• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Whoever wrote Shakespeare was without doubt a genius, Amyrich.

I always ignored the authorship question (until this thread was posted), never bothering to pay it any real attention, and I suspect that's what most people do, and always have done. But while I am not convinced that the Earl of Oxford was the real author, I now have doubts about the Stratford man, based on what I've looked into so far. This subject has grabbed hold of me at a good time, right when I needed something to think about and dig into.

I consider (and boy oh boy I am certainly not the first) that the writings attributed to William Shakespeare constitute the greatest contribution to English literature to date. In fact, I don't believe anyone else comes close.

Where I differ from some others is that I do not believe that the primary reason Shakespeare stands so far above even the greatest writers in English is that he was the greatest English dramatist (he may have been) or that he was, as people have written, somehow more in tune with human behavior and what drives that behavior than others, or that he had any special insights into humanity that others did not have, although in all of that he did certainly excel. I believe that the real reason Shakespeare is thought by many to be the greatest writer in the English language is because he was, and still is, the greatest poet in the English language.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
From people who are confident that the traditional view is correct — that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets — I'd like to know that they've considered some of the contrary arguments.

At a minimum those posting in this thread should have at least skimmed this thread! I'll repeat a few of the challenges I posed earlier:
  • Explain the weird dedication of the Sonnets.
  • Explain the weird preface to Troilus, 2nd ed.
  • Comment on Peacham's anagram for the mystery writer.
  • List a few coincidences that you admit to surprise.
  • Is it odd that zero of Shaksper's friends, family or neighbors ever exhibited any book, manuscript, theater record or anecdote associated with this alleged playwright?
  • Which 'bearing of a canopy' is the poet referring to in Sonnet CXXV?

I don't think it's asking too much that each visitor to the thread who dismisses the anti-Stratford case should offer a comment on at least one of the six points listed above.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
From people who are confident that the traditional view is correct — that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets — I'd like to know that they've considered some of the contrary arguments.

At a minimum those posting in this thread should have at least skimmed this thread! I'll repeat a few of the challenges I posed earlier:
  • Explain the weird dedication of the Sonnets.
  • Explain the weird preface to Troilus, 2nd ed.
  • Comment on Peacham's anagram for the mystery writer.
  • List a few coincidences that you admit to surprise.
  • Is it odd that zero of Shaksper's friends, family or neighbors ever exhibited any book, manuscript, theater record or anecdote associated with this alleged playwright?
  • Which 'bearing of a canopy' is the poet referring to in Sonnet CXXV?

I don't think it's asking too much that each visitor to the thread who dismisses the anti-Stratford case should offer a comment on at least one of the six points listed above.

I am currently going through Tom Veal's blog, Stromata. Lots to take in there, from the traditional view; I've listened to several videos, debates and talks - just recently a good talk by Diana Price, an Oxfordian.

I will be busy with this for a good while. Thanks for the thread! You have certainly changed my thoughts about the Stafford man. I hope the thread will stick around.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
From people who are confident that the traditional view is correct — that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets — I'd like to know that they've considered some of the contrary arguments.

At a minimum those posting in this thread should have at least skimmed this thread! I'll repeat a few of the challenges I posed earlier:
  • Explain the weird dedication of the Sonnets.
  • Explain the weird preface to Troilus, 2nd ed.
  • Comment on Peacham's anagram for the mystery writer.
  • List a few coincidences that you admit to surprise.
  • Is it odd that zero of Shaksper's friends, family or neighbors ever exhibited any book, manuscript, theater record or anecdote associated with this alleged playwright?
  • Which 'bearing of a canopy' is the poet referring to in Sonnet CXXV?

I don't think it's asking too much that each visitor to the thread who dismisses the anti-Stratford case should offer a comment on at least one of the six points listed above.

Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper? Because of the signatures? I admit, the signatures bother me some, but it's pretty well established the Stratford man's name was Shakespeare. There were lots of Shakespeares around then.

Some might think William Wordsworth sounds like a pen name. In fact I did when I was young and first heard of him, until I learned that in those days in England you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting some bloke named Wordsworth.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper? Because of the signatures? I admit, the signatures bother me some, but it's pretty well established the Stratford man's name was Shakespeare. There were lots of Shakespeares around then.

First of all, please base your opinion about the authorship on the relevant facts, not on whether you think I'm being "snarky" or something. And the spelling "Shaksper" has been around since the 19th century or earlier to refer to the man from Stratford: it is not a recent Oxfordian fetish. I will call him "WS" in this post to avoid giving further offense.

The main reason to insist on the spelling deviation is to avoid ambiguity. It is understandable that "Shake-speare" might seem to refer to the author of "Shake-speare's Sonnets" whoever that might be. To avoid that confusion it is common to refer to WS with one of the spellings that he actually used.

