that same gentle spirit, from whose pen
Large streames of honnie and sweete nectar flowe,
Scorning the boldnes of such base-borne men,
Which dare their follies forth so rashlie throwe, 220
Doth rather choose to sit in idle cell,
Than so himselfe to mockerie to sell.'
But perhaps if all this seems a little overbold, you might reconsider your blithe
invocations of the prima facie meanings of texts, and of names on the quartos of
books and in the Stationers Register and so on. We wouldn't want you to end up
trying to convince us that Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda were written by a
man, would we?
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
'Renowned Spenser, lie a thought more nigh
To learned Chaucer, and rare Beaumont lie
A little nearer Spenser to make room
For Shakespeare in your threefold, fourfold tomb.'
Yah. I suppose William Basse in his eulogy to the pseudonym was just having a joke
suggesting the pseudonym be buried alongside Spenser, Chaucer and Beaumont at
Westminster. Obviously.
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann ·
Obviously he was referring to the great author.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 8:12pm
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Howard Schumann Yes and that author was William Shakespeare of Stratfordupon-Avon. The man who worked with Beaumont's sometime writing partner,
John Fletcher. Fletcher took over as the dramatist for the King's Men and cowrote sections of "All is True" aka "Henry VIII" and "Two Noble Kinsmen" that
came out in 1613 and 1614 respectively. John Fletcher became active in the
London theatre around 1608, 4 years after De Vere died.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 8:24pm
Howard Schumann ·
Jon Ciccarelli Interesting speculation. I assume John Fletcher had much to say
about his fellow collaborator Shakespeare, talking about their relationship in
letters and other correspondence, describing his personality and the extent of
their collaboration.... Oh, wait!
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 30, 2014 at 9:55pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Howard Schumann You mean like all of those letters between de Vere and
Marlowe, Kyd, Jonson, Fletcher, Marston, Beaumont, etc.? Oh, wait....
260/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Howard Schumann No but Ben Johnson did. Jonson published this exert from
his notebook called Timber, or Discoveries
“De Shakespeare nostrat. I remember, the Players have often mentioned it as an
honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing, (whatsoever he penn'd) hee never
blotted out line. My answer hath beene, would he had blotted a thousand. Which
they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their
ignorance, who choose that circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he
most faulted. And to justifie mine owne candor, (for I lov'd the man, and doe
honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any.) Hee was (indeed)
honest, and of an open, and free nature: had an excellent Phantsie; brave notions,
and gentle expressions: wherein hee flow'd with that facility, that sometime it was
necessary he should be stop'd: Sufflaminandus erat; as Augustus said of
Haterius. His wit was in his owne power; would the rule of it had beene so too.
Many times hee fell into those things, could not escape laughter: As when hee
said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him; Cæsar thou dost me wrong.
Hee replyed: Cæsar did never wrong, but with just cause: and such like; which
were ridiculous. But hee redeemed his vices, with his vertues. There was ever
more in him to be praysed, then to be pardoned.”
He referred to William Shakespeare as a plawright working with actors and one
that he admired although not always, crazy huh?
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 10:34pm
Howard Schumann ·
Mark Johnson I guess you forgot that Oxford was making sure to hide his
identity. Letters to other playwrights would not have served his best interests for
sure.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 31, 2014 at 2:43am
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli, that Shakespeare collaborated with Beaumont or Fletcher or
Middleton or Wilkins, is speculation based on certain assumptions. It is far more
likely that those "collaborators" made revisions to some of his plays, or finished
unfinished plays, after his death in 1604. If he were dead, that would explain why
he was described as "ever-living" in 1609. You can only be "ever-living" after
you're dead. Chaucer, also dead, was the only other poet to be described in those
terms. It would also explain why he sat on 9 of his best plays until 1623--Shaksper of Stratford would have gotten those plays out and gotten his money!
But if he were dead at the time it would explain his lack of interest in publishing.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 2:51am
Howard Schumann ·
Jon Ciccarelli Strange behavior for someone who had nothing good to say about
Shakespeare when he was alive, satirizing his coat of arms with the clown
Sogliardo in Every Man In His Humor and writing about an unscrupulous play
broker who claimed other people's plays as his own, calling him the Poet-Ape.
In his Epigrammes dedicated to the Earl of Pembroke, which he had published in
1616, there was not a word of commemoration of the recently deceased
Shakespeare from his near-idolatrous lover, though he addressed verses to
Sidney, Beaumont, and Donne. He did, however, salute "one that desired me not
to name him." Very interesting.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 31, 2014 at 2:57am
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli Thanks for bringing Jonson into the picture. What I find most
261/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli Thanks for bringing Jonson into the picture. What I find most
interesting about this quotation from Discoveries is that in it Jonson is referring
to a passage from the first folio dedications, "signed" by the players Heminges
and Condell, of which he himself is most probably the real author. I am not
entirely certain what to make of this, but one may infer from this that those who
take Jonson's testimony at face value are making a big mistake. But you are
correct to indicate that his testimony in the case is quite critical, and has been
recognized as such by anti-Stratfordians and Oxfordians for nearly a hundred
years now.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Howard Schumann I guess you can speculate anything you like out of thin air but
that doesn't turn your speculations into fact. How convenient it is for you as an
Oxfordian to invoke the deus ex machina of a conspiratorial effort to hide the
"true" author's name whenever you butt up against your double standard. And, at
the same time, we are supposed to b elieve that even though Oxford was taking
every effort to hide his name, it was an open secret and everybody and his brother
was dropping clues in literary works of the time.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Howard Schumann Just because you, and others, speculate that Jonson's *PoetApe" refers to Shakespeare does not make it a fact that it does so. Again, your
double standards are evidenced here. Oxfordians criticize Stratfordians for
turning speculation into fact [and rightly so in some instances] and yet engage in
the very same behavior themselves with no hesitation whatsoever.
As to Solgliardo, the armorial emblem as described in the play doesn't resemble
the one granted to John Shakespeare but it is very similar to that of the Burbage
family.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler Why should anyone accept yopur speculations as being "far
more likely" than conclusions that are actually based on evidence. As for your
claim that someone could only be described as "ever-living" after they had died,
then Queen Elizabeth must have died twice -- since she was described as "everliving [by Covell] while she was still alive.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph, so why, given that Beaumont died BEFORE the Stratford man, does
Basse go on (my emphases of course)?
If your PRECEDENCY in death doth bar
A fourth place in your sacred sepulcher,
Under this carved marble of thine own
Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,
Thy unmolested peace, unshared cave,
Possess as lord not tenant of thy grave,
That unto us and others it may be
Honor hereafter to be laid by thee.
Why does he envisage him as having to be ALONE in his grave, due to his
PRECENDENCY in death? and it is interesting that he refers to him as LORD of
his grave.
Of course all these allusions are arguable. But there are at least SIX allusions
which imply that the author was either dead before 1609 or before he had time to
revise his own work. The most famous is of course the 'ever-living poet' in the
dedication to the Sonnets.
Reply · Like ·
262/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann , this also squares very well with the portrait described in the
plays themselves. Every single time a character named "William" or "Williams"
appears in the works, the playwright himself is speaking directly to the issues of
authorship; who he is IN RELATION to the historical man Shaxper. A young man
from the country with a small degree of schooling who's getting in the way of
things, and if he's not careful, is going to get himself hurt or worse. It's ALL in the
plays ladies and gents. I'm proud to say I've read every word of the Shakespeare
canon at least once, and many of the plays nearly a dozen times, and it doesn't
look good for Mr. Shaxper from Stratford. PLEASE bear in mind, I'm from
Homeland California- yes, look it up on a map, it's a tiny nothing of a town, and I
was raised by a retired aerospace physicist, a very brilliant man with a large
library. I went to San Diego State University, and obtained a degree in Philosophy
with a minor in film. I've written a few plays, I've been writing poems since I was
eight. NOBODY FROM STRATFORD WROTE THE WORKS OF SHAKE-SPEARE. I
stake my life on it! Christopher Marlowe and Shakespeare sound like they came
from the same fraternity, use some similar phrases. Dat shit ain't country- ya
feelin me homie?
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
He couldn't be buried together with them because they are not buried together.As
you ought to know by now. Stop trolling the readership, Jon
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Parris Roger you just get funnier and funnier. "They are not buried
together." You could do stand-up with this kind of material.
Tom Reedy ·
Heward Wilkinson Good God, man, read the poem. Who is the referent of "your"
in "If YOUR precedency in death doth bar/A fourth place in YOUR sacred
sepulcher"?
Michael Glenister ·
Top Commenter · Works at Surrey School board
"Even in the States, you probably wouldn’t find 17% of biology professors doubting
evolutionary theory."
Hardly a valid comparison considering evolutionary theory is a scientific theory with current
evidence you can check and examine, and 150 years of evidence to support it.
Since you are implying a religious motive in that statement, there is much more evidence that
Shakespeare existed than Jesus. So comparing the number of biblical scholars who doubt
Jesus's existence would be more appropriate.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
There is no question that William Shakspere of Stratford existed. No one except
Newsweeks' headline writer doubts this. That is not the real issue.
Reply · Like ·
12 · December 29, 2014 at 11:17pm
263/326
1/22/2015
Jesus wrote Shakespeare?
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
One of the misleading arguments that the Stratfordian loyalists try to foist off on
the public is the idea that we, the Doubters, don't think the Stratford man existed.
OF COURSE he "existed"! He was a rich man living in a mansion house, having
accumulated a fine fortune in money lending and grain dealing. His Last Will and
Testament corroborates his wealth as a successful businessman. But the
complete absence of anything that gives even an inkling that this individual led a
literary or cultured life is not to be found. It's all the more serious a problem when
considered in the context of his wealth.
Reply · Like ·
16 · December 30, 2014 at 2:37am
State University
Follow ·
Bonner Cutting -- to which one must add the complete or partial illiteracy of his
children and parents, the absence of books, letters, or other documents. This
problem with the documentary record is only compounded by the notorious
inability of orthodox scholars to provide a shred of plausible psychological
linkage between the man and his alleged oeuvre, a failure that most recently led
James Shapiro to endorse the fantastic and incorrect notion that Elizabethan
writers had not yet "discovered" the idea of any connection between life and art.
As is becoming increasingly clear, even many of Shapiro's orthodox colleagues
know that this idea is a desperate expedient to save a dying paradigm.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 30, 2014 at 2:41am
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter: Yes, orthodox academia is caught in a struggle with a Gordian
knot. The more they try to explain the problems away, the more outrageous their
explanations become.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
7 · December 30, 2014 at 2:50am
Roger Stritmatter What exactly is partial illiteracy?
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli A revealing question. Literacy is, of course, not just one thing. For
example, many people who have "learned to read" can only read at about a 7th
grade level. They are partially literate. This seems like it should be reasonably
obvious and need not engender controversy.
In this instance, I employed that terminology to reflect the fact that Susanna Hall,
Mr. Shakspere's daughter, could write her own name. Whether she was more
literate than that or whether, like her sister Judith, who used a mark for a
signature, and her grandparents, could not read, we don't know. S
he was *partially* literate -- and that is being very generous to the evidence, since
there's no evidence that the house in which she grew up ever contained any
books, and the vast majority of her Stratford townspeople were definitely not
literate in any meaningful sense.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter So by your example students who read on a 7th grade level or
lower are partially literate. Why 7th grade and why not some other grade? What is
the Elizabethan equivalent since the grade structure we use today wasn't used
264/326
1/22/2015
the Elizabethan equivalent since the grade structure we use today wasn't used
then. When does one become fully literate and who establishes this criteria? Has
the criteria changed since Elizabethan/Jacobean times and who established it
then? The Doctor Cooke episode which your Oxfordian colleague Ann Zakel
provided me based on Diana Price's list would indicate that she could discern the
content of medical books so that would indicate a good level of comprehension.
Apparently her own house contained books that were sought by another medical
professional that she was able to provide him. What proof do you have the "vast
majority" of Stratford's townspeople were illiterate and what does this have to do
with a single family in that town?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli "The last Will and Testament nuncupative of John Hall of Stratfordupon-Avon in the county of Warwick, Gent. made and declared the five and
twentieth of November, 1635. ... Item, concerning my study of books, I leave
them, said he, to you, my son Nash, to dispose of them as you see good. As for
my manuscripts, I would have given them to Mr. Boles, if he had been here; but
forasmuch, as he is not here present, you may, son Nash, burn them, or do with
them what you please. ..."
