The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... I now doubt that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare.

That's how it worked for me. It came down to reasonable doubt about the Stratford man based on an absolute paucity of evidence in his favor. And interestingly enough, I felt similarly about De Vere for quite a while, and for exactly the same reason. But then I became aware of his life, his accolades for theater and the style of his writing combined with the fact that his career simply stopped. So I think you may be headed down the same path.

The authorship question has two parts, the literary question and the scientific question. For me it's primarily a scientific, forensic, evidentiary question. The literary connections to De Vere's life and experiences is just icing on the cake.

[Please see posts #116, 117, and 118]

Regarding accolades: as you know it was common, even necessary perhaps, at least for the common rabble, to flatter aristocrats even if such flattery was undeserved.

As for the style of his writing: I submit that there are no similarities in style, or precious few, at least with respect to much of the poetry in the plays. I cannot comment on the letters as I've only read one in its entirety, and dipped into several others. That being said, I saw nothing that sounded like what one finds all through the plays. But alas, I'm a nobody, and a newcomer to this, so my opinion means naught.

I have read much about correlations in usage of words, phrases, and spellings, but since the Author and De Vere were contemporaries, both poets, and both writers, that's to be expected.

Tom Veal, at the Stromata blog, and I believe David Katham, mention a few Oxfordians (and provide extensive quotes from their texts), referring to the styles of writing and the evidence compiled regarding corellations, correspondences, what have you. Neither of them were remotely convinced, nor has the greater majority of the community of Shakespeare scholarship been. I am not making an argument by popularity or authority. I have not been persuaded, after all, with their patent dismissal of strictly anti-Stratfordian arguments. I simply must assume that academics, scholars, especially those who have invested so much time in the Authorship question, know something about the scientific, forensic data, or at least enough to venture an educated opinion.

However, I do bear in mind that there are other reasons for dismissing the Authorship question altogether. Good ones, too. I will leave off here for now. Just remember, my mind is open, and I do not dismiss the question, or De Vere.

It is only recently that the Stratford School has admitted that ALL attributions to the Stratford man are posthumous. The publication of the first folio and the few words linking the works to the Stratford man are where the historical dots start getting connected to the Stratford man. The monument mentioned at the time in the Stratford Church was of a person holding a bag of grain, not a book and quill. That monument was changed decades later.

Look, I'm not alleging some great conspiracy, only pointing out historical facts and evidence that would convince an unbiased jury that the Stratford man was not the author. Whether that author is principally De Vere is another question. We do know that some of the Shakespear Canon was finished by committee. Historically, this makes sense based on when De Vere died compared to when the Stratford man died.

Like many of us, I've sat on juries and listened to contradictory witness testimony. At that point the juror is forced to look at other evidence that is likely to shed truth on the actual events that unfolded. I'm merely saying there has been a mistake in attributing the works to the Stratford man. I'm not trying to peddle a conspiracy theory like Trump and his minions are doing. I actually liked what Mitt Romney had to say after the Capitol fiasco. He said that if you really want to help someone "Tell them the truth," don't tell them what they want to hear.

Are you familiar with Rapa Nui and the huge statues? For centuries the best guess as to how the Polynesians moved these megaliths was that they pulled them on sleds made of trees. But there were no trees on the island when the first Europeans arrived. So the conclusion had become that they stopped building their statues when they didn't have any more trees to make sleds. Makes perfect logical sense - IF - they actually used sleds made from trees. But they didn't, so the whole conjecture falls apart. We now know that the statues walked - or were walked, by the natives from the quarry. Their language even contains a word for walking but without moving one's legs. It's a fascinating discovery that makes sense along with all the other forensic evidence. It's an absolute smackdown.

And that's where I am with Shakespeare. It's a scientific question, not a question of literary tradition.

I just picked up Anderson's work from the library. If you ever get a hold of Looney's work you will enjoy it.

 

[WAB]

Thanks Moogly,

I will see what I can do about Looney's book.

