The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Shakespeare, the First Folio, and the Man from Stratford

The importance of the First Folio to the case for William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author 1 of the plays and poems attributed to William “Shakespeare” cannot be overstated. Without the First Folio, it is unlikely that anyone would ever have thought of the Stratford man as the author “Shakespeare” at all. Certainly nothing shows that anyone thought of him as the great author at the time when he died, in 1616. Even Professor Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford-uponAvon, now admits that nothing shows the author was from Stratford during William Shakspere’s lifetime. Yet he says this is irrelevant because the front matter to the First Folio identifies him clearly as the author. But does it? In fact, there are good reasons to think the First Folio is misleading, or even an outright spoof.

I found it an interesting read, particularly on the 400th anniversary. Of course, I do not think an illiterate businessman from Stratford wrote Shakespeare. The article goes into a lot of detail and is a good summary of the authorship question.

 

[Swammerdami]

Shakespeare, the First Folio, and the Man from Stratford

The importance of the First Folio to the case for William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author 1 of the plays and poems attributed to William “Shakespeare” cannot be overstated. Without the First Folio, it is unlikely that anyone would ever have thought of the Stratford man as the author “Shakespeare” at all. Certainly nothing shows that anyone thought of him as the great author at the time when he died, in 1616. Even Professor Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford-uponAvon, now admits that nothing shows the author was from Stratford during William Shakspere’s lifetime. Yet he says this is irrelevant because the front matter to the First Folio identifies him clearly as the author. But does it? In fact, there are good reasons to think the First Folio is misleading, or even an outright spoof.

I found it an interesting read, particularly on the 400th anniversary. Of course, I do not think an illiterate businessman from Stratford wrote Shakespeare. The article goes into a lot of detail and is a good summary of the authorship question.

This is a very good and thought-provoking article. Here are just a few excerpts:

Rollett also identified other oddities in the engraving and concluded that “although one or two peculiarities might be ascribed to carelessness, six or seven (some obvious) seem to point toward a deliberate agenda...” He said he found it difficult not to think that the man depicted was being gently and surreptitiously mocked, and that by featuring a “ridiculous caricature” of the Stratford man, the publishers seemed to be suggesting to observant readers that the implication that Mr. Shakspere was the author “Shakespeare” was a deception

...

A few lines later, [Jonson's] poem reads:

O, could he have but drawn his wit​

As well in brasse, as he hath hit​

His face​

It is also a bit odd to speak of the engraver having “hit” his face. An alternative meaning of “hit” is “hid.” Chaucer once used it that way, as Jonson probably knew. Did he perhaps mean for others in the know to read it that way and think that, in fact, the engraving hid the author’s image, rather than being a likeness? Some think the line drawn from the left ear down along the jaw line suggests that the engraving is a mask. Jonson concludes by saying “Reader, looke / Not on his Picture, but his Booke.” Rather than affirming the authenticity of the engraving (its ostensible purpose), the poem negates its own message, telling the reader that the image should be ignored in favor of the works, where the real author is to be found. Since we now know (per Rollett) that the Droeshout engraving is comically bogus, this interpretation has strong support.
...
In fact, Ben Jonson, not Heminges and Condell, wrote the two [ Heminges / Condel] letters, as George Steevens showed in 1770. Steevens, a distinguished 18th-century Shakespeare editor, produced twelve pages of parallels between the epistles and writings of Jonson. He concluded that Jonson wrote both epistles, and Edmond Malone agreed. Jonson, unlike Heminges and Condell, was qualified to write the two letters and edit the plays in the Folio, having edited and published his own collection of plays, the first folio of English plays, seven years earlier. If the Folio’s claims about Heminges and Condell are false, it calls everything about the Folio into question. The first letter dedicates the First Folio to “the Most Noble and Incomparable Paire of Brethren,” meaning the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. It does so with exaggerated servility and sanctimonious adulation, verging on satire.

These excerpts barely scratch the surface of the excellent article, which in turn barely scratches the surface of the strong case against Stratford and for Oxford.

When assessing probabilities, one MUST consider the engraving — so misbegotten that some think the errors must have been deliberate! Whatever probability scholars assign, it must be ANDED with the engravings' absurdities.