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Knit Twain Thanks Knit. That sounds like quite a library to have to comb through
to find books not once but twice. How exactly does Susanna do this and debate
with a doctor over her husband's handwriting if she can't read?
Barbara Hobens ·
Follow ·
Historic Garden Design
Top Commenter · Speaker, Consultant, Designer at Holistic &
The tourism dollar in one British town is the only negative in getting the TRUTH out to the
public in this matter. Thank you, Newsweek. Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford clearly
had the education, was part of the court, traveled to Italy, and expereinced all he wrote about
in the canon and sonnets. I am an Oxfordian.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
I've got a bridge you might like. It connects Manhattan and Brooklyn! You could
make a fortune!
Reply · Like ·
8 · December 29, 2014 at 4:31pm
Barbara Hobens ·
Follow · Top Commenter · Speaker, Consultant, Designer
at Holistic & Historic Garden Design
Joseph Ciolino you must be a high school student to come up with that trite
"response." I have been there...to the little school house where it is not even on
record that Will attended at all. And that statue where the man who was a grain
salesman and part owner of The Globe was buried? That is a laugh - - the sack of
grain that his hands once rested on was changed to a writing desk! LOL Please
look up my name along with the true author's name and maybe open up to the
truth. Edward de Vere is the author!
Reply · Like ·
24 · December 29, 2014 at 5:42pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Barbara Hobens Come on, Barbara!! That "Brooklyn Bridge" joke is a classic and
you never mess with a classic! Like Shakespeare! There is no evidence that
Shakespeare attended that school. Hmmmm. . . suspicious. . . . NOT. There is no
evidence that anyone attended that school There are no records of the period.
265/326
1/22/2015
Why do you leave this fact out?
It is widely accepted that Ben Jonson attended Oxford. Proof? NONE. Only
reference to a teacher of his in a third party letter. Please. You anti-Strats have no
real scholarly rigor to fall back on.
There is a multitude of evidence (not that any should be needed by any clear
thinking person) that Shakespeare of Avon, was Shakespeare the author, and that
he wrote his plays.
And Barbara, I too, have been to Stratford several times. What does that prove?
Good lord. . .
Reply · Like ·
Jenny Caneen-Raja ·
Top Commenter · Florida State University
Barbara Hobens The King's New School of Stratford-upon-Avon didn't keep
records of the boys who attended it. Much of anti-Statfordian debate rests on
ignorance of 16th/early 17th century culture.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 29, 2014 at 7:47pm
Barry Everett ·
Follow · Bozo at Self-Employed
"'Many women have done noble work, but you have surpassed them all!"
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 29, 2014 at 7:48pm
Hannah Stewart ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter
The dollar won't get you very far in Britain. Besides that, if De Vere "had the
education", then he would have known that Milan was landlocked (especially
seeing as he spent two years there) and not a "sea port town" (as William
Shakespeare described it).
Also, if De Vere really was Shakespeare, he carried on writing plays long after his
own death in 1603. One of them, MacBeth, even references the Gunpowder Plot
of 1604.
There is no evidence extant that Shakespeare attended a particular school, but
that doesn't mean it never existed. No records were kept, strangely enough, of
boys attending school five centuries ago. Municipal records covered only births,
marriages and deaths.
The "Oxfordians" really haven't a leg to stand on.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 29, 2014 at 10:37pm
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino And the point of your cynicism is what, exactly?
Jonson received honorary degrees from both Universities; pointing out that he
never "attended" is the type of half truth that orthodox apologists require to
continue to fob of their illusions on the unknowing public.
"There is a multitude of evidence (not that any should be needed by any clear
thinking person) that Shakespeare of Avon, was Shakespeare the author, and that
he wrote his plays."
Aside from the poor grammar of your sentence (which confuses number and
quantity), perhaps you could enlighten us as to what some of this evidence is, so
that we can test your proposition that any "clear thinking person" will accept it as
proof of the orthodox claim.
I think you would be surprised by the results of an honest and informed
conversation testing this proposition.
266/326
1/22/2015
conversation testing this proposition.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Hannah Stewart Orthodox dating of Macbeth hinges on a totally bogus nexus
between the Gunpowder Plot and the use of the term "equivocation." During their
trials, both Campion (1581) & Southwell (1595) used "equivocation," a Jesuit
tactic taught and promulgated for decades. Garnet's tips to fellow Jesuits ("wayes
how to conceal a trewth without makinge of a lye") pre-date the Gunpowder Plot.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jenny Caneen-Raja And ignorance of the 16th, 17th century culture includes
this, from your fellow Stratfordian, Jennifer Burnham: "And as Joseph points out,
books were available on a wide variety of topics, from falconry to swordfighting
to warfare to Bede's history of England (amoung many others such as Historia
Regum Britanniae), More's Utopia to The Prince, which had been translated by
Henry VIII's time, all of which Shakespeare could have either aquired or borrowed
from friends and patrons."
This. Is. Laughable.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 29, 2014 at 11:33pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter I think I wouldn't. I've had YEARS of this ridiculous debate and,
honestly and sincerely, it just gets more and more absurd, now with Marlovians
becoming absolutely convinced that it was their man who wrote the plays, while
the Oxfordians have no doubt, and the Baconians, look out, and stylometrists
LOVE Sir Walter Raleigh! Or was it Bacon? No, Marlowe. . .
Please.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 29, 2014 at 11:38pm
State University
Follow ·
Hannah Stewart Milan was not landlocked. It was connected to other city states
through a network of canals, as anyone who has studied the history of this topic
knows. Stop peddling false information. Here is the reference:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Shakespeare-Guide-ItalyRetracing/dp/0062074261
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino
Hi Joseph, I'm sorry that I am not able to readily discern which of my posts you
are responding to when you write "I think I wouldn't." Discus does not nest
comments very well, which is not your fault, obviously, but in any case the point
of your remark is lost in the tussle.
Did you mean that you will not offer any evidence? As I review the exchange, that
seems to be what you are saying, and that is quite a remarkable position. I take it,
then, that for you the orthodox position is "self-evident" and requires no
justification. No wonder you must rely so heavily on various forms of
presumption, ad hominem, and other logical fallacies.
Let me, however, address your next point. You write that " I've had YEARS of this
ridiculous debate and, honestly and sincerely, it just gets more and more
absurd..."
267/326
1/22/2015
absurd..."
Please, by all means, if the debate is, as you claim here, "ridiculous," then why are
you wasting your time? What is it to you? Is it your job to rid the world of
"ridiculous" debates?
As for your muddying the water with Bacon and Marlowe, that is proof positive
that despite all your years of debating, you have learned very little. Perhaps that
explains while you still find yourself mired down in the contradiction that you go
on and on debating something that is "ridiculous." Good luck with that.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj Interesting that no one has mentioned the Tempest yet, huh? That has
been for decades the killer argument from orthodox scholars. I guess that is
changing and they must move on to new ad hoc arguments.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Oh, I was waiting for the third book of the trilogy... Usually, it's
landlocked Bohemia (in this case, Milan), the Gunpowder Plot and 1604. Alas.....
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 30, 2014 at 1:42am
Gerowen Arnoyed
Hannah Stewart - Regarding Milan's "sea port" .. please read Richard Paul Roe's
scholarly logic and insight, to update your lack of information ...
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Shakespeare-Guide-ItalyRetracing/dp/0062074261"
While many post-stratfordians have differing views on who wrote the
Shakespeare Canon, all of them / us agree that the man from Stratford clearly
could not have written works that show deep and intimate knowledge of Italy,
multiple languages, Greek and Roman authors and works, royal court workings
and procedures, aristocratic points of view ... It is NOT a matter of snobbery, it's
purely education and experience ... The Shakespeare Canon shows a real,
fascinating and flawed personality, not a bunch of meaningless jobs-of-work by a
guy who heard stuff from sailors in the Mermaid Tavern ... puh-lease!!! ?:^{>
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter You do realize that you all arguing over what island was the
island of the Tempest was "really" is like watching people argue wether Dune was
set in the Sahara or the Gobi Desert? Or Cairo or Beijing since you keep trying to
put in populated areas, unlike the *imaginary* island.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 1:55pm
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Yes Ann! Thank you for pointing out to Hannah Stewart et al. that equivocation
had been around long before the date that orthodoxy assigns to Macbeth -- BTW
a date based on a combination of orthodox ignorance and wishful thinking. The
doctrine of equivocation was crucial to the survival of the Jesuit missionaries
who came to England in the 1580s.
Reply · Like ·
6 · December 30, 2014 at 3:16pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Uh, yes. . . um, yes, it's my job. That's it. Yes. . . But instead of
questioning my motivation why not address the issues? Oops! Are you an
Oxfordian? I've asked a stupid question!
268/326
1/22/2015
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham The island setting of The Tempest (Bermuda or the
Mediterranean) is all-important in determining the date of the writing of the play.
If based on the 1611 document, it's another false assumption for the
Stratfordians, who use it as insurmountable proof that de Vere (who died in 1604)
could not have written it. But we know better, thanks to Roger and Lynne's book
On the Date, Sources and Design of Shakespeare's The Tempest.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 6:00pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
If you think that the "dating of Macbeth hinges on a totally bogus nexus between
the Gunpowder Plot and the use of the term 'equivocation'," then you don't know
what you are talking about. There is much more in the play than that particular
allusion which serves to date the play, and it doesn't "hinge" on equivocation at
all. Try reading *Witches & Jesuits* by Garry Wills, and *The Royal Play of
Macbeth* by Henry N. Paul, both of which address textual evidence in the play
which support a date of composition after your Lord was dead.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 6:21pm
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson I am familiar with the Wills book, but seem to recall that he did give
much attention to the Jesuit equivocation ploy. I did not buy the book, so I have
no reference at hand. I will have to look up the book by Paul. As for "textual
evidence," can you give me just one example. No problem if you're too busy...
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 6:53pm
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Oooo... The Royal Play of Macbeth is free online.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
A "sack of grain that his hands once rested on was changed to a writing desk!"
Really? Can you substantiate this claim with anything even remotely similar to
evidence. In the meantime, you might want to read the arguments of Diana Price
and Peter Farey debunking your argument that the monument was altered.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 7:07pm
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Mark, I understand you're noted for your futile attempts to
bamboozle, so here's a link to the before and after images:
http://www.der-wahre-shakespeare.com/uploads/2/1/2/6/
21266276/5790357.jpg?436
And before you question the accuracy of the first depiction, here's some evidence
for Dugdale's Warwickshire: "Its scrupulous accuracy united with stubborn
integrity has elevated Dugdale's Warwickshire to the rank of legal evidence."
~ Richard Gough (21 October 1735 – 20 February 1809) English antiquarian
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann: Why don't you actually read the articles instead of just linking to some
images [which are dealt with in the articles I mentioned, both of which are online
for your perusal]. There is no bamboozling at all, and, if you actually read the
articles cited with an open mind, you might just realize that one of your cherished
myths is untrue. [You should make sure to read the comments to the Farey
article].
Reply · Like ·
269/326
1/22/2015
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson VERY interesting. You/they may have a point there. However...
How do you explain the morphing of the spade into an arrow (?). Did I miss that
explanation? Also, Farey keeps insisting that there was no account of the
restoration, yet Sir Brian Vickers refers to "well-documented records" concerning
the need for repair of the monument.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 1:13am
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Restoration is not the same thing as alteration. If I remember correctly,
if you read the comments to the Farey article you will find a link to the records
regarding the restoration. Dugdale's private written notes identify the monument
as being that of William Shakespeare the famous author...that's as it existed
before any restoration.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 3:43pm
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Jenny Caneen-Raja: You're repeating here the often-repeated mantra that the
Stratford Grammar School kept no records (or the records are lost) -- depending
on your Stratfordian source. Even so, there's more than one way to skin a cat!
