The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[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.

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

Sorry WAB, I'm not big on the idea because I don't think Oxford and Stratford ever knew each other or interacted. It appears to me that Stratford simply printed Oxford's work by whatever means he could to make money. He was a businessman and he was connected to the theater. We have the name on plays that are not Oxford's so...

 

[WAB]

BUMP

We haven't really delved into the anti-Oxfordian position. I have been kind and very willing to entertain the theory that the Earl of Oxford, Mr. Edward De Vere, was the true author of Shakespeare's works. Please review the thread if you doubt me.

PLEASE NOTE: I do not care a tinker's damn if the Man from Stratford actually penned the works attributed to him. I do not care to discuss the idea that TSM may not have been the true author, or an author at all.

ALL I care about is trying to show that it is plausible that a mediocre poet, who penned mediocre poems into his thirties (De Vere) could have magically become the greatest poet in English.

Please read here. They have lots of good stuff:

https://oxfraud.com/nfp2

Start here:

https://oxfraud.com/BQ-ticking

The first para (and dead on the money):

Having spent long hours arguing with Oxfordians, I can’t help coming to the conclusion that they actually don't enjoy Shakespeare. His ambiguity and wordplay unsettles them, the power of the language doesn’t excite. The characters don’t come alive in their imaginations. For them, the plays seem to exist only as an ammo box from which to pluck debating points to hurl at 'orthodoxy'. They get no pleasure from reading a play or sonnet for its own sake. It’s much more fun to rummage around in historical cul-de-sacs searching for that glittering piece of evidence that will permanently 'demolish' orthodoxy and transform them into the greatest literary detectives of all time.

Bold face mine, and the biggest problem for Oxfordians: they can not tell the difference between mediocre poetry and great poetry. They do NOT have the ear for it. I have become certain of this just by my interactions with Oxfordians I know personally.

Once more into the breech, dear friends...

 

[Swammerdami]

Having spent long hours arguing with Oxfordians, I can’t help coming to the conclusion that they actually don't enjoy Shakespeare. His ambiguity and wordplay unsettles them, the power of the language doesn’t excite. The characters don’t come alive in their imaginations. For them, the plays seem to exist only as an ammo box from which to pluck debating points to hurl at 'orthodoxy'. They get no pleasure from reading a play or sonnet for its own sake. It’s much more fun to rummage around in historical cul-de-sacs searching for that glittering piece of evidence that will permanently 'demolish' orthodoxy and transform them into the greatest literary detectives of all time.

Hi, WAB. I will review your links and perhaps offer comments. (I've probably already read them as I've been reading both sides of this controversy off-and-on for about 30 years now.)

BUT, I do want to call your attention that you are buying into anti-Oxfordian bull-crap.

I have been a bystander in various controversies on other topics, often one group of distinguished PhDs vs another group of distinguished PhDs. All too often the side that's LOSING the debate resorts to insults. "Oxfordians don't get poetry"? That's an unsupported insult, generated by someone who has nothing to say about the evidence. Why do you need to repeat such insults, WAB?

Are there SOME Oxfordians who are not expert at poetry? Sure! Me, for example!! I've made no secret of that in this thread.

If SOME Oxfordians don't "get" poetry, does that mean ALL Oxfordians don't "get" poetry? No, that's a faulty syllogism. I won't make their own mistake and say ALL anti-Oxfordians use faulty logic, but SOME do. Please don't bring that into the thread.

I will repeat my own view One.More.Time.
. . . (1) The Shakespeare authorship is a mystery.
. . . (2) There are MANY good reasons to believe Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets.
. . . (3) There are MANY good reasons to believe Shaksper of Stratford did NOT write the plays and sonnets.
. . . (4) There are good reasons to think "William Shake-speare" was a hoaxed front-name for someone concealing his identity.
. . . (5) There are MANY good reasons to believe the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays and sonnets.
. . . (6) There are MANY good reasons to believe the Earl of Oxford did NOT write the plays and sonnets.
. . . (7) The principal author may have been yet a 3rd person.
. . . (8) The Shakespeare authorship is a mystery.
I like mysteries. My own working hypothesis is that Oxford was the leader of a band of collaborators that may have included his secretary(s) Lyly or Munday and Oxford's son-in-law.

