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

The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I edited my prior post while you were posting yours.

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

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

Just a thought.

It's all good WAB, I don't perceive misunderstandings or problems.

When I use the terms noble and common I am referring to the class structure that existed at the time. I most emphatically do not subscribe to any kind of class privilege. It certainly exists in that some of us are born more privileged with more resources both material and cognitive. But it's fair to say that the best Gretzky and the best Shakespeare never were, those persons' stars just didn't align. And philosophically I'm egalitarian, it's even in my profile - which I haven't been to in a long, long time.

Concerning the authorship question what I believe is proper is that with all the evidence the question gain academic acceptance, that it become legitimate academic investigation, and not be dismissed as crackpottery, that that "certainty" about the man from Stratford become uncertainty. I am not advocating that it become a creationism/science conflict whereby students in classes get down and dirty. That would be bad. But certainly there is room in academia to entertain the authorship question, and this is the proper thing to do given the evidence and questions over the centuries.

I make the case for De Vere because of evidence. Am I dogmatic? Not if I keep and open mind and entertain the possibility that despite the evidence for De Vere it may indeed be Stratford, which I do. That I defend my position, perhaps too aggressively, I admit, is my misfortune.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,273
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The man who composed the Shakespeare Canon was noble minded, proud of his noble ancestry, not a fan of the commoner.
Or was able to put himself in other people's shoes.

In reading Anderson the women in De Vere’s world are literate. They write letters, keep journals, record poetry, etc., the case of Anne Cornwallis being just one example. Are we to simply say this is because they were part of the nobility?
Um, yes? Literacy was a lot more common for noblewomen than commoners.

The point I’m making is that the Shakespeare Canon deals with noble, literate women.
It deals with nobles in general. Plays were entertainment and the nobility typically led more interesting lives than commoners. What would be so startling about a commoner writing about nobles because that's where the money was, and making his noblewomen literate because noblewomen were literate, and conducting his private affairs in accordance not with his fictional characters' lives but with his own middle-class background?

But then again if as orthodoxy argues, this Stratford man was so different, so genius and so common at the same time...
Being genius doesn't automatically confer the ability to project oneself hundreds of years into the future and adopt whatever values future people will think one ought to have had.

(Speaking of which, not so different. There's an obvious example of a near-contemporary who was likewise so genius and so common at the same time, who came out of an utterly ordinary background, whose name echoes down the ages with his achievements, and yet who was a man of his time and wasted much of his life on what moderns see as mindless pursuits directly opposed to his real accomplishments: Isaac Newton.)

Not saying TSM wrote the canon -- I wasn't there and I can prove it. Just saying there are strong arguments and weak ones, and the illiterate daughters are one of the weak ones.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Moogly -

You are good. My suspicions have been alleviated! No worries.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
(Speaking of which, not so different. There's an obvious example of a near-contemporary who was likewise so genius and so common at the same time, who came out of an utterly ordinary background, whose name echoes down the ages with his achievements, and yet who was a man of his time and wasted much of his life on what moderns see as mindless pursuits directly opposed to his real accomplishments: Isaac Newton.)
But Newton is not an evidentiary mystery. Do you see Newton as an evidentiary mystery? Remember, we are talking about an evidentiary corpus that casts doubt on orthodoxy.

Is there any evidence that suggests questioning the connection between Newton and Newton? Has there ever been any controversy that has spanned the time since Newton questioning the association between Newton and the work of Newton? Do we lack evidence about Newton from his contemporaries? Are there significantly varied spellings of Newton's name? Are there materials with Newton's name on them that are clearly not the work of Newton? Did Newton ever hyphenate his name? Did Newton ever sign his name in a different spelling?

Did Newton die in obscurity? Did any connection between Newton and the work of Newton have to wait until seven years after his death to be cryptically associated? Were paintings and portraits invented so we could see what Newton looked like? Have monuments to Newton been changed over the centuries to reflect orthodoxy and the preferred mythos? Do we have a complete lack of correspondence between Newton and his contemporaries? Are all attributions to Newton posthumous? Does anyone credibly assert that Isaac Newton is a front and a fraud? Is there any evidence that Isaac Newton is a front and a fraud? Are there any Supreme Court Justices or other notable persons that think Newton was a front and a fraud?

If you are going to use this line of argument then you must answer all those questions. Or you can simply see those questions as a response to a strawman argument.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
(Speaking of which, not so different. There's an obvious example of a near-contemporary who was likewise so genius and so common at the same time, who came out of an utterly ordinary background, whose name echoes down the ages with his achievements, and yet who was a man of his time and wasted much of his life on what moderns see as mindless pursuits directly opposed to his real accomplishments: Isaac Newton.)
But Newton is not an evidentiary mystery. Do you see Newton as an evidentiary mystery? Remember, we are talking about an evidentiary corpus that casts doubt on orthodoxy.

Is there any evidence that suggests questioning the connection between Newton and Newton? Has there ever been any controversy that has spanned the time since Newton questioning the association between Newton and the work of Newton? Do we lack evidence about Newton from his contemporaries? Are there significantly varied spellings of Newton's name? Are there materials with Newton's name on them that are clearly not the work of Newton? Did Newton ever hyphenate his name? Did Newton ever sign his name in a different spelling?

Did Newton die in obscurity? Did any connection between Newton and the work of Newton have to wait until seven years after his death to be cryptically associated? Were paintings and portraits invented so we could see what Newton looked like? Have monuments to Newton been changed over the centuries to reflect orthodoxy and the preferred mythos? Do we have a complete lack of correspondence between Newton and his contemporaries? Are all attributions to Newton posthumous? Does anyone credibly assert that Isaac Newton is a front and a fraud? Is there any evidence that Isaac Newton is a front and a fraud? Are there any Supreme Court Justices or other notable persons that think Newton was a front and a fraud?

If you are going to use this line of argument then you must answer all those questions. Or you can simply see those questions as a response to a strawman argument.

It will be at least eleven hours before this fine jailkeeper turns me right side up, uncuffs me, and lets me at that juicy laptop again, at which time, Moogly, Swammi, and Bomb, I shall regale you fine fellows with my Shakespeare and Ye Parallels With Frank Zappa Theory.

In this theory, which is completely unlike the Brontosaurus Theory, I will explain why I don't think it's all that difficult for me to imagine a total douchebag also being a super - duper amazing literary genius.

NOT that Zappa was a total douchebag! Perish the thought!

But he WAS a super - duper amazing genius, largely an autodidact, who came from comfort, not hoighty -toighty upper "class" nobility, who stood head and shoulders above virtually anyone else in the popular music industry in his time, AND sort of looked contemptously down his rather large proboscis at the "common rabble" ...

Egads...enough for now.

I am done dictating this summary of my theory to Eric, who types on the Kindle for me. He's a nice guy, that Eric, but he really kisses up to the Romans...

...bloody jailer's pet most like...

Terrific race, the Romans. Tuuuh -riffic...
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,273
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... Did Newton ever sign his name in a different spelling? ...
You and I seem to have very different concepts of how discussion works. From my point of view what I wrote was perfectly clear: I was addressing one specific argument you made: "this Stratford man was so different, so genius and so common at the same time". You appeared to be implying this combination was somehow contradictory and implausible per se; so I showed why it wasn't. That's how discussion works in my view: one person makes a point and the other person accepts it as a good point or explains why he thinks it isn't a good point.

But from your point of view, apparently I was trying to show TSM wrote the corpus. Apparently I was explaining away every difficulty with the Stratfordian hypothesis by analogy with Newton. Apparently I'm not supposed to note problems in one anti-Stratford argument until I have a refutation for all anti-Stratford arguments. Yours is a discussion dynamic that doesn't work for me; and since none of the Oxfordians here has so far made the slightest attempt to address the reason I offered for why de Vere probably wasn't the author, it doesn't seem like there's much more for us to talk about. I look forward to more of your interesting posts; and with luck maybe you'll find a critic to hone them against who's willing to put up with your debating style.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Some miscellaneous remarks.
Reading a site like Oxfraud to learn how Oxfordians think is like reading QAnon or Trump's tweets to learn how liberal Democrats think. For starters, I've never heard of an Oxfordian who claims that a "commoner" would necessarily lack the talent to write the works of Shakespeare. The incongruity between the experiences evident in the plays and sonnets and what is known of Shaksper's life IS a topic that comes up, but that's not "elitism" -- it's fact-based deduction.

One incongruity I've noted is that Stratford's biographers consider him a good man: they call him "gentle", cite his generosity, make him a loyal hard-working family man. And yet, when faced with evidence like his son-in-law ignoring him, the historian William Camden ignoring him, his illiterate daughters and so on, they hypothesize that he was disliked: Camden knew full well who Shakespeare was but had some grudge against that family! Make up your minds, Stratfordians!

Is it possible that the Great Bard allowed his daughters to grow up illiterate? Sure!
Is it possible that William Camden, Dr. John Hall and other Stratfordians had some grudge, so didn't write any eulogy? Or that any eulogy was lost? Sure!
Is it possible that every letter by Shakespeare, every manuscript or book he ever owned was lost in fire or flood? Despite that such items would have HUGE value to a collector (so huge that forgeries are common)? Sure!

