The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[Swammerdami]

I've been reading about the Shakespeare Authorship controversy since I was in 7th grade. In all that time, no one has ever presented evidence or made a compelling enough argument to change the minds of most English speaking people.

All it would take is one disgruntled stage hand, or jealous actor, to reveal it, if not for money, certainly for spite.

We see Hamlet and McBeth as high art, but for Bill Shakespeare, it was commercial hack work....

You imply that you've done a lot of reading on the topic, but your post reeks of someone who just Googles "Help me debunk the anti-Stratfordians" Points you make have been refuted in this very thread.

I'll repeat the challenge I make to all skeptics: Post one or two pro-Oxfordian arguments that give you pause: that cannot be explained away as confusion or coincidence. If you read up on 20 arguments for Oxford and feel that 19 of the 20 are defective, don't tell us about the 19, tell us about the one argument that gives you pause, that does connect Oxford to the Authorship, that makes you want to seek explanation or further research.

If you cannot find a single pro-Oxfordian argument that leads you to doubt your glib reasoning, we'll know what to think of your research and Googling skills! Heck! Don't even bother with Google; have you even read this thread? Was there an argument here that challenges your view?

ETA: At the risk of being repetitious, the assignment is NOT to find an easily refuted argument and then refute it. It is to find an argument that makes you think, and against which you have no glib response. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander: I have already acknowledged two of the strongest anti-Oxfordian arguments.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've been reading about the Shakespeare Authorship controversy since I was in 7th grade. In all that time, no one has ever presented evidence or made a compelling enough argument to change the minds of most English speaking people.

Also, in all that time, I've had the opportunity to know a few playwrights. I can't imagine any of them allowing someone else to take credit for their words, or present someone else's as their own.

The Shamspeare conspiracy breaks down on one simple point, which is the same point that kill World Trade Center truthers and moon landing hoaxes, mainly that too many people would have to be in on the secret. More than a hundred people were needed to put on a play at the Globe theater. All it would take is one disgruntled stage hand, or jealous actor, to reveal it, if not for money, certainly for spite.

We see Hamlet and McBeth as high art, but for Bill Shakespeare, it was commercial hack work. We want our art to be created by artists who do it for the love of their art, and Shakespeare was just a working class guy. That just won't do. Being a working class guy, I find that mildly offensive, but I'm used to it by now. He took his working class work ethic to the theater. He was good at it and when he had enough money, he did what every working class man does, which is quit working.

The authorship question has two parts. The first part is trying to demonstrate that the Stratford businessman wrote the plays, poems and sonnets. Please make your case. Then we can move on to De Vere.

I've been reading about the Shakespeare Authorship controversy since I was in 7th grade. In all that time, no one has ever presented evidence or made a compelling enough argument to change the minds of most English speaking people.

All it would take is one disgruntled stage hand, or jealous actor, to reveal it, if not for money, certainly for spite.

We see Hamlet and McBeth as high art, but for Bill Shakespeare, it was commercial hack work....

You imply that you've done a lot of reading on the topic, but your post reeks of someone who just Googles "Help me debunk the anti-Stratfordians" Points you make have been refuted in this very thread.

I'll repeat the challenge I make to all skeptics: Post one or two pro-Oxfordian arguments that give you pause: that cannot be explained away as confusion or coincidence. If you read up on 20 arguments for Oxford and feel that 19 of the 20 are defective, don't tell us about the 19, tell us about the one argument that gives you pause, that does connect Oxford to the Authorship, that makes you want to seek explanation or further research.

If you cannot find a single pro-Oxfordian argument that leads you to doubt your glib reasoning, we'll know what to think of your research and Googling skills! Heck! Don't even bother with Google; have you even read this thread? Was there an argument here that challenges your view?

ETA: At the risk of being repetitious, the assignment is NOT to find an easily refuted argument and then refute it. It is to find an argument that makes you think, and against which you have no glib response. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander: I have already acknowledged two of the strongest anti-Oxfordian arguments.)

Very well said. This is why I asked Bronzeage to make his case about the Stratford businessman, William Shakspere, being able to produce the writings. Your query is much better in that it asks to pick something particular and then discuss it. It makes the person do some research.

I'm about to finish Looney's original work. Have ordered Anderson's book.

 

[Swammerdami]

... Was there an argument here that challenges your view?