Later this week, I will expand on this theme — and outline the CORRECT way to estimate probabilities — in one of the Was Jesus mythical? threads.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can find Stritmatter's review of Marcus's Puzzling Shakespeare at amazon

Stritmatter's response

Definitely worth the read.

 

[Swammerdami]

I visited a bookstore Tuesday and noticed Stephen Greenblatt's Tyrant: Shakespeare on Power at the 30%-off table. It has nothing to do with the Authorship controversy, but I bought it anyway.

He claims that Shakespeare (in plays like Richard III or plays about the usurpation by Richard's father) explores the question "Why would anyone be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern? ... Why does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers?" (The book was published in 2018 and, although he never mentions Trump, it sure seems like he was responding to the Trump phenomenon! I confirmed with Google that Trump was an inspiration for this book!)

It is a very good read, and may bear slightly on the Authorship question. (Could a commoner understand so well the hearts of political Dukes and Kings?)

Here is a soliloquy by Richard III after being visited in dream by the ghosts of men he has killed.

What do I fear? Myself? There's none else by.
Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
Is there a murderer here? No-yes, I am.
Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why-
Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself!
Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good
That I myself have done unto myself?
O, no! Alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself!
I am a villain; yet I lie, I am not.
Fool, of thyself speak well. Fool, do not flatter.
My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.
Perjury, perjury, in the high'st degree;
Murder, stern murder, in the dir'st degree;
All several sins, all us'd in each degree,
Throng to the bar, crying all 'Guilty! guilty!'
I shall despair. There is no creature loves me;
And if I die no soul will pity me:
And wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?
Methought the souls of all that I had murder'd
Came to my tent, and every one did threat
To-morrow's vengeance on the head of Richard.

Greenblatt claims that Shakespeare was young and inexperienced when he wrote this and "had not yet invented an entirely convincing way of representing a conflicted inner life." This opinion DOES bear on the authorship: Were the early history plays written by a mature experienced writer, or by a very young playwright just embarking on his career?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Greenblatt claims that Shakespeare was young and inexperienced when he wrote this and "had not yet invented an entirely convincing way of representing a conflicted inner life." This opinion DOES bear on the authorship: Were the early history plays written by a mature experienced writer, or by a very young playwright just embarking on his career?

If you would care to plumb that question here is a video to watch.

Robert Prechter — Why Did Robert Greene Repent His Former Works?

Of course, Robert Greene, the contemporary of Oxford/Shakespeare has been claimed by many to be Oxford/Shakespeare. And this of course answers the question of why there is no biographical information on one Robert Greene that can be corroborated factually. All is supposition, same as the biography of the Stratford man's literary constitution.

What's interesting about the verse from Richard III that you posted is how puritanical, how repentant, it sounds, so like Greene's repentance in Groats-worth of Witte (1592). If Green is in fact Oxford/Shakespeare then it all makes sense both historically and literarily.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammi,

On a different note, here is a presenter talking about unambiguous primary evidence and the case against the Stratford man. The presentation is about having "reasonable doubt" about orthodox Shakespeare authorship.

Tom Woosnam – Teaching the Shakespeare Authorship Question

It is quite powerful. Definitely worth the 33 minutes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This year, 2023 is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the first folio of William Shakespeare. The late Tom Regnier gives an excellent summation of the gist of the authorship controversy for anyone interested in a quick tutorial.

The Law of Evidence and Shakespeare

The first Folio, published in 1623, seven years after the death of the Stratford businessman, William Shakspere, discussing its many peculiarities is discussed here by Katherine Chiljan in an article from 2022.

The Grand Deception of the First Folio

 

[Swammerdami]

I just noticed this post. I've clicked both links; they both look good; I will finish both when I have time this evening. Thank you, Mr. Moogly!

I'm posting now because 2 minutes into the video something caught my eye:

"Evidence is something which tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact."​

I clicked Pause just to post this: In the historical Jesus thread(s) I wish others were interested in evidence-based reasoning. I abandoned those threads when it became clear that most participants regarded any actual evidence pro or con as irrelevant! Only one's ill-founded ideology matters.

(ETA: I hope I've NOT hijacked this into yet another Historical Jesus thread. If anyone thinks my view on that is wrong, please bump the "Science: Estimating Probability" thread and explain.)