But at some point one must wonder if all these denials add up to something. I've discussed this above, in post #1 no less, but I'll repeat that here. Pay special attention to "Read the pdf by Stanford's Professor Sturrock accessible from this link to see that among 25 playwrights of that era, and ten binary criteria of notability, only WS satisfies zero of the criteria. John Webster. (1578-1632) is next to bottom place with three criterial satisfactions."
...
Mark Twain in "Is Shakespeare Dead?" said:
Shall I set down the rest of the great Conjecture which constitute the Giant Biography of William Shakespeare? It would strain the Unabridged Dictionary to hold them. He is a brontosaur: nine bones and six hundred barrels of plaster.
... All the rest of his vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures--an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts....
Just for starters, here are some arguments against a Shaksper (WS) authorship:
  • No letters written by WS have turned up.
  • The only letter to WS that's turned up is a never-sent request for a cash loan.
  • No books owned by, or otherwise associated with WS have turned up.
  • No manuscripts have turned up. None of Shakespeare's children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews every claimed their close relation penned a poem or story for them.
  • No eulogies were written to WS until several years after his death.
  • Documents that imply anyone in Stratford knew WS was employed in the London theater — never mind as a playwright/poet — are exceedingly rare. Dr. John Hall kept a journal, even mentioning a Stratford neighbor who was "an excellente poet", but doesn't mention WS. John Hall was married to WS's favorite daughter.
  • Camden, a semi-official reporter on Stratford for WS's adult life and who does mention London theatrical doings, passes up multiple opportunities and leaves no reference to WS.
  • There is no record of WS ever going to school. (Sure, school records were burned. Still, reconstructions are possible. A mate of the WS youth might have attested "Will was pretty good with words way back in 6th form." No one ever did.)
  • As far as is known, WS never traveled abroad or on a ship, nor did he work as a soldier, teacher nor in a law office nor any of several professions consistent with the playwright's knowledge.
  • As far as is known, WS was friends with no noblemen.
  • Although widely considered a principal Player in the Lord Chamberlain's Men, no role is alleged to be WS's except ... the ghost of Hamlet's father!
  • While there are many mentions of WS from that time, very very few of them mention Stratford, or attest clearly that the writer/speaker knew the poet personally. An exception are legal documents which show (a) WS was charged with poaching near Stratford, being a theater ruffian in London, then hoarding in Stratford; (b) WS was granted a coat-of-arms ca 1596; (c) WS served as witness in two minor proceedings; (d) WS filed suit in Stratford (at the same time he was allegedly putting the final touches on King Lear) against a customer of his Stratford butcher shop, seeking payment of a 2-shilling debt and other redress; and (e) WS's much remarked-on last will and testament.
  • Some references to WS-as-writer from the 1605-1609 period seem to imply that the writer was deceased, though WS died in 1616.
  • WS had two children (daughters) who grew to adulthood. It appears neither of them could read or write.
Stratfordians have trite answers:
"Papers are destroyed by fire and flood. Biographical data on other playwrights are also missing."
Wrong. Read the pdf by Stanford's Professor Sturrock accessible from this link to see that among 25 playwrights of that era, and ten binary criteria of notability, only WS satisfies zero of the criteria. John Webster. (1578-1632) is next to bottom place with three criterial satisfactions.

"A typical rural gentleman of that era was likely to have illiterate daughters."
We're not speaking of a 'typical rural gentleman.' We're speaking of an alleged lover of words and learning, perhaps the greatest word-smith ever to have lived. Did this great lover of words allow his children to grow up illiterate?

Off-the-wall speculation follows?
I think Oxford and Shaksper may have each led a double life, with Oxford sometimes assuming the name WS. Oxford was busy and lame so could hardly have been an actor. But the role of Hamlet's father's ghost might be just the sort of minor role this aging lame man might want to play, almost as an inside joke. (Surely, the fact that this very minor role, with potential double meaning, is the ONLY role attributed to Shakespeare is a bit of mystery, no?)

Could Oxford have passed unnoticed as WS? Remember that this was before the age of photography; celebrities passing anonymously would be common. Perhaps there was some physical resemblance between Shaksper and Oxford. (The principals of the theater company would have been in on the hoax.)
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
While clicking around I stumbled on an interesting paragraph by Ben Jonson. Oxfordians believe Jonson was a key contributor to the perpetuation of the hoax, but also believe that, like Peacham and several others, Jonson couldn't resist giving clues about the hoax.

In Discoveries Made Upon Men and Matter by Ben Jonson we find, immediately after a note about Shakspeare
De Shakspeare nostrat.—Augustus in Hat.—I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakspeare, that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech....

Ingeniorum discrimina.—Not. 1....
...
Not. 7.—Some, again who, after they have got authority, or, which is less, opinion, by their writings, to have read much, dare presently to feign whole books and authors, and lie safely. For what never was, will not easily be found, not by the most curious. [my bolding]

Not. 8.—And some, by a cunning protestation against all reading, and false venditation of their own naturals, think to divert the sagacity of their readers from themselves, and cool the scent of their own fox-like thefts; when yet they are so rank, as a man may find whole pages together usurped from one author; their necessities compelling them to read for present use, which could not be in many books; and so come forth more ridiculously and palpably guilty than those who, because they cannot trace, they yet would slander their industry.

Who or what is Jonson referring to?
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Swammi, et al,

I am currently reading this.

http://www.wjray.net/shakespeare_pa...hn8H0B7197Zr5d88z9N3mV6p-OXtvLS1lvPZWzWwVdJOc


I believe the link was posted on the Facebook group I joined, called ShakesVere. You should check that group out, if you haven't. Mark Anderson and William Ray, the author of the above document, and many notable Oxfordians, are members, and active.

I will address some of your comments and questions a bit later...
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Swammi, et al,

I am currently reading this.

http://www.wjray.net/shakespeare_pa...hn8H0B7197Zr5d88z9N3mV6p-OXtvLS1lvPZWzWwVdJOc


I believe the link was posted on the Facebook group I joined, called ShakesVere. You should check that group out, if you haven't. Mark Anderson and William Ray, the author of the above document, and many notable Oxfordians, are members, and active.

I will address some of your comments and questions a bit later...

Couldn't get in. Would be fun.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
One reason I consider "traditional scholars" on the authorship question to be disingenuous, close-minded and/or ignorant is their refusal to acknowledge certain mysteries. Even if one is 100% certain Shaksper wrote the Sonnets, doesn't the weird dedication still pose a puzzle? The weird epistle in a Troilus edition, Peacham's anagram, etc. all merit some discussion, no? Can anyone point to serious thought given to these questions by the traditionalists?

All historians agree that Edward de Vere was hugely involved with the theater, and most that he was the father of the Fair Youth's betrothed, yet the biographer Ian Wilson can't bring himself to mention de Vere except in a spiteful paragraph claiming that Oxford once farted in the Queen's presence!


Wow. Thanks for the link! I am reading it; indeed may make a special trip to a print-shop to print it out.

That pdf covers a lot of topics (I didn't realize the "canopy" in Sonnet CXXV was so much discussed!) but so far the most interesting are right at the beginning.

I'd like to read a thread or good web-page on the topic "Anagrams, Cryptograms, Acrostics, etc. throughout History." Acrostic poems were quite common in the 19th century I think, but all this fun messaging seems largely a lost art today. (One can buy puzzle magazines with cryptograms and many newspapers publish the Jumble anagram puzzles, but these aren't the same as weaving hidden messages into poems and dedications.)

I think a good history of these devices would confirm that circa 1600 was a high point of this art. In post #94 I mentioned the Peacham anagram identifying a hidden writer "Tibi nom de Vere." Isn't this anagram — if we determine it's very unlikely to be coincidence — smoking-gun proof, if not of the Shakespeare authorship, at least that Peacham thought there were important hidden-author writings by de Vere?

In post #94 I mentioned an anagram by Galileo Galilei, that was published just one year after the mysterious dedication of the Sonnets. I provided no details; following are two links to this anagram.Looking again, these links are hardly worth the bother. Here's the key excerpt from the second link:
But Galileo also knew that anyone else with a telescope and the idea to look at Venus (e.g. Castelli) could scoop him. By Dec. of 1610, Venus had waned to a half lit phase and he could wait no longer. To gain some extra observing time Galileo published his results (in a letter to Kepler I believe) in a Latin anagram that he promised to unscramble later. Galileo's anagram was as follows.

"Haec immatura a me iam frustra leguntur o.y."
or "These are at present too young to be read by me"

By New Years Day of 1611 Venus had moved around to the near side of the sun, it's crescent phase had begun to emerge, and Galileo unscrambled the anagram.

"Cynthiae figuras aemulatur mater amorum"
or "The mother of love imitates the shape of Cynthia"

In plain words Venus (the mother of love) manifests all the phases that the Moon
(Cynthia) goes through (and hence Venus must pass on both sides of the sun!!!)
Girolamo Cardano (d. 1576) was also of that era; it would be nice to confirm that the "Cardano Grill" described in the Ray pdf was notable enough to be in use for a cipher. I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of this myself, but the arrangement of the Sonnets' dedication into three inverted triangles is quite peculiar, and suggestive of a hidden message. 6-2-4 are the sizes of the triangles and of the name "Edward de Vere." Applying the Cardano Grill yields "These Sonnets all by Ever (the Forth T)." (Skimming ahead in the Ray pdf — which I've not fully read — I see he addresses the "the Forth T" part as well.)

Finding hidden messages like this is often taken as a sign of crackpottery! One can invent lots of hidden messages if one strains to do so. Whether a deciphering is valid or not requires difficult probabilistic analysis. But the 6-2-4 arrangement of this very peculiar dedication gives much credence to this effort.

Was the over-use of periods — after every single word in the case of the Sonnets' dedication — in wide-spread use in that era?