Why did no teachers from the Stratford School note, then or later, that they had
taught a remarkable student? Did 4 teachers just lose track of this "most
brilliantly talented young man in England"? For example, Ben Jonson remained a
close friend of William Camden long after he left the Westminster School where
Camden was the headmaster. The Stratford School had 4 headmasters in the
time frame that young Will might have attended -- assuming he did. All four
teachers lived well into the time that Will was supposedly a best selling writer of
narrative poetry. Yet not one of these teachers ever wrote a letter to anyone, or
made a statement of any kind that they so much as knew this individual. Nor was
Shaksper (or his supposed accomplishments) noticed by any classmate that he
might have had. Nor did Mr. Shaksper give so much of a shilling to the Stratford
Grammar School, the school where he (again supposedly) obtained the education
that enabled him to write so brilliantly (if the attribution of authorship were true).
Reply · Like ·
10 · December 31, 2014 at 6:10pm
Robert Loughlin · University of Miami
Joseph Ciolino
You are correct in saying that going to Stratford proves nothing--Will is a
phantom in his home town.--There is nothing original in his reconstructed
house--it's just a tourist trap.
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 31, 2014 at 6:39pm
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj Interesting how the arguments change but we are never let in on the
secret of why, huh?
This is of course called the ad hoc argument, and it is something orthodox
Shakespeareans specialize in. Don't mention the Tempest - that only calls
attention to the fact that decades of echo chamber scholarship have been
completely falsified by independent inquiry...and by...God forbid, the Oxfordians.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Robert Loughlin I guess that proves that de Vere wrote Shakespeare. How
childish.
270/326
1/22/2015
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Are you omniscient? How do you KNOW that these statements
you make are facts. In fact, the most that you can say is that no such evidence
has survived, but, being an Oxfordian, you treat your speculations as if they are
facts.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Hope you enjoy it...although it is a bit dry...and do read Wills' book if
you get a chance.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson If I ever wean myself away from this forum, I might... Thanks for the
tip.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson The problem with the Stratfordian case is the CONSISTENT lack
of evidence to support the traditional attribution of authorship. That the Stratford
man left NOTHING in his Last Will and Testament to the Stratford Grammar
School is a staggering absence -- as serious as the absence of books or other
cultural items. Rutgers University anthropologist Dr. Robin Fox points out that
successful citizens often made bequests to schools. According to Dr. Fox, this
was something well nigh mandated for a "local boy made good." Yet
"Shakespeare" left nothing to the school where he (supposedly) obtained the
education that enabled him to write works of high erudition. And perhaps
somewhere in the 18 lines that he devotes to a bland recitation of future
generations of his family, might he have given a thought to the school where his
descendants would be educated?
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Bonner Cutting In other words, people of Elizabethan England, all behaved
PRECISELY the way WE DO, and the way we EXPECT them to, and they all kept
scrupulous track of all their students and made continual comments upon them
just like WE do, and WE should always judge history from the perspective of how
WE view the world and OUR belief system. Wow, what balls.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting & Ann Zakelj, Great points. I would like to add- does this sound
like a poem that a master of Ovid, and all great writers of antiquity would leave on
his tomb?
"Good friend, for Jesus' sake forebeare
To digg the dust enclosed heare;
Bleste be the man that spares thes stones,
And curst be he that moves my bones"
Such an odd wish from a writer who so longed for his life and work to be
rememberedThis does not match the sentiment of the author of the plays.
PROSPERO
Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have’s mine own,
271/326
1/22/2015
And what strength I have’s mine own,
Which is most faint. Now, ’tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardoned the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell,
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
Clearly this is a different person.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Jacob Maguire And how exactly do you know for a fact that Will Shakespeare
wrote those lines? This is simply more speculation paraded as fact...something I
thought was a cardinal, if not mortal, sin according to Oxfordians.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting It amuses me to read Oxfordians who complain about the
absence of evidence for the Stratfordian case, while simultaneously ignoring the
total lack of such evidence for their Lord. The fact is that direct and circumstantial
evidence exists in the historical record which establishes a prima facie case for
the traditional claim to authorship authorship. You don't have anything even
remotely similar for your theory, nor do your alleged gaps and appeals to
presentist notions serve to rebut the prima facie case. Not giving a bequest to his
grammar school doesn't even qualify as circumstantial evidence to show that he
wasn't the author.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson It is natural for someone to assume that the epitaph was indeed
written by Shakspeare. It's in the first person, is it not? And why all the fuss
about the curse if readers didn't believe it was put on potential perpetrators by
the Bard himself? Doggerel such as this was boilerplate. Certainly it wasn't
written by the same person who wrote the canon. I see the real question as this:
Why would the greatest writer in the English language permit such crude poetry
to be used as his epitaph? (And spare me the RIP ex post facto...) Just one of
many incongruities relative to the Stratford man.
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mark, Joseph Do not consider this a response to your ugly ad hominem attacks.
This is informational to those reading this posting who are fair minded and
interested in evaluating facts. In my study of the Stratford man's Last Will and
Testament, I read through several thousand early English wills as well as many
books in a university library on wills, will-making, and probate in early modern
England. My goal was to develop an understanding of life in the 16th and early
17th centuries. Wills are regularly studied by cultural historians for this purpose,
and early English wills often reveal what the testators were thinking and feeling
along with their bequests of the possessions that were precious to them. Many
testators made the connection between education and a better quality of life.
272/326
1/22/2015
Ordinary people, possibly illiterate themselves, left money for the education of
minor children -- their own relatives or children in the community. Bequests for
education came in many ways: for local schools, universities, scholarships to
"poor scholars", money to buy books, and annuities to pay teachers. That there is
nothing like this in the Stratford man's will is another serious absence, especially
considering his wealth.
Reply · Like ·
Robert Loughlin · University of Miami
Joseph Ciolino
Let's see now--I posted facts which you were unable to rebut-so you resort to
name-calling. This is apparently the way those who support the poacher from
Stratford operate.
Reply · Like ·
Hannah Stewart ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Canals and the sea are two totally different things. Milan is
nowhere near the sea and is in no way, shape or form, a sea port town as
described by William Shakespeare. My Source:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Milan,+Italy/@45.5536818,9.054651,10z/
data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4786c1493f1275e7:0x3cffcd13c6740e8d
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj I try to avoid assumptions, as, too often, assumptions are allowed to
magically transform into facts. As for poetry that "wasn't written by the same man
who wrote the canon" I would suggest that you read the work of Steven W. May,
the professor and author of *The Elizabethan Courtier Poets*, who began his
study of Oxford's poetry hoping [his word] that he "might find some connection
between De Vere's work and the writings, any writing, of William Shakespeare,"
but "discovered instead a gulf between the two poets' styles that rules out any
direct ties between their output." [He has an excellent article on the subject in the
Tennessee Law Review; Vol. 72, No. 1; Fall 2004.]
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting I have not made any "ugly ad hominem attack" on your
arguments? I have merely pointed out that Shakespeare not giving a bequest to
his grammar school doesn't even qualify as circumstantial evidence to show that
he wasn't the author. There are possibilities too numerous to count for why
Shakespeare might not have given money to the school. All you are doing is
indulging in speculation in contending that the lack of such a bequest reflects
negatively on WS and therefore, somehow, means he couldn't have been the
author. Could you set forth the steps in your logical process whereby you get
from a premise of "no bequest to the school" to the conclusion that
"Shakespeare wasn't the author"? I have also pointed out that you don't have any
evidence, direct or circumstantial, to rebut the actual evidence which establishes
a prima facie case for the attribution of the Shakespeare works to William
Shakespeare of Stratford. Would you care to list three pieces of direct or
circumstantial evidence which you contend support the claim that Oxford was
Shakespeare?
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Hannah Stewart I do agree, as would everyone here, that canals and the sea are
different, but unfortunately, your Google map of present-day Milan does nothing
to corroborate (what I infer is) your claim that Milan is landlocked. Here's a map of
17th century Milan showing its canal system: http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/0/07/Braun_Milano_HAAB.jpg
273/326
1/22/2015
wikipedia/commons/0/07/Braun_Milano_HAAB.jpg
It was, in fact, possible to sail to Milan from points east (like Verona) via the Po
and Adige Rivers, making Milan "one of Italy's principle maritime ports,"
according to Richard Roe. In his book The Shakespeare Guide to Italy, he dissects
the various nautical terms used by Shakespeare, drilling down to their original
meaning and usage. He makes a strong case, debunking the claims of those who
still believe that Shakespeare "didn't get Italy right."
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson IF the records of your Stratford man's life provided any evidence of
an education or interest in the education of others, then the lack of any bequests
for education in his Last Will and Testament might be shrugged off. But as far as
the record shows, he fails to provide for the education of others. Even his two
daughters were unable to write their names: Susanna's signature is poorly formed
and Judith's is an embarrassing "pig's tail" mark. In the thousands of wills that
I've read through, it is ubiquitous to see testators note that legacies for minor
children are to be used "for their education." The Stratford man leaves legacies to
FIVE minor children without the word "education" anywhere in sight! How
difficult would it have been for him to fit in these three little words? It's another
indication that something is wrong with the Stratford story.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Sorry, no, it is mere speculation on your part. We know absolutely nothing about
Shakespeare's condition at the time his will was composed or under what
circumstances it was written. We can all speculate as to why he did or didn't do
certain things in his will but that does nothing to rebut the case for his
authorship of the works or even cast doubt on the attribution.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson If that's your contention, then an admonishment is warranted to
those Strats who continually bring up the conveniently lost inventory of books
that must have been appended to Shakspere's will.
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
A couple of quibbles. The will itself states that an inventory was attached, and it
was common practice to do so, so I don't think it unreasonable to think that it
once existed. I also don't think it was "conveniently" lost. I would agree that
nobody should use the inventory to claim that WS owned books. On the other
hand, I don't think anybody should use the will to claim as fact that WS did not
own any books.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Please forward that to Stanley Wells.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham
"Roger Stritmatter You do realize that you all arguing over what island was the
island of the Tempest was "really" is like watching people argue wether Dune was
set in the Sahara or the Gobi Desert? Or Cairo or Beijing since you keep trying to
put in populated areas, unlike the *imaginary* island."
274/326
1/22/2015
Huh? That came out of left field.
Where was I arguing that? Are you referring to the book written by Lynne
Kositsky and I? If so, can ask if you have actually read the book, or are you just,
as it were "winging it?"
http://www.amazon.com/Date-Sources-Design-Shakespeares-Tempest/dp/
0786471042/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420333007&sr=1-1
Reply · Like ·
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
No Mr. Ciolino, Your comment that I must think that Elizabethans "behave the
way we do" misrepresents my comment. I don't see how you could fairly get this
from my comment referencing Dr. Robin Fox' excellent article on the Stratford
Grammar School. People in early modern England behaved the way THEY
behaved. The DNB provides many accounts of notable citizens (the "local boys
made good") who gave financial support to their home town school. In my study
of 3,000 early English wills, I found that many ordinary citizens supported
education too. Again, the Stratford man strikes out.
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Robert Loughlin I'm sorry, Mr. Loughlin, I do not see your posting of facts. Can
you be so kind as to direct me to it? Thanks.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Bonner Cutting Ah, ha, yes, that proves De Vere wrote Shakespeare. What
silliness.
Maybe Shakespeare was not an, "ordinary citizen." Maybe he hated his school.
Maybe he was a cheap bastard. Maybe, he spent all of his money on prostitutes. I
don't know. And neither do you. Neither do you know that he never contributed
anything to his school. In short, you, or anyone else, know nothing with factual
certainty on this issue. Actually, evidence that he did indeed make contributions
to his alma mater would prove nothing toward the authorship issue, and the lack
of evidence that he gave, likewise, is irrelevant. Particularly by the standards of
evidence used by Anti-Stratfordians.
Bonner Cutting ·
Top Commenter
Mr. Ciolino. You're getting a bit far afield here with your "maybes". It's a fact that
the Stratford man gave over 350 pounds in cash legacies in his Last Will and
Testament -- conservatively over a quarter of a million dollars in today's money.
Many of these bequests are to be paid "in gold," another indication of his wealth.
If the Stratford man gave anything to the Stratford Grammar School, no one
made a note of it. This absence is consistent with the lack of hard evidence that
he himself had an education.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting re Your continual ding on Will of Stratford's last will and
testament...
