The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[Bomb#20]

To test the method on another playwright, it would need to be a playwright who acted in his own plays. Examples?

The other Elizabethan playwrights I know of who acted in their own plays were Nathan Field and Thomas Heywood. There are probably a wealth of examples from the 18th and 19th centuries, but I know squat about theatre in those periods. In the 20th century, I'd expect movies to mess things up -- you only need to say your lines enough times to get a clean take and after that the movie projector does all the work for you, so the effect of repetition on memory will be muted.

ETA. Right. For such an analysis to make sense we have to assume that the author acted in his own plays. Why would we also assume the author would act the part with certain words?

The idea is that if we were to, say, hypothesize that Richard Burbage wrote the plays, that wouldn't account for the remarkable correlations. The "reciting the lines makes the words come more easily to mind" theory would predict that the words that become more common in the plays right after Twelfth Night would first have appeared in the character Orsino's lines, and the the words that become more common right after Hamlet would first have appeared in the character Hamlet's lines, and so forth, since those are the roles Burbage played. Burbage was the most famous and popular actor in the troupe; he got most of the lead roles. If all those funny coincidences Foster's method turns up had shown up in the lines of the plays' lead characters then presumably Foster would have pointed the finger at Burbage as the true author of "Shakespeare" plays. But since they usually showed up in the lines of minor supporting roles and hardly ever in the lines of main characters, the "reciting the lines makes the words come more easily to mind" theory provides no support for the Burbage hypothesis.

 

[Lion IRC]

...In Shakespeare's day it was the Bible that formed this template.

BTW, I first read the Bible because I wanted to better understand Shakespeare. If you don't know the Bible forwards and backwards you'll miss half of his jokes. He just assumes the reader knows the Bible. So he references it heavily...

Yes! Like the Mystery Plays.

Shakespeare features prominently in this book;
In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture


Why? Because Latin and French were giving way to English. Because doth and ye were giving way to do and you. -eth becoming -s. Because Catholicism was giving way to Protestantism. Because Elizabeth the puritan gave way to James the not-so-puritan. Because powerful people were paying close attention to who wrote what and why.

I dont think we should be surprised that there is huge uncertainty and ambiguity as to deliberate and/or accidental misidentification of the actual authorship. Or expropriation of Shakespeare's own words.

 

[Bomb#20]

Because Elizabeth the puritan gave way to James the not-so-puritan.

Elizabeth was a pretty hardcore Anglican; James was more tolerant of Puritanism than she was. If by "Elizabeth the puritan" you mean she was "The Virgin Queen", that political slogan probably reflected her lack of husbands more than any lack of lovers...

 

[Swammerdami]

Regarding Shakespeare and the Bible:

In his documentary life of Oxford published in 1928, B.M. Ward reported finding an account book with “Payments made by John Hart, Chester Herald, on behalf of the Earl of Oxford” during 1570, with entries such as: “To William Seres, stationer, for a Geneva Bible gilt, a Chaucer, Plutarch’s works in French, with other books and papers and other books and papers... 2L, 7S, 10 d – … Tully’s and Plato’s works in folio, with other books …” (These are sources used by “Shakespeare” for inspiration. If traditional scholars ever found such a list for the Stratford man, they’d hold a parade!)

That Geneva Bible, gilted with Oxford's arms, resided almost unnoticed in the Folger Shakespeare Library (of all places!) for many decades until ...

Roger Stritmatter studied the annotations in de Vere's Geneva Bible; for this work he was awarded a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachusetts. (Unfortunately, the dissertation appears to be behind a UMass paywall. This thread is privileged to have an expert, DrZoidberg, on the topic of academic credentials; perhaps he will be able to tell us if this PhD is more fake news. Or perhaps Comparative Literature is not the appropriate academic credential when comparing literature is the topic.) Stratfordians appear to be afraid of Stritmatter's results: they invented a conspiracy theory that the handwritten annotation's weren't Oxford's; indeed they claimed that the annotations had been made before the book was bound and delivered as new to Oxford! Scholars (or "scholars" to keep Zoidberg happy) had to do handwriting comparisons before the Stratfordians would shut up on that conspiracy theory.

Of the more than one thousand marked passages in the Bible, nearly a quarter turn up as direct references in Shakespeare, and many more have reverberating thematic resonance within the canon. About a hundred of these references can be found in the work of previous scholars of Shakespeare’s Biblical knowledge, such as Richmond Noble (1935) Peter Milward (1974, 1987) or Naseeb Shaheen (1987, 1989, 1993). A further hundred are new contributions to what is known about Shakespeare’s knowledge and use of the Bible. “Much of what we have learned about the de Vere Bible in the last three years, and the reason for the length of time consumed by the research, is that this group of verses has steadily grown to the present number of around a hundred,” explained Stritmatter.