Another acrostic-type "proof" is mentioned in the Ray pdf and warrants investigation:
The four letters of his name would occur with such remarkable consistency and position across the four lines that the brand EO or EOX, for earl of Oxford, would show up as a result. These brands date from the `Hundredth Sundrie Flowres', the first narrative poems, and into the Sonnets. Moreover, writers honoring Oxford, such as the example of Jonson's introduction, also incorporated the diagonal Vere alignments. This discovery ranks with Rollett's and Roper's as a reliable identification system to locate Oxford's creations. Far from there being no proof of De Vere as Shakespeare, the proof is non-random and ubiquitous.


I am appending the first and last paragraphs of the thread's OP. The first was an apology: Pursuing these pages and Youtubes is taking up much of my time. I apologize again to others who've fallen into the same rabbit-hole.
I find no mention of the Shakespeare Authorship controversy here at TFT.Org, except in a very brief review of the movie Anonymous. (If this oversight is deliberate, I ask TFT management to quickly expunge this thread. :) )
...
Coincidences with odds of a trillion-to-one happen somewhere every day (cf. Littlewood's Law) so those who know a little math will jeer if I mention 2 or 3 coincidences, pretending I claim they're probative. But there are scores of coincidences connecting Oxford to the writings, and odds increase....
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Swammi, Moogli, et al,

I have a lot to do, and a LOT to say still, so let's keep this thread going.

Ahem...

First: I want to say, and I apologize in advance if this is insulting,


BUT, a lot of the so-called evidence for Oxford authorship is quite obviously...er...contrived. I am not saying made up from whole cloth. I am not accusing anyone of lying.

A LOT of the evidence for Oxford is...er...a bit on the whackadoodly-oodly side. It smacks of rather excited, and exaggerated conspiracy-theory stuff. Kind of akin to Ancient Alien theory.

...phone call...will return post haste, toot-sweet, and forthwith and even fifthwith, forsooth and hereunto and all...buddieeyyhh...itttt...bidddiyyeeeeh..eh...all that stuff /Porky Pig
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Swammi, Moogli, et al,

I have a lot to do, and a LOT to say still, so let's keep this thread going.

Ahem...

First: I want to say, and I apologize in advance if this is insulting,


BUT, a lot of the so-called evidence for Oxford authorship is quite obviously...er...contrived. I am not saying made up from whole cloth. I am not accusing anyone of lying.

A LOT of the evidence for Oxford is...er...a bit on the whackadoodly-oodly side. It smacks of rather excited, and exaggerated conspiracy-theory stuff. Kind of akin to Ancient Alien theory.

...phone call...will return post haste, toot-sweet, and forthwith and even fifthwith, forsooth and hereunto and all...buddieeyyhh...itttt...bidddiyyeeeeh..eh...all that stuff /Porky Pig

If that is so, if the case for De Vere is so weak and easily dismissed, what is the reason Stratfordians will not make their case in a courtroom setting? And they can pocket a lot of money in the process, not to mention the mountains of cred they will carry forever. If everyone is simply after the truth lets find truth where we always find truth, in the courtroom where evidence matters most. I mean, if it's crackpottery how in the world can supreme court justices find merit with Oxford? It's called reasonable doubt, yes? It isn't a popularity contest anymore when evidence matters most.

And lets not forget that the authorship question is two parts, only being secondly about De Vere. It's primarily about the Stratford man and whether he is the author.

One reason I consider "traditional scholars" on the authorship question to be disingenuous, close-minded and/or ignorant is their refusal to acknowledge certain mysteries. Even if one is 100% certain Shaksper wrote the Sonnets, doesn't the weird dedication still pose a puzzle? The weird epistle in a Troilus edition, Peacham's anagram, etc. all merit some discussion, no? Can anyone point to serious thought given to these questions by the traditionalists?

Can't speak for all those folks but when it came to the changing of the monument some scholars insist the primary evidence just wrong, for example that Dugdale's original work was in error. Isn't that a bit like saying the election wasn't right? And the other thing they do regularly is simply ignore the strongest evidence, refuse to recognize or discuss it. And I can understand their reticence, they have a lot to lose. They're less after truth and more after maintaining their power and their industry.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Swammi, Moogli, et al,

I have a lot to do, and a LOT to say still, so let's keep this thread going.

Ahem...

First: I want to say, and I apologize in advance if this is insulting,


BUT, a lot of the so-called evidence for Oxford authorship is quite obviously...er...contrived. I am not saying made up from whole cloth. I am not accusing anyone of lying.

A LOT of the evidence for Oxford is...er...a bit on the whackadoodly-oodly side. It smacks of rather excited, and exaggerated conspiracy-theory stuff. Kind of akin to Ancient Alien theory.

...phone call...will return post haste, toot-sweet, and forthwith and even fifthwith, forsooth and hereunto and all...buddieeyyhh...itttt...bidddiyyeeeeh..eh...all that stuff /Porky Pig

If that is so, if the case for De Vere is so weak and easily dismissed, what is the reason Stratfordians will not make their case in a courtroom setting? And they can pocket a lot of money in the process, not to mention the mountains of cred they will carry forever. If everyone is simply after the truth lets find truth where we always find truth, in the courtroom where evidence matters most. I mean, if it's crackpottery how in the world can supreme court justices find merit with Oxford? It's called reasonable doubt, yes? It isn't a popularity contest anymore when evidence matters most.

And lets not forget that the authorship question is two parts, only being secondly about De Vere. It's primarily about the Stratford man and whether he is the author.

One reason I consider "traditional scholars" on the authorship question to be disingenuous, close-minded and/or ignorant is their refusal to acknowledge certain mysteries. Even if one is 100% certain Shaksper wrote the Sonnets, doesn't the weird dedication still pose a puzzle? The weird epistle in a Troilus edition, Peacham's anagram, etc. all merit some discussion, no? Can anyone point to serious thought given to these questions by the traditionalists?

Can't speak for all those folks but when it came to the changing of the monument some scholars insist the primary evidence just wrong, for example that Dugdale's original work was in error. Isn't that a bit like saying the election wasn't right? And the other thing they do regularly is simply ignore the strongest evidence, refuse to recognize or discuss it. And I can understand their reticence, they have a lot to lose. They're less after truth and more after maintaining their power and their industry.

Moogli, why should Shakespearean scholars bother to waste time and no doubt money to take on a group of quack conspiracy theorists who get overly excited about each and every "clue" someone digs up about their favorite glamour idol?

I am done with this thread! YAY!
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Moogli, why should Shakespearean scholars bother to waste time and no doubt money to take on a group of quack conspiracy theorists who get overly excited about each and every "clue" someone digs up about their favorite glamour idol?
Yes, they do peddle that line to great advantage, banking on popularity based on status quo. But that does not address the larger question of how it is that persons, supreme court justices and other notables, after seeing the evidence, are convinced the Stratford man theory is the real crackpottery.

In the end I think the Stratfordian dynamic is more along religious lines, more of a comforting faith position, no uncertainty to contend with, no evidence to try to explain, just keep peddling the standard miracle story. Jonathan Bate is the only scholar who has ever agreed to sit down and talk the evidence to my knowledge, though not in a courtroom type setting obviously.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Moogli, why should Shakespearean scholars bother to waste time and no doubt money to take on a group of quack conspiracy theorists who get overly excited about each and every "clue" someone digs up about their favorite glamour idol?


Yes, they do peddle that line to great advantage, banking on popularity based on status quo. But that does not address the larger question of how it is that persons, supreme court justices and other notables, after seeing the evidence, are convinced the Stratford man theory is the real crackpottery.

In the end I think the Stratfordian dynamic is more along religious lines, more of a comforting faith position, no uncertainty to contend with, no evidence to try to explain, just keep peddling the standard miracle story. Jonathan Bate is the only scholar who has ever agreed to sit down and talk the evidence to my knowledge, though not in a courtroom type setting obviously.

Moogli,

I take it back!

I was angry when I made my last post, not at you and Swammi, but at some of the people at ShakesVere, and a few people at TFT.

But now that I'm back to my rational self, may we begin this discussion anew?

I propose that we take it as assumed that your anti-Stratfordian position has been affirmed, at least in this thread, due to the paucity of any evidential defense of TSM. Hence, as far as the thread is concerned, the Stratfordian position has lost the case. The gavel has fallen, and judgment hath passed.

Okay?

Now, I suggest we proceed with streamlining our attention on proving the case for Oxford, and forget about dismissing TSM. He hath beene forthwith and even fifthwith hereunto verily and thereby and hereby also and sooth, by GEOrge and ay, marry and let's throw in another verily henceforth and even unto the fourth and fifth generations soundly defeated. Okay?

Now, you guys (or gals, or whomsoever ye may be), Moogli and Swammi, have already provided ample circumstantial evidence for the case for Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford, and there has been scant evidence of any kind for any other candidate connected with the Shakespeare(an) Authorship Question (SAQ). I think we can safely dismiss Bacon, and good for us there are no Baconians about.

However, I have thrown a dog in the race, and have suggested Marlowe as a possibility; but seeing as I see this as remote, I am not positively a Marlovian. I am, perhaps, a hemi-semi-demi-Marlovian.