Bequests made in the 2nd surviving last will and testament of John de Vere, 28
July 1562:
£10 to the poor
£10 for highway repairs
275/326
1/22/2015
£10 for highway repairs
£50 divided among 18 poor boxes
John de Vere did not make any provision for the education of his two minor
children, Edward and Mary. Nor did he leave any books.
Ms. Cutting. Based on your analysis of the generosity of willmakers in early
England, how do you explain this crudmudgeon of a person? Per your study of
early English willmakers, wouldn't John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, be just
another illiterate bumpkin?
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Bonner Cutting Ms. Cutting. As an aside, have you ever come across the
following language in your study of 3,000 early English wills?
Elizabeth Trentham's last will and testament dated 25 Nov 1612:
http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-121_ff_74-75.pdf
"Item, I give and bequeath unto my said son Henry, Earl of Oxenford, the said ...
to have and to hold the same unto my said son for and during the term of his
natural life without impeachment of or for any manner of waste;
"And from and after his decease, then to the first son of the body of my said son
lawfully to be begotten, and to the heirs males of the body of the same first son
lawfully begotten;
"And for default of such issue, then to the second son of the body of my said son
lawfully to be begotten, and to the heirs males of the body of the said second son
lawfully to be begotten;
"And for default of such issue, then to every other son of the body of my said son
lawfully to be begotten successively one after another as they shall be in seniority
and priority of age, and to the heirs males of the body of every such son lawfully
to be begotten successively and respectively one after another in manner and
form aforesaid;
"And for default of such issue, then to the heirs of the body of the first son of the
body of my said son Henry, Earl of Oxenford, lawfully to be begotten;
"And for default of such issue then to the heirs of the body of all and every other
of the said sons of the body of my said son Henry, Earl of Oxenford, lawfully to
be begotten severally and successively, one after another, in form aforesaid;
"And for default of such issue, then to all and every the daughters of the body of
my said son lawfully to be begotten, and to the heirs of the bodies of the same
daughters lawfully to be begotten;
"And for want of such issue, then to my said brother Francis Trentham and unto
his heirs forever, ..."
====
Didn't you write the following in your essay "Shakespeare’s Will..... Considered
Too Curiously" *Brief Chronicles*, (2009): 179 re Shakespeare's usage of such
legalese :
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/
Cutting.Sh_.s-Will.pdf
"Instead, his thoughts turned to Susanna, and the next twelve lines are devoted
to a monotonous recital plodding through seven “heirs male of her body lawfully
issuing.”
"In the spring of 1616, Susanna was 32 years old, and her only child, Elizabeth
Hall, was eight. With her biological clock ticking, the prospect of the desired male
heir or heirs was becoming less of a physiological possibility. It begs the
question: Where in the world are these seven “heirs male” supposed to come
276/326
1/22/2015
question: Where in the world are these seven “heirs male” supposed to come
from? It is a strange litany to find in a will when all of the heirs thus enumerated
are yet to be born. ... It takes six more lines for Mr. Shackspeare to direct “the
premises,” on “default of such issue,” to the heirs of his granddaughter and lastly
to the heirs of Judith, thus a total of 18 lines focusing on the delicate matter of
his succession."
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj says: "Hannah Stewart I do agree, as would everyone here, that canals
and the sea are different, but unfortunately, your Google map of present-day
Milan does nothing to corroborate (what I infer is) your claim that Milan is
landlocked. Here's a map of 17th century Milan showing its canal system: http://
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Braun_Milano_HAAB.jpg"
Thanks for providing the link and pointing out the silliness of Hannah's
argument. I hope that topic is now finished, as it is the ridiculous fruit of totally
anachronistic logic that seems to assume that the world looks the same in 2015
as it did in 1615.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Bonner Cutting The absence of a bequest to The Grammar School is merely an
absence. In this debate, it counts for no more than a demonstration of your
inability to reason from data,
Another such example, having previously heard your arguments about the will,
would be your attempts to disqualify the *inclusion* of bequests to his lifelong
colleagues and editors, Hemmings and Condell and long term partner in the
theatre business, Richard Burbage.
One of the executors of the will, Thomas Marshall, one-time neighbour, was also
stepfather to Leonard Digges who wrote extensively about Will, linking him to
Stratford, the monument, a number of named plays, comparing his popularity
directly to that of some of Jonson's named plays.
You don't stop and think, occasionally, that you might be using the evidence of
Shakespeare's will selectively, do you?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino You are not really in a position to characterize the arguments of
ANYONE on this forum as "childish."
Reply · Like ·
Barbara Hobens ·
Follow · Top Commenter · Speaker, Consultant, Designer
at Holistic & Historic Garden Design
Joseph Ciolino take 6 minutes and watch this http://www.pechakucha.org/
presentations/most-successful-fraud-in-history-william-shakespeare
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Barbara Hobens Sorry, only just got around to this video. I'm sorry to say, it's the
same old empty claims, with absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to doubt the
authorship of Shakespeare, or to cause me to even say, "Hmmm. . . " Not the
littlest of doubt has arisen, or the tiniest desire to learn more. For me, it is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
277/326
1/22/2015
As I've stated elsewhere there seems to be a fundamental difference in what
Oxfordians take as "evidence," and what "Stratfordians," do. That de Vere spoke
eight languages, is to me, a giant yawn. All the clues, the hidden meanings, the
codes, whatever, all silliness. None of it carries weight upon scrutiny. You can
find whatever you're looking for if you look hard enough. I'm sorry, I really don't
mean to offend you but this presentation gave me nothing. It emphasized the
emptiness of the Oxfordian claim.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Joseph Ciolino "The devil can cite scripture for his purpose." - Merchant of
Venice
Terry Maccarrone ·
Follow · Top Commenter · Adjunct Professor at St. Joseph's
College, Patchogue, NY · 252 followers
It is a pleasure to see these conversation regarding the genius that is Shakespeare the work
of literature we canmot escape.
Wonder why the sun and moon exisit it becomes the same question...
It is why we exist to enjoy.
Reply · Like ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter
I'm not going to waste my time on the article, Alexander Waugh just whined somewhere else
that we MUST read this because someone said bugger. The SAQ is a hobby for people who
have no genius and want it to be possible for genius to be bought or earned. That's it.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Buh-bye.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 30, 2014 at 5:34pm
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Glad you're leaving. You won't be missed.
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter you take advantage of college students on a daily basis, and
you have no point to miss. I've never had a career as a psychic working with
children, so your reading comprehension is rather - awful. That's to be expected
of a man who gets a lot of things wrong.
State University
Follow ·
Sandra Lynn Sparks says:
"I'm not going to waste my time on the article, Alexander Waugh just whined
somewhere else that we MUST read this because someone said bugger. The SAQ
is a hobby for people who have no genius and want it to be possible for genius to
be bought or earned. That's it."
Interesting how you'll waste everyone else's time with your dithering bad
manners, but can't be bothered to read anything. Quite telling position to adopt,
but one that more and more is characteristic of the extreme wing of the online
Oxfrauds.
Reply · Like ·
278/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Follow ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Have you never figured out that the title of the blog (and group)
is the nickname for your group? You are the Oxfrauds. And your manners and
rudeness have always been pretty much way up there. I respond in a way you
understand, because that kind of ugliness is normal for you. Reason is wasted on
you, because you don't possess any.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Parris ·
Blow ,blow,thou wind...
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Roger Parris Isn't she a riot?
Here's what the students I "take advantage of" have to say about me: http://
www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1752966
Jeff Weisman · Northeastern Illinois University
What is the evidence that Edward de Vere or anyone else wrote these plays? Certainly there
was none provided. Just because he had a great education and did some traveling does not
mean that he wrote it, nor does it mean that William Shakespeare was not the great author.
The award being offered by the SAC seems more like a gimmick than an actual attempt to
find the truth.
Reply · Like ·
Why not provide some here then?
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Jeff Weisman , here is some circumstantial evidence. Shakespeare drew on Ovid
for most of his plays. Ovid was translated into English by Arthur Golding in 1567.
Where did Shaksper learn Latin? Lily's Latin Grammar was the ONLY Latin text
allowed in English Grammar schools, so he didn't pick up Ovid or Homer there.
His education would have been primarily biblical. Meanwhile, Oxford was at age
10 fluent in Latin, helping his uncle Arthur Golding translate Ovid into English. In
1578 he was saluted by Gabriel Harvey with this praise of his work: ““I have seen
many Latin verses of thine, yea, even more English verses are extant; thou hast
drunk deep draughts not only of the Muses of France and Italy, but has learned
the manners of many men, and the arts of foreign countries.." This astonishing
praise, which calls De Vere's writing "more polished than Castiglione," also
includes the line, "thine eyes flash fire, thy countenance shakes a spear."
Countenance can also be translated as will. Thy will shakes a spear. Of course,
the name Shakespeare had yet to appear in print, but it's an interesting
coincidence. Oxford has the background, sources, experience, and juvenalia lying
around that match the plays. Shaksper has lots of receipts for grain delivery. One
matches the plays, the other doesn't. Only a name links Shaksper to the plays.
Only a name debars Oxford.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jeff, read up some and you will figure it out.
279/326
1/22/2015
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Jeff Weisman , here is some circumstantial evidence. Shakespeare drew on Ovid
for most of his plays. Ovid was translated into English by Arthur Golding in 1567.
Where did Shaksper learn Latin? Lily's Latin Grammar was the ONLY Latin text
allowed in English Grammar schools, so he didn't pick up Ovid or Homer there.
His education would have been primarily biblical. Meanwhile, Oxford was at age
10 fluent in Latin, helping his uncle Arthur Golding translate Ovid into English. In
1578 he was saluted by Gabriel Harvey with this praise of his work: ““I have seen
many Latin verses of thine, yea, even more English verses are extant; thou hast
drunk deep draughts not only of the Muses of France and Italy, but has learned
the manners of many men, and the arts of foreign countries.." This astonishing
praise, which calls De Vere's writing "more polished than Castiglione," also
includes the line, "thine eyes flash fire, thy countenance shakes a spear."
Countenance can also be translated as will. Thy will shakes a spear. Of course,
the name Shakespeare had yet to appear in print, but it's an interesting
coincidence. Oxford has the background, sources, experience, and juvenalia lying
around that match the plays. Shaksper has lots of receipts for grain delivery. One
matches the plays, the other doesn't. Only a name links Shaksper to the plays.
Only a name debars Oxford.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jeff Weisman 1589 The Arte of English Poesie: “and many notable gentlemen in
the Court have written commendably, and suppressed it again, or else suffered it
to be published without their own names to it....”
" in her Majesty's time that now is are sprung up another crew of Courtly makers
[poets], noblemen and gentlemen of her Majesty's own servants, who have
written excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and
made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble gentleman, Edward
earl of Oxford.”
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 29, 2014 at 11:53pm
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
He was saluted by several contemporaries as a great playwright who wrote plays
but caused them to be printed without his own name to it. He was called "the
best for comedy." Where are his comedies? Without his name on them--we know
that from Francis Meres. Also John Davies, who said "we must be silent in your
praise." How silent? And then there's the cryptic line by Edward Marston about
Shakespeare, "whose silent name one letter bounds." What name begins and
ends with the same letter? Not William Shakespeare, but the unspoken, silent
name. Edward De Vere.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
5 · December 30, 2014 at 1:14am
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler Wow. This is the first I've read the Marston quote. Where have I
been?
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 1:54am
280/326
1/22/2015
Thanks for the specifics from those that posted!
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 3:06am
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
To make this easy for you...
Provide three pieces of direct evidence supporting the proposition that Oxford
wrote Shakespeare:
1.
2.
3.
Provide three pieces of circumstantial evidence supporting the proposition that
Oxford wrote Shakespeare:
1.
2.
3.
Reply · Like ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 9:39pm
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Do you think that qualifies as direct or circumstantial evidence that Oxford was
Shakespeare? Seriously?
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler None of what you have provided even qualifies as circumstantial
evidence and some of it isn't even correct as a true statement of fact. You can't
indulge in naked specualtion and claim it is evidence. Well, actually, you can, as
that is a significant part of Oxfordian method [and, to be fair, is indulged in by
some Stratfordians].
