The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, no doubt. Some of the material in the plays is so-so.

And yes, that the Stratford bloke would do that would be silly.

It is established that there was collaboration. Yes! Yes! Lol. Now the voice in my head sounds like some actress in a film from the forties:

Yes! Yes! Alright, damn you! I killed her! And I would kill her again! Now kiss me, you fool! (violins, credits...)

With De Vere we see a normal literary trajectory. With the Stratford man we embrace a miracle.

Okay. So where are we at?

I agree we should doubt the Stratford Man as sole author, perhaps as an author at all. But I am by no means persuaded that he was illiterate. For one, he would have to have had someone read the parts to him in order to memorize them. Makes me wonder why an illiterate person would want to become an actor.

ETA: by the way, I am still not sold on two other major issues:

I don't think the variance in the signatures is terribly strong evidence that TSM was illiterate, for reasons posited by orthodoxists, and my own (which I will explain).

I don't think that no mention of books in the wlil is a big issue (which I will explain).

And of course, any one or two of those numerous points demonstrates nothing. Some of the books he would have had to use, however, were rare and expensive. Why would he not have willed them? They were far more valuable than the other items in his will, they were not nickel paperbacks.

And of course there is nothing in his life that indicates he was a writer unless we suppose he wrote the Shakespeare Canon, something that was not attributed to him until seven years after his death. There are no letters at all, nothing! No one ever mentioned him being a writer and there is nothing written from him. All we have are poems and plays with the name William Shakespeare, many of which it is agreed were not written by the person that wrote the Shakespeare Canon. This is just another red flag.

 

[WAB]

Okay. So where are we at?

I agree we should doubt the Stratford Man as sole author, perhaps as an author at all. But I am by no means persuaded that he was illiterate. For one, he would have to have had someone read the parts to him in order to memorize them. Makes me wonder why an illiterate person would want to become an actor.

ETA: by the way, I am still not sold on two other major issues:

I don't think the variance in the signatures is terribly strong evidence that TSM was illiterate, for reasons posited by orthodoxists, and my own (which I will explain).

I don't think that no mention of books in the wlil is a big issue (which I will explain).

And of course, any one or two of those numerous points demonstrates nothing. Some of the books he would have had to use, however, were rare and expensive. Why would he not have willed them? They were far more valuable than the other items in his will, they were not nickel paperbacks.

And of course there is nothing in his life that indicates he was a writer unless we suppose he wrote the Shakespeare Canon, something that was not attributed to him until seven years after his death. There are no letters at all, nothing! No one ever mentioned him being a writer and there is nothing written from him. All we have are poems and plays with the name William Shakespeare, many of which it is agreed were not written by the person that wrote the Shakespeare Canon. This is just another red flag.

1) There were other prominent writers at the time who did not will their books (I don't recall their names, but I do remember that there were citations of them in the pro-Stratfordian arguments I have read); plus, I watched a video interview with a contemporary Shakespearean scholar and orthodoxist who claimed that he had (and I paraphrase) "Over 5,000 books, and I don't have books in my will." And while I am utterly obscure and a nobody, I do own some valuable books (my beautiful, gossamer-leafed Tanak; my Spinoza complete works trans. by Samuel Shirley, etc., etc.), but they are going to my kids first, on a who wants what basis; the rest will go to a library.

Apologies, but Oxfordians do seem to make much ado about nothing.

2) Could these documents have been lost deliberately, as in burrned, destroyed? Many people do not want ANY personal information of their own to survive their deaths, and many people do NOT keep letters written to them by others. I don't.

Remember that yes, the Shakespeare name was becoming well-known, and a bit lucrative, by the time TSM died, so it seems possible that some, perhaps most people who received correspondence from him would have held on to those letters, as mementos, or for potential cash value, or heirlooms; but isn't is possible those have been lost? Or burned in a fire? Such things happened, especially four centuries ago. It happened to Ben Jonson, I recollect having read.