This is based on a few reasons:

a) Marlowe was an Elizabethan poet and dramatist.
b) Marlowe was born in 1564, the same birth-year as Shakespeare (Shakespeare with that spelling being subsequently and hereafter and thereafter and wherever else in the future adopted, for the sake of convenience).
c) Marlowe died in 1593, a point at which TSM's career took off. Or thereabouts and hereunto forthwith and thither.
d) Marlowe's death (stabbed in a bar-fight) is questionable, and based mostly on heresay and circumstantial evidence (not really sure)?
e) Marlowe's 'death' could well have been faked, since the playwright was known to have been working for Queen & Country, in some sort of black ops or secret service capacity (analogous) during his last years, and hence, his life was in danger and he might have been in imminent peril (not that sort of peril, the kind of peril Sir Lancelot was saving Sir Galahad the Chaste from!): hence, the need to fake his demise and sneak him off to safety, where he could have continued to write plays...
f) Marlowe was an excellent poet, highly skilled in iambic pentameter, and specifically in blank verse. It is conceivable that he could have improved to Shakespearean hyperboreal space in the coming years. The same kind of rocket transformation that Keats underwent. De Vere would have to have gone through an even more amazing transformation, since his poetic skills, though adequate and often quite good, were a far ways off from Marlowe's, let alone Shakespeare's.​

Are we good?

Shall the thread proceed?




















[pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!!!!]
 
Last edited:

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Oh come on...

Well, alright, but I can still post here all by my lonesome, because I am not done with this SAQ thing.

See post # 216.

LOTS to say, like expound on my Marlowe theory, which is different from my brontosaurus theory...

Also, let me explain why I got angry with some people at the ShakesVere group.

It seems that quite a few Oxfordians are trying to give credit to De Vere for much more work than the Shakespeare canon. Some extend his authorship to other Elizabethan playwrights and poets. As for the minor ones, I have no opinion; but there is virtually no way in hell for Oxford to have written Spenser's work! First, the sheer magnitude of The Faerie Queene alone would make it difficult for any single person to author both it and the bulk of the Shakespeare canon, if not downright impossible. Besides, the stylistic differences between Spenser and Shakespeare are quite vast. If one man could write The Fairie Queene AND the bulk of the Shakespeare canon, he would have to have almost miraculous skill, and a LOT of time. De Vere may have been a noble but he was far from idle. He wrote a LOT of letters, and busied himself with pecuniary ventures. He would have had to have been a Super Genius of greater than Shakespeare status, plus have made a remarkable transformation from fair poet to the best ever in Earth's recorded history, in ANY language!
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Thank you Mr. WAB for participating in this thread!

Let me make a few miscellaneous points.

(1) A "conspiracy" theory should be judged by its strongest arguments. Good evidence for a theory is not lessened by bad evidence presented. (Frankly, even Mr. Moogly has made one or two claims that I want to disassociate myself from, and the vice versa is doubtless true also.)

Some Oxfordians claim that Oxford was H.M. Elizabeth's love-child, that Oxford eventually bedded his own mother, with Southampton becoming Elizabeth's second love-child. As if this incest weren't enough; they (a) claim Southampton might inherit the throne (but AFAIK the children of an unmarried Queen are ineligible); and (b) never comment on the absurdity of the proposed marriage between Southampton and his own half-sister Elizabeth de Vere! The marriage was contracted between the Dowager Countess Mary nee Brown and "Sir Spirit" Lord Burghley, the two people most certain to have known that Southampton was an adopted love-child, were that the case.)

I try to keep an open mind and if there is any evidence for these peculiar bastardships, let me know. Meanwhile I just marvel that these notions infect even some of the better Oxfordian writings.

If I have stretched the evidence and proposed silly ideas, please let me know. But let's not judge a hypothesis by its silliest proponents.

(2) I did enjoy your "verilies unto the fifth generation", WAB! One minor issue: Writing "Shaksper" or "Stratford" to denote the man from Stratford named Shaksper is NOT a fetish, nor an attempt to poke fun. It is essential to avoid confusion.

Digression follows.
Lately, I've been using Google Translate to bulk-translate movie subtitles into my wife's native language [Digression to a digression: I live in Thailand and should hurry up and introduce myself in the Lounge -- I do show "Location: Land of Smiles" but this may be too cryptic]. Google Translate operates one line at a time and makes trivial mistakes. So before submitting a subtitle file for translation there's some useful pre-processing, e.g. changing "Right" to "Correct." Otherwise Google will translate Right to be the opposite of Left rather than the opposite of Wrong.

Get it? "Right" is an ambiguous word. And in a discussion of Shakespeare, it is natural that "Shakespeare" denote the writer of the works of Shakespeare. It seems a shame to introduce ambiguitiies just because "Shaksper" might seem perverse or demeaning. I will try to write "Stratford" or "Stratford man" to avoid giving offense. OK?

(3) I agree with WAB that the cases for or against a Stratford authorship should be separated from the cases for or against an Oxford authorship; indeed I emphasized this in post #1. If neither Stratford nor Oxford were the author, Marlowe stands out as perhaps the strongest possibility. (Chronology almost rules out other candidates IMO, while Marlovians are free to place Marlowe's death whenever they want!) I have seen some interesting Marlovian evidence of the anacrostic-clue variety. I know zero about comparing the styles of Marlowe and Shakespeare.(*) (* - Do you see that if I were writing "Shakespeare" to denote the man from Stratford, this sentence would be silly and/or ambiguous?)

However, I have thrown a dog in the race, and have suggested Marlowe as a possibility; but seeing as I see this as remote, I am not positively a Marlovian. I am, perhaps, a hemi-semi-demi-Marlovian.

This is based on a few reasons:

a) Marlowe was an Elizabethan poet and dramatist.
b) Marlowe was born in 1564, the same birth-year as Shakespeare (Shakespeare with that spelling being subsequently and hereafter and thereafter and wherever else in the future adopted, for the sake of convenience).
c) Marlowe died in 1593, a point at which TSM's career took off. Or thereabouts and hereunto forthwith and thither.
d) Marlowe's death (stabbed in a bar-fight) is questionable, and based mostly on heresay and circumstantial evidence (not really sure)?
e) Marlowe's 'death' could well have been faked, since the playwright was known to have been working for Queen & Country, in some sort of black ops or secret service capacity (analogous) during his last years, and hence, his life was in danger and he might have been in imminent peril (not that sort of peril, the kind of peril Sir Lancelot was saving Sir Galahad the Chaste from!): hence, the need to fake his demise and sneak him off to safety, where he could have continued to write plays...
f) Marlowe was an excellent poet, highly skilled in iambic pentameter, and specifically in blank verse. It is conceivable that he could have improved to Shakespearean hyperboreal space in the coming years. The same kind of rocket transformation that Keats underwent. De Vere would have to have gone through an even more amazing transformation, since his poetic skills, though adequate and often quite good, were a far ways off from Marlowe's, let alone Shakespeare's.​

Venus and Adonis, the first attribution to Shakespeare (and "the first heir of my invention"), was published just two(?) months after Marlowe's alleged death. The timing is quite right for Marlovians, I suppose (though "Upstart Crow" becomes doubtful). Venus is a long, extremely well-polished poem. How long does it take to write such a poem?

(Marlowe's birth-year is NOT a point in his favor IMO. To the contrary, Sonnets' writer seems to be a lame man approaching late middle-age, not the youth Stratford or Marlowe would still have been.)

I'd be interested in comparisons between the two writers, not about general "quality" but about specific images and devices. Venus was written at almost the same time as Marlowe's Faustus or Edward II. Unlike with Oxford, there's no time to let Marlowe grow or change styles.

I do want to keep an open mind. But the circumstantial evidence linking events of the poems and plays to Oxford's life is HUGE. Is it possible that Shakespeare was some sort of collaboration involving both Oxford and Marlowe?
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Swammi,

Thanks for the courteous reply.

As for an Oxford/Marlowe collaboration, I don't see this as a problem at all. In fact it's quite an interesting thought.

Have you read any Marlowe? I will look for some examples from his plays. His blank verse does at times resemble Shakespeare's. You have heard a famous two lines of Marlowe's no doubt. I will provide more from the play, Doctor Faustus:

“Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium--
Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.--
Her lips suck forth my soul: see, where it flies!--
Come, Helen, come, give me my soul again.
Here will I dwell, for heaven is in these lips,
And all is dross that is not Helena.
I will be Paris, and for love of thee,
Instead of Troy, shall Wertenberg be sack'd;
And I will combat with weak Menelaus,
And wear thy colours on my plumed crest;
Yea, I will wound Achilles in the heel,
And then return to Helen for a kiss.
O, thou art fairer than the evening air
Clad in the beauty of a thousand stars;
Brighter art thou than flaming Jupiter
When he appear'd to hapless Semele;
More lovely than the monarch of the sky
In wanton Arethusa's azur'd arms;
And none but thou shalt be my paramour!”

Not bad, eh? - but not nearly at the level of quality from middle to late period Shakespeare. Don't forget, Kit Marlowe died (presumably) at 29. Who knows how good he may have gotten in just ten years, let alone twenty? More samples later.

For now, I take on board what you say about the sonnets, though: that they appear to be the work of a mature man. Okay. I will have to go back to them. Sadly, I have neglected them. Haven't read them since I was in my twenties!

You asked about Venus And Adonis, how long would it take to write a poem like that? I don't know! I would think, for me, it would take months at least. But, alas and welladay, I am a nobody. But, for someone as good and as prolific as Shakespeare (the Author), it might have been a matter of weeks, or days. Whoever wrote Shakespeare wrote prolifically, and I would say almost with ease: the work of a pure genius, and a natural. Marlowe could have gotten that good, in time. But I really think it is a remote possibility at best.