I don't know about other Shakespeares in Stratford — though obviously they'd be happy to insist on the Shakespeare spelling once their man became so famous — but I will need a cite that this was the common spelling for him and his immediate family prior to 1620. Be aware that many or most transcripts found on the 'Net use "modernized spelling" where "Shaksper" or its variants are transmuted just like any archaic spelling. Actual images of documents are often behind paywalls; even when viewable I have great difficulty reading old handwriting.

WS's last will and testament is the one important document with which WS was personally involved. It uses the spelling "Shackspeare" (sometimes read as "Shackspere"). WS's 1613 signature on the Blackfriars Gatehouse conveyance is one of the few WS signatures that is almost legible: Please tell us if you get anything but "Shaksper" from that. Even this signature is hard to read but "Shaksper" has 8 letters while "Shakespeare" has 11. It's hard to squint and squeeze 9 letters out of the 8-letter Blackfriars signature let alone 11. This wasn't a clerk misspelling a surname; this is a signature.

Yet Stratfordians think that the man who insisted on "Shake-speare" (or at least "Shakespeare") for all his literary works had a will drawn up for "Shackspeare" and signed an important deed with "Shaksper." Does not compute.

I will be sorry if the thread degenerates into squinting at old "Shaksper/Shakespeare" handwriting. So I offer you a choice from among three options: :)

(1) Find citations that Shakespeare rather than Shakspere or its variants was the preferred spelling by WS' family prior to 1620.
(2) Retract the claim
(3) Answer one of the six far more relevant questions in the post you quoted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
... And the spelling "Shaksper" has been around since the 19th century or earlier to refer to the man from Stratford: it is not a recent Oxfordian fetish.

This was poorly phrased. What I mean was that Walt Whitman, for example, used "Shaksper" to refer to the alleged author from Stratford. (I hope we don't need to debate whether Whitman was trying to be snarky, or just thought this reduced ambiguity.)

And by the way, Walt Whitman thereby joins a long list of literary greats who doubted the putative authorship. I consider the opinions of such literary greats more relevant than which side has the 51% needed to prevail in a Wikipedia editing war.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Egads.

I already said that I now doubt that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare. In fact I said it more than once. Did you not catch that?

See post #103 for starters.

And I will not comply with your demands, just because you demand it. I'll write what I want to write.

I will, in fact, repeat what I've said already:

I doubt that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. I think he was a mediocre poet until his thirties for sure, and probably remained one.

Also, this:

First of all, please base your opinion about the authorship on the relevant facts, not on whether you think I'm being "snarky" or something.

is one of the reasons a lot of people like to refrain from getting into squabbles online. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I base my opinion on this on whether I think you are being snarky or not???

Do people really base their opinions about things upon the emotions of others? Perhaps some do, but the fact is you have NO reason to make that assumption of me. I have been kind and courteous to you, AND, I have written plainly that YOUR thread has caused me to doubt the Stratford man's authorship. Isn't that at least something of a gain for you, even though I'm a nobody?
 
Last edited:

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I apologize. Your "Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper?" did resemble, slightly, the snarky comments I've seen elsewhere, but I "escalated" stupidly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I apologize. Your "Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper?" did resemble, slightly, the snarky comments I've seen elsewhere, but I "escalated" stupidly.

Not a problem. No worries. And thanks again for this thread, and for indirectly sparking my renewed interest in life. I am being quite serious, by the way. In case you aren't aware, I have been depressed and suicidal over the past couple years. I have spoken all about it in the Support Fireside forum, and elsewhere.

Thank you! :joy:
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
... 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.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
... 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.

I may very well become an Oxfordian.

That being said, I want to speculate on a couple things:

First, let's say De Vere wrote Shakespeare, and that it was his intention that the Stratford man took credit honestly, and because De Vere wanted him to and because there was an arrangement between them, then wouldn't it behoove Oxfordians to honor the Earl's wishes and stop trying to prove that he was The Author (a term used by a traditionalist which I will adopt, seeing as Aquinas referred to Aristotle as The Philosopher out of reverence)?

If the reason De Vere went to such trouble was to preserve his reputation as a person of nobility - and what other good reason can be? - then he meant for that to stick indefinitely. Why, I say, would he think it was a good thing for people a few centuries later to expose him as The Author? I believe that he would not like that at all, and that Oxfordians are therefore doing him a disservice. Also, if he was The Author, then he damn well knew that there was no-one he was aware of who was writing as magnificently as he was. There is scant reason to think he did not know it. The Author's work is so supreme, that I often wonder if they were not showing off a bit, sort of the way Alexander Pope did, who was very aware of his tremendous superiority to others in his niche - the composition of satire in heroic couplets.