One more item. TSM's son in law not mentioning his own father in law as a an author, and/or an author of repute: Could there have been ill-will between them? Could he have neglected any literary mentions intentionally? Who knows? I mean, the actor bloke was shagging his daughter, if legally. Men are notoriously protective and possessive of their daughters. Shakespeare writes of it in the plays, no? And you Oxfordians have cast this man in an unsavory light, to say the least.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Right, we're pretty much seeing all the evidence that's out there, the only difference is I'm not inventing anymore than what's there. Stratfordians like to invent all kinds of possibilities and hypothetical explanations.

That there are absolutely no letters to or mention of any letters from the Stratford man to anyone considering his alleged acclaim and accomplishment is a huge red flag. The Stratfordian dynamic from my perspective is clear, first comes acceptance of orthodoxy, then comes confirmation bias. Like I said, this is why the Stratford camp will not meet in open challenge based on fact. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

But it's all good.

 

[Bomb#20]

I agree we should doubt the Stratford Man as sole author, perhaps as an author at all. But I am by no means persuaded that he was illiterate. For one, he would have to have had someone read the parts to him in order to memorize them. Makes me wonder why an illiterate person would want to become an actor.

Since it was before the days of copy machines, in Elizabethan theater there were generally no copies at all of the script of a play, only the original manuscript. According to what I've read, the normal procedure was for the manuscript to circulate from hand to hand among all the actors. Each actor would read through the script once, find his own lines, and copy them out; then he'd pass the manuscript along and learn his lines from his own notes. The act of writing your lines out yourself was a powerful memory aid. So an illiterate actor would presumably have to get one of the other actors to agree to do all that twice, and then read him his lines over and over at the same time he needs to be busily memorizing his own lines, even more times then a regular actor would need due to lack of the memory aid. Why would a theater troupe put up with that level of inefficiency when they could just go hire somebody else? It seems to me for there to have been any illiterate actors at all in the Lord Chamberlain's Men is beyond implausible.

 

[Swammerdami]

THe "Twenty poems of Edward de Vere" that Moogly linked to does not show estimated dates of writing for most of the poems. It would be nice to know WHEN these poems were written. Perhaps a progression is discernable.

I'll guess No. 2 was written by a teenager having fun with alliteration, and with no idea that writing would become his life's work.

Will you please take a look at the line,

"Thus like a woeful wight I wove my web of woe "

Would the Sweet Bard of Avon write such a line? In earnest? No. Would he write it in jest? As parody? I think he might.

I will NOT "defend" that line as poetery. But what exactly do you find wrong with it? Obviously not the alliteration nor the sing-song meter as I've already addressed those:

If these poems have a lyrical flaw I'll guess it is over-reliance on alliteration, and reliance on excessive sing-song meter. But these are flaws easily corrected as a poet matures. (These are not the best poems among the 20 at Moogly's interesting link; indeed I chose No. 2 because of its [] excessive alliteration.

 

[Swammerdami]

I agree that Shaksper was probably literate though there is no evidence of that. (He never penned a manuscript or even a letter as far as is known.) However there is evidence (albeit not 100% conclusive) that each of his daughters was illiterate. It strikes me as peculiar that the greatest wordsmith, who (according to traditional biographies) thought first of his family, would allow his children to grow up unable to read. (One clue cited that Shaksper was literate is that a letter was written to him. While I accept that Shaksper was probably literate, is such a letter proof? Wouldn't it be common to write letters to illiterates expecting them to ask the innkeeper or barber to read them aloud?)

As for the books: First recall that Shaksper's will itemizes some simple household goods worth much less than a book collection. But more importantly, why did no descendant of Shaksper ever point to a book or manuscript and say "I got this from my famous grandfather!" ?

(Again, whether any of the Shakspers of Stratford spelled their name "Shakespeare" is irrelevant. I use "Shaksper" to make clear I'm speaking of the man from Stratford, whether he was a writer or not.)

 

[Bomb#20]

However there is evidence (albeit not 100% conclusive) that each of his daughters was illiterate. It strikes me as peculiar that the greatest wordsmith, who (according to traditional biographies) thought first of his family, would allow his children to grow up unable to read.

