The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[ideologyhunter]

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

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

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

 

[WAB]

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

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

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

Lol!

 

[Swammerdami]

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

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

Deal with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WAB]

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

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

Deal with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

 

[WAB]

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

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

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

See post #346

 

[WAB]

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

(Curtain)

 

[Swammerdami]

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

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

 

[Swammerdami]

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

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

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

See post #346

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

 

[WAB]

BUMP

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

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

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

Please read here. They have lots of good stuff:

https://oxfraud.com/nfp2

Start here:

https://oxfraud.com/BQ-ticking

The first para (and dead on the money):

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

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

Once more into the breech, dear friends...

 

[Swammerdami]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WAB]

Bless you, Swammi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My bad. My apologies.

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

****

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

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

***

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

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

Attest a million in a little place.

?

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

 

[Swammerdami]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WAB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I ask is to bear in mind, this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Swammerdami]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Swammerdami]

Hot off the presses!

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

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

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

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

 

[Swammerdami]

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

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

I will mention one connection that Gontar and others ignore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammerdami,

Good catch! And thanks WAB for the bump.

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

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

Attest a million in a little place.

?

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Swammerdami]

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

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

Attest a million in a little place.

?

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

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

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

The line is from the Prologue of Henry V:

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

 

[WAB]

Hot off the presses!

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

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

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

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

Swammi,

Is this the text of Damon and Pythias referred to:

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

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

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

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

Line 4 is helplessly inept.

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

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

From Gontar's article:

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

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

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

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

 

[WAB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I watched twenty minutes of the video.

Will watch the rest when time permits.

Please see post # 374

 

[Swammerdami]

I watched twenty minutes of the video.

Will watch the rest when time permits.

Please see post # 374

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

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

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Line 4 is helplessly inept.

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

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

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

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

 

[WAB]

Line 4 is helplessly inept.

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

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

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

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

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

I admit this is just conjecture!

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

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

 

[WAB]

I watched twenty minutes of the video.

Will watch the rest when time permits.

Please see post # 374

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

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

Shereech! (tires...)

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

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

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

Please see the post before this...


ETA: Lyly and Munday were average at best.

Don't you understand?!!

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

I think I wrote better poetry at 14.

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


ETA:

Ack! It gets far worse:

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

 

[WAB]

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

Nice try, Oh ye great Moogly! But I have never said that Shakespeare was perfect, or god-like.

It is in fact you and your fellow Oxfordians who attribute to a non-descript nobleman capacities and talents which were by all existing accounts far beyond him.

The historical, literary accomplishment of Shakespeare is superlative and not in question, whoever they were; it is the ability and accomplishment of De Vere that is in question (at least by me).

And I typed this in a former post:

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

I am anti-Oxford, not pro-Stratford!

Please stop with the 'religious loyalty' crap. I don't know who wrote 'Shakespeare', and don't really care (I have declaimed this from the very start of the thread - go and check!). I am not defending any author. My position is CONTRA DE VERE.

De Vere did not write Shakespeare.(He couldn't have.)

I'm a De Vere atheist! Lol.

I notice that the content of my post # 378 was not addressed.

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

I'd love to find out who wrote Shakespeare. But I already know it wasn't the Earl of Oxford.

 

[Swammerdami]

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

Shereech! (tires...)

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

De Vere was 14 years old at that time — the claim you quoted — whether he wrote Damon and Pithias or not!

The conjecture that that play was written by de Vere was made in the article I linked to above. It might be interesting to discuss his meager evidence, but don't ask me to recapitulate it.

Nice try, Oh ye great Moogly! But I have never said that Shakespeare was perfect, or god-like.

It is in fact you and your fellow Oxfordians who attribute to a non-descript nobleman capacities and talents which were by all existing accounts far beyond him.

Anti-Stratfordians are accused of deprecating the man from Stratford. And anti-Oxfordians love to deprecate Edward de Vere. Regardless of his literary talent or lack thereof, he was hardly "non-descript." In 1699, more than 12 decades after his trip to Italy, "Elmond milord of Oxford" is mentioned in a Naples comedy. Calling him "non-descript" ignores that Hamlet was almost his biography; ignores the unprecedented and unexplained (except by Oxfordians) salary of £1000; etc. And even many or most traditional scholars agree that Shakespeare poems and dedications to Henry Wriothesley were aimed at making him Oxford's son-in-law.

I have repeatedly admitted that there is a weird gap between the talents of Shakespeare and the putative Oxfordian author. But WAB now insists that I produce a pro-Oxfordian poet, and repeats this just a few hours later. There are famous Shakespearean actors who are Oxfordian, but I know of no such poets, nor do I know how to Google to find them. (Of course there were many noted literary figures who were anti-Stratfordian pre-Looney.)

Well then, I insist that you, WAB, explain why Shakespeare knew so many details of Italy that only a traveler would know. I insist that you explain the weird dedications of Sonnets and Troilus. I insist that you explain the line "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

De Vere was 14 years old at that time — the claim you quoted — whether he wrote Damon and Pithias or not!

The conjecture that that play was written by de Vere was made in the article I linked to above. It might be interesting to discuss his meager evidence, but don't ask me to recapitulate it.

Nice try, Oh ye great Moogly! But I have never said that Shakespeare was perfect, or god-like.

It is in fact you and your fellow Oxfordians who attribute to a non-descript nobleman capacities and talents which were by all existing accounts far beyond him.

