The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wish wish wish I had more access to a PC. I can hardly type on this device. I have so much to say, to ask.

I love poetry, and I love Shakespeare. Whoever wrote the plays was the greatest poet in English, which anyone without a tin ear would agree to.

I have no dog in this race, just a mild curiosity that is now more peaked. I don't care a fig if 'Shakespeare' was written by a king or a fishmonger, a bum or a polymath, a man, woman, or left handed Martian transvestite - I am a lover of the work.

ETA: and again, what accounts for the dramatic change in style and technique? When did Oxford develop a love for amazing enjambment and all sorts of remarkable and sonorous metrical substitutions?

The poems he took credit for are mediocre.

What is the alternative explanation, really? If you can't access a PC to take in some of the videos I recommend Looney's work. The third edition is out 2019, I believe. That De Vere is the author is a very rational, scientific conclusion. That the man from Stratford is the author is simply orthodoxy, tradition and sentiment.

I've spoken to this point before but it really is religious in a sense. There was a time before Darwin when we all supposed in magical beings and creators. It was how we explained everything we saw. Darwin showed us a more intelligent and testable theory that has withstood the test of time and scientific rigor. There are still doubters and scoffers as there will always be but the science is out and it speaks for itself.

The Stratford man somehow led this mundane illiterate early life, then went off to London, wrote Venus, a first work, pretty incredible, then the entire Shakespeare Corpus, then came back to Stratford without any notoriety and lived a mundane existence. It's only compelling and believable for some because it's so miraculous. But in science there are no miracles, hence De Vere.

The videos I will look more into...

But as for miracles, what is miraculous is a mediocre poet becoming a masterful one, and radically changing style and technique. Not that this would be impossible. Keats was a bad poet at nineteen, but by the Hyperion fragments he was a master - a few short years. But in the bad Keats there are glimmers of the great Keats. There is virtually no sign of 'Shakespeare' in De Vere. So I have to believe he took credit for mediocre juvenilia, but let a nobody take credit for the greatest works ever in English letters?

I have no fidelity or affection to this Stratford man, or to any single, specific individual, identified person. It's the work I love. If Oxford wrote the Shakespeare plays, then great! But I don't hear 'Shakespeare' in anything I've read by Oxford. Nothing. Not a puff.

Which is precisely where I was for a long time. What evidence do we have that the Stratford man was ever a mediocre poet? Keats was mediocre then Keats. De Vere was mediocre then Shakespeare. Where is the evidence for the Stratford man using this line of reasoning?

 

[WAB]

The videos I will look more into...

But as for miracles, what is miraculous is a mediocre poet becoming a masterful one, and radically changing style and technique. Not that this would be impossible. Keats was a bad poet at nineteen, but by the Hyperion fragments he was a master - a few short years. But in the bad Keats there are glimmers of the great Keats. There is virtually no sign of 'Shakespeare' in De Vere. So I have to believe he took credit for mediocre juvenilia, but let a nobody take credit for the greatest works ever in English letters?

I have no fidelity or affection to this Stratford man, or to any single, specific individual, identified person. It's the work I love. If Oxford wrote the Shakespeare plays, then great! But I don't hear 'Shakespeare' in anything I've read by Oxford. Nothing. Not a puff.

Which is precisely where I was for a long time. What evidence do we have that the Stratford man was ever a mediocre poet? Keats was mediocre then Keats. De Vere was mediocre then Shakespeare. Where is the evidence for the Stratford man using this line of reasoning?

I don't understand your questioning. When did I ever suggest that the Stratford man was ever a mediocre poet? And what does it have to do with Keats? I used Keats as an example to allow for the Oxford argument, not challenge it.

My argument was, yes, it is possible that the ordinary poems attributed to Oxford, presumably written when young, could be by the same hand that wrote the magnificent works attributed to Shakespeare - ie that yes, perhaps Oxford's hand was that hand. It is possible. A mediocre poet can become a great poet. I just wish I could see a gleam of 'Shakespeare' (the works attributed to the Stratford man), in the work of De Vere.