ETA: At the risk of being repetitious, the assignment is NOT to find an easily refuted argument and then refute it. It is to find an argument that makes you think, and against which you have no glib response. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander: I have already acknowledged two of the strongest anti-Oxfordian arguments.)

Very well said. This is why I asked Bronzeage to make his case about the Stratford businessman, William Shakspere, being able to produce the writings. Your query is much better in that it asks to pick something particular and then discuss it. It makes the person do some research.

I'm about to finish Looney's original work. Have ordered Anderson's book.

I thank you Mr. Moogly for your kind words. I, OTOH, worried that my words were overly harsh, and may have almost seemed to be directed personally. I do apologize if I appeared rude, though your gracious view offers me some redemption. Thanks again, M.

One riposte to my challenge would be: "Oh ho! If you can't cite such a 'fact that gives [me] pause' yourself, why should I bother to look?" Obviously no TFTer would brag about such lack of intellectual curiosity, but JFTR detractors might start with the questions below.

@ Mr. Moogly and others -- I invite you to add to this list.

I. Coincidental(?) resemblances between Hamlet and the teen-age Edward de Vere.
At a minimum I would ask detractors to choose from among:
(a) Shaksper wrote the play. Coincidences are just that, occurring by chance or as common-place motifs. Every day there's a trillion-to-one coincidence somewhere in human awareness (cf. Littlewood's Law). Six coincidences, independent and each a 100-TO-1 long-shot multiply out to ... just that, a trillion-to-one. See below.
(b) Shaksper wrote the play with input from someone (possibly Henry of Southampton or his mother), telling de Vere's biography (though not advertising this fact).
(c) Shaksper wrote the play, as ____________(Other).
(d) The play was written as some collaborative effort with Shaksper and de Vere or friends of de Vere.
(e) The collaboration included de Vere but not Shakespeare. The bulk of the poetic construction fell on de Vere.
(f) The collaboration included de Vere but not Shakespeare. The bulk of the poetic construction fell on someone other than de Vere.
(g) What if the future writing of Hamlet exerted some causal influence on the past, arranging the life-story of Lord Edward (1550-1604).

Show

Please direct I(g) discussion to the "Topics in Retrocausality" thread.

II. Do you have any comments on the Sonnets' dedication? How about the peculiar preface to Troilus?

III. Have you seen any evidence that the Southampton family funded Shake-speare?



Below:
I'm afraid (a) will be a popular, but virtually impossible, answer to Question I.
Yes, I understand that six 100-1 coincidences is only a trillion-to-one, far too large to rule out. But there are over a dozen coincidences, several of which (why do pirates nab Hamlet?) are longer-odded than 100-to-1.
100¹² to 1 is 1 septillion to one against (aka trillion trillion). Those are long odds indeed.

Just to ensure a level playing field: If you decide to challenge my assessment of I(a), please show good faith and list 5 or so of the most severe coincidences, in your opinion, between the title role, and the life of the young Earl.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

@ Mr. Moogly and others -- I invite you to add to this list...

That was quite an intimidating post!

For a writer like Bronzeage I think asking for a modest investment of time is in order. I don't think listening to a 30 minute presentation by Diana Price is asking too much. Of course, there is much, much, much more information out there.

It's worth restating at this point that we're not talking about recent articles such as occurred in the Atlantic about Shakespeare being a woman based on literary examination. We're only talking about De Vere and evidence.

What is good about Price's video is she also directly answers Bronzeage's question about De Vere wishing to remain anonymous. It's not rocket science.

Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography by Diana Price

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQNWpo1PSs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Bronzeage]

People are asking me to invest a lot more in this argument than I really care. "As someone wrote, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

People are asking me to invest a lot more in this argument than I really care. "As someone wrote, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

31 minutes is not much of an investment for someone who is interested. No one is asking you to come to a secret meeting where they want you to become an Amway distributor.

I've always believed that if continents really moved like that Alfred Wegner guy said they did in 1912 we'd have found out about it a lot earlier. What took thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years? Continental drift is just more sham crackpottery. And I don't have the time to invest in an examination of any evidence anyway. And Wegner had no credentials to even make such a claim. What a loser!

And don't get me started on stupid stuff like Germ Theory or the Theory of Evolution. Evil spirits make us sick and Jesus gave us our bodies in the garden of Eden.

Case closed.