Let me just say that if the poem was composed at about the same time as Faustus, then it is entirely possible it could have been Marlowe, with great effort. In fact, while it is very polished, and very good, it is NOT as good as the Shakespeare in the plays when he/she really gets going, as in Julius Caesar, Romeo & Juliet, Henry the Fifth, Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, and Lear. BUT, Shakespeare's early plays were more in the quality range of Marlowe at that time. So that is very interesting.

***

Oh, before I forget. I am over having any resentment to using Shaksper to refer to the Stratford man to avoid confusion. Shakespeare will always refer to the Author of the accepted Shakespeare canon, and never to TSM. Are we agreed? I guess Shaksper or Shaxper is fine, and as far as I can reckon in accordance with his actual birth name. I have looked for any evidence of records proving that his father's name was John Shakespeare, with that spelling, but cannot find it. Though I have heard some Stratfordian's assert that Shakespeare is the accepted spelling of the family name.

It matters little, since it is an established fact that in those times spellings of names were not exactly fixed. Spenser was sometimes called Spencer, and Marlowe had a few variants. Hence the Stratfordian insistence that variant signatures by the same person ought not to constitute any real difficulty. In one of the accepted six signatures of TSM, there was at least one where he had to cram his name into a very small space. Another explanation of the bad penmanship is that he may have had shaky hands due to medication (I believe Bomb#20 mentioned that). Again, I think it matters little, and is actually a non-issue. Many signatures of highly literate people are varied. Though I'm a total nobody, I know that my signature has gotten very lazy of late. I now sign a big 'W', with a quick 'illiam', a big 'A', then a big 'B' with nothing but a line after it.

Anyway, what I want to do is avoid bothering with establishing Stratfordian authorship, since no active people in the thread seem terribly dead-set on defending him.

More later...
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Oh come on...

Well, alright, but I can still post here all by my lonesome, because I am not done with this SAQ thing.

See post # 216.

LOTS to say, like expound on my Marlowe theory, which is different from my brontosaurus theory...

Also, let me explain why I got angry with some people at the ShakesVere group.

It seems that quite a few Oxfordians are trying to give credit to De Vere for much more work than the Shakespeare canon. Some extend his authorship to other Elizabethan playwrights and poets. As for the minor ones, I have no opinion; but there is virtually no way in hell for Oxford to have written Spenser's work! First, the sheer magnitude of The Faerie Queene alone would make it difficult for any single person to author both it and the bulk of the Shakespeare canon, if not downright impossible. Besides, the stylistic differences between Spenser and Shakespeare are quite vast. If one man could write The Fairie Queene AND the bulk of the Shakespeare canon, he would have to have almost miraculous skill, and a LOT of time. De Vere may have been a noble but he was far from idle. He wrote a LOT of letters, and busied himself with pecuniary ventures. He would have had to have been a Super Genius of greater than Shakespeare status, plus have made a remarkable transformation from fair poet to the best ever in Earth's recorded history, in ANY language!

WAB,

How many times do I need to assure you that no offense is taken? Chill, Dude! Yesterday I had to catch up on some yardly, relationship and necessary health duties. I did check in here but very briefly. Good to see you and Swammi are still chewing the cud. I'm quite aware that the human condition lends itself to emotional expression, and I am not one to take quick offense. I also have the advantage of never using stimulants like caffeine and mateine. The habit makes it a bit harder to get moving in the mornings but living a stimulant free life became an absolute necessity about 15 years ago. I've known smokers who say that every smokeless day is still a struggle and I can identify with fighting such an addiction. I'll use a bit of cannabis and have an occasional go with some homemade wine but stimulants are definitely taboo, which keeps me on a pretty even keel.

Unlike yourself I am not likely to do much comparison of styles between Marlowe and Shake-speare. Marlowe was certainly excellent. One day we may find a letter penned from Italy attesting to Marlovian claims, and that would be okay with me. I just think the likelihood of that happening is remote, a bit too fantastic. With Sweet Oxford we needn't propose anything so fantastic. And as to Oxfordian claims about his penning works of other authors, I'm not very attracted to the prospect either.

You and Swammi are actually contributing substantially to the discussion and I hope that continues. I should take something substantial from Anderson and make a similar contribution. We will see. Meanwhile I am enjoying the discussion. I have also subscribed to the SOF and have been receiving notices of new postings and activities. I'm not sure why I was not allowed into the ShakesVere Facebook discussion but that is okay.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Instead of trying to pick out one of countless associations between De Vere and the Shakespeare canon made by Anderson - and believe me the number of associations is mind boggling - I thought to ask simply about the Stratford man's passing. When Ben Jonson died in 1637 his death was well marked, so why did the Stratford man not enjoy the same treatment?

Should not the passing of "William Shakespeare" have been just as notable a passing as Jonson's? Why was it not?
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Instead of trying to pick out one of countless associations between De Vere and the Shakespeare canon made by Anderson - and believe me the number of associations is mind boggling - I thought to ask simply about the Stratford man's passing. When Ben Jonson died in 1637 his death was well marked, so why did the Stratford man not enjoy the same treatment?

Should not the passing of "William Shakespeare" have been just as notable a passing as Jonson's? Why was it not?

No clue. :shrug:
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Instead of trying to pick out one of countless associations between De Vere and the Shakespeare canon made by Anderson - and believe me the number of associations is mind boggling - I thought to ask simply about the Stratford man's passing. When Ben Jonson died in 1637 his death was well marked, so why did the Stratford man not enjoy the same treatment?

Should not the passing of "William Shakespeare" have been just as notable a passing as Jonson's? Why was it not?

No clue. :shrug:

Moogly, (and Swammi, et al)

A few things:

First, I thought we were going to take it as a given that the Stratford Man was not the author of the Shakespeare canon - for the sake of argument in the thread? At least, that was what I proposed to Swammi in post # 219. I have already stated many times that I am not interested in defending the Stratfordian position. I am interested in trying to be convinced that Oxford could have written Shakespeare; and, short of that, examine other candidates and see if anyone other than De Vere could have done it.

Thus, there is no reason for you to ask me about why Shakespeare's death went unnoticed. I do not know, and frankly, do not care. I said at the outset that I sort of agreed to what Bronzeage and DBT had pretty much said: that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet - ie, that no matter who wrote Shakespeare, it is the WORK that has come down to us that matters. We know that someone did it, right? Whether it was by committee, which I can almost guarantee is NOT the case, at least with respect to the parts that are absolutely brilliant, or by a single hand: alas and alack and welladay, that is the question.

There is scant doubt that there were a number of different authors at various stages in some of the plays, whether Nashe, Fletcher and Beaumont, Marlowe, whoever: BUT, when it comes to a stretch of tremendously good blank verse, like the following, we can rest assured that a single hand did it:

(from Richard III, spoken by Gloucester)

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:

- Shakespeare, Richard III, from the opening monologue

I could go on and post thousands of lines of equal and even superior quality, but Shakespeare readers already know them.

Or do they?

This is what troubles me. This is what bothers me about Oxfordians. It seems to me that in the main they are not accomplished poets themselves, and I know of several of them who have already demonstrated that they do not have an ear to apprehend the vast superiority of Shakespeare to nearly every other poet in English. There are a handful of notable poets who have come close, and I have given a few examples in the iambic pentameter thread: Milton, Keats, Tennyson, for sure, have climbed the steeps of Helicon to joust with the matchless Bard of Avon, only to lose in the end. As have Browning, Robinson, Frost, Stevens (Stevens especially), Eliot, Pound, and a host of others, many of them twentieth century poets. I could provide a LONG list of poets who have written excellent blank verse. Many were women. YAY! :love:

And then there were masters like Dryden, Goldsmith, and Pope, who excelled in heroic couplets. To my mind, Alexander Pope may have matched Shakespeare with respect to sheer mastery of technique, but where Pope fails is in the aesthetic value of the work he left behind. Due to his insistence on loving a good joke over excellent poetry, and his snobbish need to roast authors he knew were inferior to himself, he became fixated on satire. There are the excellent Essay on Man and Essay on Criticism, plus the pastoral Windsor Forest, all excellent and absolutely top shelf, but the bulk of his work was in scathing satire.

I have less respect and little love for someone like Pope, who in my opinion wasted his talent in spiteful abandon, penning perfect rhyming couplets that were almost mathematically precise, and utterly flawless; but were they great works of art? Were they edifying and enriching to the mind and spirit? Or were they merely great artifacts, objectively superior in craftsmanship but ultimately not terribly inspiring? I suggest the latter is true.

What bothers me about this particular thread is that so far no-one but myself has stepped up to defend the Shakespeare canon for the right reason, or let us say the complete reason.

Shakespeare was not only a magnificent dramatist, a great wit, an intelligent and almost preternaturally perceptive student of human nature. He/she would have gone down in history for those qualities alone. He/she would have been world famous even had no poetry at all happened in the plays. Indeed, the prose parts are often spectacularly entertaining, insightful, witty, funny, downright hilarious, and they often rise to the heights of linguistic expression and almost flawless artistry. But where they reach truly breath-taking and sometimes astonishing beauty and power are in the sections of blank verse wherein the reader knows for certain that they are in the presence of unmatched genius. I argue that it is the quality of Shakespeare's poetry - and by that I do not refer to the sonnets, or to the narrative poems, though they are of a very high order - that sets that name higher than all the rest. I argue that it is because of the poetry that lives in the plays that the name of Shakespeare has remained large and on fire for more than four centuries, and why that flame will never perish as long as the English tongue survives.