I am fine with this theory and would have no trouble accepting it, were it not for this problem.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's the first time I look at this controversy, so I haven't seen most of the evidence offered by any of the views, but - as usual - Bomb#20 provides a pretty solid piece of evidence. It's hard to see how the alternatives could counter something like that.

 

[Tharmas]

I’ve been following along in this thread and I thought I’d start contributing, although I have to say time doesn’t permit me to engage in a real back-and-forth. I will participate as possible.

First, let me say I am a skeptic, but I will admit I am prejudiced. You see, I have heard of the controversy before. I knew a remarkable man when I was much younger who was a gifted engineer and inventor – so gifted in fact that he was able to retire into a life of wealth and leisure at quite a young age. He spent his time in his retirement, and much of his wealth, on many things, such as trying to prove that ESP was real and measurable; promoting the work of the charlatan Uri Geller; investigating UFOs and UFO abductees with absolute credulity (I remember a long presentation on Area 51); his conviction that Darwin was completely disproven (his was the first time I ever heard the “2nd Law of Thermodynamics” argument); acceptance of numerology and astrology; and…the theory that the Earl of Oxford was the actual author of Shakespeare’s works.

So I admit my prejudice. Most of the pro arguments strike me as ad hoc, in the sense that objections are overcome willy-nilly by whatever means necessary, the sure sign of a crackpot theory. The major objection is I think WAB’s, that the extant Oxford poems, however well-crafted, simply do not show any glimmer of real genius. Well, you say, they are most likely the poems of a youth. He got better with age. So, I ask, where are his mature poems? In answer of course I would guess you point to the works of Shakespeare. Circular argument.

But I believe I am open to reason, and may be convinced. First, I have some questions that I haven’t seen addressed. Number 1, why the secrecy? Number 2, what would have been the mechanism of writing and producing a play without the actors knowing who the author was, or were they in on it? Number 3, how did he come to write some of his greatest dramatic works, including Lear, Othello, Macbeth, The Winter’s Tale, and The Tempest, among others, after he was dead?

I apologize in advance, but I don’t have time to pursue books, or even lengthy videos, but hope the discussion can be self-contained herein. I did watch one video, the one about the Stratford Shakespeare, and thought it was quite interesting. So, that’s it for now.

 

[Politesse]

Just wait til you see my theory that "Geoffrey Chaucer" was really "Dame Julian of Norwich", writing under a different pseudonym than usual so she could indulge in more secular topics without recrimination.

Because otherwise, How did he know so much about nuns???!

 

[Swammerdami]

First some miscellaneous responses:

It wasn't taboo for Earls to write poetry; it was taboo for those poems to be published and sold for money. It wasn't taboo for them to write plays; it was taboo for those plays to be performed in public. These taboos (related to chivalric codes) may seem silly, but they were real. There is plenty of specific evidence from that time period that Earls in general and Oxford specifically took those taboos seriously. When the young Oxford's poems (signed "E.O.") were published without Oxford's consent he objected strenuously, even forcing that 1st edition out of the book-stalls IIRC.

Writing anonymously, Oxford was able to hint at inside court information, or write with a political context that would have been very inappropriate if known to come from a court insider. Thus he'd "painted himself into a corner" and he and his Monarch had very important reasons to keep the authorship secret independent of the taboo.

That Oxford was a playwright cannot be in doubt. He is not only mentioned as a playwright in several documents, he is shown in superlatives: "the best for comedy" etc. (I'm not going to Google for every single cite. Most of these facts are readily available to anyone interested enough to do their own sincere Googling.) Oxford was a favorite of Queen Elizabeth and was her "court playwright." Some of the plays, e.g. Midsummer Night's Dream and Taming of the Shrew, seem to have been written (or rewritten) for specific noble marriages. Writing plays for private performances for Her Majesty or at private weddings was NOT taboo.

