T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
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&
Loretta J. Hyde? I recall that one but not the others. I hope that my great ignorance didn't do anything monumentally stupid back then. If it ever did happen I apologize.
I'm pretty certain that the works of Shakespeare are public domain so I don't think there is anything improper or illegal affixing Oxford's name, particularly when there are so many people who would agree including several SCOTUS judges. Oxfordians have asked the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to engage in a mock trial to prove their case and have been rejected. The SAC is trying to raise 100K as ante to get them to agree. If the Stratfordian case is so strong it should be easy money, so why not jump at the chance? Obviously it's because the matter is far from settled and in a trial setting with forensic evidence the case for Stratford isn't very strong at all. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite. So by refusing the offer the Stratfordians are simply protecting themselves.
I get the mania and the depression message. Trust me. We could talk for a very long time about those things. Those conditions are part of my family so I am personally familiar with the situation. Everyone must find a coping strategy that works for them and it can take a lifetime of learning to get there and stay there. Believe me, I am not at all unfamiliar with your situation.
But I'm glad to help make a difference.
<<<< I can't get enough of this guy!