Anti-Stratfordians are accused of deprecating the man from Stratford. And anti-Oxfordians love to deprecate Edward de Vere. Regardless of his literary talent or lack thereof, he was hardly "non-descript." In 1699, more than 12 decades after his trip to Italy, "Elmond milord of Oxford" is mentioned in a Naples comedy. Calling him "non-descript" ignores that Hamlet was almost his biography; ignores the unprecedented and unexplained (except by Oxfordians) salary of £1000; etc. And even many or most traditional scholars agree that Shakespeare poems and dedications to Henry Wriothesley were aimed at making him Oxford's son-in-law.

I have repeatedly admitted that there is a weird gap between the talents of Shakespeare and the putative Oxfordian author. But WAB now insists that I produce a pro-Oxfordian poet, and repeats this just a few hours later. There are famous Shakespearean actors who are Oxfordian, but I know of no such poets, nor do I know how to Google to find them. (Of course there were many noted literary figures who were anti-Stratfordian pre-Looney.)

Well then, I insist that you, WAB, explain why Shakespeare knew so many details of Italy that only a traveler would know. I insist that you explain the weird dedications of Sonnets and Troilus. I insist that you explain the line "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy."

Much as I admire this line of discussion even Stanley Wells admits, reluctantly, that there are no contemporaneous attestations to the Stratford man's literary aplomb. To give that a modern twist it would be as if we cannot find mention of FDR having anything to do with WW2 or the New Deal or the Great Depression or Oak Island or Yalta or the American political scene until Eisenhower became President.

FDR would have left no letters, and there would have been nothing said about him of his family regarding any of the aforementioned subjects in his or any of his family's lifetimes. Some of us would find that odd but apparently not all because we would have six scraggly, scrawly signatures of business documents, yet not a letter of prose, poetry, writing or anything relating his miraculous abilities and accomplishments. And his name would be Rose-of-the-Veldt.

But some of us would accept that none of that mattered because tradition and orthodoxy dictates that we accept it all as true. Once we accept it all as true we can begin to invent fictitious, mythical biographies and make him a national hero because we found someone named Roosevelt of modest means mentioned as being a great diplomat and president and man of the people.

WAB, respectfully, you are definitely pro-Stratford. I say that because of the presumptions you make on the subject. You aren't looking for a poet, you're inventing a historical Jesus based on what you read in the NT.

 

[WAB]

Well then, I insist that you, WAB, explain why Shakespeare knew so many details of Italy that only a traveler would know. I insist that you explain the weird dedications of Sonnets and Troilus. I insist that you explain the line "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy."

As for the dedication to the sonnets, scholars have been working at and wrestling with it for centuries. Don't expect me to resolve it with a pat answer. I would ask you, what about it indicates that De Vere was the author of the sonnets?

I have more trouble with what you expect of me with regard to the dedication(s) or preferatory remarks to Troilus. I sought out a page that contains them and I will copy them here:

A quarto edition of Troilus and Cressida was published with the following title page:


THE HISTORIE OF TROYLUS

and Cresseida

As it was acted by the Kings Maiesties

servants at the Globe

Written by William Shakespeare



LONDON



Imprinted by G. Eld for R. Bonian and H. Walley

and are to be sold at the Spred Eagle in Paules

Church-yeard over against the

great North-doore

1609

***

This was immediately followed by another quarto edition of the play with the following title page:



THE
Famous Historie of

Troylus and Cresseid.

Excellently expressing the beginning

of their loves, with the conceited wooing

of Pandarus Prince of Litia

Written by William Shakespeare

LONDON

Imprinted by G. Eld for R. Bonian and H. Walley, and

are to be sold at the spred Eagle in Paules

Church-yeard, over against the

great North-doore.

1609

***

Apart from the changes on the title page of this second quarto edition of the play the only other change was the following advertisement in a preface inserted by the publisher at the beginning of the play:



A NEVER WRITER
TO AN EVER READER:

NEWS.



Eternal reader, you have here a new play, never staled

with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of

the vulgar, and yet passing full of the palm comical; for it

is a birth of your brain that never undertook anything

comical vainly. And were but the vain names of comedies

changed for the titles of commodities, or of plays for

pleas, you should see all those grand censors, that now

style them such vanities, flock to them for the main grace

of their gravities, especially this author's comedies, that

are so framed to the life that they serve for the most com-

mon commentaries of all the actions of our lives, show-

ing such a dexterity and power of wit that the most

displeased with plays are pleased with his comedies. And

all such dull and heavy-witted worldlings as were never

capable of the wit of a comedy, coming by report of

them to his representations, have found that wit there

that they never found in themselves and have parted bet-

ter witted than they came, feeling and edge of wit set

upon them more than ever they dreamed they had brain

to grind it on. So much and such savored salt of wit is in

his comedies that they seem, for their height of pleasure,

to be born in that sea that brought forth Venus.

Amongst all there is none more witty than this, and had

I time I would comment upon it, though I know it needs

not, for so much as will make you think your testern well

bestowed, but for so much worth as even poor I know to

be stuffed in it. It deserves such a labor as well as the best

comedy in Terence or Plautus. And believe this, that

when he is gone and his comedies out of sale, you will

scramble for them and set up a new English Inquisition.

Take this for a warning, and at the peril of your pleasure's

loss, and judgment's, refuse not, nor like this the less for

not being sullied with the smoky breath of the multi-

tude, but thank fortune for the scape it hath made

amongst you, since by the grand possessors' wills I be-

lieve you should have prayed for them rather than been

prayed. And so I leave all such to be prayed for, for the

state of their wits' healths, that will not praise it. Vale.