 

[WAB]

Bless you, Swammi,

As you may have guessed, I bumped this thread mainly because I desperately need something to sink my teeth into. I need something to stimulate me not only intellectually but in order to bring me out of depression.

I figured we had not really discussed the contra-Devere viewpoint.

I figured I'd let people read some of the criticism of the Oxfordian position, which never really came up in the thread.

****************

I want to admit to a major mistake. I have contradicted myself.

I have linked to an article by a person who seems to judge Oxfordians as a group, and not as freethinking individuals.

At the SAME time I was going on about individualism and the non-existence of universals in another thread.

My bad. My apologies.

I do NOT lump you or TGG Moogly into any group. I have engaged with both of you as individuals, and I like the hell out of both of you.

****

As for the band of collaborators theory: there is too much in the Shakespeare canon that is obviously the work of one hand for this to be very plausible.

As I will endeavor to demonstrate: there is a marked difference between ordinary (read: competent) poetry and exemplary poetry; further, there is a marked difference between exemplary poetry and the poetry of "Shakespeare". Shakespeare (whoever they were) was as far above even exemplary poets as exemplary poets are above ordinary poets.

***

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

Is far superior than the line as it might have been written by a lesser poet:

Attest a million in a little place.

?

Let your ears and your breath do the work, not just your brain.

 

[Swammerdami]

WAB, I did click your links and ended up at
https://oxfraud.com/100-reasons-grid2
which has 102 reasons to think the Oxfordian theory is a fraud. This seemed like a good place to look! I could go through the list and see which are serious, which not.

But the 102 reasons are NOT shown on that page, I'd have to click 102 more times to actually see the reasons.

Whittemore has a list of 100 reasons, but his index page gives a short summary of what you'll see before you click. The oxfraud page provides rather useless summaries like:

In the race to complete a list of 100 reasons why Oxford did or did not write Shakespeare's plays, Hank Whittemore's site has taken a strong lead in the final straight and now looks certain to beat us to the magic figure. We are becalmed… go to article

The Oxfordian pick has struck gold again, an occurrence that seems to happen with astounding regularity, yet for some reason the nuggets found never seem to get past the assay office.This time the treasure lode is an article by the… go to article

Alexander Waugh has trumpeted a great Oxfordian discovery. In The Spectator (2 November 2013), he wrote: “Researching a new book on Shakespeare’s sonnets, I stumbled upon an astonishing piece of hitherto unnoticed evidence in… go to article

And so on. The site is set up like ad-baiting sites!

If you, WAB, care to link to a particular subset of the 102 reasons you'd like me to read I will. Otherwise I won't pursue this.

 

[WAB]

WAB, I did click your links and ended up at
https://oxfraud.com/100-reasons-grid2
which has 102 reasons to think the Oxfordian theory is a fraud. This seemed like a good place to look! I could go through the list and see which are serious, which not.

But the 102 reasons are NOT shown on that page, I'd have to click 102 more times to actually see the reasons.

Whittemore has a list of 100 reasons, but his index page gives a short summary of what you'll see before you click. The oxfraud page provides rather useless summaries like:

In the race to complete a list of 100 reasons why Oxford did or did not write Shakespeare's plays, Hank Whittemore's site has taken a strong lead in the final straight and now looks certain to beat us to the magic figure. We are becalmed… go to article

The Oxfordian pick has struck gold again, an occurrence that seems to happen with astounding regularity, yet for some reason the nuggets found never seem to get past the assay office.This time the treasure lode is an article by the… go to article

Alexander Waugh has trumpeted a great Oxfordian discovery. In The Spectator (2 November 2013), he wrote: “Researching a new book on Shakespeare’s sonnets, I stumbled upon an astonishing piece of hitherto unnoticed evidence in… go to article

And so on. The site is set up like ad-baiting sites!

If you, WAB, care to link to a particular subset of the 102 reasons you'd like me to read I will. Otherwise I won't pursue this.

No, I don't care to single out some of the 102 reasons. I linked to the site so that an interested reader could explore the contra-Oxfordian arguments, since we have not previously gone there in any detail.

Yes, you would have to click each link to each separate "reason" to read the articles. I myself have only read about 20 of them.

