Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Setting aside references to "Will Monox" or "Gentle Master William" in 1592, the very earliest reference to Shake-speare in connection with writing or the theater comes from a book edited and printed posthumously:
That book is full of cryptic references. Since the mention is insulting, the writer's name ("Shake-scene") is disguised, though only very thinly. With "tiger's heart ..." (from Henry VI part 3) there is no doubt that this refers to Shake-speare.
Although this quote is trotted out be Stratfordians as proof that Shakespeare was writing plays before Venus and Adonis — if that's when the hoax began — the quote actually supports the opposite case! The quote clearly makes the same claim that anti-Stratfordians make: that Shakespeare was putting his name on others' works. The notion that a crow is vain about its beauty is as old as Aesop, but this one is beautified "with OUR feathers" — beautified by the words of a different writer.
Some say that "supposes he is [able to write verse]" implies that he believes he is the writer, which wouldn't make sense if he were simply adding his name as author. HOWEVER, "suppose" had an alternative meaning of "pretend" in those days. He is pretending to be a writer. "Suppose" is used frequently in Shakespeare's plays and many instances seem to confirm this alternate meaning. "Suppose" was borrowed from Old French, and according to an on-line dictionary French "supposer" retains the "pretend" meaning to this day: "supposer -- ... 3. Poser comme vrai quelque chose de faux, avec intention de tromper.")
Had Shakespeare been a real playwright affiliated with a theater company, his plays would presumably have been written for that company. Yet Henry VI part 3 was performed by three different companies before its early first printing, and the early Titus and Adronicus is known to have been performed by yet a fourth company.
So the usual assumption is that Shaksper became a professional actor, presumably starting as apprentice at an early age (despite that he had a wife and three children to support and minimal income); that Shaksper's duties for a theater company included procuring manuscripts; and that he began putting his name on the anonymous manuscripts hoping for fame or extra income. Edward de Vere needed a front-man anyway (a "living, breathing pen-name") so approached Shaksper since he was already acting in such a front-man role.
How things developed after that isn't clear. Some think Oxford, with physical resemblance to Shaksper, might have participated in the theater directly. It would be difficult for the lame Oxford to perform on stage, but perhaps that's why he had roles like Hamlet's father's ghost. But such speculations seem unlikely and unnecessary.
However things played out, we need to explain a sudden infusion of cash before the publication of Venus. One reason we know Shaksper was suddenly wealthy is that he acquired a coat of arms with the motto Non sans droict ("Not without right"). Since he had little if any hereditary "right" to the arms, they attest that he had good connections or was able to pay a very substantial bribe. The motto, inflicted by the College of Arms rather than chosen by Shaksper, seems sarcastic or worse:
I mention the motto because it connects to the second cryptic reference to Shakespeare before Venus: Ben Jonson staged a play ridiculing a country bumpkin (hinted as being Shakespeare). In the play it is suggested that the bumpkin change his motto to "Not without mustard"!
Yes, in the months before Venus was published two of London's famous playwrights were happy to make strong insults against ... the greatest writer in history??? Soon Jonson and Green's editor were informed about the true authorship and the associated hoax; they promptly changed their tunes.
Anyway, in this standard account Shaksper was already involved in procuring manuscripts and was putting his name on them; he was chosen as front-man by the real author for that reason. But there is another possibility which I will cover in the next post.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yes, WAB, the quality of Oxford's verse is the biggest obstacle to the Oxfordian theory. I think Oxford's writing is very good, but it isn't up to the standards of the Great Bard. My working hypothesis — which may seem farfetched — is that Oxford was in close contact with a few other very talented writers and the poems and plays were polished as a team effort.
But if Oxford's poetry wasn't up to the standard of Venus or the Sonnets, what about Shaksper's one undisputed poem:
Off-topic(?) Note: While Googling so I could copy-paste the above epitaph I saw that Shaksper's bones have been disturbed — his skull is missing!
Robert Greene said:For there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blank verse as the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country.
That book is full of cryptic references. Since the mention is insulting, the writer's name ("Shake-scene") is disguised, though only very thinly. With "tiger's heart ..." (from Henry VI part 3) there is no doubt that this refers to Shake-speare.