I have bolded the part that I suppose would indicate De Vere. I have heard of the obsession Oxfordian's have with the words 'ever', 'every' and 'very', and indeed any word that has the letters of his name in them.

All quotes from this page:

http://www.sirbacon.org/troilusandcressida3.htm

**

I have already answered your other questions, about how an author might know details of Italy without traveling there, and the "canopy" line. Go back and explore the thread for my answers.

But, for the sake of those who will not look, or who do not remember:

Any skilled writer can offer details of a land or environment they have not visited. Even in the Bard's time there were books that would have given any inquisitive author particular impressions and even details about foreign lands. Not only that, the Bard could have conversed with various persons who had been to Italy (and in particular the places he wanted to write about), and gleaned sufficient information and even detail.

As for the "canopy" line: Oxfordians occasionally seem to intimate the notion that an author and/or poet can only write from experience; but as has been argued to death, a great author and/or poet does not have to experience something in order to write poetically and even convincingly about it. Information plus imagination often works wonders.

ETA:

Here's a nice little tidbit from the page I quoted from:

http://www.sirbacon.org/troilusandcressida3.htm

By way of scraping something unpleasant off my shoe before proceeding on down the path of my inquiry, I will deal with the Oxfordians claims now. The Oxfordians say that, instead of merely trying to interject novelty into an advertisement in an attempt to promote sales, the 'ever' by Thorpe in the preface to the Sonnets, and by whomever in the preface to Troilus, (are you ready for this?) are coded messages telling us Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford was the author of both. And, not resting on their laurels, they extrapolate from this to make him the author of the entire "Shakespeare" corpus. Before I label these people members in good standing of the ranks of those who have some screws in urgent need of retightening I will afford them the courtesy of first carefully examining their evidence. Then I will label them members in good standing of the ranks of those who have some screws in urgent need of retightening.

Here's their evidence. In an "echo verse" Oxford played with 'Vere', and its anagram 'ever', and with other words that echoed this sound, viz:

"Oh heavens! who was the first that bred in me this fever? Vere.
Who was the first that gave the wound whose fear

I wear for ever? Vere."

Based on this bit of verse, a bit of verse I might add that, according to the Oxfordians, has a quality uncannily similar to that of Shakespeare's verse (although no one other than the Oxfordians has ever been able to detect that similarity), the Oxfordians with sublime disregard for all vestiges of good sense, believe the word "ever" anywhere in the Shakespeare corpus means Edward De Vere. One of their number, William Plumer Fowler Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters, in one of his happy as a clam at high tide moments that gave fresh meaning to the _expression, 'as happy as if he had good sense', proclaimed that the word "ever" was nothing less than the Rosetta Stone to the entire authorship question. (Never mind that Oxford never signed himself E. Ver, or even E. Vere. His letters were always signed: Edward Oxinford, Edward Oxenford, Edward Oxeford, or E. Oxenford). This fact didn't faze the Oxfordians a bit. Oh no, the 'ever' was rock solid proof of Oxford's authorship of the Sonnets with its "Ever living poet' dedication; of Troilus and Cressida with its "Ever Reader" advertisement; and, indeed of the entire 'Shakespeare' works. Wasn't the word "ever" scattered all through the First Folio?

 

[WAB]

De Vere was 14 years old at that time — the claim you quoted — whether he wrote Damon and Pithias or not!

The conjecture that that play was written by de Vere was made in the article I linked to above. It might be interesting to discuss his meager evidence, but don't ask me to recapitulate it.

Nice try, Oh ye great Moogly! But I have never said that Shakespeare was perfect, or god-like.

It is in fact you and your fellow Oxfordians who attribute to a non-descript nobleman capacities and talents which were by all existing accounts far beyond him.

Anti-Stratfordians are accused of deprecating the man from Stratford. And anti-Oxfordians love to deprecate Edward de Vere. Regardless of his literary talent or lack thereof, he was hardly "non-descript." In 1699, more than 12 decades after his trip to Italy, "Elmond milord of Oxford" is mentioned in a Naples comedy. Calling him "non-descript" ignores that Hamlet was almost his biography; ignores the unprecedented and unexplained (except by Oxfordians) salary of £1000; etc. And even many or most traditional scholars agree that Shakespeare poems and dedications to Henry Wriothesley were aimed at making him Oxford's son-in-law.

I have repeatedly admitted that there is a weird gap between the talents of Shakespeare and the putative Oxfordian author. But WAB now insists that I produce a pro-Oxfordian poet, and repeats this just a few hours later. There are famous Shakespearean actors who are Oxfordian, but I know of no such poets, nor do I know how to Google to find them. (Of course there were many noted literary figures who were anti-Stratfordian pre-Looney.)

Well then, I insist that you, WAB, explain why Shakespeare knew so many details of Italy that only a traveler would know. I insist that you explain the weird dedications of Sonnets and Troilus. I insist that you explain the line "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy."

Much as I admire this line of discussion even Stanley Wells admits, reluctantly, that there are no contemporaneous attestations to the Stratford man's literary aplomb. To give that a modern twist it would be as if we cannot find mention of FDR having anything to do with WW2 or the New Deal or the Great Depression or Oak Island or Yalta or the American political scene until Eisenhower became President.

FDR would have left no letters, and there would have been nothing said about him of his family regarding any of the aforementioned subjects in his or any of his family's lifetimes. Some of us would find that odd but apparently not all because we would have six scraggly, scrawly signatures of business documents, yet not a letter of prose, poetry, writing or anything relating his miraculous abilities and accomplishments. And his name would be Rose-of-the-Veldt.