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 10:20pm
State University
Follow ·
Jeff, you might do some reading here: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/ or
my own site, here: http://shake-speares-bible.com/faq/
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 10:02pm
Bob Grumman ·
Michelle Mauler The name "Shakespeare" begins with an es and ends with an e.
Seriously, folks, my friend Sabrina Feldman has one book out and another on its
way about T-homas, Lord Burkhurs-T, the True Author. Her case for her boy is
twice as good as the Oxfordian one. The wonderful thing about it is that explains
much of the evidence fo Shakespeare by giving him credit for the apocryphal
plays, some of which had is name or initials on their tit-pages. Hence, he was a
perfect front for her boy. It only has two weaknesses: there is as little direct
evidence for Burkhurst as there is for Oxford (or, to be accurate, ALL the people
proposed as the True Author combined), and there is copious direct evidence for
Shakespeare as the True Author, which she refutes weakly with the unsupported
standard claim that Jonson set a great hoax up with lies and got a few willing
partners to help him.
Oxfraud
So far, score 0.
What is on offer is not evidence, it isn't even circumstantial.
State University
Follow ·
281/326
1/22/2015
State University
Oxfraud What you offer is not rational debate, not even close. But then your name
pretty much says it all. How is Dr. Wells these days?
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter Stanley Wells, like all self-respecting English-lit academics,
appears to have concluded that the SAQ is no longer worth his time.
As this comment section amply demonstrates, Oxfordians simply cannot respond
to a request for evidence with genuine evidence.
When you can't provide evidence, the argument doesn't qualify as a debate.
Nor can it be described as rational, when Oxfordians try to argue that the young
De Vere wrote Midsummer Night's Dream before he collaborated on his Uncle
Golding's translation of Ovid, parodying, therefore, lines he hadn't yet written. All
while still receiving latin lessons from his tutor.
Mark Longden ·
Top Commenter
More than 17% of the American public believes in creationism; or to use a less dramatic
example, that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK. That some of the doubters are famous
makes absolutely no difference at all and I'm not sure why you repeated it so often.
Reply · Like ·
Howard Schumann ·
I would give much more credence to writers, actors, and other professionals such
as Sigmund Freud, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Henry James, Orson Welles,
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Supreme Court Justice Henry Blackmun, Charlie Chaplin,
Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance, Charles Dickens, John Gielgud, Henry James in their
judgements about a fellow artist than I would to any poll.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
17 · December 29, 2014 at 9:06pm
Top Commenter
Stephen Moorer Yes. Dickens is iffy at best.
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 29, 2014 at 11:25pm
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj Dickens reveled in the fact that, in his words, "the life of Shakespeare
is a fine mystery." At least he was honest enough to admit that. That puts him
ahead of every apologist for the orthodox view, including those posting here.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Ann Zakelj Dickens reveled in the fact that, in his words, "the life of Shakespeare
is a fine mystery." At least he was honest enough to admit that. That puts him
ahead of every apologist for the orthodox view, including those posting here.
Reply · Like ·
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Dickens "the life of Shakespeare is a fine mystery" is indeed
correct. Consider Dennis Baron's exceptionally fine Latin word play from Twelfth
Night 4.2.32:
CLOWN: What is the opinion of Pythagorus concerning wild fowl (Latin
282/326
1/22/2015
CLOWN: What is the opinion of Pythagorus concerning wild fowl (Latin
aviarius)?
MALVOLIO: That the soul of our grandam (Latin avia) might haply inhabit a bird
(aviarius).
CLOWN: What think`st thou of his opinion?
MALVOLIO: I think nobly of the soul, and no way (Latin via) approve his opinion.
CLOWN: Fare thee well (Latin avere): remain thou still in darkness. Thou shalt
hold the opinion of Pythagorus ere I will allow of thy wits, and fear to kill a
woodcock (aviarius), lest thou disposses the soul of thy grandma (avia). Fare thee
well (avere).
*****
Per Lewis and Short A New Latin Dictionary (1891):
avia (1) = a grandmother on the father's or mother's side
aviarius = pertaining to birds, of birds, bird
via = a way
See vere -> verus = true, real, actual, genuine, etc. Literal: [includes] via
aveo (2) = to be or fare well; avere, as a form of salutation, both at meeting and
separating
*****
(1) Pythagoras believed in the transmigration of souls... ex. a grandmother's soul
would live in a bird. i.e. Avia is part of (i.e. "lives in") aviarius.
(2) Via is the root of both avia and aviarius. Via connects back to vere. Such
connection is confirmed by avere (= fare well).
====
Why would Will of Stratford make such pun on Oxford's name?
Howard Schumann - I wonder if Tolkien could be added to this list. Some of his
personal letters and notes mentioning the Bard offer his contempt, which I
believe stems from his doubt of the authorship. The same argument could be
made for Shaw......
Reply · Like ·
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Howard Schumann You should drop Dickens and Welles, and, as for Mark Twain,
I wouldn't put much credence in his opinion, as he also believed that Milton was
the secret author of Bunyan's *Pilgrim's Progress*.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson You're a lawyer, right? Isn't that last statement of yours some type
of logical fallacy? Maybe you know the lawyerly term for it.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Not at all, Ann. Mr. Twain is being offered up as some sort of expert
witness in authorship attribution, or, more precisely, in the discernment of some
hidden author behind the person generally credited with a literary work. As a
lawyer would do, I am merely providing another opinion offered up by Mr. Twain
which tends to establish that he should not be considered as such an expert, and
that his credibility as a witness in this case is put into question by his rather
bizarre opinions as to Milton/Bunyan. What is the problem that you see in my
doing so? I'm not even going to mention the Daubert standard which is
applicable to expert witness testimony...
283/326
1/22/2015
State University
Follow ·
Steven Thomas Sabel writes: "I wonder if Tolkien could be added to this list.
Some of his personal letters and notes mentioning the Bard offer his contempt,
which I believe stems from his doubt of the authorship. "
Wow, Steven, that is a very interesting speculation. If you would care to do some
further research and write that up, I would love to have a submission for Brief
Chronicles on that topic. We use a double blind peer review system, so I cannot
promise publication, but that's definitely the sort of thing that would be of great
interest to our readers.
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Mark Twain also believed that he wrote Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn. Clearly, he was a wack job.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Steven Thomas Sabel I thought it was because he wanted the trees in "Macbeth"
to move and was really disappointed that they didn't. So Tolkein corrected this by
creating the Ents. I recall that I was similarly disappointed that when the reveal to
Macduff's "not of woman born" was revealed to be something normal like a csection. However, this didn't lead me to doubt the named author wrote the play.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson No, Mark, none of the umpteen doubters put forth by Oxfordians
have ever been offered as expert witnesses. In fact, the SAC merely calls them
what they are: past doubters.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj Howard stated, "I would give much more credence to writers, actors,
and other professionals such as... [omit list] ... in their judgements about a fellow
artist than I would to any poll," which involved a poll of Shakespeare professors.
Twain was, as I said, being offered up as a better witness than others who might
seem to be qualified as experts, at least in a Shakespeare-related field. His work
on the subject is often cited by anti-Stratfordians as a source supporting their
position. My original response had nothing at all to do with the worthless SAC
list of doubters. I don't believe that argument by appeal to alleged authorities is at
all beneficial to the debate. Do you think it would serve any purpose to supply a
similar list of "believers" -- I don't, other than to show that such lists serve no
purpose. Conan Doyle believed in fairies.
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Mark Johnson Semantics. I did not infer "expert witness" from Howard's
comment and neither should you.
"Shakespeare, we must be silent in thy praise, 'Cause our encomiums will but blast thy
bays." Anonymous, 1640.
Reply · Like ·
2 · Follow Post · Edited · December 30, 2014 at 1:24am
284/326
1/22/2015
Joseph Ciolino ·
Once, again, I think we can all agree that we should be very thankful that we live in a country
where people can freely express just how narrow and demented they are, make the most
foolish claims, distort reality and history, and not be arrested and sent to some kind of gulag.
God bless America!
Reply · Like ·
Timothy Beck ·
Top Commenter
God bless Canada! America isn't the whole world you know.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Timothy Beck Timmy, I was being sarcastic.
Jim Ballard ·
Joseph...Unfortunately, no one has come up with a good cyber icon for sarcasm...
How's this :
... :[ ...
And remember, Canada did give us Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Gordon Lightfoot
and Robert MacNeil...
I'm sure there are many more which I'm not recalling at the moment.
Smoked any Canadian reefer lately ?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph writes "where people can freely express just how narrow and demented
they are."
In Canada this is regarded as hate speech and is less tolerated than it is in the
United States.
Oxfraud
Roger Stritmatter
CAROL: My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer rich and true
Instead he burned up like a piggy on a barbecue
EVERYONE: Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
SHEILA: Heck, no!
EVERYONE: Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
SHEILA: With all their hockey hullabaloo
LIANE: And that bitch Anne Murray, too
EVERYONE: Blame Canada! Shame on Canada for...
285/326
1/22/2015
The smut we must cut
The trash we must bash
The laughter and fun must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!
Joseph Ciolino ·
Don't know if anyone has posted this here yet, but in case it was and you missed it, here is a
review of the film, "Anonymous." It captures my own personal disgust with the film. Bravo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JncEeaWDAq0
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
...Yes that film reeked...not even good drama...
Thanks for the extra publicity for the film, guys! Also check out "Last Will and
Testament":
http://firstfoliopictures.com/
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Yep Last Will & Testement another trek through the same old tired Oxfordian
arguments thst have been refuted ad nauseum. How about something new, like
how exactly did the plays make it from Oxford"s pen to the Lord Chamberlain's
Men stage? Do you have a paper trail between Oxford and Shakespeare? Any
connection at all?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli asks: "Do you have a paper trail between Oxford and
Shakespeare?"
Do you have a paper trail between the Stratford Shaksper and the plays? No, you
don't. You don't have anything more than a name on a title page, and its not even
the right name.
As Mark Twain put it over a hundred years ago in *Is Shakespeare Dead? *: "when
we find a vague file of chipmunk-tracks stringing through the dust of Stratford
village, we know by our reasoning powers that Hercules has been along there."
Reply · Like ·
Jim Ballard ·
...All you guys need to get off the "Anonymous" deflection gambit ...The
Shahan/Waugh book completely DISAVOWS the film. Get it ?...Their book does
NOT choose sides, it only illuminates the extent of doubt.
The film sucked.
Take the time you consumed to see that stupid film and READ A BOOK, for
heaven's sake !!
Jon Ciccarelli ·
286/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Who exactly is the "Stratford Shaksper"? William Shakespere,
as his surname appears on his coat of arms application, was from Stratford. A
copy of the application can be viewed here http://theshakespeareblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/college-of-arms.jpg where the name appears in the
upper right hand corner, So if the College of Arms recognizes that as the family
name, that's the name. Oxfordians have called him Shaxper, Shakspere,
Shakspur, Shaksper, etc, So for all the protestations of "there were no spelling
differences in the Elizabethan period", Oxfordians can't even agree on an
alternate spelling, any look over these threads will show that there’s no
consistency. If his name was Shaksper or however, way you're spelling it today
why does it not appear that way on the coat of arms application or are you
contending that the coat of arms didn’t belong to the “Stratford Shaksper”?
His birth, marriage and death records spell the name in three different ways. At
birth SHAKSPERE which can be viewed here http://hompi.sogang.ac.kr/anthony/
WilliamShakespeare.html, The record at marriage spells the name as SPAEEARE
or SFAEEARE which can be viewed here http://www.pbs.org/
shakespeare/evidence/evidence99.html and the record at death is SHAKSPEARE
which can be viewed here http://findingshakespeare.co.uk/our-little-life-isrounded-with-a-sleep. That's the same surname being spelled by three different
people over the course of 50 plus years. If spelling was standardized in this era
why aren't these diverse records spelled the exact same way? With the arms
application are we talking about 4 different people? Why did Mr. Marlowe sign his
name Marley? Could it actually be that spelling was not consistent in this era?
Of course, the Oxfordian alternative spellings are not just pulled out of nowhere.