It's okay with me if you don't want to further explore the contra-Oxford position.

All I ask is to bear in mind, this:

My position here is not pro-Stratford man; it is Contra-Oxford.

While I think it is highly possible that the Stratford man actually DID write what is attributed to him, I don't know enough about it to mount a plausible case.

My "case" is based in the simple fact that De Vere, who wrote ordinary (read competent, but not remarkable), verse into his 30's (you yourself provided a link in this thread to poems purportedly penned by De Vere when he was in his thirties), in fact COULD NOT have written the works attributed to "William Shakespeare".

On the Oxfraud site there are articles about the studies done into the stylistic patterns of both poets. De Vere demonstrates almost no stylistic similarity to "Shakespeare".

I have mentioned Keats' meteoric rise from mediocre to great: BUT: there are stylistic and verbal similarities, a continuity that CANNOT be shown to exist between the mediocre De Vere and the works of "Shakespeare".

You said something about ad-baiting at the Oxfraud site (or that it is set-up like an ad-baiting site).

I get no obtrusive ads on the site, and the navigation is hassle free. No pop ups, no bother.

You are required to look for what you want, and the links all work, save for a few.

 

[Swammerdami]

I realize that the case against Oxford is strong. But the case against Stratford is very strong.

And the case against collaboration is strong too, but I think we should keep an open mind. Shakespeare's work was not merely exemplary but unsurpassed. We might expect the unexpected. (Many of the sonnets are so personal as to imply a single author. The "collaborators" may have been mostly just offering advice about versification.)

What sticks out when I ponder this are the hundreds of strong coincidences connecting the Works to Oxford's life story. (Could it be that Oxford's son-in-law penned some of the works as if they were by Oxford, as a sort of tribute to his wife's father? Yes I know this is far-fetched.)

WAB, I did click your links and ended up at
https://oxfraud.com/100-reasons-grid2
which has 102 reasons to think the Oxfordian theory is a fraud. This seemed like a good place to look! I could go through the list and see which are serious, which not.

But the 102 reasons are NOT shown on that page, I'd have to click 102 more times to actually see the reasons.

Whittemore has a list of 100 reasons, but his index page gives a short summary of what you'll see before you click. The oxfraud page provides rather useless summaries like:

In the race to complete a list of 100 reasons why Oxford did or did not write Shakespeare's plays, Hank Whittemore's site has taken a strong lead in the final straight and now looks certain to beat us to the magic figure. We are becalmed… go to article

The Oxfordian pick has struck gold again, an occurrence that seems to happen with astounding regularity, yet for some reason the nuggets found never seem to get past the assay office.This time the treasure lode is an article by the… go to article

Alexander Waugh has trumpeted a great Oxfordian discovery. In The Spectator (2 November 2013), he wrote: “Researching a new book on Shakespeare’s sonnets, I stumbled upon an astonishing piece of hitherto unnoticed evidence in… go to article

And so on. The site is set up like ad-baiting sites!

If you, WAB, care to link to a particular subset of the 102 reasons you'd like me to read I will. Otherwise I won't pursue this.

No, I don't care to single out some of the 102 reasons. I linked to the site so that an interested reader could explore the contra-Oxfordian arguments, since we have not previously gone there in any detail.

Yes, you would have to click each link to each separate "reason" to read the articles. I myself have only read about 20 of them.

It's okay with me if you don't want to further explore the contra-Oxford position.

I DO want to challenge my opinion with anti-Oxford arguments. But, as I showed with examples, the "synopsis" of many of 102 reasons tell us nothing; they're mostly content-free sarcasm against Oxfordians. I wrote "LIKE an ad-baiting site." They aren't showing ads, but they tease with nonsense hoping for a click.

The first Shakespeare biography I read was Ian Wilson's: I deliberately chose an anti-Oxfordian biography. Whether he wrote poems or not, Oxford should fit into a good Shakespeare biography: He was Southampton's close friend and prospective father-in-law for heaven's sake. He was a premier patron of the theater. But, except for a few content-free pejoratives, the ONLY mention of Oxford in Wilson's book is a few sentences about an alleged fart when he was bowing to the Queen! I don't need to read that sort of anti-Oxfordianism.