I would think it contradictory that De Vere was so concerned about tainting his reputation, or his family's, by writing for the common folk, and by rubbing elbows with such rabble, and simultaneously be so modest as to be the greatest poet writing in English (a big deal even though English was still in its adolescence then - there were LOTS of writers, playwrights, and poets around, and it is known that there was a healthy competitive spirit among them - ) and yet concoct an elaborate plan, which would have had to obtain the confidence and secrecy of whomever was involved, to NOT ever be given credit for it. I posit that The Author was so far ahead of anyone else in England at the time, such a magnificent poet and author, that there is virtually no way they thought that their work would not continue to grow in popularity and influence over time.

Secondly, with respect to the authorship by committee theory, and/or the theory that De Vere surrounded himself with great writers/poets in order to improve significantly. This may have happened, but there are two problems: 1) Since there were no poets around nearly as talented as The Author, it seems unlikely that any number of teachers could have caused him to get THAT good. Such excellence is, in my opinion, native for the most part. Not that a person is born a brilliant artist and doesn't have to take any troubles to learn something and practice a great deal in order to become excellent; what I mean is that such extraordinary talent cannot be taught. It's just there. Refined, sure, a great and through much effort, probably; but there is a remote possibility that The Author found it quite easy. That would explain their prolific output, and also explain why they didn't take great pains to preserve manuscripts, or go around proving to people that they were really a writer.

Thirdly, a new theory, once which I have not heard yet with respect to the Shakespeare Authorship question: Could The Author have really been illiterate? Could he have had this native talent with language I mentioned and yet...rats, an interruption, must go. To be continued...
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
[Deleted this post]

Never mind the third theory!
 
Last edited:

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I may very well become an Oxfordian.

That being said, I want to speculate on a couple things:

First, let's say De Vere wrote Shakespeare, and that it was his intention that the Stratford man took credit honestly, and because De Vere wanted him to and because there was an arrangement between them, then wouldn't it behoove Oxfordians to honor the Earl's wishes and stop trying to prove that he was The Author (a term used by a traditionalist which I will adopt, seeing as Aquinas referred to Aristotle as The Philosopher out of reverence)?

If the reason De Vere went to such trouble was to preserve his reputation as a person of nobility - and what other good reason can be? - then he meant for that to stick indefinitely. Why, I say, would he think it was a good thing for people a few centuries later to expose him as The Author? I believe that he would not like that at all, and that Oxfordians are therefore doing him a disservice. Also, if he was The Author, then he damn well knew that there was no-one he was aware of who was writing as magnificently as he was. There is scant reason to think he did not know it. The Author's work is so supreme, that I often wonder if they were not showing off a bit, sort of the way Alexander Pope did, who was very aware of his tremendous superiority to others in his niche - the composition of satire in heroic couplets.

I would think it contradictory that De Vere was so concerned about tainting his reputation, or his family's, by writing for the common folk, and by rubbing elbows with such rabble, and simultaneously be so modest as to be the greatest poet writing in English (a big deal even though English was still in its adolescence then - there were LOTS of writers, playwrights, and poets around, and it is known that there was a healthy competitive spirit among them - ) and yet concoct an elaborate plan, which would have had to obtain the confidence and secrecy of whomever was involved, to NOT ever be given credit for it. I posit that The Author was so far ahead of anyone else in England at the time, such a magnificent poet and author, that there is virtually no way they thought that their work would not continue to grow in popularity and influence over time.

Secondly, with respect to the authorship by committee theory, and/or the theory that De Vere surrounded himself with great writers/poets in order to improve significantly. This may have happened, but there are two problems: 1) Since there were no poets around nearly as talented as The Author, it seems unlikely that any number of teachers could have caused him to get THAT good. Such excellence is, in my opinion, native for the most part. Not that a person is born a brilliant artist and doesn't have to take any troubles to learn something and practice a great deal in order to become excellent; what I mean is that such extraordinary talent cannot be taught. It's just there. Refined, sure, a great and through much effort, probably; but there is a remote possibility that The Author found it quite easy. That would explain their prolific output, and also explain why they didn't take great pains to preserve manuscripts, or go around proving to people that they were really a writer.

These are good points you raise, WAB. In this reply I'll just address the motives for the hoax.

While the facts clearly point to Earls never taking credit for their published poetry during that era — as a matter of "dignity" — Oxford had a far more important motive for secrecy. This was brought home to me by the Bonner Cutting video I cite in #55. Rereading that post, I see I failed to emphasize the key point: Oxford had to keep the "insider" authorship of the propagandist history plays secret. This pro-Tudor propaganda would have had its effect completely reversed — into anti-Tudor sentiment — had it become known that, instead of a random or unknown writer, they were written by Her Majesty's intimate on Her Majesty's order! Similarly, even inside courtier information with no propagandist purpose would haunt Oxford and the Queen if the inside authorship became known.