They actually do appear in the historical record. The name Shaxberd, for example
appearing as part of a payment made in the registry of King James for plays
performed in Christmas 1604 which is a paper trail between this man noted as
Shaxberd and such plays as Measure for Measure, Love’s Labors Lost and
Comedy of Errors . The registry of King James also gives 4 and a half yards of
scarlet cloth to various players, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillips and William
Shakespeare which the registry spells as SHAKESPEARE can be viewed here
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html. So this registry of the King
recognizes this spelling of a Player named William Shakespeare. If the king and
his college of arms recognizes the name “Shakespeare” then the passage by
Francis Meres which ties the name Shakespeare to plays like Two Gentlemen of
Verona and King John also applies to William Shakespeare, the player who we’ve
established is from Stratford.
But then there’s that whole business of the pseudonym so that any mention of
SHAKESPEARE especially those appearing with a hyphen SHAKE-SPEARE is
actually a reference to De Vere’s authorship. Well, you mentioned on another
thread that unscrupulous publishers used the name of “William Shakespeare” on
title pages so they could benefit from the popularity of the name to sell their
books. So the title pages can’t at all be trusted because of this practice. This
disqualification also applies to all of those title pages, like the Sonnets of 1609
that contain the famous hyphen that supposedly denotes a pseudonym. So if the
title pages with the hyphen can’t be trusted than the case for the supposed
pseudonym can’t be validated and these works can’t be tied to De Vere.
I’ve demonstrated above that at least 5 other people over several decades didn’t
spell the same last name of Shakespeare consistently, two examples tying the
name Shakespeare the player to the plays outside of the title pages. So these are
a couple of examples of a paper trail tying the player from Stratford to the plays.
You have not demonstrated a paper trail from Oxford to any of the plays. You
have not demonstrated any link between the player William Shakespeare, so
referred to by the King’s registry, to De Vere. You have not demonstrated exactly
how De Vere would write a play, get it Shakespeare and get it on the
Chamberlain’s Men stage which was the original question. By your own
admission title pages that contain the hyphen that supposedly denotes a
pseudonym cannot be trusted.
Oxfraud
287/326
1/22/2015
Oxfraud
Jim Ballard Like it or not, it's THE film of YOUR theory. The fact that it sucked is
down to the fact that your theory sucks.
Any little deviations from Oxfordian orthodoxy were dramatic necessities,
required to turn your incoherent mess into some sort of coherent narrative thread.
When the autopsy on Oxfordianism is carried out, your big swing on the
Hollywood trapeze will be a Prime Suspect.
Jim Ballard ·
@ "Oxfraud"
"Jim Ballard Like it or not, it's THE film of YOUR theory."
My theory, huh ?...And if your little "Oxfraud" community of unidentifiable
munchkins reads books as well as you do this commentary thread, little wonder
why you're being quietly IGNORED...
Have I ever said in any of my commentary that Oxford was "(my) theory"...?...No.
You are confusing me with Professor Stritmatter, who clearly does have more
knowledge than most, if not all, posters here.
The facts of De Vere's life notwithstanding, the article is a "report", albeit a
dummied-down report, on the extent of the doubt regarding authorship.
The film is most certainly NOT my theory. Not even close.
And if your little anonymous community includes bonafide Stratfordian
Shakespeare scholars (the identity of whom you are clearly not inclined to reveal),
you're not helping the Stratfordian camp very much by maintaining such
anonymity...In fact, your silly avatar merely demonstrates further the reactionary,
defensive remonstrations of the Stratfordian camp.
So who the h@ll are you ?
Show your face. Otherwise, you don't get to play in my sandbox.
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Jim Ballard
This isn't your sandbox.
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Oxfraud Having not seen the film, I cannot give opinion, but curious---tell us
why, specifically, you think the film reeked.
Joseph Ciolino ·
George Gershwin, born to immigrant Jewish parents in Brooklyn, grew up on the Lower East
Side of Manhattan, close to the Yiddish Theater district, wrote gloriously, sensitively, and
accurately, about life among poor Southern blacks in his opera, "Porgy and Bess."
Of course, we know this to be impossible and therefore the name Gershwin is a pseudonym
for a black man, (no let's make it a woman) who could not get her work produced as no one
would take her seriously being a black woman. How could she write such complex music, so
deeply rooted in European melodic and harmonic style? Lil Hardin Armstrong is the
strongest candidate so far. Please note that Gershwin produced no works after his death.
288/326
1/22/2015
Call Sherlock Holmes!
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Call Satoshi Nakamoto!
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Ann Zakelj The bitcoin guy? I thought he was fictitious? Is yet another joke going
over my head, Ann???
Jim Ballard ·
Joseph...I cast my vote for Memphis Minnie...or perhaps Una Mae
Carlisle...Everyone nose Gershwin was transgender African American...See...You
thought you knew everything !...
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jim Ballard Darn!! How did this tidbit escape my learning??? Damn public school
education! Thanks, Jim!
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR: Nothing!
CORDELIA: Nothing.
KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing: speak again.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Sounds like the Oxfordian theory right there. Nothing will come of Nothing,
speak again!
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli Read the next few lines:
KING LEAR
So young, and so untender?
CORDELIA
So young, my lord, and true.
KING LEAR
Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower
Nothing...nothing...nothing will come of nothing...true, truth....
Or, as de Vere puts it more succinctly in his personal motto:
Vero Nihil verius....nothing truer than the truth.
Now, there's a work of "fiction" for you. Your "nothing" made "something" by
Cordelia.
Reply · Like ·
289/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger Stritmatter Nothing truer than the truth. Wow, sounds like a slogan for
True TV. And you people complain about "Not Without Right". Does that disprove
that De Vere didn't write anything because he also had a dumb sounding motto?
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli The best of many echos of the de Vere motto in the canon is from
Troilus and Cressida:
After all comparisons of truth,
as truth's authentic author to be cited....
http://shakespeare.yippy.com/search?input-form=simple-bi
lly&query=after+all+comparisons+of+truth&v%3Asources=billybundle&v%3Aproject=billy&character=All+Characters&title=All+Works
Get it now?
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Yes because the word truth is used a lot in Shakespeare and it matches Oxford's
doggrel sounding motto it proves that he wrote all the plays. That's it, the case
cracker! The word "thou" was used a lot, what does that prove?
State University
Follow ·
Jon Ciccarelli "the word truth is used a lot in Shakespeare." Well you and I agree
about that anyway.
Reply · Like ·
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Roger this comment section is looking dead as hardly anyone is responding
anymore so break a leg in your endeavors. "Go your way in God's name, I have
done."
Reply · Like ·
Oxfraud
Jon, only someone truly desperate, someone who has truly convinced himself
that coincidence and evidence are the same thing, could take the next step and
try and equate the expression of Lear's nihilistic despair with Oxford's platitude.
Nothing is dafter than daft.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Oxfraud Truly :)
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Jon Ciccarelli "disprove that De Vere didn't write anything" is a double negative.
Dude, you're really harshing my mellow.
290/326
1/22/2015
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Karl Wiberg Karl sorry to hear about your mellow. Not without right is a stupid
motto and "nothing truer than truth" is just as stupid. And how does one's taste
in personal mottos prove or disprove authorship?
Joseph O'Shaughnessy ·
Top Commenter
Well, i must agree with the doubters, despite A.L. Rouse's dismissal, out of hand, of any
consideration that anyone other than Shakepseare wrote the works. After all, Eugene O'Neill
did not write his works. He signed them, yes, but he did not write them. No one ever saw him
write one word that could be proved to have been said on stage. He started as an actor, the
son of an actor, the brother of an actor. Not a playwright. He never studied play writing, but
many other writers,much more educated than O'Neill, could have written his plays. He was a
drunk. He never could have sustained the effort. But he needed his father's approval, the
great stage actor. And what about Doc Simon? He spent his life in comic boiler rooms
knocking out jokes for people like Sid Ceasar. Do you really think someone like that, used to
collaboration, could actually have sat down and written, The Odd Couple or Barefoot in the
Park? And Ibsen....? Huh?
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Sarcasm is a form of engagement used by those who have already lost the debate
but don't know it yet.
Reply · Like ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter i notice that you didn't make any arguments of your own,
merely, ad hominem. Thanks. I think we both know who wins in that case.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph O'Shaughnessy Is that why you edited your post to remove the sarcasm?
You have pretty clearly not read most of this conversation and don't know
anything about me. Here's my Washington Post debate with Stanley Wells: http://
shake-speares-bible.com/publications/is-this-the-bard-we-see-before-us-orsomeone-else/ You will see that I made many arguments. Can you answer them?
Here's my cv: http://shake-speares-bible.com/curriculum-vitae/
And some of my peer reviewed publications: http://shake-speares-bible.com/
publications/
Can you find the arguments?
Reply · Like ·
Top Commenter
Roger, I couldn't get the thread, but suffice to say i am a former student of A.L.
Rowse, in the sense that my graduate instructors were devotees of Rowse and I
became so. As a double major (English Lit and English History) I am pretty familiar
with the period. Now, you are going to say that I am abandoning the argument,
but frankly I don't have time or good enough recollection to recall the reasons
why we were so totally persuaded, as was Shakespeare's chief biographer,
Rowse, or his chief anthologer, Kittredge, that he was the author. I did not modify
my initial remarks. I meant to use a satiric approach to show how silly it is for a
handful of non-scholars to go back and revise history. I will look at your peer
reviewed. Ceratainly, if you know Marlowe and you absolutely must, you know
291/326
1/22/2015
reviewed. Ceratainly, if you know Marlowe and you absolutely must, you know
that Shakespeare was not the only dramatist of the era who could adapt, popular,
well-known,historical or popular events to drams. I'm not being dogmatic. I
simply fought these wars long ago and have my own opinion on facts, which I do
not know have substantially changed since then.
Sorry Roger, I could not bring up either file. I'd be interested to see them, but
frankly I haven't yet heard any argument that would persuade me otherwise, even
coming from such monumental Royal Shakespeare actors as those mentioned.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph O'Shaughnessy, Thanks for your sincere reply. You say: "i am a former
student of A.L Rowse...."
In that case, it may be edifying for you to watch the 1989 Frontline documentary,
in which A.L. Rowse introduced to many of us for the first time the utter
ridiculousness of the orthodox view of the bard, at least as expressed in his
potent declaration that Oxford couldn't have been Shakespeare because he was a
"roaring homo," while Shakespeare was "abnormally heterosexual."
Read between the lines on that one for a moment. It is not only historically
inaccurate in the extreme, but a psychologically telling instance of the subject
value of having a Shakespeare who is "no one," onto whom one's own
psychological quirks and unresolved complexes can be projected at the drop of a
hat - or, in Rowse's case, as an expedient to get out of a difficult situation on
camera.
In two sentences or less he completely destroyed his own credibility, forever.
Here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkqcLJZ9I3s
My site was down for some time after an apparent hack, but it is now back online,
so the links should work now. My apology for the confusion.
"frankly I don't have time or good enough recollection to recall the reasons why
we were so totally persuaded, as was Shakespeare's chief biographer, Rowse, or
his chief anthologer, Kittredge, that he was the author."
Thank you for your honest candor in that regard. It would be nice to see more of
that in these discussions, since I doubt if most of those responding for the
purpose of dissing the Oxfordians can remember why, either.
Reply · Like ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter i am afraid that I must come down on the side of the
traditionalists. First of all, Shakespeare was immensely popular in his day. His
plays were produced. He clearly worked with actors, as some have acknowledged,
and a portfolio of his work was published under his name. The idea that a young
man of modest education, with exceptional genius--as differentiated from simple
high intelligence--the two do not always go together--could write plays about
historical events is quite probable. Woody Allen writes exceptional screenplays
and he has no college education whatsoever. Many famous writers have written
detailed works, novels and plays about periods on which they had no expertise
and no education. I will follow the contemporaneous evidence, the evidence of
what was happening then, not what we conveniently rearrange to have happened
according to our wishes. And by the way, this argument sounds dangerously like
those given by Rush Limbaugh where the initial premise is wrong and then he
builds an entire case on it, hoping you will not challenge the premise. There was
no prohibition or restriction on the writing of plays by the nobility in those days.
In fact, they often wrote and published poetry, plays and monographs of all kinds.
Reply · Like ·
Follow ·
292/326
1/22/2015
State University
Follow ·
Joseph O'Shaughnessy Of course you "must."