So, what I need is to understand why and how it is that a merely adequate poet transformed into the greatest poet in English, and perhaps the greatest poet of all time. You have said, Moogly, that miracles don't happen, which is why you are content to believe that the Stratford man couldn't have written Shakespeare. But to my mind, if De Vere wrote Shakespeare, that constitutes an even greater miracle.

That kind of a sea-change would be virtually without match in the history of English letters, as far as I am aware. I am no scholar, but am well read, and I know a bit about poetry written in English. I have mentioned Keats. But his stellar achievement was not miraculous, and a deep study of his work affirms stylistic continuity between his early poetry and the poetry of the great Odes, The Eve of St. Agnes, Lamia, and specifically, the Hyperion fragments. In a few years, and we mean three or four, Keats went from a promising but awkward and imitative young poet to a singular genius who had mastered the art by a monumental effort, brought on by his supreme love of poetry and his awareness of an early death.

I imagine that this kind of a transformation would be possible for someone else; BUT, Swammi supplied a link to some poems he said were composed by the Earl of Oxford when De Vere was in his thirties. Those poems, while often quite good, were not even remotely close to the quality of Shakespeare. This is subjective, of course, but you simply will not find any person who understands poetry, who knows about meter, and about the finer points of versification, and who has an ear to apprehend and appreciate the musical, or strictly auditory, sonic value of contrived speech, who will opine that De Vere's skills as a poet were on par with Shakespeare, or even close.

I hate to harp on it, but it is important, and especially in light of the fact that there are many people who do not have the ear to appreciate the beauty of great oratory, or great poetry. Then there are those who can appreciate it, but cannot do it. Then there are those who can appreciate and almost do it. You know what I mean.

Think of Antonio Salieri and Mozart. Salieri, though a highly skilled composer, and appreciated by many (and unfairly characterized in the famous film) was able to grasp the superiority of Mozart's music, but could not compose on that level. Composing magnificent music was not difficult for Mozart, in fact it was easy for him. This was OH so frustrating for someone like Salieri (at least in the film! And the film works even though it takes liberties with reality) because he could hear, he could apprehend the majesty of Mozart's compositions, but despite his technical skill he could not compose the same way, on the same hyperboreal level.

Think of Frank Zappa. There are millions of fans who love Zappa, but due to an ordinary, earthbound grasp of music, will never fully comprehend, never totally apprehend, and really understand, what sets Zappa apart from virtually everyone else in the popular music world, not only by virtue of his incredible native talent, along with his learned understanding and mastery of music theory and formal notation, but by the (apparent, to us mere mortals!) ease with which he composed and recorded, and the sheer magnitude of his total output. I sure as hell don't grasp it. Even someone like Steve Vai wasn't able to share the same space as Frank Zappa, and could only revere him and remain in comparative discipleship.

I must leave off right here - but I want to go back to one of Bronzeage's posts, where he said something to the effect that to Shakespeare, the plays were "hack" work. Work. He made money from it. He was a business man.

Zappa was a business man also, and had a similar lofty detachment from the rest of the musical world. He was recognized in his lifetime as a genius but ultimately, while he himself recognized that he was probably a musical genius, he didn't make much of it. Making albums was something that not only made him millions, but satisfied his need to create music, at least partially. He had ambition. He wrote experimental music of all kinds, jazz, rock, what have you; but he also wrote orchestral music.

Have you heard any of Zappa's orchestral music? I owned an album recorded with the London Symphony. I admit I did not and COULD NOT appreciate it. I believe Zappa was not very satisfied with the experience, or with the product.

When asked, "How does one get the prestigious London Symphony to record their work?", Zappa replied in his point blank fashion:

"You pay them."

More later. Please read this. I know it's lengthy. :joy:
 
Last edited:

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
So, what I need is to understand why and how it is that a merely adequate poet transformed into the greatest poet in English, and perhaps the greatest poet of all time. You have said, Moogly, that miracles don't happen, which is why you are content to believe that the Stratford man couldn't have written Shakespeare. But to my mind, if De Vere wrote Shakespeare, that constitutes an even greater miracle.
So we both discount the Stratford man but differ on Oxford. Along with others we both hold that parts of the Canon are a collaborative effort. I'm good with that.

I'm still reeling a bit from the rest of that post, I mean, you really know your stuff when it comes to poetry and authors. I'm blown away, it's obviously your domain. I on the other hand enjoy sitting down and watching 600 episodes of forensic files. :) So our perspectives are quite different and I'm not going to try to convince you that Oxford is the primary source of the Shakespeare Canon based on literary accomplishment and greatness. That's not my domain.

If I personally had any serious doubts that Oxford was that primary source Looney and Anderson answered those doubts for me. The historical dates, the associations in life with the Shakespeare Canon, the use of pseudonyms and twenty other things have laid those doubts to rest. As do others, Anderson points to 1604, the year of De Vere's death, and the end of any new Shakespeare. I will look to find the paragraph so that I may present it accurately but for now I thought it proper to post this letter from De Vere to Cecil concerning the death of Elizabeth. At this time De Vere's life has been a shambles, his health is failing and he is living unceremoniously his final days.

I cannot but find a great grief in myself to remember the mistress which we have lost - under whom both you and myself from our greenest years have been in a manner brought up. And although it hath pleased God, after an earthly kingdom, to take her up into a more permanent and heavenly state, wherein I do not doubt but she is crowned with glory ... yet the long time which we spent in her service, we cannot look for so much left of our days as to bestow upon another ....
In this common shipweck, mine is above all the rest - who least regarded, though often comforted, of all of her followers, she hath left to try my fortune among the alterations of time and chance; either without sail whereby to take advantage of any prosperous gale; or with[out] anchor to ride till the storm be overpassed.


And this just one tiny example of his writing style. I think the tin letters are a great example also, but Anderson's work is filled with similar writings. I will try to locate and post Anderson's short paragraaph concerning 1604, not that one cannot find a similar argument elsewhere.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I will try and acquire Anderson's book.
If you are able, please read Appendix C, perhaps even read it first. It lays out the argument that 1604 was the last year that new or revised Shake-speare work appeared. As Swammi noted earlier the absence of major scientific discoveries in Shake-speare after 1604 is obvious as compared to earlier works. Also, before 1604 it was common for revised works to appear, but this stopped in 1604, the year of De Vere's death.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I will try and acquire Anderson's book.
If you are able, please read Appendix C, perhaps even read it first. It lays out the argument that 1604 was the last year that new or revised Shake-speare work appeared. As Swammi noted earlier the absence of major scientific discoveries in Shake-speare after 1604 is obvious as compared to earlier works. Also, before 1604 it was common for revised works to appear, but this stopped in 1604, the year of De Vere's death.

Okay, but thou wilt have to bear with me, O thou Moogly. Money is tight at the moment.

Remember that, like poor Gulielmus Shakspere, I was born to a working father (and my mother helped). My beginnings were humble. I lived in a 60 foot trailer until I was twelve. In 1976, my parents purchased a hunting cottage (called a "bungalow"), in upstate New York, in a little town called Mountainville. The price of this grand manor was...hold onto your breeches...13,000 USD. Since my father is a wiz carpenter, plumber, electrician, and mechanic, he worked on this humble house for many years, and when it was sold in 1988, it went for 80,000 USD. I mean only to say that my father (and my beloved and quite beautiful mother - she looked like Liz Taylor when she was a lass) is, and was, a wonderful person. We never wanted for anything. We never went hungry. We never went without new clothes and new shoes (unlike poor John Osbourne of Birmingham [Ozzy], who was born to a factory worker (and his mother helped), and was "dirt poor". He often went with no shoes. Alas and welladay, I never had it bad. My father and mother raised their three whippersnappers with great love and patience. Believe me, they needed a LOT of patience with their young William, who is me.

Isn't it funny that I took Gulielmus Beta as my username here? You know why? Mainly it was because that is William B in Latin, and my first handle here at TFT (formerly Internet Infidels, FRDB, etc.) was WilliamB.

At Eratosphere, where I hung with many accomplished poets, my username was Williamb. I don't know why I chose to type the 'b' in lower case. For a long time people assumed I was punning on the word "iamb". But that was not the case. I am not that clever.

Anyway, when I had my first psychotic episode, in 2010 or so, I began to obsess over my first name. Think of these coincidences:

  • I was born in 1964. Shakespeare was born in 1564.
  • I was named William.
  • My father is/was named William. What's odd is that I am the second son, not the first. Even odder, I looked like him, while my brother looked more like my mother. Hence, he was more handsome, as my mother was far better looking than dear old Dad. My elder brother was the alpha, and I was the beta.
  • So, I was the second son, and the second William.
  • Also, get this: I was born on July 2. My brother was born a year and one day before me, on July 1, 1963.
  • Also, the word iamb is in my name, as is I am; also, will. An iamb is a metrical unit containing 2, count 'em, Two feet.
  • my ex-wife was named Zoila. Common spelling of this hispanic name is Soyla. Soy la means 'I am the' in Spanish. She is also a poet. We had two sons.
  • The name William also contains two of the letter "l". II means 2.



Can you begin to see why I became a tad obsessed with the number 2, and the concept, second? I began to fancy myself the second coming of William Shakespeare! This was NOT as a youngster, but as an adult, when I began to lose my marbles. My interest in poetry happened out of the blue. There are no poets in my family, maternal or paternal; there are no literary people at all. I believe my love of poetry began as an outlet for my creative impulse, and my intelligence. I was around fourteen when I started to like poetry, especially song lyrics. I don't believe I was crazy then, just shy and plain. I could not get the girls, like my brother. I had plenty of time alone to learn how to scribble poems. I did it myself. I did not show interest in poetry in high school. In fact, I was embarrassed by it. I thought it was a defect, because everyone around me seemed to think that poets were lazy and foolish. Which I kind of was. But that passed.