 

[Swammerdami]

Hot off the presses!

I subscribed to a pro-Oxfordian Facebook group — thanks for the tip, WAB! I miss most of the Oxfordian news/discussion and seldom click — I hate Facebook — but today's post caught my eye. It's about a new article from David P. Gontar. Gontar seems to have an interesting bio: PhD in philosophy, many books etc., but has no Wiki page. He is mentioned at  Critical_approaches_to_Hamlet. The claim seems to be that a proto-Shakespeare was writing in 1564, when Oxford was 14 and Stratford was zero.

"SHAKESPEARE AND HIS FIRST PLAY IDENTIFIED AFTER 450 YEARS?"
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/546143809/shakespeare-and-his-first-play-identified-after-450-years

which links to a brand-new article:
Damon and Pithias: Shakespeare's First Play
https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=190719&sec_id=190719

I have NOT yet even read this: I raced to post here while the URL's were still fresh in my tabs.

 

[Swammerdami]

Damon and Pithias: Shakespeare's First Play
https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=190719&sec_id=190719

This may be a good read. Gontar makes the case that Damon and Pithias, performed for the Queen in 1564, but first published in 1571 was NOT written by Richard Edwardes, but by Oxford (a "Rich Edward" though Gontar doesn't make this pun!). If true, he was merely 14 years old when he pleased the Queen with this presentation (though he had 7 years available for revision, apparently).

I will mention one connection that Gontar and others ignore.

Awake, ye woeful wights,
. . . . That long have wept in woe:
. . . . Resign to me your plaints and tears
. . . . My hapless hap to show.
My woe no tongue can tell,
. . . . No pen can well descry:
. . . . O, what a death is this to hear,
. . . . Damon my friend must die!
The loss of worldly wealth
. . . . Man’s wisdom may restore,
. . . . And physic hath provided too
. . . . A salve for every sore.
But my true friend once lost
. . . . No art can well supply:
. . . . Then what a death is this to hear,
. . . . Damon my friend should die!
My mouth refuse the food,
. . . . That should my limbs sustain:
Let sorrow sink into my breast
. . . . And ransack every vein:
. . . . You furies, all at once
. . . . On me your torments try:
Why should I live, since that I hear
. . . . Damon my friend should die?
. . . . Gripe me, you greedy grief,
. . . . You sisters three with cruel hands,
With speed now stop my breath,
. . . . Shrine me in clay alive,
. . . . Some good man stop mine eye:

O Death, come now, seeing I hear
. . . . Damon my friend must die!

As Gontar mentions, "woeful wights" (and "wailful wights of woe", etc.) are found in Oxford's works (and Lyly's and Greene's and Golding's translation of Ovid), but I have been intrigued by "salve for every sore." Is this common in others' works? It occurs multiple times in Oxford's poems:

in I am not as I seem to be
. . . . So long to fight with secret sore
. . . . And find no secret salve therefore;

in The trickling tears that fall along my cheeks
. . . . She is my salve, she is my wounded sore:

in My mind to me a kingdom is
. . . . No wily wit to salve a sore,

And is found in the same exact form of Damon and Pithias' "provide a salve for any/every sore", in a Shakespeare play:

My brother was too careless of his charge.
But let us hence, my sovereign, to provide
A salve for any sore that may betide.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammerdami,

Good catch! And thanks WAB for the bump.

I've never been to the Oxfraud site simply because of the name. It's just too middle school for me. Although I'm as fallible as the next person I really don't want to go to a site that just seems to be there because it wants to be clever and push buttons.

WAB, did you ever watch the original Frontline piece on DeVere from the 1980s?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

Is far superior than the line as it might have been written by a lesser poet:

Attest a million in a little place.

?

Let your ears and your breath do the work, not just your brain.

Rules of syntax violated? It's been a long time since I was familiar with Latin syntax but it reminds me of Latin sentence structure. It is more pleasant to experience in its first form.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I realize that the case against Oxford is strong. But the case against Stratford is very strong.

And the case against collaboration is strong too, but I think we should keep an open mind. Shakespeare's work was not merely exemplary but unsurpassed. We might expect the unexpected. (Many of the sonnets are so personal as to imply a single author. The "collaborators" may have been mostly just offering advice about versification.)