I looked at Mark Anderson's Wikipedia page. There's a link on the bottom to a page called "Shakespeare" By Another Name - official site. The link took me to a page that looks Japanese, or most certainly Asian. The URL I can't remember, but it was nothing to do with Shakespeare. I tried to get out using the back button, but it was one of those deals where you had to hit the button many times, quickly, to get out. WTF? I am on an old laptop, but that was just wrong, and I don't recall ever getting a blind link at Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Anderson_(writer)

Will look elsewhere for info.

Yes, I saw a documentary on the Rapa Nui statues, I believe. My brother and I often get together to watch documentaries about 'Ancient Aliens', ancient civiizations, etc.

I am reluctant to go along with the authorship by committee theory, at least with regard to virtually all of the middle to late plays. I believe that certain, substantially large sections of them written in IP (and sometimes the prose parts), which almost definitely set 'Shakespeare' head and shoulders above any other poet in English, are the work of one hand.

That several writers could have the identical style, and that style also be so superior in every quality, and so readily recognizable, is hard for me to swallow. But alas, who am I to say? Just one reader four centuries away.

Please, sir, perish the thought that I might for an instant consider you vulnerable to conspiracy theories. I believe that you, and Swammerdami, are convinced with sound reasons.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thanks Moogly,

I will see what I can do about Looney's book.

I looked at Mark Anderson's Wikipedia page. There's a link on the bottom to a page called "Shakespeare" By Another Name - official site. The link took me to a page that looks Japanese, or most certainly Asian. The URL I can't remember, but it was nothing to do with Shakespeare. I tried to get out using the back button, but it was one of those deals where you had to hit the button many times, quickly, to get out. WTF? I am on an old laptop, but that was just wrong, and I don't recall ever getting a blind link at Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Anderson_(writer)

Will look elsewhere for info.

Yes, I saw a documentary on the Rapa Nui statues, I believe. My brother and I often get together to watch documentaries about 'Ancient Aliens', ancient civiizations, etc.

I am reluctant to go along with the authorship by committee theory, at least with regard to virtually all of the middle to late plays. I believe that certain, substantially large sections of them written in IP (and sometimes the prose parts), which almost definitely set 'Shakespeare' head and shoulders above any other poet in English, are the work of one hand.

That several writers could have the identical style, and that style also be so superior in every quality, and so readily recognizable, is hard for me to swallow. But alas, who am I to say? Just one reader four centuries away.

Please, sir, perish the thought that I might for an instant consider you vulnerable to conspiracy theories. I believe that you, and Swammerdami, are convinced with sound reasons.

I'm talking about the dramas, and working from memory, not the entire Canon. Obviously some of the dramas were unfinished before being released in the first folio and had to be made whole. The style and quality in some parts is definitely not Shakespeare. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Swammerdami]

I looked at Mark Anderson's Wikipedia page. There's a link on the bottom to a page called "Shakespeare" By Another Name - official site. The link took me to a page that looks Japanese, or most certainly Asian.
...
Please, sir, perish the thought that I might for an instant consider you vulnerable to conspiracy theories. I believe that you, and Swammerdami, are convinced with sound reasons.

Ouch! I have my own hobbyist site (NOT about Shakespeare or Oxford! , and it's been infected with malware on at least two occasions. :-( In this case, it's probably more likely that Mark Anderson just let the domain registration expire. You can see an archived version of the page, e.g. ....
https://web.archive.org/web/20160701045138/http://shakespearebyanothername.com/
... But IMO this may be hardly worth the click.

I think Anderson's book is great, but it's a biography of Oxford which assumes the authorship. It contains HUGE circumstantial evidence but doesn't focus on debate or "proofs" so may not be what you're looking for.

As for my own convictions: Mismatch between the poetry of Shake-speare and Oxford is a big concern. (Some universities have done projects to measure the mismatch with computer programs! I've wanted to write one of the Professors and ask for data and algorithms but never gotten around to it.) But when ALL the evidence is stacked up, the case for Oxford seems overwhelming. Hamlet is practically an (auto?)biography of the young Oxford and Hamlet just scratches the surface of the huge amount of circumstantial evidence found, e.g. in Anderson's book.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As for my own convictions: Mismatch between the poetry of Shake-speare and Oxford is a big concern. (Some universities have done projects to measure the mismatch with computer programs! I've wanted to write one of the Professors and ask for data and algorithms but never gotten around to it.) But when ALL the evidence is stacked up, the case for Oxford seems overwhelming. Hamlet is practically an (auto?)biography of the young Oxford and Hamlet just scratches the surface of the huge amount of circumstantial evidence found, e.g. in Anderson's book.