But some of us would accept that none of that mattered because tradition and orthodoxy dictates that we accept it all as true. Once we accept it all as true we can begin to invent fictitious, mythical biographies and make him a national hero because we found someone named Roosevelt of modest means mentioned as being a great diplomat and president and man of the people.

WAB, respectfully, you are definitely pro-Stratford. I say that because of the presumptions you make on the subject. You aren't looking for a poet, you're inventing a historical Jesus based on what you read in the NT.

Your last sentence is uncharitable, in the first place, and a cliche in the second. It is a classic attack: simply call your opponent "religious", and you are spared the necessity of arguing from any sort of knowledge or advantage.

No: the appreciation of Shakespeare is worldwide, and almost universal in agreement that they were the greatest author in English.

There are plentiful reasons for that. Oh, if only you could grasp the virtues of poetry so that you could see for yourself!

ETA: and I don't understand why you claim I am "definitely pro-Stratford"?

Have I not said repeatedly that I have grave doubts as to TSM's authorship? Check the thread.

Have I not said repeatedly that I am not pro-Stratford, but CONTRA OXFORD? (sorry for yelling!)

You make an unfair comparison to Jesus, the NT, and blind faith. Now, I ask you, what kind of faithful, dedicated Christian would do as I have done? What fervent, devout Christian would say, "Yes, I have serious doubts as to whether Christ was the Son of God, or anything special..." ???

You comparison to me as a religious zealot, especially of the Christian variety, is just....ahem...looney!

Have I not also said that I am far more inclined to a Marlovian position? ie, that Kit Marlowe was already an excellent poet at 29, when he was killed (supposedly)? And that this timeline works perfectly with 'Shakespeare', who began to really get cracking with plays right about the time Marlowe supposedly died?

Further, Marlowe's skill at his death is nearly exactly commensurate with 'Shakespeare's' skill at around 1592-1593.

Marlowe worked for Queen & Country, and lived a life of danger. It is not even a stretch to think he had to fake his death and go into hiding - and then continue writing plays, with good old Gulielmus Shaxper** as a front.

Makes far more sense to be a Marlovian than an Oxfordian: mainly because Marlowe was certainly an excellent poet and playwright by the age of 29, while De Vere never wrote verse that we know of that was beyond mediocre (he was fine as a technician - rhyme and meter - but there was scant beauty of language, or special lyrical quality).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Marlowe

**TSM always signed his name as William, never Gulielmus, though that was his birth name. (It's simply Latin for William.) And the special "k" he used is sometimes interpereted as an x, though it is not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Have I not said repeatedly that I have grave doubts as to TSM's authorship? Check the thread.

Have I not said repeatedly that I am not pro-Stratford, but CONTRA OXFORD? (sorry for yelling!)

You make an unfair comparison to Jesus, the NT, and blind faith. Now, I ask you, what kind of faithful, dedicated Christian would do as I have done? What fervent, devout Christian would say, "Yes, I have serious doubts as to whether Christ was the Son of God, or anything special..." ???

You comparison to me as a religious zealot, especially of the Christian variety, is just....ahem...looney!

Have I not also said that I am far more inclined to a Marlovian position? ie, that Kit Marlowe was already an excellent poet at 29, when he was killed (supposedly)? And that this timeline works perfectly with 'Shakespeare', who began to really get cracking with plays right about the time Marlowe supposedly died?

Further, Marlowe's skill at his death is nearly exactly commensurate with 'Shakespeare's' skill at around 1592-1593.

Marlowe worked for Queen & Country, and lived a life of danger. It is not even a stretch to think he had to fake his death and go into hiding - and then continue writing plays, with good old Gulielmus Shaxper** as a front.

Makes far more sense to be a Marlovian than an Oxfordian: mainly because Marlowe was certainly an excellent poet and playwright by the age of 29, while De Vere never wrote verse that we know of that was beyond mediocre (he was fine as a technician - rhyme and meter - but there was scant beauty of language, or special lyrical quality).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Marlowe

**TSM always signed his name as William, never Gulielmus, though that was his birth name. (It's simply Latin for William.) And the special "k" he used is sometimes interpereted as an x, though it is not.

Thank-you.

Having grave doubts about TSM does not mean you are anti-Stratfordian. The case based on evidence rules out TSM in my humble opinion. It is difficult to face the facts and change one's mind on such things. This is the situation with the SBT. Money, industry and personal reputation are all on the line.

If you do have the time, watch the original 1989 Frontline documentary. Many current oxfordians and non-stratfordians were introduced to the controversy via this 52 minute presentation.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkqcLJZ9I3s[/YOUTUBE]

Stratfordians have recently taken to using the "Shakespeare was just a genius" argument, as the lack of evidence and the historical controversy has become more widely known.

Have you ever watched the above video? It is the historical facts at minimum. Any person who considers himself informed on the subject will have watched it and would be familiar with the historical facts of the Oxfordian case and the tremendous evidence arguing against TSM. You have to watch at 39:30.

 

[Swammerdami]

As for the dedication to the sonnets, scholars have been working at and wrestling with it for centuries. Don't expect me to resolve it with a pat answer. I would ask you, what about it indicates that De Vere was the author of the sonnets?

The dedication avoids mentioning Shakespeare's name (this is anti-Stratford rather than pro-Oxford) and strongly suggests for at least two reasons that the poet is no longer living. (There is a poem from about the same year, not yet mentioned in the thread I think, with a past-tense mention of Shakespeare from which the same inference can be made.)