I know, too much information.

Let me settle down and catch my breath.


***

We can discuss the Anderson book when and if I get hold of it. As for now, let me say a few things:

You say that you are convinced that De Vere wrote Shakespeare. Well, surely you know that the vast majority of Shakespeare scholars are not convinced. In fact, they dismiss the whole SAQ as being silly. They dismiss the Earl of Oxford, not arbitrarily, but because they know a thing or two about this poor little Will Shakspere, TSM. They know a whole lot more than I do. I take that as a given. Sorry, but I must also take it as a given that these scholars know more about poor little Gulielmus, son of John the glover, than you or Swammi, and indeed, more than the vast majority of Oxfordians. Do you dispute this?

I realize that many scholars have not looked at the evidence, and pooh-pooh the entire SAQ with a wave of their hands and a rustle of tweed and pipe smoke. I am not defending nor siding with those people.

Also, you say that this refusal to question Stratfordian authorship is due primarily to some "religious" delusion, or bias, and you compare very educated scholars with religious fundamentalists. I believe this comparison is premature, unfounded, and downright silly.

Nonetheless, I wish to be persuaded to take the Oxford theory seriously; and it IS true that you and Swammi have cast doubt on this Stratford bloke in my own little mind. I am not "faithful" to TSM, nor horribly offended to consider that he was not responsible for the Shakespeare canon.

We shall proceed. But I cannot be persuaded that De Vere wrote Shakespeare until and unless I have ample reason to do so, and so far, I do not have a reason yet, ample or otherwise. I have listened to videos, and read many articles by Oxfordians, and visited many web pages dedicated to the SAQ, but I remain skeptical. Sorry, but nothing this thread or you, or Swammi, have shone me, has caused me to believe that De Vere could have written Shakespeare.

I do believe that he may have had a hand in co-authorship. His life-stories and experiences could very well have been fodder for the brilliant poet who composed the magnificent poetry found in the Shakespeare Canon. Marlowe, maybe; William Stanley, this Neville fellow? Who knows. Perhaps there was more extensive cooperation going on. Perhaps De Vere provided his story, his history, his legal experience, his experience at court? Perhaps someone like Marlowe or Stanley wrote the blank verse? Or someone else not yet discovered?

Or, just perhaps, Will Shakspere was a super-genius who went to London to live in a garret and learn how to write amazing poetry? When he had learned sufficiently, he returned to Stratford, to his family, with a plan to be an actor and part owner of a company that performed dramas. Perhaps he was a super-genius who preferred, like Zappa, to assure his security as a business man, letting his career as a poet and author take a back seat? Perhaps, when he was rich and well established, he retired, and wrote no more?

Who knows? Perhaps only the Shadow knoweth...

More later...
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Am I correct that these are the serious candidates for the Authorship? (Sorted by putative death year.)
1564-1593?) Christopher Marlowe
1550-1604) Edward de Vere (17th E of Oxford)
1576-1612) Roger Manners (5th E of Rutland)
1564-1615) Sir Henry Neville (of Billingbeare)
1564-1616) William Shakspere (of Stratford)
1561-1627) Francis Bacon (1st Visc. St. Alban)
1561-1642) William Stanley (6th E of Derby)​
I checked  List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates for Wiki's list, but it is huge! I wonder if any that I'm missing are serious candidates for the primary authorship? (Reading that Wiki article reminds us that Wiki is happy to publish whatever insulting garbage it dredges up, so long as a 51% majority seems to approve.)
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Am I correct that these are the serious candidates for the Authorship? (Sorted by putative death year.)
1564-1593?) Christopher Marlowe
1550-1604) Edward de Vere (17th E of Oxford)
1576-1612) Roger Manners (5th E of Rutland)
1564-1615) Sir Henry Neville (of Billingbeare)
1564-1616) William Shakspere (of Stratford)
1561-1627) Francis Bacon (1st Visc. St. Alban)
1561-1642) William Stanley (6th E of Derby)​
I checked  List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates for Wiki's list, but it is huge! I wonder if any that I'm missing are serious candidates for the primary authorship? (Reading that Wiki article reminds us that Wiki is happy to publish whatever insulting garbage it dredges up, so long as a 51% majority seems to approve.)

The one obvious name I've regularly heard mentioned is Elizabeth herself. Of course I discount that. The greater the number of candidates the sillier the authorship question appears to the uninformed observer, so it isn't exactly unusual for the number to be huge.

WAB,
Money is money. Is there a library near you that will allow you to check things out? That's my MO. Were I a more serious devotee I would purchase the books, though discounted. The books are available for a fraction of the cost if one is okay with used but serviceable items, as you are likely aware. And you are quite the wordsmith.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Egads, I've been shanghaied! Gentlemen (and gentle women...gentles all!), I apologize for the long absence. But it seems I have been abducted! Kidnapped! It is the truth, I say, and verily!

I am in the Tower of London, methinks. It is confounded dark, so I cannot be certain. They are keeping me alive, the infernal cads, but barely. This afternoon I ate Chef Boyardee out of the can with a plastic dining utensil! They are fiends, my captors! From the very depths of hell!

Moogly, Swammi, I cannot say here what it is these heavy breathing blackguards demand of me! You must take this post and eat it, verily I say unto ye! No! No, damme, wait. Thou must ask a moderator to delete it, post-haste and toot-sweet!

Then, ye must go to Westminster Abbey, and ask for Slappy. From Slappy thou will receive a key, and a laptop. The laptop shall provide the straight dope, and shall instruct thee on the purpose of the key! Trust Slappy, and no-one else! Not even thy wives and family!

Go now! Hie thee quickly, for my very life dependeth upon it!

The eagle flies at two-thirty!


*********

Translation:

I am now officially homeless and living in a motel.

But, I am manic and happy as a lark.

News at eleven!

:joy:

Quite the wordsmith..well, thank you!

What do you think of this? It is the first poem I wrote with a word prossesor.

https://plorfinglame.blogspot.com/search?q=Radcliffe
 
Last edited:

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Egads, I've been shanghaied! Gentlemen (and gentle women...gentles all!), I apologize for the long absence. But it seems I have been abducted! Kidnapped! It is the truth, I say, and verily!

I am in the Tower of London, methinks. It is confounded dark, so I cannot be certain. They are keeping me alive, the infernal cads, but barely. This afternoon I ate Chef Boyardee out of the can with a plastic dining utensil! They are fiends, my captors! From the very depths of hell!

Moogly, Swammi, I cannot say here what it is these heavy breathing blackguards demand of me! You must take this post and eat it, verily I say unto ye! No! No, damme, wait. Thou must ask a moderator to delete it, post-haste and toot-sweet!

Then, ye must go to Westminster Abbey, and ask for Slappy. From Slappy thou will receive a key, and a laptop. The laptop shall provide the straight dope, and shall instruct thee on the purpose of the key! Trust Slappy, and no-one else! Not even thy wives and family!

Go now! Hie thee quickly, for my very life dependeth upon it!

The eagle flies at two-thirty!


*********

Translation:

I am now officially homeless and living in a motel.

But, I am manic and happy as a lark.

News at eleven!

:joy:

Quite the wordsmith..well, thank you!

What do you think of this? It is the first poem I wrote with a word prossesor.

https://plorfinglame.blogspot.com/search?q=Radcliffe

WAB,

Just saw your post. I have to read the poetry slowly, feels like some James Joyce in there further down. Good to hear you singing.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Gadzooks, gentles! It's oppressive quiet in here, whut? Have the cats got your tongues?

Yes, the list of candidates for the Immortal And Fiercely Formidable Not To Mention Dazzling Quill of William Shakespeare is silly. It is beyond silly. Elizabeth? The Author? Well, Ezra Pound includes a poem of Her Frighteningly Powerful And Knee-Shakingly Scary Highness'esseseses in an anthology called From Confucius to Cummings, and the bare truth, gentles, is:

She was...ahem...a better poet than De Vere...

*skedaddles* for now. :joy:

ETA:

We cross-posted, Moogly.

Joyce! 'Zounds! That's the second time someone mentioned Jimmy when speaking of my writing!

Give yourself a break, my good fellow, and don't read it all! Confounded wordy. A good friend of mine, whom I depended on for objective critique, read the poem(s) and said:

"Well this is why they advise you not to write on a word processor!" God bless him!
 
Last edited:

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
At the same time as Shake-speare was writing Venus and Adonis. Kit Marlowe was writing Hero and Leander, closely related — Hero was a legendary priestess of Venus who loved Leander just as Venus loved Adonis. According to Ian Wilson, Marlowe was writing the poem to appeal for Southampton's patronage, just as Shake-speare apparently did; and Wilson thinks Marlowe was the 'Rival Poet' of the Sonnets. (The poem was completed by Chapman after Marlowe's death but the first several stanzas were Marlowe's IIUC.)