The passages which Oxford underlined provide circumstantial evidence, e.g.

One of the marked passages (Philippians 2:15) includes not only the words “naughtie” and “worlde”, but also, in a footnote (pasted in on the right), the word “candle”, thus providing three key words in Portia’s Merchant of Venice speech, “How far this little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a naughty world.” (V, ii, 61-2)

In a few critical cases, the answers supplied by the “quiz key” actually allow us to correct and fine-tune previous work done by other scholars. For example, since Carter (1905) it has been generally accepted that Portia’s stirring message in Merchant of Venice about the power of a tiny candle to cast a blazing light of moral truth in this dark and “naughty world” -“How far this little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a naughty world” (MV, V, ii, 61-2)- is a paraphrase of the New Testament proverb about not hiding your light under a bushel. Carter and Noble (1935) both associated the image, incorrectly it transpires, with Matthew 5:16: “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father which is in heaven.”

If by "Elizabeth the puritan" you mean she was "The Virgin Queen", that political slogan probably reflected her lack of husbands more than any lack of lovers...

She did brag about inheriting her father's qualities!

 

[WAB]

I have an idea for a screenplay. I will go into it in more detail in a subsequent post.

For now, let it suffice to say that the Earl of Oxford turns out to be the chief author of the plays. But... and there is always a (_!_)... Gulielmus Shakspere is involved as co-author.

How can this be? I will 'splain in the next post. I have to do it this way because I sometimes have a huge post, and my silly thumbs hits the wrong spot on this confounded phone, and my words are swallowed up by Oblivion...

Onwards, into the breech!

 

[WAB]

I have an idea for a screenplay. I will go into it in more detail in a subsequent post.

For now, let it suffice to say that the Earl of Oxford turns out to be the chief author of the plays. But... and there is always a (_!_)... Gulielmus Shakspere is involved as co-author.

How can this be? I will 'splain in the next post. I have to do it this way because I sometimes have a huge post, and my silly thumbs hits the wrong spot on this confounded phone, and my words are swallowed up by Oblivion...

Onwards, into the breech!

Just to attach a few more words:

Will Shakspere is actually illiterate. Oxford meets with him and strikes up a conversation.

Rewind...

The first scenes of the film will show Will at work with the other actors. They are tossing iambic pentameter lines at each other, off the cuff. Example:

The lazy cat is sleeping on the floor...
The chair is on the floor and near the door...
The pen is in the hand that writes the play...
The useless silly rhyme can fuck itself...
And when the pie is sliced the dream is o'er...
And when the dragon comes the chair is burnt...

Etc...

Just random shit. The purpose of the scene would be to show that while Will is illiterate, he has very sharp poetic sensibilities. Other scenes later in the film would show Will's development with advanced poetic speech.

The Earl of Oxford begins to notice Will's precociousness with poetic speech, and there is a scene where De Vere tests Will in iambic pentameter, and in rhyme. The two strike up a dear friendship...

More later...

 

[WAB]

By the bye, TJ Thyne will be playing Will Shakspere. It came to me in a complete vision, along with the music. He is the one. All he will have to do is learn a British accent, or at least the closest thing we can get to the accent Stratfordians would have had four hundred years ago.

But he is the man. Now, how to pay him? Hmmmm...

I haven't decided who De Vere will be played by yet...

 

[WAB]

Just kidding folks...

 

[WAB]

Okay thread, don't die...

Hang in there, thread!

Shakespeare is worth it.

Anyone have a favorite Shakespearean actor? Mine is Anthony Hopkins, who believe it or not did a rippingly good Othello.

Also gotta love Marlon Brando as Mark Antony. Oh come on! Don't think so? Who in the living heck else could put more life and energy into one of the greatest lines ever written:

"Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war..."

I inserted the exclamation point, because Brando most certainly inserted it.

I wonder about Olivier. Quite frankly I think he is overrated. A great actor, but there are others who are superior.

I also love Derek Jacoby, who is the best person I've ever seen to be the Chorus in Henry the Fifth. Absolutely perfect:

" Attest in little place a million..." - he speaks it just as Shakespeare intended.

Come on people! Thoughts? Opinions?



Oooooh, let us not forget Vanessa Redgrave! Her part in the film version of Corialanus is effing impeccable!