How Oxford felt about this is irrelevant: He was under orders from the Absolute Monarch of England to conceal his authorship. Indeed the annual ₤1000 payment could be regarded as "hush money." Remember that this was a time of great political intrigue, disputed claims to the throne, planned coups and assassinations. King James I, newly crowned and not even an Englishman, inherited the throne because of his Tudor blood and hardly wanted to stoke anti-Tudor sentiment. One specific incident suggests that King James was concerned about Oxford's secret, and may have seized a "To be opened on my death" letter. I mention this at the end of #25, but I'm afraid this interesting incident got lost: #25 was even longer than my usual over-long posts. ::gak::

Did Oxford regret that he would not be known as the Author? Some of the Sonnets suggest exactly this: LXVI ("gilded honour shamefully misplaced ... art made tongue-tied by authority"), LXXXI, CXI ("my name receives a brand"), CXXXV, CXXXVI. Perhaps it's a strain to claim these sonnets lament his anonymity ... but they make far less sense if written by Stratford.

Anyway, the Oxford Earldom went dormant centuries ago. Declassification of secrets is normal with the passage of time; U.S. intelligence agencies declassify even HUMINT after 75 years. I don't think celebration of his writing would upset Edward de Vere by now! :)
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.

What Is a Shakespearean Sonnet?

Hey WAB,

Not sure the source anymore but the argument went along the lines that it makes historical sense to credit De Vere with the new sonnet form, just based on dates and attribution. The link I posted above just talkes about the Shakespearean Sonnet as a poetic form. I'd have to dig around to find the information regarding De Vere.

Enjoy the ride!
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.

What Is a Shakespearean Sonnet?

Hey WAB,

Not sure the source anymore but the argument went along the lines that it makes historical sense to credit De Vere with the new sonnet form, just based on dates and attribution. The link I posted above just talkes about the Shakespearean Sonnet as a poetic form. I'd have to dig around to find the information regarding De Vere.

Enjoy the ride!

Thanks, O ye Great Googly Moogly,

I am well-versed (pun intended) in the sonnet, Shakespearean and Petrarchan. I believe I have posted samples of both in the New Poetry Thread. Though I think the Petrarchans are written in alexandrians rather than IP. I Don't know if that disqualifies them from being Petrarchan, but they follow that rhyme scheme. One is an amorous poem about unrequited love, the other is written in reverence and is intentionally imitative of Derek Walcott, to my mind a grand master who, while very well-known, awarded, and appreciated, is still not appreciated enough. If you have not read his Omeros, take a look at it.

For whatever reason, the Bard's sonnets never grabbed hold of me the way the plays did. I do love Venus & Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and have read both of them with great relish, but even so, neither of them have had the same effect on me as the plays. I really should say, in various parts of the plays, by which I mean to refer to the places where I believe the Author is "in the zone" and humming along on all cylinders, some bits never cease to amaze, even astonish me. I should be grateful for my memory problems, since I can go into any play and still find big long bits which I have zero recollection of, and it's like reading them for the first time.

I noted to Swammerdami that I am planning on looking into the scientific, forensic evidence I believe you mentioned. I've looked at most of the videos in this thread, but if there's one containing material in that vein I must have missed it. Can you provide a link or two, or point me to a vid here, on that note? Thanks in advance, and remember, don't expect too much detailed response from me regarding that, because I'm dumb all over (and maybe even a little ugly on the side).
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.

What Is a Shakespearean Sonnet?

Hey WAB,

Not sure the source anymore but the argument went along the lines that it makes historical sense to credit De Vere with the new sonnet form, just based on dates and attribution. The link I posted above just talkes about the Shakespearean Sonnet as a poetic form. I'd have to dig around to find the information regarding De Vere.

Enjoy the ride!

Thanks, O ye Great Googly Moogly,

I am well-versed (pun intended) in the sonnet, Shakespearean and Petrarchan. I believe I have posted samples of both in the New Poetry Thread. Though I think the Petrarchans are written in alexandrians rather than IP. I Don't know if that disqualifies them from being Petrarchan, but they follow that rhyme scheme. One is an amorous poem about unrequited love, the other is written in reverence and is intentionally imitative of Derek Walcott, to my mind a grand master who, while very well-known, awarded, and appreciated, is still not appreciated enough. If you have not read his Omeros, take a look at it.

For whatever reason, the Bard's sonnets never grabbed hold of me the way the plays did. I do love Venus & Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and have read both of them with great relish, but even so, neither of them have had the same effect on me as the plays. I really should say, in various parts of the plays, by which I mean to refer to the places where I believe the Author is "in the zone" and humming along on all cylinders, some bits never cease to amaze, even astonish me. I should be grateful for my memory problems, since I can go into any play and still find big long bits which I have zero recollection of, and it's like reading them for the first time.