Hero and Leander has a very different style from Venus and Adonis and IMO is markedly inferior (although my opinion on poetry is worth very little). But in any event, that two competing poems were written at the same time seems incompatible with a Shake-speare/Marlowe equation.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Am I the only one intrigued by the coincidence(?) that the plays of the Lord Great Chamberlain were performed by The Lord Chamberlain's Men? Traditional sources name Henry Carey as the founder of The Lord Chamberlain's Men but Anderson claims that The Earl of Sussex's Men was also known by the name Lord Chamberlain's Men. (Thomas Radclyffe, the 3rd Earl of Sussex and mentor of the young Edward de Vere, was Henry Carey's predecessor as Lord Chamberlain.) Anderson cites plays performed by that Lord Chamberlain's company for the Queen 1578-79 (when Shaksper was 14 years old), including An History of the Cruelties of a Stepmother which Anderson believes to be an early version of Cymbeline. (BTW Sussex's grandfather, the 1st Earl, was himself Lord Great Chamberlain. And Sussex's 1st wife was the sister of Henry Earl Southampton!)

Can anyone confirm Anderson's claim that Sussex's theater company was sometimes known as Lord Chamberlain's Men?

Can anyone confirm that any of the relevant Lords Chamberlain — Thomas Radclyffe, Henry Carey, and Henry's son George Carey — showed special interest in the theater beyond serving in the (largely figurehead) post of company sponsor? (As yet further coincidence, it was Thomas Radclyffe who knighted George Carey after Carey challenged Lord Fleming — rebellious commander of Dunbar Castle — to single combat, and prevailed.)

(For a brief period after the death of Henry Carey, William Brooke (Lord Cobham) served as Lord Chamberlain and Carey's theater company was known as Lord Hundsdon's Men. Brooke was a fan of neither the theater in general nor Shakespeare specifically. It was he that forced the 'Oldcastle' name in the history plays to be changed to 'Falstaff' — there are places where faulty meter can be fixed by restoring 'Oldcastle.')

Lord Chamberlain was a high position denoting special favor with Her Majesty; indeed Henry Carey is thought to be Queen Elizabeth's half-brother. Sponsorship of this particular theater company seems to have been very important to Majesties: Upon George Carey's death, the sponsorship was assumed by King James I himself.

I feel very silly suggesting that the sponsorship of Lord Chamberlain's Men was an "inside joke" about the Lord Great Chamberlain writing the plays, but even without that connection the sponsorship may have interest.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
There are just too many "coincidences" connecting De Vere and Shakespeare.

I was listening to Bonner Cutting's old podcast at SOF where she expertly discusses Stratford's will before getting around to discussing the dedication of the first folio. It got me to thinking about why Stratfordians are so dogmatic and dismissive. It it partly that they fear some kind of defamation lawsuit and so just ignore or claim crackpottery when it comes to authorship? An actual lawsuit that plays out in public would be a gift from the gods to non-Stratfordians so maybe this is one more reason for their strategy.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
I'm loving this thread. It evokes memories of Dead Poets Society (film)

deadpoets2.jpg

“We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion....
...medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. "


Thanks to all for the fascinating comments and ideas.

"O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse"
 

Attachments

  • page-6.jpg
    page-6.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I'm loving this thread. It evokes memories of Dead Poets Society (film)

View attachment 31723

“We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion....
...medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. "


Thanks to all for the fascinating comments and ideas.

"O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse"

Great post, Lion! :joy:
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
Yes, I think DBT is alluding to an important and useful point. Shakespeare himself might have been aware of the homages and nom de plume sharing of credit for ideas which he knew weren't entirely original.

There may even have been some playful, deliberate disguising of authorship & identity

...a recurring theme in so many Shakespearean plays. - Rosalind, Viola, Portia, Edgar
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Good link, O ye of the Great Moogliness. Have started, read first one.

My posts shall be short for a while, since the Wi-Fi is spotty here...

ETA: This thread shall be eternal, like unto the Word Association thread. My very life dependent upon it! I shall not rest until I am satisficed. Yes, satisficed. :joy:
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,910
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Good link, O ye of the Great Moogliness. Have started, read first one.

My posts shall be short for a while, since the Wi-Fi is spotty here...

ETA: This thread shall be eternal, like unto the Word Association thread. My very life dependent upon it! I shall not rest until I am satisficed. Yes, satisficed. :joy:

WAB, you're a darling! Every one of those links/reasons are worth the read. In summary they represent the best and simplest arguments for De Vere. I might chime in with one or two that I find particularly convincing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I have a new phone, so let's see if I can make a longer post with this absurdly small "keyboard". It will be in iambic pentameter, in honor of the late great Kit Marlowe, who is said to have inspired the awesome Bard of Avon:

Da dah de dah do dah de doh, de dee,
De da deh dee da something bla bla bla;
And if the thingy does the dum de duh
When Eagles spread their wings and stuff does stuff
That breaketh other things like canopies
When Arthur reigneth-- then, my squalid turtles!
Let us enjamb the day. The fool at last
Lurketh in substitutions, caesuras,
Demonic flailings & what other lists
Be listed hereunto and...



Okay, it works! Whooo-hoo, watch out now, ye fellows threadians!

More later...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
422
Location
Atlantis
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic/Syndicalist
Hurrah for old Bill Shakespeare,
He never wrote them plays.
He stayed at home and chasing girls,
Sang dirty rondelays.

Eldarion Lathria
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Boo-hoo for old Bill Shakspere,
Who never penned the dramas;
Let's toss a beer for sweet De Vere
And all those drama-llamas!
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Will Shaksper didn't write the poems and plays.
As hints and clues of ages past confide
'Tis Edward Oxford who deserves the praise.

It doesn't matter what some teacher says,
How sons of Stratford relish in their pride,
Will Shaksper didn't write the poems and plays.

With Hamlet, playwright his own youth portrays
and speaks of woes after his father died.
'Tis Edward Oxford on whose life we gaze.

Will's words did never cause an eye to raise
Nor eulogy did any fan provide.
No, Shaksper didn't write the poems and plays.

The Queen insists and Edward Vere obeys
To set a Will-ful pen-name and misguide;
Yet Edward Oxford does deserve the praise.

We can discern the truth 'spite years of haze.
Objective man will let the facts decide.
Will Shaksper didn't write the poems and plays.
'Tis Edward Oxford who deserves the praise.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Would that were proven, Swammi, but I fear
The facts lead to another, not De Vere.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Okay, Swammi & Moogli,

Ahem...is this thing on?


It's time to up the game a bit. Now, I believe we have agreed that it is not important to try and debunk TSM. Right?

Let us proceed in this thread with the idea that Gulielmus Shakspere did NOT
Write any of the stuff associated with the Shakespeare Canon. Okay?
For the sake of argument? Okay.

Now, I am going to make a challenge. Yes! A challenge.

I would like for you to seek out and find One [count em] One living poet who is fairly accredited and still breathing (hence 'living') who is conversant and familiar with contemporary poetry written in English, AND who is familiar and conversant with poetry written in traditional forms, who agrees that the Lord Oxford could have written the body of work now accepted as the Shakespeare canon.

I submit, that it will be difficult for you to find anyone who is currently widely published and who is acquainted modern poetry written in traditional forms who will even entertain the idea that Lord Oxford wrote Shakespeare.

Etc...phone causinge troubles...
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Anyway, here is a list of names. They are all googlable:

Jennifer Reeser
David Anthony
Rhina Espaillat
Alan Sullivan
Rob MacKenzie
Siham Karami
Aaron Poochigian
Robert Schecter
Gail White
Rick Mullin
R. Nemo Hill


Actual famous people:

Goffrey Hill
Dana Goia
A.E Stallings
David Waggoner
Judson Jerome
Leslie Mellichamp's daughter (editor The Lyric)
Jane Greer (editor of Plains Poetry Journal, now defunct)
Bill Baer (Editor Formalist)
Hellas Journal
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,668
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
It's time to up the game a bit. Now, I believe we have agreed that it is not important to try and debunk TSM. Right?

Let us proceed in this thread with the idea that Gulielmus Shakspere did NOT
Write any of the stuff associated with the Shakespeare Canon. Okay?
For the sake of argument? Okay.

Now, I am going to make a challenge. Yes! A challenge.

I would like for you to seek out and find One [count em] One living poet who is fairly accredited and still breathing (hence 'living') who is conversant and familiar with contemporary poetry written in English, AND who is familiar and conversant with poetry written in traditional forms, who agrees that the Lord Oxford could have written the body of work now accepted as the Shakespeare canon.

I submit, that it will be difficult for you to find anyone who is currently widely published and who is acquainted modern poetry written in traditional forms who will even entertain the idea that Lord Oxford wrote Shakespeare.

I see a number of hindrances in this approach. For starters you have insisted many times on a stipulation that Stratford did not write the Sonnets. Yet most people think he did. In your planned survey what do we do with those who think Stratford was the Author? They must be excluded from the study, right? Or, since you insist the main argument against Oxford is the quality of his poems, what do we do with pollees who are skeptical about Stratford, but unfamiliar with de Vere's juvenile poetry? They must be excluded from the survey also, correct?

AND Please note that I've already admitted in this thread that the quality and style of Oxford's poetry is the biggest stumbling-block to the Oxfordian theory. I remain an Oxfordian because of the multitude of other evidence, leaving Oxford as the most probable candidate despite flaws. To find a poet who agrees that Oxford's work as a juvenile was inferior to the Sonnets will only tell us what we already know.

How do we poll these "experts" anyway? Telephone them? That won't work for me. Google to see what opinions they've previously expressed? Many MANY people are uninterested in the authorship controversy — or interested only enough to express pro-Stratford sentiment without examining the cases. And many skeptics have learned to keep their skepticism secret.

NOTE that there is already a long list of famous writers who have rejected Stratford: Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Henry James just off the top of my head. But these don't count because they are no longer living?

One way to pursue your plan would be to pose such a question at the Oxfordian Facebook group. You're a member, WAB; will you do that?
 
Top Bottom