What sticks out when I ponder this are the hundreds of strong coincidences connecting the Works to Oxford's life story. (Could it be that Oxford's son-in-law penned some of the works as if they were by Oxford, as a sort of tribute to his wife's father? Yes I know this is far-fetched.)

No, I don't care to single out some of the 102 reasons. I linked to the site so that an interested reader could explore the contra-Oxfordian arguments, since we have not previously gone there in any detail.

Yes, you would have to click each link to each separate "reason" to read the articles. I myself have only read about 20 of them.

It's okay with me if you don't want to further explore the contra-Oxford position.

I DO want to challenge my opinion with anti-Oxford arguments. But, as I showed with examples, the "synopsis" of many of 102 reasons tell us nothing; they're mostly content-free sarcasm against Oxfordians. I wrote "LIKE an ad-baiting site." They aren't showing ads, but they tease with nonsense hoping for a click.

The first Shakespeare biography I read was Ian Wilson's: I deliberately chose an anti-Oxfordian biography. Whether he wrote poems or not, Oxford should fit into a good Shakespeare biography: He was Southampton's close friend and prospective father-in-law for heaven's sake. He was a premier patron of the theater. But, except for a few content-free pejoratives, the ONLY mention of Oxford in Wilson's book is a few sentences about an alleged fart when he was bowing to the Queen! I don't need to read that sort of anti-Oxfordianism.

Roger Stritmatter lays it all out. The Oxfrauds, misfits, the whole historical argument surrounding the authorship question and how the recent stratfordian position has become an attack position, not a scholarly exchange. For anyone wishing to partake:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnKCWQmZvKM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Swammerdami]

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

Is far superior than the line as it might have been written by a lesser poet:

Attest a million in a little place.

?

Let your ears and your breath do the work, not just your brain.

Since the single line gives us no context, I suppose it is the meter we should focus on. Both lines are iambic pentameter, but the first version loses one syllable ('a') and gets it back by extending 'million' to three syllables.

I admit this is very clever! And it leaves me curious: How common is such cleverness? Did you find this yourself, WAB?

The line is from the Prologue of Henry V:

The flat unraised spirits that hath dar'd
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object. Can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? Or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.

 

[WAB]

Hot off the presses!

I subscribed to a pro-Oxfordian Facebook group — thanks for the tip, WAB! I miss most of the Oxfordian news/discussion and seldom click — I hate Facebook — but today's post caught my eye. It's about a new article from David P. Gontar. Gontar seems to have an interesting bio: PhD in philosophy, many books etc., but has no Wiki page. He is mentioned at  Critical_approaches_to_Hamlet. The claim seems to be that a proto-Shakespeare was writing in 1564, when Oxford was 14 and Stratford was zero.

"SHAKESPEARE AND HIS FIRST PLAY IDENTIFIED AFTER 450 YEARS?"
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/546143809/shakespeare-and-his-first-play-identified-after-450-years

which links to a brand-new article:
Damon and Pithias: Shakespeare's First Play
https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=190719&sec_id=190719

I have NOT yet even read this: I raced to post here while the URL's were still fresh in my tabs.

Swammi,

Is this the text of Damon and Pythias referred to:

http://elizabethandrama.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Damon-and-Pithias-Annotated.pdf

The author given credit is Richard Edwards. I know, Oxfordians don't think it was Edwards (Edwardes).

ETA: Yeeesh. Mr. Gontar actually cites the following passage. Why, I do not know. De Vere was a better poet than the author of the following lines, and Shakespeare outshines them both immeasurably:

The strongest guards that kings may have,
Are constant friends their state to save.
True friends are constant both in word and deed,
True friends are present and help at each need.
True friends talk truly, they gloze for no gain,
When treasure consumeth, true friends will remain.
True friends for their true prince refuseth not their death:
The Lord grant her such friends, noble Queen Elizabeth,
Long may she govern in honour and wealth,
Void of all sickness, in most perfect health;
Which health to prolong, as true friends require,
God grant she may have her own heart’s desire:
Which friends will defend with steadfast faith,
The Lord grant her such friends, most noble
QUEEN ELIZABETH

Line 4 is helplessly inept.