Just wait til you see my theory that "Geoffrey Chaucer" was really "Dame Julian of Norwich", writing under a different pseudonym than usual so she could indulge in more secular topics without recrimination.

Because otherwise, How did he know so much about nuns???!

I had applauded the open-mindedness exhibited in this thread, but it's not without exception. And from someone who started his participation by admitting he knew little about the matter! Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg, several other S.C. Justices, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud ...? Were they all gullible crackpots?

The case against Stratford is extremely strong. The case for Oxford is extremely strong. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge these facts is simply not well-read on the topic. I propose this: Each skeptic peruse the literature by anti-Stratfordians (there are many books, and hundreds of webpages on the topic. I'll supply links if needed.) If you find 20 anti-Stratfordian or pro-Oxfordian claims in the articles you read, and believe 19 of them to be outrageous or stupid, don't tell us about them. Tell us about the one fact that makes you stop and think; that you can't wave away as confusion or coincidence. If you can't find such a claim, then there's something wrong with your reading skills.

Having stated that the pro-Oxfordian case is very strong, let me also admit that the anti-Oxfordian case is very strong as well! This leaves a quandary.

It is the difference in word frequencies and constructions that makes one doubt the two authors can be the same. This is a big problem for Oxfordians. I certainly have no simple answer, but will give some possibilities. First, however, note that there ARE some similarities between the poets. I've already mentioned that both used iambic pentameter, relatively uncommon at that time IIUC. Certain metaphors are found in both poets: "silver ... music", "salve for ... sore" just off the top of my head; I just noticed the frequent mention of Phoebus from both writers as I was posting the sample poems upthread. Oxford's annotated Geneva Bible is considered hard evidence by some. Many word inventions credited to Shakespeare have since been found in earlier letters by Oxford.

(Romeo and Juliet contains a love-poem written when Stratford was a child. Why would the great poet re-use an old poem when he could easily write his own? Perhaps that old love-poem was written by Romeo's playwright.)

Nevertheless the differences are severe. How can these be explained if Oxford is the poet? We know that Oxford operated (at the house called Fisher's Folly) a sort of Bohemian club where poets and playwrights congregated. Oxford certainly had access to many expert writing tutors. In fact, for a while two of London's top playwrights were employed by Oxford as private secretaries. One of these was John Lyly, often cited as the strongest influence on Shake-speare. Could one or two of these other top poets have served as a collaborator? Collaborative poetry is rare ... but so are the splendid works of Shake-speare.

I had to Google "enjambment." There's another fancy word referring to the use of two nouns or two verbs where one would suffice ("slings and arrows of ...") This is a rarish device also found in the letters of Edward de Vere.

Finally, let's please not make all Oxfordians responsible for the excesses of a few. I've not watched Anonymous, but even a well-intentioned effort would suffer from the needs of a screenplay. (Certainly it would be absurd to regard any such effort as a documentary: even Oxfordians admit there are mysteries.)

But I believe I am open to reason, and may be convinced. First, I have some questions that I haven’t seen addressed. Number 1, why the secrecy? Number 2, what would have been the mechanism of writing and producing a play without the actors knowing who the author was, or were they in on it? Number 3, how did he come to write some of his greatest dramatic works, including Lear, Othello, Macbeth, The Winter’s Tale, and The Tempest, among others, after he was dead?

(1) Asked and answered. In addition to the general taboo, many of the plays had serious political content, which was disguised by the putative commoner authorship. These plays would have been read in a new and unacceptable light had it become known they were written by an intimate of H.M. Oxford refers to his special "office" for which he received the otherwise-unexplained £1000 salary. I think this large sum was partly to compensate Oxford for the imposed anonymity.