But did you watch the video before coming to this conclusion? What was your
opinion of your former mentor's "argument"?
Reply · Like ·
Karl Wiberg ·
Top Commenter
Joseph O'Shaughnessy You seem like a reasonable guy. You comment, "I simply
fought these wars long ago and have my own opinion on facts, which I do not
know have substantially changed since then." I guess I would encourage you to
reconsider. (Besides that satisfaction of learning something closer to the truth,
it's loads of fun!) Perhaps the "facts" have not changed, but rather they have
grown in number. What constitutes a fact in a literary/historical detection
anyway? Regardless, a huge amount of circumstantial evidence has come to
light, most of which points strongly to Oxford. Before you dismiss circumstantial
evidence out of hand, realize that's pretty much all we have to go on. What "direct
evidence" does any camp have? None, I submit. I don't think anyone (so far) can
offer anything that could be seen as definitive "proof." The name on the first
folio? That's evidence that the printer(s) wanted readers to think a "William
Shakespeare" was the author. Truthfully, claim Stratfordians; deceptively, argue
Oxfordians and other doubters.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Karl Wiberg "What "direct evidence" does any camp have?"
I can answer this.
It can certainly be argued that the Stratford monument, and the folio and the
quarto title pages are "direct" evidence.
Certainly they suggest that some persons at least wanted us to believe the story
of "Shakespeare's" authorship. It seems to me that the orthodox camp relies on
this kind of "self evident factuality," throw in a few usually misunderstood early
literary references to the "Shakespeare" in print, and is satisfied. Anything else,
they say, is "conspiracy" thinking.
To summarize for the moment what they don't say, however, they fail to notice or
consider, among others, are the following elements of missing evidence:
• An Authentic portrait
• Any writing in the author’s holograph
• Record of attendance at a University, the Inns of Court, or employment as a
legal clerk or teacher
• Any books from what should have been, by all account, a massive library
• A single line of dedicatory verse to or from contemporary Elizabethan or
Continental writers during his lifetime
• Any mention of him as a playwright in Philip Henslowe’s diary (1591-1600) or in
the diaries of his Warwickshire son-in-law John Hall
This list is from the appendix to my PhD dissertation and is not complete.
Certainly to it should be added:
• evidence of travel to Italy and more generally the Mediterranean
• Any letters in his own hand, or copies of letters
293/326
1/22/2015
All of these elements of circumstantial evidence are accounted for by the
Oxfordians, and several of them point very directly to the conclusion that he was
the author of the plays and poems. It is true that many people still do not know
what these are, and that is in part due to the systematic and organized attempt to
dumb down the discussion by various vested interests.
Reply · Like ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter First of all, it is not true that John Shakespeare was illiterate. He
was a very succssful wool merchant. Second, the facts are very clear to anyone
not blinded by this whole "movement" business. What Rowse says makes not
only sense but so much common sense that, frankly, it hardly bears argument.
Shakespeare was the most famous playwright of his time. He was surrounded by
a company of players and other playwrights, like his friend Ben Jonson,
collaborated on plays with others, including some that were not produced
because of censorship....a factor that is simply disregarded by most of the nonbelievers...was involved with the building of two theaters including the Globe,
was a close friend of Burbridge, the most famous actor of his time, and was
simply of a much higher quality (genius) in his art than other playwrights who
were breaking out of a late-Medieval format for the theater and into the type of
theater we had in the early 18th Century and beyond. The idea that Shakespeare,
known to one and all, including King James I, paid by King James, was not the
man who wrote the plays...and now I know you will take exception to this final
statement...but there it is....is...absurd.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Joseph O'Shaughnessy writes: "First of all, it is not true that John Shakespeare
was illiterate. He was a very succssful wool merchant."
First of all, Joe, I never said that he was not a "succssful wool merchant."
He was. He was also a Stratford alderman.
But your assumption that these activities required literacy is simply historically
untrue. Indeed, John Sh.'s illiteracy is so well known that Diana Price, in her
*Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography* does not even need a footnote (p. 237)
but assumes the educated reader will either accept or know from other sources
that John was in fact a "marksman" -- i.e. he could not even sign his own name,
let alone read or write.
The issue was discussed extensively by James Orchard Halliwell-Phillips, one of
the three most important Shakespearean biographers in the history of orthodox
criticism, in his *Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare* (1907, etc.), which on II: 13
reproduces a copy of John's "mark" from a 1596-97 legal document in case you
want to verify this for yourself.
I suggest you do some research for before making statements like that. You
disqualify yourself as a credible speaker when you make mistakes that are so
egregious.
Reply · Like ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Well, consider me disqualified then. I doubt that you can be a
successful merchant and be "illiterate" by which you seem to mean...totally
uneducated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Second, William did receive
an excellent education in Latin school until the age of 12, and again later in his
teens, in Lancashire, and subsequently in touring with his fellow players. The
other items i mentioned, his celebrity, his wealth, his mentions by others as the
author of the plays, the fact that one one else has an clear or even vague claim to
these works...certainly no one better than the one that his contemporaries cite as
the author, all prove to me that you are, and soon, "were," wasting my time. You
294/326
1/22/2015
the author, all prove to me that you are, and soon, "were," wasting my time. You
fail to take into evidence the facts of his time, of the serious nature of his work, of
his right of authorship necessary to even publish and produce a play....all the
numerous pieces of evidence that we take for granted today about current
authors...in a much more relaxed era than that of Elizabethan England. It is a
wonderful exercise, but exercise is it only. Adieu.
Alasdair Brown ·
Roger Stritmatter ‘Sarcasm is a form of engagement used by those who have
already lost the debate but don't know it yet.’
I would have said that the last bit of your remark applied more to the comment
you made very recently on another site. “Go, stick your head in a bag,” I believe
you said to someone.
Now look here General Custer, just send out your scouts to find some
Shakespearean qualities in Oxford’s poetry and then get one of them to find three
impressive examples of direct evidence and three impressive examples of
circumstantial evidence for Oxford’s authorship and I might agree with Alexander
Waugh that the debate has moved on from ridicule to a proper fight.
Reply · Like ·
Roger Stritmatter It is rather minor point but John Hall did not leave a diary in the
conventional sense. What we have is a collection of cases selected by James
Cooke from the case books which he collected from Susanna Hall in 1644 (about
nine years after Hall's death). These notes were written in Hall's own "abbreviated
latin". Apparently they proved difficult to translate - since the first edition didn't
arrive for another 13 years. Since the case books do not survive we have no
evidence they were truthfully translated - or whether the cases came from one
case book or a sample of both, although Cooke's report that: "I had almost forgot
to tel ye that these Obser were chosen by him from all the rest of his own" would
suggest the later.
"Thus was she perfectly cured."
I know you know this of course but it is worth pointing out to general readers that
Cooke only included 200 cases out of what he states were more then a thousand
- the first dated case occurring in 1617. Miraculously, every single patient was
cured, including at least one case of gonorrhea - which might help explain why
Shakespeare's last illness is not documented. Sadly, one patient died a year after
Hall treated him. Very few of the cases were actually dated so we can not know
the specific dates for many of them. I guess one could argue that if there was a
mention of Shakespeare among the other cases an enlightened Dr Cooke would
have included it. Cooke included Hall's reference to Drayton but I am not aware of
any evidence that Cooke himself had literary interests.
Since I believe Shakespeare was just like me I can "definitely" conjecture that
under no circumstances would he have consulted his son in law as a physician and I expect that most male participants in this forum would hold a similar
opinion. Just not happening. Opinions vary of course - but one only need read
the text documenting Dr Hall's "cures" - "leeches to treat hemorrhoids" to
appreciate my conjecture. Enough said.
Non-Stratfordian's sometimes represent Hall's case book as being filled with
literary references. There are actually two among the 200 cases. The well noted
reference to Drayton, "an excellent poet" and a second to, "the only son of Holyoak (which framed the Dictionary)". The son is actually unnamed. I suppose his
reference to, "Queeny, he was a man of good wit, expert in tongues, and very
learned" might count but we don't have a literary person that I am aware. But that
is all the literary references we have from the good doctor.
There is also the matter of Susanna's literacy as argued by non-Stratfordians
such as Diana Price - based on Susanna's interaction with Cooke and apparent
inability to recognize her late husbands latin hand. Since you do not mention that
295/326
1/22/2015
inability to recognize her late husbands latin hand. Since you do not mention that
argument I will leave off with just the point that In the introduction to the first
edition Cooke offers that Susanna Hall believed she, “had Books left, by one that
professed Physick, with her husband” - in other words another physician. So
when presented with her husband's latin case books she was unable to recognize
that they were his. That hardly qualifies as a proof of illiteracy.
Another point - do you really believe portraiture is a serious scholarly problem for
authorship? Personally I have always considered that a non starter. That said,
what documentary evidence is there that the Droeshout engraving is not
Shakespeare? Sure, we don't know if there was a prior source from
Shakespeare's life for the engraving but does that really signify? Its one of those
might be or might not be points. I believe most art historians believe Droeshout
worked from an earlier drawing, possibly by his father.
Jon Ciccarelli ·
Herbie Taylor Thanks for fleshing out the Doctor Cooke story a bit more. I've been
posting queries to the Oxfordians about this episode and have gotten no solid
responses. IMO it actually proves the opposite that Susanna was literate. She
would have pulled the books for Doctor Cooke and know that one of the dealt
with Physick of the body, knew what handwriting is and recognize that its not her
husband's. A difficult task for a woman who was allegedly illiterate.
Joseph Ciolino ·
"Few of the university men pen plays well, they smell too much of that writer Ovid, and that
writer Metamorphosis, and talk too much of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow
Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent
fellow, he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given
him a purge that made him bewray his credit."
HERE'S OUR FELLOW SHAKESPEARE PUTS THEM ALL DOWN. AND BEN JONSON, TOO.
I suppose the students at Cambridge in 1601 were all "in" on the conspiracy as well when
they wrote this.
No, no documentary evidence. None at all. No contemporary references to Shakespeare the
author of his plays. Nope. None.
Only hundreds.
Reply · Like ·
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
I'll add (yes, cribed from elswhere, but fully cited): 1598, Francis Meres named
Shakespeare as a playwright and poet in his Palladis Tamia, referring to him as
one of the authors by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched".
(Montague, William Kelly (1963). The Man of Stratford—The Real Shakespeare.
Vantage Press.) He names twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including four
which were never published in quarto: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The
Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Won, and King John, as well as ascribing to
Shakespeare some of the plays that were published anonymously before 1598—
Titus Andronicus, Romeo and Juliet, and Henry IV, Part 1. He refers to
Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" 11 years before the
publication of the Sonnets. (Loomis, Catherine, ed. (2002). William Shakespeare:
A Documentary Volume. Dictionary of Literary Biography 263. Detroit: Gale
Group.) The Quatros were published under his name during his lifetime http://
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/MND_title_page.jpg/
220px-MND_title_page.jpg and Ben Johnson attested to his authorship in the
296/326
1/22/2015
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Very funny. "That writer Ovid." Do you get the joke?
Reply · Like ·
10 · December 30, 2014 at 5:04pm
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Jennifer Burnham Brava Jennifer! But the Anti-Strats ignore or mock the actual
evidence in favor of rumor and/or personal feelings about what SHOULD be.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 7:40pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
I'll add (yes, cribed from elswhere, but fully cited): 1598, Francis Meres named
Shakespeare as a playwright and poet in his Palladis Tamia, referring to him as
one of the authors by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched".
(Montague, William Kelly (1963). The Man of Stratford—The Real Shakespeare.
Vantage Press.) He names twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including four
which were never published in quarto: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The
Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Won, and King John, as well as ascribing to
Shakespeare some of the plays that were published anonymously before 1598—
Titus Andronicus, Romeo and Juliet, and Henry IV, Part 1. He refers to
Shakespeare's "sug[a]red Sonnets among his private friends" 11 years before the
publication of the Sonnets. (Loomis, Catherine, ed. (2002). William Shakespeare:
A Documentary Volume. Dictionary of Literary Biography 263. Detroit: Gale
Group.) The Quatros were published under his name during his lifetime http://
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/MND_title_page.jpg/
220px-MND_title_page.jpg and Ben Johnson attested to his authorship in the
Reply · Like ·
Joseph Ciolino You forget that all of us Oxfordians were Stratfordians at one
time. Our goal isn’t to mock but to investigate facts that have been ignored or
swept under the rug by orthodox scholarship—such as details incompatible with
the known lifespan of the man from Stratford. Francis Meres, for example…who
was he? A cleric and a mathematician. What put him in the position of rating
playwrights and their works? Why does he name Oxford among the “Best for
comedy” but fail to name a single play he authored or cite the name of a single
character he created? What mathematical game could Meres have been playing in
his commonplace work?