I have more trouble with what you expect of me with regard to the dedication(s) or preferatory remarks to Troilus. I sought out a page that contains them and I will copy them here:

...
A NEVER WRITER
TO AN EVER READER:

NEWS.



Eternal reader ...

I have bolded the part that I suppose would indicate De Vere. I have heard of the obsession Oxfordian's have with the words 'ever', 'every' and 'very', and indeed any word that has the letters of his name in them.

You don't mention "Never writer." Is that not peculiar? Traditionalists have ZERO explanation except "Inside joke we'll never decipher."

Writers of that era were very fond of word play and word puzzles.
"Eternal reader" is repetition of "Ever." Why do you think these "Never", "Ever" and "Eternal" were written here?

I have already answered your other questions, about how an author might know details of Italy without traveling there, and the "canopy" line. Go back and explore the thread for my answers.
... Even in the Bard's time there were books that would have given any inquisitive author particular impressions and even details about foreign lands. Not only that, the Bard could have conversed with various persons who had been to Italy (and in particular the places he wanted to write about), and gleaned sufficient information and even detail.

I've already answered your answers, but briefly:
* The details of Italy, e.g. viewing an obscure painting in a private home, reflected in the plays are NOT the sort of thing easily learned without travel. Read Anderson's book.
* The significance of bearing the canopy is simply NOT the sort of thing that would ever occur to 99.99% of commoners.

By way of scraping something unpleasant off my shoe ...

This sort of deprecation is VERY common in anti-Oxford writing. It tells me two things:
* The anti-Oxfordian thinks nasty language can take the place of calm reasoning.
* The writer of this is not someone I want to waste time reading.

 

[WAB]

In reading Marlowe, I come across certain passages that are strikingly similar to the early (1592-1600) Shakespeare:

Oft have I heard your majesty complain
Of Tamburlaine, that sturdy Scythian thief,
That robs your merchants of Persepolis
Trading by land unto the Western Isles,
And in your confines with his lawless train
Daily commits incivil outrages,
Hoping (misled by dreaming prophecies)
To reign in Asia, and with barbarous arms
To make himself the monarch of the East:
But, ere he march in Asia, or display
His vagrant ensign in the Persian fields,
Your grace hath taken order by Theridamas,
Charg'd with a thousand horse, to apprehend
And bring him captive to your highness' throne.

I have bolded the particularly Shakespearian bits...

A couple more, very Shakepearian:

Go frowning forth; but come thou smiling home,
As did Sir Paris with the Grecian dame:

***

But this it is that doth excruciate
The very substance of my vexed soul,

***

Even as when windy exhalations,
Fighting for passage, tilt within the earth.

***

 

[WAB]

Have I not said repeatedly that I have grave doubts as to TSM's authorship? Check the thread.

Have I not said repeatedly that I am not pro-Stratford, but CONTRA OXFORD? (sorry for yelling!)

You make an unfair comparison to Jesus, the NT, and blind faith. Now, I ask you, what kind of faithful, dedicated Christian would do as I have done? What fervent, devout Christian would say, "Yes, I have serious doubts as to whether Christ was the Son of God, or anything special..." ???

You comparison to me as a religious zealot, especially of the Christian variety, is just....ahem...looney!

Have I not also said that I am far more inclined to a Marlovian position? ie, that Kit Marlowe was already an excellent poet at 29, when he was killed (supposedly)? And that this timeline works perfectly with 'Shakespeare', who began to really get cracking with plays right about the time Marlowe supposedly died?

Further, Marlowe's skill at his death is nearly exactly commensurate with 'Shakespeare's' skill at around 1592-1593.

Marlowe worked for Queen & Country, and lived a life of danger. It is not even a stretch to think he had to fake his death and go into hiding - and then continue writing plays, with good old Gulielmus Shaxper** as a front.

Makes far more sense to be a Marlovian than an Oxfordian: mainly because Marlowe was certainly an excellent poet and playwright by the age of 29, while De Vere never wrote verse that we know of that was beyond mediocre (he was fine as a technician - rhyme and meter - but there was scant beauty of language, or special lyrical quality).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Marlowe

**TSM always signed his name as William, never Gulielmus, though that was his birth name. (It's simply Latin for William.) And the special "k" he used is sometimes interpereted as an x, though it is not.

Thank-you.

Having grave doubts about TSM does not mean you are anti-Stratfordian. The case based on evidence rules out TSM in my humble opinion. It is difficult to face the facts and change one's mind on such things. This is the situation with the SBT. Money, industry and personal reputation are all on the line.

If you do have the time, watch the original 1989 Frontline documentary. Many current oxfordians and non-stratfordians were introduced to the controversy via this 52 minute presentation.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkqcLJZ9I3s[/YOUTUBE]

Stratfordians have recently taken to using the "Shakespeare was just a genius" argument, as the lack of evidence and the historical controversy has become more widely known.

Have you ever watched the above video? It is the historical facts at minimum. Any person who considers himself informed on the subject will have watched it and would be familiar with the historical facts of the Oxfordian case and the tremendous evidence arguing against TSM. You have to watch at 39:30.

I watched until 10:16, when the classism became overwhelming.

 

[Swammerdami]

You have to watch at 39:30.

I watched until 10:16, when the classism became overwhelming.