This couplet could have been written by a precocious fourth grader:

True friends for their true prince refuseth not their death:
The Lord grant her such friends, noble Queen Elizabeth,...

From Gontar's article:

The ever-beckoning yeoman Gulielmus Shakesper, born in 1564, never attended an institution where ancient Greek philosophy was an essential part of the curriculum. (See, en passant, Troilus and Cressida.) Newborn infants, whatever else they may be, are not masters of art. There can be no rational claim that it was Gulielmus Shakesper who penned Damon and Pithias, from which it follows that he is absolutely ruled out as the savant who passed from D&P to the Canon. And it is respectfully submitted that there are no other possibilities—except Oxford.

Gontar wouldn't know what a 'master of art' was.

It was no "savant" who penned D&P, but a poetaster, duly forgotten.

Last sentence: If Oxford penned D&P, he was a worse poet than I thought he was!

 

[WAB]

I realize that the case against Oxford is strong. But the case against Stratford is very strong.

And the case against collaboration is strong too, but I think we should keep an open mind. Shakespeare's work was not merely exemplary but unsurpassed. We might expect the unexpected. (Many of the sonnets are so personal as to imply a single author. The "collaborators" may have been mostly just offering advice about versification.)

What sticks out when I ponder this are the hundreds of strong coincidences connecting the Works to Oxford's life story. (Could it be that Oxford's son-in-law penned some of the works as if they were by Oxford, as a sort of tribute to his wife's father? Yes I know this is far-fetched.)

No, I don't care to single out some of the 102 reasons. I linked to the site so that an interested reader could explore the contra-Oxfordian arguments, since we have not previously gone there in any detail.

Yes, you would have to click each link to each separate "reason" to read the articles. I myself have only read about 20 of them.

It's okay with me if you don't want to further explore the contra-Oxford position.

I DO want to challenge my opinion with anti-Oxford arguments. But, as I showed with examples, the "synopsis" of many of 102 reasons tell us nothing; they're mostly content-free sarcasm against Oxfordians. I wrote "LIKE an ad-baiting site." They aren't showing ads, but they tease with nonsense hoping for a click.

The first Shakespeare biography I read was Ian Wilson's: I deliberately chose an anti-Oxfordian biography. Whether he wrote poems or not, Oxford should fit into a good Shakespeare biography: He was Southampton's close friend and prospective father-in-law for heaven's sake. He was a premier patron of the theater. But, except for a few content-free pejoratives, the ONLY mention of Oxford in Wilson's book is a few sentences about an alleged fart when he was bowing to the Queen! I don't need to read that sort of anti-Oxfordianism.

Roger Stritmatter lays it all out. The Oxfrauds, misfits, the whole historical argument surrounding the authorship question and how the recent stratfordian position has become an attack position, not a scholarly exchange. For anyone wishing to partake:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnKCWQmZvKM[/YOUTUBE]

I watched twenty minutes of the video.

Will watch the rest when time permits.

Please see post # 374

 

[Swammerdami]

I watched twenty minutes of the video.

Will watch the rest when time permits.

Please see post # 374

You're ahead of me! I have that video in a tab, waiting for me to click Play.
... But I have 92 other tabs open.

Damon and Pithias was performed for Her Majesty when de Vere was only 14 years old; and he had other studies and boyish diversions to attend to besides polishing his verse. (And did I not show a Robert Frost poem up-thread written by Frost as a young man and obviously inferior to his later work?)

Anyway, the clues that de Vere was the key contributor to the plays and sonnets are overwhelming. Have you read Anderson's book? Just for starters, there are many mentions of obscure details in Italy that only a traveler would have known. There are MAJOR changes in the presentation of Shakespeare's work and included content that coincide with de Vere's death. And so on.

I DO take your comments about de Vere's inferior talent seriously. Some person or persons were helping Oxford polish his verse, perhaps his son-in-law or even his daughter. And remember that de Vere was patron of a poet's club. Lyly and Munday — both significant playwrights — were both employed by de Vere as "secretaries." Why would he need such talented secretaries? Remember that he was practically bankrupt: it's not like he could throw money around on secretaries' wages.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Line 4 is helplessly inept.