Wait! Let us not forget Ralph Fiennes, with "I BANISH YOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!"

More later...

 

[WAB]

Okay thread, don't die...

Hang in there, thread!

Shakespeare is worth it.

Anyone have a favorite Shakespearean actor? Mine is Anthony Hopkins, who believe it or not did a rippingly good Othello.

Also gotta love Marlon Brando as Mark Antony. Oh come on! Don't think so? Who in the living heck else could put more life and energy into one of the greatest lines ever written:

"Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war..."

I inserted the exclamation point, because Brando most certainly inserted it.

I wonder about Olivier. Quite frankly I think he is overrated. A great actor, but there are others who are superior.

I also love Derek Jacoby, who is the best person I've ever seen to be the Chorus in Henry the Fifth. Absolutely perfect:

" Attest in little place a million..." - he speaks it just as Shakespeare intended.

Come on people! Thoughts? Opinions?



Oooooh, let us not forget Vanessa Redgrave! Her part in the film version of Corialanus is effing impeccable!

Wait! Let us not forget Ralph Fiennes, with "I BANISH YOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!"

More later...

Okay, so nobody really gives a fuck about William Shakespeare. I should have thought as much. There are many people who entered the thread who basically didn't give a fuck.

Well, as the only person who actually gives a fuck about William fucking Shakespeare, I will end the thread on a positive note:

There is no fucking way that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare. No fucking fucking way. Compare Oxford's poetry with Shakespeare. Do it!

William fucking Shakespeare wrote William fucking Shakespeare.

Deal with it.

If your silly theories carried any weight, the world would know it. Instead, what you have is a conspiracy theory, advocated by people who don't know jack shit about English poetry, and who don't know jack shit about William fucking Shakespeare.

I'm fucking done. Fuck,.fuck, fuck...

 

[ideologyhunter]

WAB: I'm fucking done. Fuck...Fuck...Fuck.
Hamlet: Except my life, except my life, except my life.

I see a cadence here. I see initials that could/should/might/must stand for....Will, A Bard.

WAB, stand forward, you glorious bastard! It is you. You, you illustrious, enchanted master of candied poesy, titanic drama, titillating farce, throes of tragic oration. Let us remember in times hence that this thread indeed ended with Will, A Bard, revealing himself.
Now to convince the Oxfordians.
Fuck...Fuck...Fuck, anon.

 

[WAB]

WAB: I'm fucking done. Fuck...Fuck...Fuck.
Hamlet: Except my life, except my life, except my life.

I see a cadence here. I see initials that could/should/might/must stand for....Will, A Bard.

WAB, stand forward, you glorious bastard! It is you. You, you illustrious, enchanted master of candied poesy, titanic drama, titillating farce, throes of tragic oration. Let us remember in times hence that this thread indeed ended with Will, A Bard, revealing himself.
Now to convince the Oxfordians.
Fuck...Fuck...Fuck, anon.

Lol!

 

[Swammerdami]

Oooooh, let us not forget Vanessa Redgrave! Her part in the film version of Corialanus is effing impeccable!

... fuck ... There are many people who entered the thread who basically didn't give a fuck.
... fuck ... fucking ... No fucking fucking way....
William fucking Shakespeare wrote William fucking Shakespeare.

Deal with it.

If your silly theories carried any weight, the world would know it. Instead, what you have is a conspiracy theory, advocated by people who don't know jack shit about English poetry, and who don't know jack shit about William fucking Shakespeare.

I'm fucking done. Fuck,.fuck, fuck...

Ouch! This post is quite unpleasant and seems deliberately so. I am disappointed.

I can only think of 6 filmed Shakespeare plays that I've watched. (Does that make me unqualified to think about the Authorship question? I don't see why.) And I've never been a good judge of acting. With very few exceptions (Jack Nicholson) i don't really even know good acting when I see it.

I wanted to watch Redgrave in Corialanus based on your recommendation but haven't got around to it. Frankly, my life has suddenly gone topsy-turvy. My recent ranting at TFT has become a distraction from sharp personal grief.

But you do you, WAB. You seem to enjoy it.

 

[WAB]

Oooooh, let us not forget Vanessa Redgrave! Her part in the film version of Corialanus is effing impeccable!

... fuck ... There are many people who entered the thread who basically didn't give a fuck.
... fuck ... fucking ... No fucking fucking way....
William fucking Shakespeare wrote William fucking Shakespeare.

Deal with it.