Looney's work is back with the library unfortunately.

But after he developed his forensic profile of what constituted the author of Shakespeare, is it not accurate that he began looking for poetry like that of Shakespeare and that upon discovering a small work by the very young De Vere that occurred well before anything the Stratford man could have written is how he became acquainted with De Vere?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Please, sir, perish the thought that I might for an instant consider you vulnerable to conspiracy theories. I believe that you, and Swammerdami, are convinced with sound reasons.

I think I may be more prone than most to embrace what appears to be conspiracy thinking. And I think the reason for this is that I'm always looking for a reasonable explanation. Only recently have i finally laid to rest my questions about JFK's assassination. The only aspect of the case that ever bothered me was the difference in behavior of the two bullet wounds suffered by president kennedy. One wound was entry/exit with no fragmentation of the bullet. The head wound, however, behaved like a round from the automatic weapons carried by the Secret Service that day.

But recent forensic experiments have demonstrated convincingly that the same bullet behaves precisely that way when it strikes different mediums. I only ever wanted to understand the physical differences. Once that information became available i became satisfied.

So no problemo! And we're all vulnerable to this type of thinking, that's a given.

 

[WAB]

You're rignt, Moogly, I should have said inclined towards " instead.

*****

At any rate, this:

I've been reading along, and I came across the Shakespeare Authorship question candidate, William Stanley. From Wikipedia, this bit, found on his son's burial monument:


To say a Stanley lies here, that alone

were epitaph enough; no brass, no stone,

no glorious tomb, no monumental hearse,

no guilded trophy or lamp-laboured verse

can dignify his grave or set it forth

like the immortal fame of his own worth.

Then, reader, fix not here, but quit this room

and fly to Abraham's bosom – there's his tomb.

There rests his soul, and for his other parts

they are embalmed and lodged in good men's hearts.

A braver monument of stone or lime,

no art can raise, for this shall outlast time.


Now that, while nothing astonishingly brilliant, is much closer to Shakespeare's style, the author's ease with IP especially apparent, and not apparent in the extant poems by De Vere.

Yes, I know how closely linked Stanley and De Vere were, so I grant it could have been authored by him as well; but, it appears there may be similarities between Stanley's penmanship and 'hand D" on the Thomas More manuscript.

Intriguing.

 

[Swammerdami]

Very intriguing! William Stanley was also a noted courtier poet, and was married to Edward de Vere's first-born daughter. Perhaps Hamlet, instead of an autobiography, was a biography of the playwright's father-in-law. In his book, Mark Anderson suggests that

• Stanley and de Vere collaborated on at least some of the plays;
• Midsummer Night's Dream was performed at the Stanley-de Vere wedding and, although previously performed at the wedding of the Dowager Countess of Southampton to her 2nd husband, parts of the script were rewritten to connect to the Stanley-de Vere wedding. Stanley was not de Vere's first choice for Elizabeth's groom (Southampton was) and, according to Anderson, some of the plot is a self-parody of de Vere's involvement in his daughter's choice of groom.
• Although named after Stanley's older brother, Ferdinand in The Tempest was based on William Stanley.

Merry Widows of Windsor is another play said to have connections to Stanley's life.
As Earl of Derby, William Stanley had the secondary title of Lord Strange, so the many references to "strange" in the poems and plays come under scrutiny. In Sonnet LXXVI (mentioned upthread) see "To new-found methods, and to compounds strange?" (Another subsidiary title of Stanley was King of the Isle of Man.)