I noted to Swammerdami that I am planning on looking into the scientific, forensic evidence I believe you mentioned. I've looked at most of the videos in this thread, but if there's one containing material in that vein I must have missed it. Can you provide a link or two, or point me to a vid here, on that note? Thanks in advance, and remember, don't expect too much detailed response from me regarding that, because I'm dumb all over (and maybe even a little ugly on the side).


No worries, I found a few things...wil! be checking them out.

P.S. The sonnets I mentioned must be in the archives. Couldn't find them.

When I get a chance to write at length, I have a question about De Vere's need for secrecy.

Oh goodie, the edit post option is still there. Got to the laptop:

***

In regard to the Oxford theory, and the reason(s) for anonymity:

Let's assume the Oxford authorship is true, and that the main reason he had to remain anonymous was political, ie that it was not solely due to social etiquette or vanity. This would indeed go far to explain everything, and I get it.

But it seems to me that if that were the case, why would some kind of absolute proof of the Earl's authorship not have been preserved? I don't mean just a pile of evidence, I mean absolute proof, as in a document telling it all in explicit and certain terms, signed by everyone involved, or at least the notables? Would it have been so difficult to preserve such a document for a few centuries? Or no, not even that, but just long enough for the danger to subside?

Okay, let's say then that any kind of concrete proof was out of the question, since discovery would have been so catastrophic that no such risk could be taken. Alright, that still leaves a substantial possibility that the secret could have been preserved and passed down through the generations orally. I would think it no trivial matter at all that something so huge as the identity of arguably the greatest writer in English would be left up to even a very large amount of evidence by way of cryptic clues, or evidence that would require scientific (and as Oxfordians say, forensic) means to discover and explain it, especially since such means did not even exist at the time.

A couple possibilities: that the secret failed to be kept over generations; or perhaps documentary proof (meaning the total truth, the whole story, spelled out explicitly and in no uncertain terms) has gone missing.

Maybe Oak Island keeps the secret to this day (some of the people involved with that project imagine that it's not treasure buried there, but Shakespeare's manuscripts). Not impossible. Or maybe it's tucked away somewhere else.
 
Last edited:

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Please see posts #116 and #117.


One last thing (okay two):

I maintain that Marlowe, of all the candidates suggested thus far (and they are legion) was the best poet. While not on a level with Shakespeare's writings, he had become excellent, even at 29, when he was killed in a bar fight. I can imagine him becoming as good as The Author over time, with plenty of time to hone his craft.

He signed his name "Marley", by the way. Spellings and signatures were varied in those days. Also, since the Stratford man is known for certain to have been a business man, he would have had to sign a myriad of documents. Is it so far-fetched to think a person might get lazy with his signature? I know I've gotten lazy with mine, especially in these days where you have to sign your name a thousand times just to get in to see a new doctor.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
... 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.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Egads.

The first sentence in the last paragraph in post #119 - the one directly above this post - should have read:

"However, I do bear in mind that there are other reasons for dismissing the pro Stratfordian position altogether."
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
... 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

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
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. :shrug:

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

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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. :shrug:

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

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
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

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
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

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
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

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
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:

shakespeare_monument_text4-1024x498.jpg

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

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
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

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
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

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
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

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
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."
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
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&
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
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. :)

Thanks, Moogly.

I know about public domain. When I said "legal" I am imagining the whole transition from Shakespeare to De Vere, not just the relatively small percentage of Shakespeare lovers who are in the Oxfordian camp. They can do what they like. Make books with the De Vere name, sell them to whomever wants to buy them. Have at it. I don't think the Stratford man's name or reputation is in any imminent peril.

No matter how this goes for me personally, I am still, at this very moment, not averse to the possibility that I may become an Oxfordian.

But let's go back to what I was saying. I don't believe you actually expect the majority of Shakespearean scholars and regular lovers of Shakespeare to simply acquiesce and go along with the erasure of that beloved name, and/or that very individual? It is simply not about to happen any time soon.

I am planning on posting some citations from anti-Oxfordians, just for balance, in the thread. I do realize that you have read much or most if not all of the creditable (meaning Shakespearean scholars who have investigated the evidence Oxfordians claim to have amassed) objections and arguments, and my reasons for doing that have nothing to do with trying to persuade you or Swammerdami.