"Overwhelming classism"? If it's classist to think a visitor to Italy might know more of that country than a non-visitor, or to think an intimate of the Queen and her Treasurer might better understand their mind-set, then include me in! And even this "classism" lasts for only a fraction of a minute.

This is a 32-year old video made only to outline the general debate for the casual; I don't expect anything new, but I'll watch it. (In fact I think I've seen it before -- my memory is so bad these days!)

I have already watched the beginning, until a bit past WAB's 10:16 quitting point. If WAB had been just a little more patient, he would have heard an interesting exchange:

At 12:10 reporter asks a top Shakespeare scholar about the debate. "Scholar"'s only response is to mention two silly letters, one claiming that the Author was female, the other that Queen Elizabeth was male! THIS is a scholarly response to scholars?) (Some Oxfordians may have intellectual flaws, but Stratfordians are far FAR worse!)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You have to watch at 39:30.

I watched until 10:16, when the classism became overwhelming.

"Overwhelming classism"? If it's classist to think a visitor to Italy might know more of that country than a non-visitor, or to think an intimate of the Queen and her Treasurer might better understand their mind-set, then include me in! And even this "classism" lasts for only a fraction of a minute.

This is a 32-year old video made only to outline the general debate for the casual; I don't expect anything new, but I'll watch it. (In fact I think I've seen it before -- my memory is so bad these days!)

I have already watched the beginning, until a bit past WAB's 10:16 quitting point. If WAB had been just a little more patient, he would have heard an interesting exchange:

At 12:10 reporter asks a top Shakespeare scholar about the debate. "Scholar"'s only response is to mention two silly letters, one claiming that the Author was female, the other that Queen Elizabeth was male! THIS is a scholarly response to scholars?) (Some Oxfordians may have intellectual flaws, but Stratfordians are far FAR worse!)

I've watched the video several times and one might think it's a hit piece, intent on making orthodox scholars look bad. But it's only discussing the question and people are allowed to present their best evidence.

What it certainly does show is that the Stratford argument is empty and simply survives because most people don't even know there is an authorship question based upon evidence. The defenders of orthodoxy did themselves a tremendous disservice with their behavior. Ogden, on the other hand, came across as a person informed, scholarly and emotional.

I found the crypt exchanges particularly fascinating. There is much evidence to suggest that DeVere was eventually interred in Westminster.

I don't even know what a classist argument is, but I do know the difference between evidence and tradition. Maybe my prefontal cortex and hypothalamus are still getting along despite life's stresses and struggles. I just don't see that tiger hiding in the bushes all the time.

 

[WAB]

Okay, dear hearties, I am going to watch the rest of it.



At around 10 minutes there's this fellow explaining that Shakespeare can only come out of direct exprerience, direct observation, etc. This is not true. A great author can write about things they have not experienced.

A little after that, the narrator says:

"...the Stratford fantasy had made a bard out of a bumpkin."

Bard means poet (more specifically 'a poet, traditionally one reciting epics and associated with a particular oral tradition' - definition gleaned from the Web). But essentially it means poet. The idea that a "country bumpkin" cannot be a noteworthy poet is classism at its best (or worst). Anyone heard of John Keats, the son of a stable keeper? Or John Clare, or how about Robert Burns? And that's only a few of the biggies.

Anyway, onwards! I will watch the rest of the video.

Ooooh, a few seconds in: "Transforming a common duck into the Swan of Avon."

Classists love the word "common". Commoners, the common folk, etc. All classist crap.

@15:43: The only record of William Shakespeare being paid as an actor "disputed by scholars". - Can I see some info as to this dispute?

27:21: "...poems remarkably similar to the works of Shakespeare." - Unfortunately, there are no poems, and scarcely even a line, from Oxford that is even remotely similar to Shakespeare.

49:14 - I am moved by Charleton Ogburn's words.

All very interesting, but I see no hard evidence that De Vere could have written Shakespeare.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All very interesting, but I see no hard evidence that De Vere could have written Shakespeare.

All very interesting, but I see no hard evidence that TSM could have written. This is a key piece of the mystery, coming to the understanding that outside tradition there is no reason to believe that TSM is the author. After making this determination one is free to pursue the authorship question.

There is a plethora of evidence in the life and writings of DeVere that connects him to the Shakespeare canon within his lifetime and attested to by other authors within his lifetime. There is less than zero evidence regards TSM.

And that's one half of the dog, arriving at the evidentiary realization that TSM is not the author of Shakespeare, let alone even a writer of anything, not a word or letter. The other half is determining who the author(s) actually are, again, based on evidence. It's not so much a literary question as an evidentiary question where the works of Shakespeare are part of the investigation.

Thanks for watching, WAB. The previously linked video by Wittemore is also worth the time, particularly at the end where he does some verbal skewering over the hyphenation/pseudonym question. The authorship question and its examination should be based on information and evidence. Right now the Stratfordian position is maintained by ignorance and tradition.

 

[WAB]

All very interesting, but I see no hard evidence that De Vere could have written Shakespeare.

All very interesting, but I see no hard evidence that TSM could have written. This is a key piece of the mystery, coming to the understanding that outside tradition there is no reason to believe that TSM is the author. After making this determination one is free to pursue the authorship question.

There is a plethora of evidence in the life and writings of DeVere that connects him to the Shakespeare canon within his lifetime and attested to by other authors within his lifetime. There is less than zero evidence regards TSM.

And that's one half of the dog, arriving at the evidentiary realization that TSM is not the author of Shakespeare, let alone even a writer of anything, not a word or letter. The other half is determining who the author(s) actually are, again, based on evidence. It's not so much a literary question as an evidentiary question where the works of Shakespeare are part of the investigation.