Although this quote is trotted out be Stratfordians as proof that Shakespeare was writing plays before Venus and Adonis — if that's when the hoax began — the quote actually supports the opposite case! The quote clearly makes the same claim that anti-Stratfordians make: that Shakespeare was putting his name on others' works. The notion that a crow is vain about its beauty is as old as Aesop, but this one is beautified "with OUR feathers" — beautified by the words of a different writer.
Some say that "supposes he is [able to write verse]" implies that he believes he is the writer, which wouldn't make sense if he were simply adding his name as author. HOWEVER, "suppose" had an alternative meaning of "pretend" in those days. He is pretending to be a writer. "Suppose" is used frequently in Shakespeare's plays and many instances seem to confirm this alternate meaning. "Suppose" was borrowed from Old French, and according to an on-line dictionary French "supposer" retains the "pretend" meaning to this day: "supposer -- ... 3. Poser comme vrai quelque chose de faux, avec intention de tromper.")
Had Shakespeare been a real playwright affiliated with a theater company, his plays would presumably have been written for that company. Yet Henry VI part 3 was performed by three different companies before its early first printing, and the early Titus and Adronicus is known to have been performed by yet a fourth company.
So the usual assumption is that Shaksper became a professional actor, presumably starting as apprentice at an early age (despite that he had a wife and three children to support and minimal income); that Shaksper's duties for a theater company included procuring manuscripts; and that he began putting his name on the anonymous manuscripts hoping for fame or extra income. Edward de Vere needed a front-man anyway (a "living, breathing pen-name") so approached Shaksper since he was already acting in such a front-man role.
How things developed after that isn't clear. Some think Oxford, with physical resemblance to Shaksper, might have participated in the theater directly. It would be difficult for the lame Oxford to perform on stage, but perhaps that's why he had roles like Hamlet's father's ghost. But such speculations seem unlikely and unnecessary.
However things played out, we need to explain a sudden infusion of cash before the publication of Venus. One reason we know Shaksper was suddenly wealthy is that he acquired a coat of arms with the motto Non sans droict ("Not without right"). Since he had little if any hereditary "right" to the arms, they attest that he had good connections or was able to pay a very substantial bribe. The motto, inflicted by the College of Arms rather than chosen by Shaksper, seems sarcastic or worse:
What remains puzzling is that [William] Dethick [Garter King of Arms]—a learned man—made a nonsense of Shakespeare’s motto, writing “Non, sanz droict” (“No, without right”) before he corrected it and put “Non sanz droict” (“Not without right”) without a comma. Shakespeare must have been infuriated.... Shakespeare was an acknowledged master of mottoes. Was Dethick trying to tease him or irritate him?
I mention the motto because it connects to the second cryptic reference to Shakespeare before Venus: Ben Jonson staged a play ridiculing a country bumpkin (hinted as being Shakespeare). In the play it is suggested that the bumpkin change his motto to "Not without mustard"!
Yes, in the months before Venus was published two of London's famous playwrights were happy to make strong insults against ... the greatest writer in history??? Soon Jonson and Green's editor were informed about the true authorship and the associated hoax; they promptly changed their tunes.
Anyway, in this standard account Shaksper was already involved in procuring manuscripts and was putting his name on them; he was chosen as front-man by the real author for that reason. But there is another possibility which I will cover in the next post.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yes, WAB, the quality of Oxford's verse is the biggest obstacle to the Oxfordian theory. I think Oxford's writing is very good, but it isn't up to the standards of the Great Bard. My working hypothesis — which may seem farfetched — is that Oxford was in close contact with a few other very talented writers and the poems and plays were polished as a team effort.
But if Oxford's poetry wasn't up to the standard of Venus or the Sonnets, what about Shaksper's one undisputed poem:
"Good Friends, for Jesus' sake forbear,
To dig the bones enclosed here!
Blest be the man that spares these stones,
And curst be he that moves my bones."
Off-topic(?) Note: While Googling so I could copy-paste the above epitaph I saw that Shaksper's bones have been disturbed — his skull is missing!