Reply · Like ·
5 · December 31, 2014 at 2:57am
State University
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham I have been studying and writing about Meres for a couple of
years now. It is interesting that the publication of this book coincides to within a
few weeks of the first appearance of the name "William Shakespeare" on play
quartos. The state-of-the-art scholarship on this question, imho, is this article by
297/326
1/22/2015
quartos. The state-of-the-art scholarship on this question, imho, is this article by
Detobel and Ligon from the 2009 issue of Brief Chronicles, which you can read
here: http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/
MeresOxford.DetobelLigon.pdf.
I won't bother to try to summarize their elegant argument here; suffice it to say
that Meres is not saying what you think he is saying. But understanding that
requires the kind of detailed attention to the structure of his work that Detobel
and Ligon pay to it.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 3:11am
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
It's a joke. The speaker doesn't even know that Shakespeare's main inspiration is
Ovid, or that he is one of those Cambridge men, as is Jonson! The speaker is
what we call an "unreliable narrator." By 1601, quite a few Cambridge students
probably WERE in on the "conspiracy," if you can call it that. There are always
people who know there's a Reverend Dogson behind Carroll, or a Samuel
Clemens behind Mark Twain, and then there's the vast majority who don't care,
and then there are the few who are hilariously ignorant and don't know it's a pen
name. The speaker in this passage is meant to be hilariously ignorant. Look at the
punctuation. Look at the prose. It's a Cambridge joke. The Cambridge lads know
Shakespeare is one of their own.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 3:12am
State University
Follow ·
Julie Sandys Bianchi If you have not read it, check out the Detobel and Ligon
article above. There is much more fire where they saw smoke. For one thing, they
didn't realize that Meres had in 1597 written a book called "Gods Arithmeticke,"
in which he avows himself a mystical Pythagorean with an abiding belief in the
power of number to reveal obscure truths. In other words, this book provides the
theoretical blueprint and justification for precisely the kinds of literary games that
D & L argued are evident in the later book.
Very cool stuff.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 3:14am
State University
Follow ·
Joseph Ciolino Apparently not.
Michelle Mauler ·
Follow ·
Jennifer Burnham, sugar'd in this case means hidden. His hidden sonnets among
his private friends. And what you quoted, proves that at least some of the
sonnets were written 11 years before 1609, when they were pilfered and
published without a murmer of objection from the "ever-living" author, (by then 5
years dead). Those are private and controversial poems. It doesn't mean all of
them were, but most probably were written before 1598. Why no protests at their
publication? Why no more sonnets after 1609, if he were still alive? Because he
died in 1604, that's why.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 3:17am
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Michelle Mauler Right, because no author ever slows down production unless
they are dead, just ask Geogre RR Martin. You guys have no evidence to back up
your case, nothing that disproves the real evidence presented. You assume,
suppose, cherry pick, twist circumstance, make the most nebulous of
connections, you twist words almost beyond recognition, but you have no proof.
298/326
1/22/2015
connections, you twist words almost beyond recognition, but you have no proof.
Nothing that discredits the standing records.
Reply · Like · Edited · December 31, 2014 at 11:27am
Knit Twain ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter Will you be publishing your article on the Meres puzzle anytime
soon? Thank you.
Mark Johnson ·
Top Commenter
Roger Stritmatter The joke is that the clown Kempe is an idiot, who doesn't have
enough learning to know that *Metamorphosis* was a work written by Ovid, and
not an author. It is something of a double-edged joke though, as the play
presents the actor as an idiot, but also shows that he is a wealthy idiot...one the
scholars [including those in the audience] may have to endure if they wish to
make their way in a world that is hostile to scholars and actual scholarship. The
joke at Kempe's expense "is intended to have precisely the same significance as
Gullio's admiration for Shakespeare and distaste for Chaucer." [Leishman, p.
337]. There is nothing in the text itself, or in the context of the play [or in all three
plays] which even hints that this is some joke about an alleged hidden author.
How rational is it to argue that Oxford was hiding his name and simultaneously
argue that the author[s] of the *Parnassus* plays and the intended audience all
knew the secret?
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Julie Sandys Bianchi
"You forget that all of us Oxfordians were Strafordians at one time."
I don't know what to make of this, other than people are human and often make
mistakes. Still lacking ONE piece of evidence that proves anyone other than
Shakespeare wrote the works ascribed to him. It's been three days of this thread
and still nothing.
Oxfraud
Julie Sandys Bianchi "You forget that all of us Oxfordians were Stratfordians at
one time."
I'd have to see evidence of this.
I have an unworthy suspicion that they're all just spending Shakespeare's cultural
currency without making the effort to understand his work.
Roger Parris ·
JOE,,
In which play do you believe,(IF you are serious in the tripe which you have
posted here) that William Shakspere of Stratford on Avon gave Ben Jonson a
purge for writing "The Poetaster" and why should he unless Jonson first brought
him on the stage in "Poetaster "?
Just as Jonson previously brought him on the stage as Sogliardo in "Every Man
in his Humour"(even Stanley Wells has been forced to concede this)."So what if
he be no gentleman but a clown indeed ,Lady?"
In fact the only known purge of Ben Jonson for writing "Poetaster" was authored
by Thomas Dekker .If Shakspere purged Jonson he was compelled to hire Dekker
to do it.
And you are ready to provide hundreds of more like these? .Priceless.
I apologize for asking you to put up or shut up. Just keep providing us with more
299/326
1/22/2015
laughs as will and his plays provide the Cambridge undergraduates with their
laughs..
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Parris Roger, dear, you're all over the place, poor boy. What, if you can hold
onto your ebbing faculties long enough, the hell are you talking about? Ah, but a
graduate of Hayesville High School. . . did you learn Ovid there? Maybe Virgil?
GO JACKETS!!!
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Joseph Ciolino Why! What SNOBBERY, Mr Ciolino!
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Ann Zakelj Snob? I??? Well I never. . .
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Ann Zakelj By the way, you know you're really absolutely adorable. Ever visit
NYC? (Hey, who said Strats can't flirt with an Anti-Strats?)
State University
Follow ·
Michelle Mauler Even better, the speaker thinks that "Metamorphosis" is an
author. You couldn't make up Joe thinking that this is evidence for his team. Its
simply ludicrous. Here you have a bunch of characters positively roasting the idea
of the Shakespearean belief, by the late Elizabethan or early Jacobean period, and
people four hundred years later are trotting this stuff out as "evidence." Talk
about denial not just being a river in Egypt!
Joseph Ciolino ·
Institutions
Roger Stritmatter Roger, either you forgot to take your medications or you have
slipped, permanently into some fantasy world in which whatever you think
becomes reality. Who, exactly, thought Metamorphosis was an author? Where did
I even imply that?
And, of course the citation is evidence and damn good evidence. (Compared to
what Oxfraudians claim for evidence it is out and out proof). Please state WHY it
is not even evidence, and supply the evidence that it is not evidence. Not silliness
like you wrote above.
Matthew Scribner · Kingston, Ontario
"17% of American literature professors think there is room for reasonable doubt about
Shakespeare’s identity"
What does that even mean? All professors of (Renaissance? English? Comparative?)
literature in the United States think there is doubt? Or does it mean that scholars of
American literature have this opinion?
300/326
1/22/2015
American literature have this opinion?
We should be asking what the Shakespeare and Renaissance/Early Modern experts think.
They are the ones most qualified to weigh in on this. (And they have. Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare).
Reply · Like ·
Matthew Scribner · Kingston, Ontario
Stephen Moorer Good. But the fact that the author of this article did not have the
sense to say that is perhaps indicative that he does not know how to weigh
evidence properly.
Reply · Like ·
State University
Follow ·
Stephen Moorer Good thing it was anonymous or those numbers would have
been much lower. The peer pressure to conform is intense.
Reply · Like ·
12 · December 29, 2014 at 11:17pm
Have I got news for you! The professors of Renaissance literature are precisely
the crowd who keep 'Shakespeare' alive. Authorship of the plays is not an issue
in a course in Renaissance drama. Where did you ever get the idea that professors
of Renaissance literature had even considered the issue?
Have I got news for you! The professors of Renaissance literature are precisely
the crowd who keep 'Shakespeare' alive. Authorship of the plays is not an issue
in a course in Renaissance drama. Where did you ever get the idea that professors
of Renaissance literature had even considered the issue?
FYI: The pseudonym 'Shakespeare' is a compound word alluding to the image of
Pallas Athena, the 'spear-shaker'. This Greek goddess, born fully grown from the
head of Zeus, is the emblem of Wisdom. Pallas Athena was the figurehead
adopted by Francis Bacon and his Masonic brotherhood. For further verification,
try the following: Walk into the stacks of a major library, then go to the section
housing texts from the English Renaissance; open them, and examine the
emblems on their pages. They are 'talking pictures' which comment on the text
and the author. 'Shake-speare' was not the man from Stratford.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
3 · December 29, 2014 at 11:44pm
Top Commenter
Carol Jean Jennings "...vultus/Tela vibrat..." Gabriel Harvey (ad nobilissimum
comitem Oxsoniensem)
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 30, 2014 at 1:25am
State University
Follow ·
Matthew Scribner Online peer review uncovers deficiencies very efficiently. There
is no need to attack the author of the article for such a minor lacuna. The article
has much more serious defects than this one, but is an honorable attempt to
summarize and synthesize a difficult and controversial subject.
Reply · Like ·
1 · December 31, 2014 at 9:49pm
Carol A. Giles · Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
301/326
1/22/2015
Carol A. Giles · Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
I had no idea there were sides & groups which argue this to no end. I had not paid attention
to this debate since high school. (In the 1970's, not 1670's.) I had never heard of De Vere
before either. I am impressed with Ann Zekylj's tenacity, but not her presentation of any facts
or proof of her argument. As a scientist, that bothers me.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
Top Commenter
Hi, Carol. When debating online I try to gauge the expertise of the poster. If I
detect that they are a well-versed in the subject (albeit incorrect) I will not supply
them with information they can discover on their own. I have indeed shared facts
in this forum, if you care to look, but as for proof... I wouldn't be far from wrong in
saying there is none, just a mountain of evidence in favor of de Vere. Hope this
helps.
Reply · Like ·
7 · December 30, 2014 at 5:31pm
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
Ann Zakelj If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. Otherwise,
you are just talking out your backside.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
2 · December 30, 2014 at 8:03pm
Top Commenter
Jennifer Burnham Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Reply · Like ·
4 · December 30, 2014 at 8:52pm
John Festa · Northern Illinois University
I think Jennifer's backhand was timely and well deserved. I've counted at least
three times where she has backed her assertions with evidence. You have made
statements which you contend are facts, yet refuse to provide the evidence to
support them telling people that they can easily find it on their own. In the legal
profession we see arguments all the time where statements of fact are supported
by misstated case law, or no case law at all. We call that BS and laugh at it all the
time. If you say there is evidence to support your point, present it. If you don't feel
presenting evidence is worth your time then the total worth of your argument can
be summed up in the parents credo "Because I said so", and should be given as
much weight.
Jennifer Burnham, well done.
Reply · Like ·
3 · December 31, 2014 at 12:17am
Jennifer Burnham ·
Top Commenter
John Festa :) Thanks.
Reply · Like ·
Ann Zakelj ·
1 · December 31, 201

Exist (format PDF / 14 MB )

Transcription

Similar documents

Why Shakespeare

July 2013

shakespeare competition 2014-2015

Say You Saw it in The Monadnock Shopper News 7

Book of Songs - The Lute Society

we love a challenge

William Shakespeare - Shakespeare`s Globe

Conservation groups nickname NM `The Land of Entrapment` | KOB