(2) Many people would have been aware of the hoax. H.M. and her top ministers and secret police; Oxford's noble relatives and friends; much of London's literary elite; and some of the players in Lord Chamberlain's Men. These all would have had little motive to disclose the secret, and very strong motive (the wrath of the Earl and more especially Her Majesty) to preserve the secret. Nevertheless — as I've listed up-thread — we can find several examples of people in-the-know leaving cryptic hints.

If scores of people were in on the hoax, could it have been kept secret? Recall the "Ultra secret" of W.W.II code-breaking. Hundreds of people were aware of the secret, yet it was kept secret for 35 years!

(3) The dating of the plays is controversial. Presumably the staging company kept records, but they've been ... mislaid(?). Dates are often twisted to fit the traditional narrative. Hamlet was performed when Stratford was still in his teens? "That must have been a different Hamlet by a different writer."

Many plays are dated based on their first known performance, but this can't be treated as the date of writing! This is a complicated topic, but I'll just note that the second known performance of MacBeth was in 1664, 48 years after the death of the Stratford man! (Performances mentioned by chance in letters can be used as an upper bound on the play's writing, but not as a lower bound.

Claims the certain plays must have been written after 1604 are flimsy. In most cases, even the flimsy evidence goes away if one assumes, correctly, that scripts are edited to include topical references. OTOH, there is evidence they were written before 1604: I'm fond of the astronomical argument myself.

 

[WAB]

Where did you get your definition of enjambment with reference to its use in poetry? Because the one you give is not what I'm talking about.

Enjambment is about lineation, line-ends. It's about running one line into another to create certain effects.

 

[WAB]

Deleted double post

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Having stated that the pro-Oxfordian case is very strong, let me also admit that the anti-Oxfordian case is very strong as well! This leaves a quandary.

I'm able to resolve this quandary by looking at the lives of the two men. De Vere had access to all those sources that would have been needed to write. And we have writing in his hand to this day, with language we see in Shakespeare. Just read his Tin Letters. This is all evidenced, there is no need for invention and conjecture.

Stratford is a different story, we have to invent his alleged genius with supposition and speculation. It has been shown that in his days in Stratford there were at most 28 books in the whole town, that's the whole town - at most! De Vere, on the other hand, had access to everything it would take to write. How did Stratford magically acquire his skill? We have six signatures that beg illiteracy yet he wrote Hamlet? Seriously?

 

[Politesse]

Having stated that the pro-Oxfordian case is very strong, let me also admit that the anti-Oxfordian case is very strong as well! This leaves a quandary.

I'm able to resolve this quandary by looking at the lives of the two men. De Vere had access to all those sources that would have been needed to write. And we have writing in his hand to this day, with language we see in Shakespeare. Just read his Tin Letters. This is all evidenced, there is no need for invention and conjecture.

Stratford is a different story, we have to invent his alleged genius with supposition and speculation. It has been shown that in his days in Stratford there were at most 28 books in the whole town, that's the whole town - at most! De Vere, on the other hand, had access to everything it would take to write. How did Stratford magically acquire his skill? We have six signatures that beg illiteracy yet he wrote Hamlet? Seriously?

See, that's exactly why I think Chaucer was a fake. The number of non-churchmen who regularly read or wrote anything in his time was next to non-existent, but we're supposed to believe that this seemingly uneducated laymen wrote all these books? In English, a language almost no one wrote anything in at that time? Except - as it happens - for Dame Julian, who we know to have been literate in both Latin and English, preferring the latter in her published works, and who like "Chaucer" had an incredibly skeptical view toward human nature and a fascination with violence. Not to mention, her preference for writing anonymously is one of the few absolute facts we have about her, so creating a pseudonym is perfectly in keeping with the Dame Julian we see in the historical record. The coincidences are just too strong to ignore, no matter how much the London school insists otherwise.

 

[Bomb#20]

Just wait til you see my theory that "Geoffrey Chaucer" was really "Dame Julian of Norwich", writing under a different pseudonym than usual so she could indulge in more secular topics without recrimination.