 

[Swammerdami]

People are asking me to invest a lot more in this argument than I really care. "As someone wrote, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Mr. Moogly asked you to invest 31 minutes. I agree that's burdensome for someone with limited interest in the topic. But I refer you again to my questions which will take you much less than 31 minutes. More bluntly, if you can't make some response to these questions off the top of your head, then you're not serious.

I. What do you think about the similarities between Hamlet and the young Earl?
II. What do you think about the Sonnets' dedication? How about the peculiar preface to Troilus?

I think 3 minutes should be ample time for you to make some response to these. I hope you have more than 3 minutes to spare and can offer comments on other relevant topics. For example, what's your reaction to the pdf by Stanford's Professor Sturrock [linked to above] where for 25 playwrights of that era, he assigns ten binary criteria of notability?

I'll save you two minutes by summarizing Sturrock's data. Here are the (sorted) notability sums for the 25 playwrights:
. . . . . . (10, 9, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 0)
That's Ben Jonson satisfying all ten criteria; Nashe has nine; Spenser and Mundy seven each; and so on. Guess who scores ZERO?

I may as well list Diana Price's ten criteria on which Sturrock reports. The number at right is the number of playwrights who satisfied the criterion. (Shakespeare fails EACH of these "tests.")

1 Evidence of education --> 17
2 Record of correspondence, especially concerning literary matters --> 14
3 Evidence of having been paid to write --> 14
4 Evidence of a direct relationship with a patron --> 16
5 Extant original manuscript --> 10
6 Handwritten inscriptions, receipts, letters, etc., touching on literary matters --> 15
7 Commendatory verses, epistles, or epigrams contributed or received --> 21
8 Miscellaneous records (e.g. referred to personally as a writer) --> 24
9 Evidence of books owned, written in, borrowed, or given --> 9
10 Notice at death as a writer --> 9​

 

[Bronzeage]

I am probably one of the least serious people in this thread, but I might consider watching the video if someone can tell me, in ten words or less, why this matters?

 

[Swammerdami]

If you're asking "How would solution of the authorship mystery affect me?", I think for 99.9% of us it wouldn't matter.

I personally am driven by a broad range of curiosities, mostly unrelated to anything pertinent to "real life." I want to understand how photosynthesis works; what happened to the Lost Ark of the Covenant; and what my best move is in the on-line Diplomacy game I'm playing right now!

I sometimes wish I had more serious questions. Unfortunately I can't find the YouTube clip where Henry Fonda playing Pierre Bezukhov says:

I want to discover... everything!
I want to discover why I know what's right and still do what's wrong.
I want to discover what happiness is, and what value there is in suffering.
I want to discover why men go to war,
and what they really say deep in their hearts when they pray to God.
I want to discover what men and women feel when they say they love.
There's enough to keep me busy.
It's hard to understand someone like me.
Everything is so clear for you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am probably one of the least serious people in this thread, but I might consider watching the video if someone can tell me, in ten words or less, why this matters?

It matters if evidence, integrity and historical accuracy are important. (Ten words)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

People are asking me to invest a lot more in this argument than I really care. "As someone wrote, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Mr. Moogly asked you to invest 31 minutes. I agree that's burdensome for someone with limited interest in the topic. But I refer you again to my questions which will take you much less than 31 minutes. More bluntly, if you can't make some response to these questions off the top of your head, then you're not serious.

I. What do you think about the similarities between Hamlet and the young Earl?
II. What do you think about the Sonnets' dedication? How about the peculiar preface to Troilus?

I think 3 minutes should be ample time for you to make some response to these. I hope you have more than 3 minutes to spare and can offer comments on other relevant topics. For example, what's your reaction to the pdf by Stanford's Professor Sturrock [linked to above] where for 25 playwrights of that era, he assigns ten binary criteria of notability?

I'll save you two minutes by summarizing Sturrock's data. Here are the (sorted) notability sums for the 25 playwrights:
. . . . . . (10, 9, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 0)
That's Ben Jonson satisfying all ten criteria; Nashe has nine; Spenser and Mundy seven each; and so on. Guess who scores ZERO?

I may as well list Diana Price's ten criteria on which Sturrock reports. The number at right is the number of playwrights who satisfied the criterion. (Shakespeare fails EACH of these "tests.")