By the way, Stanley's older brother Ferdinando was, via his mother, Heir to the Throne of England (rival to the Stuarts of Scotland) according to an Act of Parliament pushed by King Henry VIII; and some tried to incite Ferdinando to seize the throne from the "bastard" Elizabeth! Although William became Earl upon his older brother's early death, the (Pretender) Throne of England passed to Ferdinando's daughter. Agnatic primogeniture is followed for Earldoms, Cognatic primogeniture is followed for the English and Scots Kingdoms (but not for the Kingship of the Isle of Man!).

(It was widely suspected that Ferdinando's early death came from poison! In this theory he wasn't poisoned by Elizabeth, but by the Catholics whose conspiracy he refused to join.)

My own opinion doesn't mean much, but I still think the clues and chronology point strongly to Oxford, assisted by collaborators. Stanley is an obvious candidate for collaborator.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My own opinion doesn't mean much, but I still think the clues and chronology point strongly to Oxford, assisted by collaborators. Stanley is an obvious candidate for collaborator.

I'm about a hundred pages into Anderson's Shakespeare by Another Name. It is nothing short of amazing the parallels between De Vere and the Shakespeare Canon. Many of those old aspersions directed against De Vere that accused him of making geographical mistakes or attributing sculpture to artists who only supposedly painted ought to "give pause" to Stratfordians. Personally I think it's an open and shut case. Call me pedantic but there's a religious element to claiming Shakspere is Shakespeare. One fact I've learned is that up until the last century Stratfordians would always claim that Shakspere is Shakespeare, spelling it precisely that way to make their argument. But anymore Stratfordians spell Shakspere as Shakespeare. The Stratford man and the Stratford name was never spelled like De Vere's pseudonym.

I was perusing the SAC site refamiliarizing myself with the Droeshout engraving and the Stratford Moniment. I have to admit that when Waugh first made the connection to Westminster via the Latin on the inscription I was very skeptical. But I've been convinced. No other interpretation makes sense, considering the fact that De Vere's grave disappeared and also writings from his family placing his eventual internment in Westminster with Spenser, Chaucer and Beaumont in Poet's Corner. Jonson just could not keep a secret and so teased us all with his double meanings. It's not a conspiracy, simply Jonson likely performing a family request.

I've also learned that Jonson did not approve of the Stratford man taking credit for De Vere's work, and considering the moniment and how the statue has been changed it just give's more credence to De Vere. The Oxford Fellowship site is a good read.

As I've too often said, it's more of a scientific, forensic question. For any person who is scientifically literate and curious and who looks at the evidence they will be convinced. The ruse that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare endures for reasons of literary tradition only. The evidence is there, just not the interest to examine it. People love miracles but there are no miracles here.

 

[WAB]

I'm going to run a few things by you two tomorrow, or maybe later on if I can't sleep.

I am typing on my brand spankin' new Kindle 7 at present, and it is hard going. I don't know how people can type like the dickens on these tiny kegs...No, i don't want kegs, silly Kindle! ...tiny keypads.

I joined an Oxfordian discussion group on Facebook earlier today. Any chance either of you are in one there?

Also, there was a thread at Eratosphere about the Oxfordian theory, in 2014. I was surprised to find that I had posted in that thread, since I don't remember it. I posited my own theory - the Bugs Bunny Authorship Theory!

I will provide a link to it when I get to the laptop.

 

[Swammerdami]

This thread seems to have rekindled interest in the Authorship controversy among at least three of us — I definitely include myself — I don't know whether congratulations or condolences are in order.

... I was perusing the SAC site refamiliarizing myself with the Droeshout engraving and the Stratford Moniment. I have to admit that when Waugh first made the connection to Westminster via the Latin on the inscription I was very skeptical. But I've been convinced. No other interpretation makes sense, considering the fact that De Vere's grave disappeared and also writings from his family placing his eventual internment in Westminster with Spenser, Chaucer and Beaumont in Poet's Corner. Jonson just could not keep a secret and so teased us all with his double meanings. It's not a conspiracy, simply Jonson likely performing a family request.
...

The alleged mysterious reference to Poet's Corner in Westminster is new to me. I don't see it mentioned in this thread. I've done some Googling and have found mentions of Waugh's decipherment but no details. The Googling did take me to a 63-page pdf making the case that Oxford's death on June 24, 1604 was a fake! Mr. Moogly? Can you point me to Waugh's decipherment before I go down too many rabbit-holes?