Because otherwise, How did he know so much about nuns???!

I had applauded the open-mindedness exhibited in this thread, but it's not without exception. And from someone who started his participation by admitting he knew little about the matter! Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg, several other S.C. Justices, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud ...? Were they all gullible crackpots?

I think you misunderstand. Politesse wasn't ridiculing the whole authorship controversy; he was critiquing one specific argument: "How stupid is that, an author that writes not from his experiences but just invents whatever he needs to invent, nothing in his works reflecting his life's experiences?".

If you find 20 anti-Stratfordian or pro-Oxfordian claims in the articles you read, and believe 19 of them to be outrageous or stupid, don't tell us about them. Tell us about the one fact that makes you stop and think; that you can't wave away as confusion or coincidence.

That's all very well for 19 weak arguments in the literature; but when somebody presents one of the weak arguments here, open-mindedness does not require the rest of us to refrain from pointing out that it's weak.

 

[Swammerdami]

Where did you get your definition of enjambment with reference to its use in poetry? Because the one you give is not what I'm talking about.

Enjambment is about lineation, line-ends. It's about running one line into another to create certain effects.

I was NOT proposing any alternate definition, though in hind-sight I see that my terse and badly-written paragraph was quite confusing.

Instead I just used your comment about enjambment in poetry to segue and mention a completely DIFFERENT technique of prose whose name I've forgotten but which sheds the opposite light on the authorship. This technique is ALSO rarish and is ALSO found in the works of Shakespeare. But, this technique IS found in Oxford's letters.

The technique whose name I've forgotten is to use TWO words or phrases (connected with 'and') where a less creative writer would use one. Here's a trivial example from The Merchant of Venice:

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

 

[WAB]

I've accessed the Oxford Authorship Site and read two of the 'tin letters' TGGM mentioned. Already caught two words I am unfamiliar with: sithence and satisfice. Could be typos? I don't recall seeing them in Shakespeare, or anywhere else for that matter.

At any rate, this is exciting!

ETA: not typos, just words I don't recollect seeing.

 

[Politesse]

When something occurs sithence another event, it has happened afterward. My students satisfice assignment requirements when they do the aboslute minimum of work necessary to get a passing grade according to the rubric. Neither word is common in modern English, sithence is archaic (replaced by "since" for most speakers) and satisfice is a crass portmanteau only used by people who read too many trendy articles on business optimization.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let me thank Mr. Moogly a second time for the links to Bonner Cutting videos. Naturally YouTube offers me more videos by Ms. Cutting, which I'm happy to click. The second one I watched is her talk about Edward de Vere's ₤1000 annuity.

I didn't realize how secret this annuity was. According to Ms. Cutting it was mentioned once in the 17th century, then discovered in the 20th century. This was an Exchequer warrant granted in 1586 for Oxford's lifetime. In a letter to Burghley, Oxford refers to his "office." This was NOT charity with the Queen helping her near-bankrupt Earl. It was for specific services; the warrant was similar to warrants granted Walsingham or Robert Cecil for secret operations. The specific service (according to Cutting) was a series of history plays intended as propaganda to support the legitimacy of the Tudor Dynasty. (Recall that most Englishmen were illiterate: it was plays, not books, that were useful as propaganda.)

The warrant was unusual for several reasons: The Queen, extremely stingy and hard-pressed for funds due to expensive wars, preferred to grant monopolies which cost her nothing, but this warrant was for payment of gold bullion out of her Treasury, during a time when she was unable to pay the salaries of her army in the Low Countries.

I don't really recommend the 38-minute video. She goes into much interesting detail, but I think I summarize the main gist here. Her slides are hard to read: She should have used black text instead of light blue.