Thanks for watching, WAB. The previously linked video by Wittemore is also worth the time, particularly at the end where he does some verbal skewering over the hyphenation/pseudonym question. The authorship question and its examination should be based on information and evidence. Right now the Stratfordian position is maintained by ignorance and tradition.

As I keep pointing out (and have done since the beginning of the thread), I am persuaded that it is justifiable to have serious doubts as to the authorship of TSM. Do I have to keep doing this, Oh ye great Moogly?

I have told you my problem time and time again: Now to reiterate (for the hundredth time??):

I am not here to defend TSM; my position is Contra-De Vere.

And I am quite solidly and confidently Contra-De Vere (He could not have written Shakespeare).

The reason I am contra-De Vere is the fact that his extant work (the poems we know for sure were authored by him), are not excellent. They show an efficient facility with rhyme and meter (which literally hundreds of poets at that time showed), but DO NOT show an exceptional lyrical ability or above average wit.

This is a fact.

What I would like to see is some evidence that De Vere went from mediocre to the greatest poet in English. Some work in the interim? Some link between the average poetry and the work of the greatest genius in the English language????

Is it so much to ask?

I do not accept the idea that De Vere could have been taught how to be "Shakespeare". Only a true genius could have written Shakespeare (and I am NOT saying it was TSM).

How did The Earl of Oxford go from mediocre noble poet to the greatest poet in English history?

And authorship by committee is not tenable, since the greatest of Shakespeare is clearly the work of a single hand. I pity the people who can not identify that work. It is truly sad.

I submit: the Oxfordian position is maintained by virtue of ignorance: the ignorance of the distinction between mediocre poetry and excellent poetry: Oxfordians, by and large, cannot tell the difference.


***

And to reiterate a question I asked upthread, with reference to the video TGG Moogly posted:

@15:43: The only record of William Shakespeare being paid as an actor "disputed by scholars". - Can I see some info as to this dispute?

Also, where is there evidence that De Vere wrote Damon and Pythias?

Thus far all I have to go on is Swammi's post #358, where they write:

Hot off the presses!

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

"SHAKESPEARE AND HIS FIRST PLAY IDENTIFIED AFTER 450 YEARS?"
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/5461...fter-450-years - this link no longer works.

which links to a brand-new article:
Damon and Pithias: Shakespeare's First Play
https://www.newenglishreview.org/cus...&sec_id=190719 - this link no longer works either.

I suspect that relevant parties noticed that the play was very poorly written, and could not have been penned by Oxford, let alone Shakespeare.

I believe I already called it upthread: that the writing in the play sucked. See post #374.

 

[Swammerdami]

@ WAB — I think the two links you had trouble with WILL work if you click directly from #368. The URLs get degraded if you first copy-paste.

We are all talking past each other in this discussion! WAB keeps repeating that he is NOT pro-Statfordian and Moogly keeps presenting anti-Stratfordian arguments. I insist that classism doesn't motivate me and WAB keeps citing classists. Let's pick one SPECIFIC debate and focus on that. (BUT, is it "classist" to think a fisherman would have better-than-average knowledge of fishing?)

And I keep repeating that I have NO rebuttal to the charge that Oxford was a bad poet, but WAB insists on repeating that charge over and over. We all must look for the least impossible solution: there is no easy solution to the Authorship Mystery.

The article arguing that Damon and Pithias might have been written by the 14-year old Edward de Vere does NOT present anything resembling hard evidence. I linked to it only because it seemed interesting, for those already receptive to an Oxfordian hypothesis, that the first play might have started as early as 1564.

In Anderson's book, you can find many dozens of circumstantial links between the life of Oxford and the plays of Shakespeare. Not just Hamlet, but All's Well is almost biographical; and MANY other plays have direct connections to Hamlet's travels or experiences. And there are many others clues. THIS is what motivates my "Oxfordianism."

One of many clues I've mentioned in the thread (in addition to MANY MANY I've not mentioned) is Thomas Nashe's: "Will. Monox (hast thou never heard of him and his great dagger?)" Viewed in isolation this phrase will seem useless and pointless as "evidence." As part of a big picture, it's significant. Any SINGLE coincidence could be just ... coincidence. It's the huge number piling up that gives pause.

I admit that I should worry about Oxfordian half-truths and exaggerations. For example, Anderson mentions that the character FORD in Merry Wives is punned as "Ox." Is this even true? All I find is (in Act V Scene 5)

"FORD. Ay, and an ox too; both the proofs are extant."​

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We are all talking past each other in this discussion! WAB keeps repeating that he is NOT pro-Statfordian and Moogly keeps presenting anti-Stratfordian arguments. I insist that classism doesn't motivate me and WAB keeps citing classists. Let's pick one SPECIFIC debate and focus on that. (BUT, is it "classist" to think a fisherman would have better-than-average knowledge of fishing?)

Earlier I stated that I don't even know what the classist argument is. So I investigated. WAB, respectfully, you are making the classic classist argument when you state that DeVere could never have written Shakespeare because he was such a mediocre poet. Yet his contemporaries stated otherwise, and we have enough information about his life, his experiences, his travels, his letters, his acquaintances, everything to indicate he is the author. WE HAVE EVIDENCE!