This argument has always struck me as hopelessly anachronistic. The obvious explanation for why any pre-20th-century man, even a great wordsmith, might allow his daughters to grow up unable to read, is because they were girls. Conventional attitudes about education for women were different in those days. If the Stratford man had had illiterate sons, that would carry some weight.

 

[WAB]

I agree that Shaksper was probably literate though there is no evidence of that. (He never penned a manuscript or even a letter as far as is known.) However there is evidence (albeit not 100% conclusive) that each of his daughters was illiterate. It strikes me as peculiar that the greatest wordsmith, who (according to traditional biographies) thought first of his family, would allow his children to grow up unable to read. (One clue cited that Shaksper was literate is that a letter was written to him. While I accept that Shaksper was probably literate, is such a letter proof? Wouldn't it be common to write letters to illiterates expecting them to ask the innkeeper or barber to read them aloud?)

As for the books: First recall that Shaksper's will itemizes some simple household goods worth much less than a book collection. But more importantly, why did no descendant of Shaksper ever point to a book or manuscript and say "I got this from my famous grandfather!" ?

(Again, whether any of the Shakspers of Stratford spelled their name "Shakespeare" is irrelevant. I use "Shaksper" to make clear I'm speaking of the man from Stratford, whether he was a writer or not.)

Just wanted to say that I will respond to this later in the day, Swammi.

To these and other issues. And to every body else.

Penguin. There.





Oh...just teachin my Kindle new words...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

However there is evidence (albeit not 100% conclusive) that each of his daughters was illiterate. It strikes me as peculiar that the greatest wordsmith, who (according to traditional biographies) thought first of his family, would allow his children to grow up unable to read.

This argument has always struck me as hopelessly anachronistic. The obvious explanation for why any pre-20th-century man, even a great wordsmith, might allow his daughters to grow up unable to read, is because they were girls. Conventional attitudes about education for women were different in those days. If the Stratford man had had illiterate sons, that would carry some weight.

This is a point I haven’t thought about.

The man who composed the Shakespeare Canon was noble minded, proud of his noble ancestry, not a fan of the commoner. But that said, if we assume the common Stratford man is the source of the Shakespeare Canon, that this man had become highly literate, mastered foreign languages, read rare books, wrote great drama and poetry, traveled to foreign lands, doesn’t it seem odd that he would leave his family illiterate?

In reading Anderson the women in De Vere’s world are literate. They write letters, keep journals, record poetry, etc., the case of Anne Cornwallis being just one example. Are we to simply say this is because they were part of the nobility? The point I’m making is that the Shakespeare Canon deals with noble, literate women. If the Stratford man left his offspring illiterate this is quite odd.

But then again if as orthodoxy argues, this Stratford man was so different, so genius and so common at the same time, so enigmatic a person, a national hero, then I suppose we can come to any conclusion we wish about him, even if we have no hints of his being literate in any manner until seven years after his death. He truly is an unbelievably remarkable human being.

 

[WAB]

Moogli,

As you know,, one can be a genius and still be a crappy person, even authors, even poets.

Ezra Pound was virulently anti-Semitic and went to jail during WW2 for broadcasting fascist propaganda in Mussolini 's Italy.

That's just one examp!e.


...oooh, and just wait until you hear what I think about classicism and classists!

D'oh! Er...I mean bigots and snobs.

 

[WAB]

Moogli,

As you know,, one can be a genius and still be a crappy person, even authors, even poets.

Ezra Pound was virulently anti-Semitic and went to jail during WW2 for broadcasting fascist propaganda in Mussolini 's Italy.

That's just one examp!e.


...oooh, and just wait until you hear what I think about classicism and classists!

D'oh! Er...I mean bigots and snobs.

P.s: hmm, I wonder what Angra Mainyu thinks about all this? It would be really cool to have the two* most level headed posters at TFT here in the thread. Nudge nudge, ey? Ey?

*Yeah I mean that one. Not me. That one, over there....

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Moogli,

As you know,, one can be a genius and still be a crappy person, even authors, even poets.