This couplet could have been written by a precocious fourth grader:

True friends for their true prince refuseth not their death:
The Lord grant her such friends, noble Queen Elizabeth,...

The first poetry I remember composing was in primary school. I used the word "woman" but it didn't rhyme so I hyphenated it to wo-man. Then it worked.

My point is that no poet ever composed "Venus and Adonis" as a first piece. That we have early less-polished works from DeVere is a good thing. We have nothing from the Stratford man.

 

[WAB]

Line 4 is helplessly inept.

This couplet could have been written by a precocious fourth grader:

True friends for their true prince refuseth not their death:
The Lord grant her such friends, noble Queen Elizabeth,...

The first poetry I remember composing was in primary school. I used the word "woman" but it didn't rhyme so I hyphenated it to wo-man. Then it worked.

My point is that no poet ever composed "Venus and Adonis" as a first piece. That we have early less-polished works from DeVere is a good thing. We have nothing from the Stratford man.

With a poet as superior as the author of 'Shakespeare', Venus & Adonis would not be that shocking as a first published work. It is inferior to the mature Shakespeare (Othello, Lear, Tempest, etc...), as are the sonnets (I don't even like the sonnets). Also bear in mind, great artists know when to destroy juvenilia and poor works. There is the famous quote from the composer Carl Maria Von Weber: "Cats and first operas should be drowned." A great artist knows what to keep from the light of day. A poet as superior as Shakespeare, I would wager, would not rush to publication until they had a work that was fit. Hence, there is no real reason to think Venus & Adonis was literally a "first piece"; in fact, I would imagine that was nearly impossible, as you do.

I admit this is just conjecture!

Plus, to keep reminding you, the extant work of De Vere (work written possibly into his thirties) bears no similarity in quality or style to Venus & Adonis or the sonnets, or indeed any of the works attributed to the Bard. The only people who see connections in quality and style between the two authors seem to be those who are not well-versed in poetry (as you and Swammi - the sole defenders of De Vere authorship in this thread, have both admitted).

I have asked for some information about skilled poets (any skilled, known poet), who was an Oxfordian. Are there any?

 

[WAB]

I watched twenty minutes of the video.

Will watch the rest when time permits.

Please see post # 374

You're ahead of me! I have that video in a tab, waiting for me to click Play.
... But I have 92 other tabs open.

Damon and Pithias was performed for Her Majesty when de Vere was only 14 years old;....

Shereech! (tires...)

Where is the proof that De Vere wrote this play when he was 14? Mind you, I am not doubting you, I just figure you must know, and can tell me.

The pdf doc I have says the author was Richard Edwards:

http://elizabethandrama.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Damon-and-Pithias-Annotated.pdf

Please see the post before this...


ETA: Lyly and Munday were average at best.

Don't you understand?!!

No-one can "teach" a great poet how to be a great poet. It does not happen.

There is no Shakespeare by committee or a group of tutors who taught De Vere how to write the greatest poetry in English! It doesn't happen, it didn't happen, and it is impossible that a poet as minor as De Vere wrote Shakespeare. It's really quite simple.

And further evidence: I am the ONLY person on this site patient enough to entertain your silly theory.

There was a thread on this at Eratosphere, which can be found via search. Not a single poet there agrees with the Oxford idea. The thread died, with the usual derision.

***

Here is a sample couplet (chosen from the beginning of the play) from Damon and Pythias:

And yet (worshipful audience) thus much I dare avouch,
In comedies the greatest skill is this, rightly to touch...

I think I wrote better poetry at 14.

If De Vere were the author of Shakespeare, he would have been far past such slovenly drivel by that age.


ETA:

Ack! It gets far worse:

Lo, this I speak for our defence, lest of others we should be shent:
But, worthy audience, we you pray, take things as they be meant;
Whose upright judgment we do crave with heedful ear and eye
To hear the cause and see th' effect of this new tragical comedy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

WAB, there isn't anything miraculous about Shakespeare yet you seem determined to make the author(s) emanations of perfection. I don't get this. Drop the baggage and preconceptions and the religious loyalty. Whoever wrote the stuff was a person like you and me, not a superman or a god, despite what the SBT wants us to think and believe.