One annoyance is how often writers insist on modernizing spelling; this interferes with a lot, especially "decipherments." Just now I stumbled on an image of the Stratford inscription:



Anderson's book (which mentions the inscription only very briefly it seems) writes 'placed' instead of 'plast', 'writ' instead of 'writt', and so on. (I suppose the image with archaic spelling could be the fake!)

 

[Swammerdami]

The following is OFF-TOPIC but I'll mention it on the off-chance someone can help me.

While Googling I saw this:

"The dot marking the burial place on the title page landed on the exact spot where, in 1740, the famous monument to Shakespeare was erected by Alexander Pope and Lord Burlington, a direct descendant of Oxford's sister, Mary Vere. It strongly implies that the people who put that statue there in 1740 knew damned well that he was buried right underneath it."

Lord Burlington is presumably Richard Boyle (1694-1753), 3rd Earl of Burlington. I am an amateur genealogist and tried to find his descent from Mary de Vere, but failed. Help? (For example, this page shows many of Mary de Vere's 6-gt grandchildren, but no Boyle. Going the other direction, the same website has a rather thorough pedigree for Richard Boyle, with no De Vere.)

 

[Swammerdami]

The alleged mysterious reference to Poet's Corner in Westminster is new to me.... I've done some Googling and have found mentions of Waugh's decipherment but no details.... Mr. Moogly? Can you point me to Waugh's decipherment before I go down too many rabbit-holes?

Never mind. This is the page I need to study, I think. I'm too frazzled right now but later today will read it slowly over a nice cup of coffee!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The alleged mysterious reference to Poet's Corner in Westminster is new to me.... I've done some Googling and have found mentions of Waugh's decipherment but no details.... Mr. Moogly? Can you point me to Waugh's decipherment before I go down too many rabbit-holes?

Never mind. This is the page I need to study, I think. I'm too frazzled right now but later today will read it slowly over a nice cup of coffee!

Yep. That's as good a discussion as any. Strangely enough I do have four years of Latin to my credit so the discussion makes sense when it talks about ablatives and Latin sentence structure and grammar. Sorry I cannot help with the genealogy query. And I may be misattributing the decipherment of the Latin to Waugh but that affects little.

Spoiler Alert

It would appear then that the first line of the Stratford Monument’s epitaph – ‘Judicio Pylium, Genio Socratem, Arte Maronem’ – alludes, not to Shakespeare, but to three great English poets, respectively Beaumont, Chaucer and Spenser whom ‘Earth covers, people mourn and Olympus holds.’13 So to the challenge set by the Stratford inscription – ‘Work out from this monument (if you can) whom envious Death hath placed with Shakspeare’ – we appear to have an answer: Shakespeare is buried, together with Beaumont, Chaucer and Spenser, in that order, in what is now known as ‘Poets’ Corner,’ in Westminster Abbey.

Solving this riddle supports the Oxfordian contention that Edward de Vere was buried in 1604 at Hackney without a monument (or under an ‘uncarved marble’) and that, after the death of his wife in 1612, his body was surreptitiously reinterred in an unmarked grave in Westminster Abbey. This theory has been used to explain a discrepancy between the Hackney Parish records of 1604, the Countess of Oxford’s will and a later manuscript in the hand of Oxford’s first cousin, Percival Golding.14 The Golding manuscript states that Edward de Vere was ‘a man in minde and body absolutely accomplished with honourable endowments. He died at his house in Hackney in the month of June Anno 1604 and lieth buried at Westminster.’ The Stratford Monument therefore corroborates Percival Golding.

So the headless corpse buried in Stratford is Shakspere, not Shake-speare.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm going to run a few things by you two tomorrow, or maybe later on if I can't sleep.

I am typing on my brand spankin' new Kindle 7 at present, and it is hard going. I don't know how people can type like the dickens on these tiny kegs...No, i don't want kegs, silly Kindle! ...tiny keypads.