I will also add that I have heard and read some things from Oxfordians which I consider to be superficial at least, and downright laughable at most. Tom Veal linked to a page somewhere that shows graphic charts and such showing correlations and correspondences between a variety of Shakespeare's lines, mostly from the sonnets I think, and De Vere's extant poems. Well, some of these connections were absurd on their face. There is also, or there is professed to be, scientific research and testing which virtually eliminates the possibility that De Vere could have written Shakespeare. I know that sounds vague. I cannot remember those links and pages. I should have made notes! I will allow for the possibility that such scientific data doesn't really exist.

Back to legal issues for a moment: How would the process to replace Shakespeare's name with De Vere's go, anyway? Your camp would have to convince scholars, professors, librarians, book-sellers, book manufacturers, et al, in order to carry out such a monumental transition. Legal snags would be due to the very high probability that absolute, inviolate, incontrovertible proof of De Vere's authorship will not be forthcoming; and there would be too much money to be lost in simply going along with the tide, even for merchants and other professionals who believed that Oxford was the Author.

More later...
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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. :)

Thanks, Moogly.

I know about public domain. When I said "legal" I am imagining the whole transition from Shakespeare to De Vere, not just the relatively small percentage of Shakespeare lovers who are in the Oxfordian camp. They can do what they like. Make books with the De Vere name, sell them to whomever wants to buy them. Have at it. I don't think the Stratford man's name or reputation is in any imminent peril.

No matter how this goes for me personally, I am still, at this very moment, not averse to the possibility that I may become an Oxfordian.

But let's go back to what I was saying. I don't believe you actually expect the majority of Shakespearean scholars and regular lovers of Shakespeare to simply acquiesce and go along with the erasure of that beloved name, and/or that very individual? It is simply not about to happen any time soon.

I don't perceive a need for any kind of transition. It isn't something that needs to be decided one way or the other. Perhaps one camp might bring suit against the other for some reason, but anyone can be sued by anyone for anything at anytime so that's not really an issue. It's Verey (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) much like Natural Selection/Evolution vs Intelligent design/Creationism imho. Anyone can observe Shakespeare for what it is whether ascribing the writings to the experiences of De Vere or not. Don't you agree? The claim among Stratfordians is that the Stratford man did not write from his experiences, that he just more or less rewrote earlier works, and of course a lot of that did occur.

I am planning on posting some citations from anti-Oxfordians, just for balance, in the thread. I do realize that you have read much or most if not all of the creditable (meaning Shakespearean scholars who have investigated the evidence Oxfordians claim to have amassed) objections and arguments, and my reasons for doing that have nothing to do with trying to persuade you or Swammerdami.

I will also add that I have heard and read some things from Oxfordians which I consider to be superficial at least, and downright laughable at most. Tom Veal linked to a page somewhere that shows graphic charts and such showing correlations and correspondences between a variety of Shakespeare's lines, mostly from the sonnets I think, and De Vere's extant poems. Well, some of these connections were absurd on their face. There is also, or there is professed to be, scientific research and testing which virtually eliminates the possibility that De Vere could have written Shakespeare. I know that sounds vague. I cannot remember those links and pages. I should have made notes! I will allow for the possibility that such scientific data doesn't really exist.

Back to legal issues for a moment: How would the process to replace Shakespeare's name with De Vere's go, anyway? Your camp would have to convince scholars, professors, librarians, book-sellers, book manufacturers, et al, in order to carry out such a monumental transition. Legal snags would be due to the very high probability that absolute, inviolate, incontrovertible proof of De Vere's authorship will not be forthcoming; and there would be too much money to be lost in simply going along with the tide, even for merchants and other professionals who believed that Oxford was the Author.

More later...
Please do. That's what makes it interesting. And you may have me at a disadvantage as I'm not really that well read on the subject, believe it or not. I'm certainly no Shakespeare scholar, just very interested in the subject as my scientific mind latches on to whodunnits quite readily. But I have done a bit of creative writing and was a Lit major in college so do have some appreciation for the art of composing verse, same as yourself. It strikes me as quite odd that the claim is made that the Stratford man or any writer could not be personally motivated and involved in his craft, that it was just some sort of robotic enterprise to make a buck. I'd want some real world examples other than the Stratford man to help support and illustrate this claim.

Enough for now...
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
As with Mr. Moogly, "whodunits" intrigue me, especially ancient or long-ago mysteries. (I started to list examples, but it would be a huge distraction here.) I have no "agenda" regarding the Shakespeare Authorship: it's just a mystery that's fun to think about or discuss.

I admire your willingness to expose your personal issues, WAB. (Perhaps thinking about the Authorship will be a useful distraction for you.) Partly inspired by you, I am considering telling parts of my own life story in the Introduce Yourself forum here. It could quickly turn to embarrassing aspects of my life that nobody alive today knows, and might serve me as rehearsal for telling my kids — all adult now — about their father.