Ms. Cutting makes much of the non-accountability clause: "... [shall not] be charged toward Us, our heirs or successors." In all other Exchequer warrants with non-accountability clauses, the pronoun is "him" (the payee) — the payee need not repay or account for the funds. But in Oxford's warrant, the pronoun is reversed: It is the payer (the Queen) who need not account for these funds. A weird but meaningless error? Ms. Cutting thinks this further emphasizes the secrecy of this annuity, and the secrecy of the services it recompenses. The non-accountability clause was an order to the Treasury auditors not to look into the payments.

There are various references to ₤1000 in early discussions of Shakespeare. This is often mentioned as a payment made by Wriothesely to Shakespeare, although there is no evidence for such a payment — enough to buy a dozen fine houses, far larger than would be normal in that putative relationship. I don't remember which references to ₤1000 that Oxfordians find most meaningful, but here's one search turns up. (Why "pounds" instead of marks or ducats as the playwright uses elsewhere? The play is set in Denmark, not England.)

O good Horatio, I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound! Didst perceive?

 

[Swammerdami]

I've accessed the Oxford Authorship Site and read two of the 'tin letters' TGGM mentioned. Already caught two words I am unfamiliar with: sithence and satisfice.

All's Well that Ends Well; Act I. Scene 3

... sithence, in the loss that may happen, it concerns you something to know it.

The Tragedy of Coriolanus, Act III

Have you inform'd them sithence?

I think the Gutenberg.Org source that I search has mostly modernized spelling; earlier versions may have more instances.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All's Well that Ends Well; Act I. Scene 3


The Tragedy of Coriolanus, Act III

Have you inform'd them sithence?

I think the Gutenberg.Org source that I search has mostly modernized spelling; earlier versions may have more instances.

Different texts and revisions is actually an issue. Some updates have changed the pronoun gender.

It can be like reading ancient Greek, trying to find the translation that is most representative and accurate, not the author's bias.

 

[Swammerdami]

... a completely DIFFERENT technique of prose whose name I've forgotten but which sheds the opposite light on the authorship. This technique is ALSO rarish and is ALSO found in the works of Shakespeare. But, this technique IS found in Oxford's letters.

The technique whose name I've forgotten is to use TWO words or phrases (connected with 'and') where a less creative writer would use one. Here's a trivial example from The Merchant of Venice:

His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

I'm re-reading Mark Anderson's Shakespeare By Another Name and happened to find that hendiadys is the word I'd forgotten. Google gives me a somewhat different definition, with the replacement of "adjective noun" with "noun and noun" being a typical example; a specific example is MacBeth's "sound and fury" where "furious sound" would be more mundane. Virgil's Aeneid and "the Bible" (which translation? Does it matter?) are shown by Google as other writings that use hendiadys. What are English examples?

Elsewhere in Anderson's book is a letter by de Vere, with three instances of hendiadys in the same sentence:

... But his shifts and knaveries are so gross and palpable, that doubting to bring his parties and juggling to light, he doth address his petition against her that is utterly ignorant of the cause.

'Juggled/juggler/juggling', BTW, occurs 11 times in the Plays, always in the sense of 'deceiving.'

Re-reading Anderson's book reminds me how strong the case is for Oxford; how difficult it is to understand how someone could read a book like that and not conclude that the Oxfordian case is quite strong. Read that book! Or peruse one of the websites with a hundred or more "proofs."

It would be futile and perverse to type into this thread dozens of coincidences from sources like Anderson's — Read that book! Instead I propose to comment in future posts on tangential matters including (1) How did the relationship between Oxford and Shaksper develop?; and (2) Is it just coincidence that the plays of England's Lord Great Chamberlain were performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men?