I joined an Oxfordian discussion group on Facebook earlier today. Any chance either of you are in one there?

Also, there was a thread at Eratosphere about the Oxfordian theory, in 2014. I was surprised to find that I had posted in that thread, since I don't remember it. I posited my own theory - the Bugs Bunny Authorship Theory!

I will provide a link to it when I get to the laptop.

WAB, you're a hoot! I'm not a Facebooker but I have signed the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt and subscribe at the SAC. I don't know anything about Kindle 7 except that I know they are electronic readers. Is this basically a computer that gives you better access also?

Tanks for advancing the discussion, I am enjoying it.

 

[WAB]

One quick question before they take me down, sedate me, cuff my wrist to the table, and let me at the laptop:

If this Shaksper bloke was not really named Shakespeare, then why does Wikipedia ((not to mention most sources) spell his father's and his grandfather's name as Shakespeare?

And is it really being claimed that De Vere chose his pen - name BEFORE his meeting and arrangement with 'Shaksper"?

We cross posted. Moogly don't leave yet!

I don't understand your question...

ETA...(tick tock...tick tock...)

ETA: lol. Can you imagine being this guy? :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespear_(explorer)


ETA Redux:

The link to the Sphere thread:

https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...0twFxxNBPpAs8hBO7IS5vfmreiUdpsSpt9iUq4xbG21Nc

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One quick question before they take me down, sedate me, cuff my wrist to the table, and let me at the laptop:

If this Shaksper bloke was not really named Shakespeare, then why does Wikipedia ((not to mention most sources) spell his father's and his grandfather's name as Shakespeare?

And is it really being claimed that De Vere chose his pen - name BEFORE his meeting and arrangement with 'Shaksper"?

We cross posted. Moogly don't leave yet!

I don't understand your question...

ETA...(tick tock...tick tock...)

ETA: lol. Can you imagine being this guy? :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespear_(explorer)


ETA Redux:

The link to the Sphere thread:

https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...0twFxxNBPpAs8hBO7IS5vfmreiUdpsSpt9iUq4xbG21Nc

You are definitely a classic!

I don't think the bloke in the link is connected to the discussion.

And yes it seems that Stratfordians determined to maintain orthodoxy simply use Shakespeare when they see Shakspere or Shake-speare. The genealogic records in Stratford have lots of Shakspere but no Shakespeare, and the Stratford man never signed his name so. If you cast about for discussions you will regularly see Shakespeare used everywhere. This is simply orthodoxy talking, and I believe a bit of defensive strategy.

Isn't it manifestly odd that the first folio contains such a strange portrait of the man? What's with the ridiculous doublet giving the wearer two left arms? What's with Jonson's cryptic allusions? I mean if this is a straightforward presentation of a person's work what's with such tools and tactics? It needs to be explained.

We were all once eminently satisfied with explaining the diversity of species by attributing the cause to invisible mysterious creatures. Along comes Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin who give us a more satisfying explanation. No more need for Barnacle Geese and Succubi and astrological decipherment. We can set aside pious fraud and the machinations of mystics and satisfy our innate, wholesome curiosity. It's normal practice for Stratfordians to treat the authorship question as conspiracy thinking. Perhaps it's just me but it certainly seems the conspiracy shoe is on the other foot, the evidence, once examined, is simply overwhelming.

I may trapes in later and discuss my thoughts re Jonson, the Moniment, the First Folio and the De Vere Family.

 

[Swammerdami]

That Oxford's death was kept secret (or possibly didn't happen on the stated date at all), and that he was reburied in Westminster Abbey (in "Poet's Corner"?) is very interesting. Waugh's speculations about Jonson's writings are also interesting and possibly correct, but they hardly constitute proof. I was expecting more.

On the matter of surname spelling: anyone who's played with the genealogy of medieval England will tell you that such spellings are wildly inconsistent. I don't know if it would be probative one way or the other to find the "real" spellings from 16th-century Stratford, but they seem hard to find: most transcriptions "modernize" spelling. It may be best o ignore Wikipedia.