I do want to comment on the following:
...
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.
I have great respect for scientists; my default is to accept expert opinion without question. This is especially true in the physical sciences (and math): Laymen who question the teachings of climatologists or even expert mechanical engineers are usually just making fools of themselves.

But experts are far from infallible, especially in the "soft" sciences. (I myself was once a highly paid expert. Never mind what fields: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." :) For example, you can read my comments in a TFT thread on prehistoric languages about the vitriolic debate among linguists regarding the Amerindian Hypothesis. Wikipedia will make it clear right away which side has the 51% in the Amerindian debate; but many experts (and one relatively well-read layman!) are rather certain the 49% are correct.

As another genealogical example relevant to our thread — Henry Carey was one of the Lords Chamberlain who was a patron of a company which staged Shakespeare plays — there is much dispute about whether Henry Carey's father was William Carey or King Henry VIII. Genealogical experts (including the highly respected site I linked to earlier) agree that Henry was most likely the King's son and his older sister Catherine was almost certainly the King's daughter. Yet Wiki's  Catherine Carey mentions her probable father only in a final section beginning with the phrase "In fiction." (BTW, Henry Carey had an affair with Emilia Lanier, allegedly the "Dark Lady" of the Sonnets!)

(ETA:Re-reading that Wiki article just now, I see that Wiki now does give more mention of the Kingly fathership than I implied.)

Anyway, there are many experts who agree with the anti-Stratfordians, but, since they are less than 51% in number, they get shouted down. And who is an "expert" anyway? Historians? Professors of literature? People with common sense or first-hand understanding of literary skill? Among the latter group there is a long list of writers (Twain, Whitman, James, etc.) who are anti-Stratfordian, along with half a dozen U.S. Supreme Court Justices (a group not noted for crackpottery).

As for literary experts: I've presented them with numerous challenges (via Google, not in person!) to explain some of the Sonnets. Sonnets that make zero sense if written by Stratford but excellent sense if written by someone like Oxford. If Stratfordian scholars have any explanation whatsoever for these strange Sonnets (or for peculiarities like Peacham's anagram or the Troilus preface) they've kept it secret from Google.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
As with Mr. Moogly, "whodunits" intrigue me, especially ancient or long-ago mysteries. (I started to list examples, but it would be a huge distraction here.) I have no "agenda" regarding the Shakespeare Authorship: it's just a mystery that's fun to think about or discuss.

I admire your willingness to expose your personal issues, WAB. (Perhaps thinking about the Authorship will be a useful distraction for you.) Partly inspired by you, I am considering telling parts of my own life story in the Introduce Yourself forum here. It could quickly turn to embarrassing aspects of my life that nobody alive today knows, and might serve me as rehearsal for telling my kids — all adult now — about their father.


I do want to comment on the following:
...
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.
I have great respect for scientists; my default is to accept expert opinion without question. This is especially true in the physical sciences (and math): Laymen who question the teachings of climatologists or even expert mechanical engineers are usually just making fools of themselves.

But experts are far from infallible, especially in the "soft" sciences. (I myself was once a highly paid expert. Never mind what fields: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." :) For example, you can read my comments in a TFT thread on prehistoric languages about the vitriolic debate among linguists regarding the Amerindian Hypothesis. Wikipedia will make it clear right away which side has the 51% in the Amerindian debate; but many experts (and one relatively well-read layman!) are rather certain the 49% are correct.

As another genealogical example relevant to our thread — Henry Carey was one of the Lords Chamberlain who was a patron of a company which staged Shakespeare plays — there is much dispute about whether Henry Carey's father was William Carey or King Henry VIII. Genealogical experts (including the highly respected site I linked to earlier) agree that Henry was most likely the King's son and his older sister Catherine was almost certainly the King's daughter. Yet Wiki's  Catherine Carey mentions her probable father only in a final section beginning with the phrase "In fiction." (BTW, Henry Carey had an affair with Emilia Lanier, allegedly the "Dark Lady" of the Sonnets!)

(ETA:Re-reading that Wiki article just now, I see that Wiki now does give more mention of the Kingly fathership than I implied.)

Anyway, there are many experts who agree with the anti-Stratfordians, but, since they are less than 51% in number, they get shouted down. And who is an "expert" anyway? Historians? Professors of literature? People with common sense or first-hand understanding of literary skill? Among the latter group there is a long list of writers (Twain, Whitman, James, etc.) who are anti-Stratfordian, along with half a dozen U.S. Supreme Court Justices (a group not noted for crackpottery).

As for literary experts: I've presented them with numerous challenges (via Google, not in person!) to explain some of the Sonnets. Sonnets that make zero sense if written by Stratford but excellent sense if written by someone like Oxford. If Stratfordian scholars have any explanation whatsoever for these strange Sonnets (or for peculiarities like Peacham's anagram or the Troilus preface) they've kept it secret from Google.
Does Anderson have anything to say bout the preface to Troilus and Cressida? As I continue reading SBAN it will be on my mind. Anderson contends that much of Shakespear's dramas were originally performed for the Queen, then recast later as stage plays for a general audience. But that doesn't help us understand the preface.