Ezra Pound was virulently anti-Semitic and went to jail during WW2 for broadcasting fascist propaganda in Mussolini 's Italy.

That's just one examp!e.


...oooh, and just wait until you hear what I think about classicism and classists!

D'oh! Er...I mean bigots and snobs.

But that's precisely what makes the common Stratford man so appealing, that he can be any number of things to any number of people at any time. He's perfect! He's not at all like De Vere, who's life was a shambles in many respects. Our common Stratford hero may have dealt in grain, brought lawsuits, didn't pay rent, raised illiterate daughters despite his high reputation and achievement, but he was still the sweet, perfect genius. Hmmmm....is there a pattern here?

 

[WAB]

Moogli,

As you know,, one can be a genius and still be a crappy person, even authors, even poets.

Ezra Pound was virulently anti-Semitic and went to jail during WW2 for broadcasting fascist propaganda in Mussolini 's Italy.

That's just one examp!e.


...oooh, and just wait until you hear what I think about classicism and classists!

D'oh! Er...I mean bigots and snobs.

But that's precisely what makes the common Stratford man so appealing, that he can be any number of things to any number of people at any time. He's perfect! He's not at all like De Vere, who's life was a shambles in many respects. Our common Stratford hero may have dealt in grain, brought lawsuits, didn't pay rent, raised illiterate daughters despite his high reputation and achievement, but he was still the sweet, perfect genius. Hmmmm....is there a pattern here?

The pattern you should have seen here is:

What WAB said was:

Maybe Shakespeare was a fuckin douchebag AND a fuckin super genius, even if he WAS that bloke from Stratford!

...easy now....easy.

 

[WAB]

Moogli,

As you know,, one can be a genius and still be a crappy person, even authors, even poets.

Ezra Pound was virulently anti-Semitic and went to jail during WW2 for broadcasting fascist propaganda in Mussolini 's Italy.

That's just one examp!e.


...oooh, and just wait until you hear what I think about classicism and classists!

D'oh! Er...I mean bigots and snobs.

But that's precisely what makes the common Stratford man so appealing, that he can be any number of things to any number of people at any time. He's perfect! He's not at all like De Vere, who's life was a shambles in many respects. Our common Stratford hero may have dealt in grain, brought lawsuits, didn't pay rent, raised illiterate daughters despite his high reputation and achievement, but he was still the sweet, perfect genius. Hmmmm....is there a pattern here?

[emphasis mine]

Okay, to disentangle what I see as a contradiction in your para, may I ask two questions:

1. Do you agree that TSM cannot have been a "common" person and a super-genius, at the same time, and in the same place?
3. Do you use the word "common" as a term of convenience, or do you sincerely think that a person born in poverty is a 'commoner', and will always remain a 'commoner' whatever good they do and whatever status they achieve (be it through luck, marriage, or ability and effort, or all together)?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Moogli,

As you know,, one can be a genius and still be a crappy person, even authors, even poets.

Ezra Pound was virulently anti-Semitic and went to jail during WW2 for broadcasting fascist propaganda in Mussolini 's Italy.

That's just one examp!e.


...oooh, and just wait until you hear what I think about classicism and classists!

D'oh! Er...I mean bigots and snobs.

But that's precisely what makes the common Stratford man so appealing, that he can be any number of things to any number of people at any time. He's perfect! He's not at all like De Vere, who's life was a shambles in many respects. Our common Stratford hero may have dealt in grain, brought lawsuits, didn't pay rent, raised illiterate daughters despite his high reputation and achievement, but he was still the sweet, perfect genius. Hmmmm....is there a pattern here?

[emphasis mine]

Okay, to disentangle what I see as a contradiction in your para, may I ask two questions:

1. Do you agree that TSM cannot have been a "common" person and a super-genius, at the same time, and in the same place?
3. Do you use the word "common" as a term of convenience, or do you sincerely think that a person born in poverty is a 'commoner', and will always remain a 'commoner' whatever good they do and whatever status they achieve (be it through luck, marriage, or ability and effort, or all together)?

Thanks, WAB.