You say you have "grave doubts" about TSM. Give me a break! Why don't you just come clean and say we have zero evidence that TSM could ever have written Shakespeare. ZERO! Having ZERO EVIDENCE rules him out, doncha think? You are a Marlowe man, correct? Just come clean and say it wasn't TSM. It isn't difficult, unless you want to make the genius argument based on ZERO evidence. Do it! Make the case for Marlowe. Marlowe is certainly a better candidate than TSM yet you hang onto the TSM guy because you think he might have been a genius. Really? You don't have a dog in the race so come clean already.

 

[WAB]

Come clean, Moogly? With what?

I have said I have reason to doubt TSM's authorship, but I have certainly not ruled him out: far from it. Please check the thread for instances wherein I have ruled the TSM out.

I simply doubt. Check the thread.

You make it sound like a criminal act to even consider that the TSM was William Shakespeare. You sound like a religious zealot yourself. Out yourself! Come clean! Come clean! Goodness gracious! I am reminded of the Inquisition.

Sure, it may have been Marlowe. He stood a far greater chance of writing "Shakespeare" than Oxford. But I don't need to pursue that because I am not as heavily invested in the Authorship Question as you and Swammi. The only horse in the race I have is my love of the work of "Shakespeare", whoever they were - even if De Vere is proven as the one.

Swammi - the article you linked to about Damon and Pythias is just a classic example of Oxfordians snatching at anything to link De Vere to Shakespeare. This was just one of the sillier things.

I believe I have said all I want to say.

Though you can never tell...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammi - the article you linked to about Damon and Pythias is just a classic example of Oxfordians snatching at anything to link De Vere to Shakespeare. This was just one of the sillier things.

Obviously TSM devotees invented this tactic. It is very religious as it involves a lot of pretending.

WAB, I hope we're helping with your recovery. Even if Bigfoot was found writing Hamlet II on Nikumaroro with Amelia Earhart I'd still love "Shakespeare."

 

[Swammerdami]

Swammi - the article you linked to about Damon and Pythias is just a classic example of Oxfordians snatching at anything to link De Vere to Shakespeare. This was just one of the sillier things.

Obviously TSM devotees invented this tactic. It is very religious as it involves a lot of pretending.

WAB, I hope we're helping with your recovery. Even if Bigfoot was found writing Hamlet II on Nikumaroro with Amelia Earhart I'd still love "Shakespeare."

I think you're exaggerating, TGG.M.
WAB is right: the conjecture in that article is silly if viewed in isolation. As I wrote, it becomes interesting only after many dozens of other coincidences — start by reading Anderson's book — have connected the dots already and led one to conclude that Oxford was a key source for whoever wrote the Plays.

Listing 4 or 5 coincidences will not convince, and anyone who needs a hundred coincidences needs to buy books like Anderson's. I have tried to present a few good examples. Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?

 

[WAB]

Swammi - the article you linked to about Damon and Pythias is just a classic example of Oxfordians snatching at anything to link De Vere to Shakespeare. This was just one of the sillier things.

Obviously TSM devotees invented this tactic. It is very religious as it involves a lot of pretending.

WAB, I hope we're helping with your recovery. Even if Bigfoot was found writing Hamlet II on Nikumaroro with Amelia Earhart I'd still love "Shakespeare."

What tactic???

Damon and Pithias was decent dramatically but the writing was below average. Unmetered rhymed couplets. Thank God iambic pentameter took hold!

You don't want De Vere associated with that play! De Vere was a much better poet than Richard Edwards! Compare Oxford's poems with Damon and Pithias. You can read it here. Links on the page for what format you want:

http://elizabethandrama.org/the-pla...cal-importance/damon-pithias-richard-edwards/

That wasn't written by Oxford, as surely as Oxford didn't write Shakespeare.

So what tactic am I using? When I type "Shakespeare" I refer to the author of that canon - whomever they were. I won't type "Shaxper" - for good reasons.

What tactic am I using?

Or have I asked that already?

Oh, I see: a classic example of Oxfordians snatching at anything to link De Vere to Shakespeare. I was not aware of using a tactic, nor do I use "tactics" when discussing things. Oxfordians have often reached beyond the pale when considering what De Vere may have written: the Bible, Spenser, even ALL the major poetry coming out of England at that time. It is not a tactic to point to how silly that is; nor is it a tactic to say plainly and simply that David Gontar was reaching far beyond anything reasonable by suggesting that De Vere not only penned Damon and Pithias, but that this was somehow more proof that De Vere wrote Shakespeare!

Example from the play:

SCENE I.

In Town.

Here entereth Aristippus.


Arist. Too strange (perhaps) it seems to some

That I, Aristippus, a courtier am become:

A philosopher of late, not of the meanest name,

But now to the courtly behaviour my life I frame.

Muse he that lust; to you of good skill,

I say that I am a philosopher still.

Lovers of wisdom are termed philosophy.

Then who is a philosopher so rightly as I?

For in loving of wisdom proof doth this try,

That frustra sapit, qui non sapit sibi.

I am wise for myself: then tell me of troth,

Is not that great wisdom, as the world go'th?

Some philosophers in the street go ragged and torn,

And feeds on vile roots, whom boys laugh to scorn:

But I in fine silks haunt Dionysius' palace

Wherein with dainty fare myself I do solace

Ack! Even if it were De Vere's juvenilia it is execrable. Wordworth, Shelley, and Byron were writing good verse in their early teens.

"Recovery", he says. Well hardie-har. Again, you act as if it were a criminal act, or of someone in the grip of an addiction, or some sickness, to even consider that the Shakespearean canon may have been written by...of all people...the person it is credited to. Oh the horror!