Right now Oxford is 28 years old in 1578 and may have already written Troilus for the Queen. I will keep my radar up on this one. Very interesting. Peacham on the other hand is a done deal, there really isn't any mystery there, just anti-Oxfordian denial.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,507
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Does Anderson have anything to say bout the preface to Troilus and Cressida? As I continue reading SBAN it will be on my mind. Anderson contends that much of Shakespear's dramas were originally performed for the Queen, then recast later as stage plays for a general audience. But that doesn't help us understand the preface.

Right now Oxford is 28 years old in 1578 and may have already written Troilus for the Queen. I will keep my radar up on this one. Very interesting. Peacham on the other hand is a done deal, there really isn't any mystery there, just anti-Oxfordian denial.

Anderson mentions the curious fact that one edition of Troilus advertises that the play had been performed at Globe Theatre by The King's Men; a subsequent edition contradicted this with "Eternal reader, you have here a new play, never staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar ..." (Anderson doesn't mention that "eternal reader" might mean "Ever reader.")

However Anderson does NOT seem to mention at all the preface I'm referring to: "From a Never Writer to an Ever Reader. News" (Anderson focuses on Oxford's biography, rather than miscellaneous external clues.)

(I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about Peacham.)
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
In rereading here I see. I have overlooked some specific questions from Swammy & Moogly. I just want to quickly say that I am not ignoring them, I simply have a terrible short term memory and I also get very tangled up in distractions I make for myself.

In the interest of staying honest, let me say a few things:

First, Moogly, I agree that laymen will generally look foolish when disputing with scientists! No argument there from me. If you were to check, you would notice that in my nearly 17 years here I have only very rarely traipsed about in the science fora. I spent most of my time in philosophy and general discussion. I know my limits.

About the Stratford monument - I don't know enough about that to venture a qualified opinion, but I will say it doesn't look good for our Stratford bloke. But what do I know?


Golding letters, Drueshout engraving - I have no opinion yet, don't know enough. Let me look into that tomorrow and I'll see if I can venture anything my silly brain thinks about them.

In the meantime, dang it, where's everybody else? 150 active members and it's already whittled down to the three of us?

Dagnabbit!

More later...
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Egads.

I have spent an hour or more in a thread on Facebook.

In a group called ShakesVere, which I joined. I found the group through a friend, who's apparently an Oxfordian.

Yikes!

I shall not be continuing with that group...

"Over to you, Howard!"

...
 
Last edited:

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,744
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Egads.

I have spent an hour or more in a thread on Facebook.

In a group called ShakesVere, which I joined. I found the group through a friend, who's apparently an Oxfordian.

Yikes!

I shall not be continuing with that group...

"Over to you, Howard!"

...

ShakesVere? That is clever. I don't do facebook but that would be a proper reason to join.

Shakespeare and the authorship question isn't so interesting a subject for the general population so I'm not surprised that so few people participate. The authorship question, however, has made Shakespeare much more interesting for me.

And by scientific I simply mean evidence based.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Egads.

I have spent an hour or more in a thread on Facebook.

In a group called ShakesVere, which I joined. I found the group through a friend, who's apparently an Oxfordian.

Yikes!

I shall not be continuing with that group...

"Over to you, Howard!"

...

ShakesVere? That is clever. I don't do facebook but that would be a proper reason to join.

Shakespeare and the authorship question isn't so interesting a subject for the general population so I'm not surprised that so few people participate. The authorship question, however, has made Shakespeare much more interesting for me.

And by scientific I simply mean evidence based.

Yeah, I think you should consider joining the group, Moogly. Mark Anderson is in it. Assuming it's the same Mark Anderson. One never knows these days.

Linky: https://www.facebook.com/groups/shakesvere/


I do wish to say a couple things, however, and I hope you and Swammy will not take offense. Rest assured, none is intended. And no matter what happens, I am still grateful to you and Swammy for helping me find renewed interest in living. Thanks!

Now. The reason I said I will not be continuing with that group is because, from what I have read thus far, I suspect that at least some of those folks have lost their marbles. I say this with affection, as one who has lost lots of marbles over recent years. Um, well let's just say I only have two marbles left. I know because I just counted them.

*

To you and Swammy:

Have either of you read Umberto Eco's novel, Foucault's Pendulum? If not, I think you would enjoy it. I read it around the time it came out and it has stuck with me.

Linky (spoiler warning): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault's_Pendulum
 
Top Bottom