1 Evidence of education --> 17
2 Record of correspondence, especially concerning literary matters --> 14
3 Evidence of having been paid to write --> 14
4 Evidence of a direct relationship with a patron --> 16
5 Extant original manuscript --> 10
6 Handwritten inscriptions, receipts, letters, etc., touching on literary matters --> 15
7 Commendatory verses, epistles, or epigrams contributed or received --> 21
8 Miscellaneous records (e.g. referred to personally as a writer) --> 24
9 Evidence of books owned, written in, borrowed, or given --> 9
10 Notice at death as a writer --> 9​

De Vere was being paid secretly by Queen Elizabeth the equivalent of a million dollars a year, no strings attached. This information lay hidden for centuries. Persons doing primary source investigation about De Vere discovered this because the authorship question is such a compelling mystery for them.

Persons also became very curious about the literary exploits of the Stratford man and so combed and continue to comb the Elizabethan records for centuries for any relative information. As you have shown, they came up with zip. Yet there was plenty of documentary attestation concerning dozens of other contemporaneous writers. This is nothing short of fascinating that we have absolutely no evidence that the Stratford man ever wrote a line of dialogue yet it is commonly held that he wrote the Shakespeare Canon. That fascinates me.

Pseudonymity was common practice at the time. It was also common practice for theater brokers to put their names on plays and poetry that they were presenting, not that they had written. And we have plenty of examples of Shakspere's name appearing on works written by other dramatists. The Stratford man was certainly associated with the theater and with acting, but to this day there exists no evidence that he penned a single word. Like I said, it's nothing short of fascinating.

I think there have been four supreme court justices, both liberal and conservative who have come to the same conclusion, that based on evidence the Stratford man, could not have written and did not write the Shakespeare Canon. They base their findings as any jurist would on "reasonable doubt." The evidence is just overwhelming. Of course, if a person is not familiar with the evidence it is a different matter.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think there have been four supreme court justices, both liberal and conservative who have come to the same conclusion, that based on evidence the Stratford man, could not have written and did not write the Shakespeare Canon. They base their findings as any jurist would on "reasonable doubt." The evidence is just overwhelming. Of course, if a person is not familiar with the evidence it is a different matter.

Wasn't it at least five Justices? Blackmun, Stevens and Scalia just for starters, and IIRC RBG (perhaps urged on by Scalia) was anti-Stratfordian if not Oxfordian. (We'll also need a cite on "beyond reasonable." There are lesser evidentiary standards in common use for non-criminal proceedings.)

But the reason I think anti-Stratfordians on the Scotus are worth citing are:
(a) Scotus members are few in number. If I trotted out a list of scores of anti-Stratfordians with relevant PhDs, the pedants would trot out a few thousands of PhDs (including all the 'no comment discerned' which would be lumped as traditionalist).
(b) Scotus members are intelligent, skilled in matters of evidence, interpretation and judgement; and especially have much extra time on their hands, naturally spent in intellectual diversions.
(c) Top jurists who believe in UFOs, the Moon hoax, Birtherism, etc. are exceedingly rare. Even the mostly disgusting bunch we have now were smart enough to know that GOP lies were just too blatant.
(d) Scotus members are in the public eye. Crackpottery would be embarrassing.

Given points (a) through (d) above, the fact that five SCJs reject the Stratford hoax should by itself give us pause. The flippant responses by many who defend the Stratfordian case reek of some generalized skepticism and, all too often, little interest in actually looking at the evidence. Whatever they think of Swammi or Mr. Moogly, I wonder

What do they feel when they learn that at least five Supreme Court Justices
^{(living and dead)} think Shaksper of Stratford did NOT write the plays and poems?
​

(While my original curiosity was about the mystery itself, watching it be debated at Wikipedia and elsewhere also challenges my curiosity in another way: "Traditionalists" often seem intelligent and well-intentioned, but disinterested in the evidence. To me, it is the Stratfordians who remind us of Birthers, QAnon, etc. Yes, Stratford has Wikipedia on its side. So what?)

 

[Bomb#20]

The entire traditional accounting that these writings are from a genius, illiterate, Stratford businessman is the whopper of whoppers.

That is not, of course, the traditional accounting. The traditional accounting is that the Stratford businessman went to the Stratford Grammar School and was taught to read and write there. That he was illiterate appears to be your own interpolation.