 

[Swammerdami]

Cryptic writings (e.g. anagrams, acrostics, etc.) were very common during the Elizabethan Era and the use of pseudonyms was mandatory for the "courtier poets" who'd be violating a taboo to allow poetry to be published under their real names. Fellow poets writing about a courtier poet would have to invent a fake name. Thomas Nashe referred to Edward de Vere as "Will. Monox [with] his great dagger^*" or sometimes "Gentle Master William Apis Lapis." Gabriel Harvey (whom we will meet again in a later post), jealous that he was excluded from Oxford's inner circle, insulted Oxford by referring to him as "Pierce Penniless." While some of the fake names cannot be linked with universal agreement to a specific poet, it is certain that Harvey's "Pierce Penniless" refers (in at least one case) to the man who wrote the works of Shake-speare: Harvey specifically notes that "Penniless" was the author of Venus and Adonis. (Does "Penniless" seem on odd fake name for England's most senior Earl? It was well known that the once wealthy Earldom of Oxford was essentially bankrupt by this time.)

(* - Nashe wrote "... Will. Monox (hast thou never heard of him and his great dagger?)" This is a good example of the sort of cryptic hints common in that era. Neither friend nor foe would dare identify Oxford clearly as a published poet or playwright for the common theater, but this reference with its "hast thou never heard of ..." is very clearly providing a hint about a fake name. "Great", referring to his ceremonial role of Lord Great Chamberlain of England, was an adjective often applied to Oxford. Is it a stretch to think the "dagger" is a cryptic reference to the official Sword of State carried by the Great Chamberlain on special occasions?)

Here is a page with some of Oxford's poems written when he was in his 30's, some with the pseudonym "Ball." (Because some of these authorships may be disputed, I think they are omitted from the algorithmic comparisons Oxford vs Shakespeare.)

The following sonnet, the only writing known by "Phaeton," is thought by some to be the last poem by Oxford to appear without the "Shake-speare" name. (It shares features with an anonymous acrostic tribute to Oxford's 2nd wife.) @ Experts: How does its quality compare? (The poem has also been attributed, with little evidence, to Marlowe.)

Sweet friend, whose name agrees with thy increase
How fit a rival art thou of the spring!
For when each branch hath left his flourishing,
And green-locked summer's shady pleasures cease,
She makes the winter's storms repose in peace
And spends her franchise on each living thing:
The daisies spout, the little birds do sing,
Herbs, gums, and plants do vaunt of their release.
So when that all our English wits lay dead
(Except the laurel that is evergreen)
Thou with thy fruits our barrenness o'erspread
And set thy flowery pleasance to be seen.
Such fruits, such flow'rets of morality
Were ne'er before brought out of Italy.

The longest poem (attributed long before Looney's book to "L[ord] Ver" or "Ball", and which happens to have the "salve a sore" image favored by Oxford and Shake-speare) shown at the linked page above is only eight stanzas (or 48 lines) long. But the great poet was preparing Venus and Adonis, a poem with a whopping 199 stanzas (1194 lines) and of a quality to make it immediately recognized as one of the best poems ever written in the English language. This poem couldn't be published under an obviously fake name like "Phaeton." Nor could it be published anonymously. Oxford was widely agreed to be the greatest of the anonymous "courtier poets"; publishing it anonymously or with an obviously fake pseudonym would be equivalent to using his own real name.

A front-man was needed, a living, breathing "pen-name." How was "William Shake-speare" chosen for this role? I plan to explore that question in the next few posts.

 

[WAB]

There are no experts with respect to the art of poetry that post here, as far as I know.

But there are quite a few well read members, and a few lovers of poetry.

To my ear, the Petrarchan sonnet you posted is very well made. The author of it writes with authority and confidence. They know their way around iambic pentameter, rhyme, and form. But there's virtually nothing in it that matches the supreme excellence found (read: heard) in Shakespeare's mature plays. It doesn't even match the quality that is found in the early plays.

Later, when I get access to a laptop, I might copy and paste a few examples of the kind of quality I'm talking about. When Shakespeare was in the zone, every line was magnificent, rich, opulent, tasty, perfectly made, surprising and astonishing to the mind and the ear. No other pen in English could do the same thing.