In front of me now is Shakespeare: The Evidence, a virulently anti-Oxfordian biography by Ian Wilson. It cites a special marriage license issued 27 Nov. 1582 "inter Willelmum Shaxpere et Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton." I mention this NOT to demonstrate that "Shaxpere" was yet another rendition of that surname, but because of the bride's surname "Whateley." We all know he was married to "Hathaway", no? You can find biographies that insist the Bard loved some girl "Whateley" and was disappointed when "Hathaway" showed up (with a shotgun? the next day demanding he marry her instead because she was pregnant! The reality is almost surely much simpler: Surname spelling was very lax (although the Hathaway-->Whateley blunder was extreme).

I think it is absurd to imagine a coincidence where Oxford chose the "William Shake-speare" pseudonym and the same-named man from Stratford began putting his name on otherwise-anonymous plays independently. The usual explanation, I think, is that Stratford acted first; Oxford saw this and decided Shakespeare would be a convenient pen-name. My guess is that this was reversed: Oxford needed a "living breathing pen-name;" encountered a man with a name that delighted him; and hired Stratford to be his "frontman."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That Oxford's death was kept secret (or possibly didn't happen on the stated date at all), and that he was reburied in Westminster Abbey (in "Poet's Corner"?) is very interesting. Waugh's speculations about Jonson's writings are also interesting and possibly correct, but they hardly constitute proof. I was expecting more.

On the matter of surname spelling: anyone who's played with the genealogy of medieval England will tell you that such spellings are wildly inconsistent. I don't know if it would be probative one way or the other to find the "real" spellings from 16th-century Stratford, but they seem hard to find: most transcriptions "modernize" spelling. It may be best o ignore Wikipedia.

In front of me now is Shakespeare: The Evidence, a virulently anti-Oxfordian biography by Ian Wilson. It cites a special marriage license issued 27 Nov. 1582 "inter Willelmum Shaxpere et Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton." I mention this NOT to demonstrate that "Shaxpere" was yet another rendition of that surname, but because of the bride's surname "Whateley." We all know he was married to "Hathaway", no? You can find biographies that insist the Bard loved some girl "Whateley" and was disappointed when "Hathaway" showed up (with a shotgun? the next day demanding he marry her instead because she was pregnant! The reality is almost surely much simpler: Surname spelling was very lax (although the Hathaway-->Whateley blunder was extreme).

I think it is absurd to imagine a coincidence where Oxford chose the "William Shake-speare" pseudonym and the same-named man from Stratford began putting his name on otherwise-anonymous plays independently. The usual explanation, I think, is that Stratford acted first; Oxford saw this and decided Shakespeare would be a convenient pen-name. My guess is that this was reversed: Oxford needed a "living breathing pen-name;" encountered a man with a name that delighted him; and hired Stratford to be his "frontman."

Jonson takes issue with the Stratford man, calling him a poet ape, an actor. Many have opined that Jonson obviously knew he was not the author but was simply presenting the plays as his own. And honestly, De Vere likely wished it so. This also explains who there are plays out there with Shakespeare's name on them but that are not Shakespeare's.

What do you make of the Golding letters which state that De Vere is buried in Westminster? I'm also curious your thoughts on the Droeshout Engraving. Do you agree with Orthodoxy that it is simply poor work?

I think it's appropriate that we can buy Shakespeare literature today upon which the author's name is Edward De Vere.

 

[WAB]

That Oxford's death was kept secret (or possibly didn't happen on the stated date at all), and that he was reburied in Westminster Abbey (in "Poet's Corner"?) is very interesting. Waugh's speculations about Jonson's writings are also interesting and possibly correct, but they hardly constitute proof. I was expecting more.

On the matter of surname spelling: anyone who's played with the genealogy of medieval England will tell you that such spellings are wildly inconsistent. I don't know if it would be probative one way or the other to find the "real" spellings from 16th-century Stratford, but they seem hard to find: most transcriptions "modernize" spelling. It may be best o ignore Wikipedia.