My intent is to use it as in the parlance of the times, meaning he was a commoner, just an average guy perhaps. This I take primarily from opinion offered along the lines of his addressing verse toward nobility such as Southampton, as a "commoner." It simply would not fly at the time. De Vere, however, is obviously a different story altogether.

To your first question I would answer yes, it's just too immiscible an amalgam, too heroic, too perfect, too canned, too convenient.

 

[WAB]

So am I to take it that a normal, "low-born so-and-so" - to quote Ian Anderson, himself a low-born so-and-so and an autodidact who went on to become a popular music icon and a multi-millionaire, and a landowner who was able to rub elbows with the hoighty-toighty, become knighted, and own and operate a few companies where he was able to "lord" it over people who ordinarily would have looked down their noses at him - could NOT grow up to do something spectacular and special, like Shakespeare? No, you cannot be saying that, since it happens a lot.

Or is it, perhaps, that you think they ought not to, for some reason? Or, should a person born to the "lower class" eschew ambition and mind their place, and, even if and when they do, not act or even feel as if they are as good as the nobility? I doubt sincerely that you would even think such a thing.

But you do use the word "noble" as if it were a trait that could only be inherited. But I'm sure that's not how you mean it.

But the reality of the matter is very simple: there are people, in fact I would say most people, who are not able to tell the difference between great poetry and mediocre poetry: who cannot recognize genius in a complete sense. They cannot hear it, they cannot feel it, no matter how much they try, and no matter how much instruction they receive.

Then there are those who can recognize genius, but are not geniuses themselves, and such people will sometimes feel resentful, and develop contempt for people who can do what they wish they could do but can't.

I still think this Oxfordian craze might actually have its source in something as simple as classism, simple bigotry, and even, in some, hatred that runs deep and ruins any chance of objectivity.

Here's a quote from the FB ShakesVere discussion group:

Many of the Stratfordians are rigid ideologues who are sometimes nasty as well. But I wouldn’t call the better of them “anti-intellectual.” They have created an alternate universe akin to a religion where Shak can be the focus of their hero worship.

There may well be a strain of anti-intellectualism in our culture, but I don’t see that as the problem here. Most NASCAR fans probably don’t care about the authorship question one way or another.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So am I to take it that a normal, "low-born so-and-so" - to quote Ian Anderson, himself a low-born so-and-so and an autodidact who went on to become a popular music icon and a multi-millionaire, and a landowner who was able to rub elbows with the hoighty-toighty, become knighted, and own and operate a few companies where he was able to "lord" it over people who ordinarily would have looked down their noses at him - could NOT grow up to do something spectacular and special, like Shakespeare? No, you cannot be saying that, since it happens a lot.

Or is it, perhaps, that you think they ought not to, for some reason? Or, should a person born to the "lower class" eschew ambition and mind their place, and, even if and when they do, not act or even feel as if they are as good as the nobility? I doubt sincerely that you would even think such a thing.

But you do use the word "noble" as if it were a trait that could only be inherited. But I'm sure that's not how you mean it.

I don't see the relevance. Are there other orthodox enigmas out there that I am overlooking, that would make the Stratford man's tale less unbelievable, a legitimate, contemporaneous whataboutism if you will?

 

[WAB]

I edited my prior post while you were posting yours.

In answer to your question: I do not know, I am not an expert in these things.

If you could answer my questions we could continue without this misunderstanding.

Just a thought.

 

[Bomb#20]

Okay, to disentangle what I see as a contradiction in your para, may I ask two questions:

1. Do you agree that TSM cannot have been a "common" person and a super-genius, at the same time, and in the same place?
3. Do you use the word "common" as a term of convenience, or do you sincerely think that a person born in poverty is a 'commoner', and will always remain a 'commoner' whatever good they do and whatever status they achieve (be it through luck, marriage, or ability and effort, or all together)?

So the bottom line problem for this thread to resolve is:

Show

Was Shakespeare born great, did he achieve greatness, or was greatness thrust upon him?

 

[WAB]

Well, Bomb, I have an answer ready, but I won't type it in since you have hidden the question.