If your silly theories carried any weight, the world would know it. Instead, what you have is a conspiracy theory, advocated by people who don't know jack shit about English poetry, and who don't know jack shit about William fucking Shakespeare.

I'm fucking done. Fuck,.fuck, fuck...

Ouch! This post is quite unpleasant and seems deliberately so. I am disappointed.

I can only think of 6 filmed Shakespeare plays that I've watched. (Does that make me unqualified to think about the Authorship question? I don't see why.) And I've never been a good judge of acting. With very few exceptions (Jack Nicholson) i don't really even know good acting when I see it.

I wanted to watch Redgrave in Corialanus based on your recommendation but haven't got around to it. Frankly, my life has suddenly gone topsy-turvy. My recent ranting at TFT has become a distraction from sharp personal grief.

But you do you, WAB. You seem to enjoy it.

I finally got up the nerve to look at the end of the thread, to see how I would be slammed and spanked for that last post of mine. But you were all polite and I got away with bits of my bottom still blubbering. Well, poor choice of words there. Blubber connotes corpulence; but I still have my girlish figure.

At any rate, that last post was quite silly. It was the result of lots of beer followed by several straight shots of vodka. Egads...I should. Not. Drink!

Swammi, you really should check out the filmed version of Coriolanus. Its Rome is in modern times, and all the players are fabulous. I believe they stick to the text as faithfully as any filmed Shakespeare play I've seen.

Alas, my hearties! The (un) manly heart of WAB doth begin to strike again upon the bony bars of its cage! I am lifted by the spirit of waftiness, and transported to the supernal realm of hyperborean verbosity and purple silliness once again!

But alack, and woe, I dont have anything important to add, except that I really do want to work on my screenplay idea, and I am not by any means finished with the SAQ.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

My wife brought home that Bill Bryson short book about Shakespeare, written from the Stratfordian perspective. I got through about a third of it and sent it back. Lots of good historical facts about the times, some honest dialogue about the dearth of literary evidence relating to Shakespeare, but no mention of the authorship question so it didn't keep my interest.

 

[WAB]

My wife brought home that Bill Bryson short book about Shakespeare, written from the Stratfordian perspective. I got through about a third of it and sent it back. Lots of good historical facts about the times, some honest dialogue about the dearth of literary evidence relating to Shakespeare, but no mention of the authorship question so it didn't keep my interest.

Moogly, what do you think of my screenplay idea? Perhaps you missed it, or didn't think much of it.

At any rate, it involves Oxford as the chief author of Shakespeare.

See post #346

 

[WAB]

Ah well. Alas and alack, aroint and verily what ho the derry-o, it wast fun whilst it lastedeth...

(Curtain)

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm still hoping to watch Coriolanus (2011). I don't like publishing my credit card, especially for streaming via my slow 'Net instead of downloading; and my sister's Netflix password doesn't work in Thailand. YouTube has several 3-minute scenes from the film but I obviously do NOT want to go that way.
I'm waiting to see if Coriolanus will come in via the infamous BitTrickle.

Thanks for the link to the FB discussion, WAB. I've not studied the archives but was amused to see Hank Whittemore recently using the Harry-Meghan affair (Elizabeth II's suppression of rumors of royal racism) as evidence that Elizabeth I could have suppressed truth about the authorship. (That the Bletchley Park Ultra secret was kept for 3 decades AFTER W.W. II had already ended is my go-to example of Brits keeping a secret.)

 

[Swammerdami]

I'd have forgotten about the Authorship Question, but I now have an Oxfordian group in my Facebook news-feed. It led me to this YouTube from Alexander Waugh. He shows that the sentence "See thou: Ver[e] lives in Shakspeare whose name he is" is hidden (in the shape of a key) in the Shakespeare Monument inscription read via a Cardano grill.

I don't know if I should treat this wild interpretation as plausible. But kudos to whoever discovered it, even if — especially if — it's just a fantasy!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'd have forgotten about the Authorship Question, but I now have an Oxfordian group in my Facebook news-feed. It led me to this YouTube from Alexander Waugh. He shows that the sentence "See thou: Ver[e] lives in Shakspeare whose name he is" is hidden (in the shape of a key) in the Shakespeare Monument inscription read via a Cardano grill.

I don't know if I should treat this wild interpretation as plausible. But kudos to whoever discovered it, even if — especially if — it's just a fantasy!

I've watched many Waugh videos and my being without all the knowledge he has about those times gives the appearance that he is dabbling in Da Vinci Code fantasy speculation. But I cannot say because it's as if he speaks a different language.