In front of me now is Shakespeare: The Evidence, a virulently anti-Oxfordian biography by Ian Wilson. It cites a special marriage license issued 27 Nov. 1582 "inter Willelmum Shaxpere et Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton." I mention this NOT to demonstrate that "Shaxpere" was yet another rendition of that surname, but because of the bride's surname "Whateley." We all know he was married to "Hathaway", no? You can find biographies that insist the Bard loved some girl "Whateley" and was disappointed when "Hathaway" showed up (with a shotgun? the next day demanding he marry her instead because she was pregnant! The reality is almost surely much simpler: Surname spelling was very lax (although the Hathaway-->Whateley blunder was extreme).

I think it is absurd to imagine a coincidence where Oxford chose the "William Shake-speare" pseudonym and the same-named man from Stratford began putting his name on otherwise-anonymous plays independently. The usual explanation, I think, is that Stratford acted first; Oxford saw this and decided Shakespeare would be a convenient pen-name. My guess is that this was reversed: Oxford needed a "living breathing pen-name;" encountered a man with a name that delighted him; and hired Stratford to be his "frontman."

Jonson takes issue with the Stratford man, calling him a poet ape, an actor. Many have opined that Jonson obviously knew he was not the author but was simply presenting the plays as his own. And honestly, De Vere likely wished it so. This also explains who there are plays out there with Shakespeare's name on them but that are not Shakespeare's.

What do you make of the Golding letters which state that De Vere is buried in Westminster? I'm also curious your thoughts on the Droeshout Engraving. Do you agree with Orthodoxy that it is simply poor work?

I think it's appropriate that we can buy Shakespeare literature today upon which the author's name is Edward De Vere.

Respectfully, I maintain that you have jumped the proverbial gun, Moogly, at least with that last statement! For it to be appropriate to affix De Vere's name to the works of Shakespeare, a lot must be done: legal things at the very least.

I find it beyond belief that the great majority of Shakespeare scholars would have sided, and still do to this day, with Shakespeare as Shakespeare, IF there is such a preponderance of scientific, forensic proof that De Vere was the author of those works.

I regard it as given that at least some of the Shakespearean scholars down the years, and especially in modern times, have done the work and thoroughly investigated this alleged proof. I do realize that many orthodoxists, many 'true believers', have, still do, and will continue to pooh-pooh any and all authorship questions and theories about the great and deservedly, universally revered William Shakespeare.

But be that as it may, this has given a great spark to my life, and I am finally feeling well again. I still have fears, worries, anxiety, and occasional depressive moments, even days; but I think I can safely declare that at present I feel good. In fact I feel strong. So strong that I suspect I am in a manic phase. If I begin to write about God and Christ and faith, that may be a good indicator that such is the case. This bulletin board contains my original die hard atheism, ingrained as a youth, adopted partially from my father and friends, and sustained until about my forty-sixth year.

My conversion, and even my "being drawn to God" stage are documented here, and substantially, in the archives. I believe there is a thread of mine still extant wherein I expounded a theory about God, based at first in Spinozism, then blossoming full psychotic. It may be in Up in Flames or Elsewhere. It's called The Road to Understanding, or something grandiose like that. I am embarrassed by it, but in fact glad it is still around, so readers can see what vast sea-changes a person in the grip of delusional thinking, brought on by chemicals and medications both self -taken and professionally prescribed, often go through. There is much documentation and testimonials to such religious mania, and I believe physicians and neuroscientists have virtually nailed down the very place in the brain where they believe such things begin.

I posted a link to a video featuring an individual who was going through religious experiences to a far greater degree than I ever did. A well known neuroscientist in the video had been helping the young man. I posted that video long before someone at TFT just recently suspected me of not having done any research into this phenomenon, and indeed, in not even caring to do so, even though she knows that I have mental problems and have been discussing that very thing, right here, since 2010 and 2011!

My deconversion is also here, scattered about in my usual silly way.

My usernames were WilliamB, then Gulielmus Beta (when I first converted), then Loretta J. Hyde, and finally back to WAB.

Sorry for rambling, but I want you and Swammerdami to know that I really do wish to be taken seriously, despite my constantly gadding about trying to be funny. That behavior is double-edged: it has a healing effect, and also, well, I sometimes think I should have been a stand up comic...

No really...etc&