Why are you so convinced he was illiterate? Because he signed his name strangely when he had to squeeze it into a tight space left for it on a legal document? Because he signed his name poorly a month before he died of an unknown disease? There are all sorts of medical conditions that make it hard to write. You aren't disputing that the Stratford businessman was an actor, are you? Price and Regnier aren't. They make much of the lack of contemporary references to him being a writer. Well, there are contemporary references to him being an actor. So how did he learn his lines if he couldn't read the scripts?

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm posting because of a specific tidbit question unrelated to Authorship. I'll mention that immediiately, lest it got lost in another blitz from Swammi!

Below is mentioned a 13-letter anagram, perhaps the right size when we want decryption to be possible but not over-easy. A 35-letter anagram would be useful for a different purpose. Too long for someone to guess (and probably ambiguous), it could be used like postal proof! Post the anagram in February, its solution in December and you're proven a dated discovery, but kept it secret for ten months.

I know of one example of a 17th-century scientist using such a discovery proof: Galileo's publication (as 35-letter anagram) that Venus has phases like the Moon. Any others?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One interesting issue hasn't yet been mentioned in the thread. Contemporary lists of playwrights from this Elizabethan (and Jacobean) Golden Era are found in book chapters and pamphlets. With one exception, each of several lists either contains Oxford's name or Shakespeare's name but not both. Is this probative? I don't think so. We might call it a 3-to-1 subcoincidence, but it gets ignored alongside the septillion-to-one coincidental Hamlet resemblance.

But before reading on, consider the objection Stratfordians offer.

The one exception is a list by Meres(?) that shows both Oxford and Shakespeare as playwrights. That Meres shows them separately proves that the two playwrights were indeed two different people.​

Tell us what you think of that argument? Set aside your views on the Authorship Question; just tell me: Do you think Meres' list (among several contrary examples) proves that O and S were two different playwrights?
Spoiler:

Show

As reiterated already, those in on the hoax knew they had to maintain it. Listing both names might be a way to boost the hoaxsters. Much more likely however is that Meres was simply not expert in the theater and compiled his list by combining 2 or 3 other lists; the collision on both the Bard's names is the natural result since Meres — like about 99.9% of literate Londoners — was ignorant of the hoax.

Among the lists is Henry Peacham's, with an edition in the 1620's showing Oxford and other playwrights including some with the same social rank as Shakespeare, but never Shakespeare's name. I'm enclosing an image from that book showing a writer's hand reaching out, with the writer's identity obviously hidden. The writer has produced what reads as (slightly misspelled) Latin, but is in fact an anagram. (As already mentioned such were in common vogue. Peacham's book is full of such.)

This anonymous writer has produced a 13-letter anagram. With fewer letters, an elegant anagram would be hard to construct, or too easy to decipher. Much longer than 13 letters, the anagram would be too difficult to decode(*), or ambiguous.

MENTE.VIDEBORI (“By the Mind I shall be Seen”): The suggestion is that the author, who is behind the curtain, must remain hidden.

In 1937, Eva Turner Clark argued that the phrase MENTE.VIDEBORI is a Latin anagram of TIBI NOM. DE VERE or “The Identity of this Author is De Vere.”

A closer look reveals that the “dot” in the inscription has been placed directly between the “E” and the “V” to create E.V., the initials of Edward Vere.

Latin experts: Am I correct that "Tibi nom de Vere" is indeed a normal way to wrote "Your name is de Vere"? I've indulged in anagram hunts and related challenges, and, if the Latin is sound, I'm going to call this one: Yes, it does have some evidentiary value.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The entire traditional accounting that these writings are from a genius, illiterate, Stratford businessman is the whopper of whoppers.

That is not, of course, the traditional accounting. The traditional accounting is that the Stratford businessman went to the Stratford Grammar School and was taught to read and write there. That he was illiterate appears to be your own interpolation.

That is not my personal interpolation, that is the evidentiary conclusion. There are no records of him going to any schools or mention of him going to any schools. It's all supposition. The many different biographies of the Stratford man have him supposedly doing all manner of things, all based on the traditional story of him having written the Shakespeare canon. All these suppositions are attempting to explain how he got the experience and knowledge, how he learned all the different languages and customs, all trying to explain his genius for literature. They are all guesses, every single one.

Why are you so convinced he was illiterate? Because he signed his name strangely when he had to squeeze it into a tight space left for it on a legal document? Because he signed his name poorly a month before he died of an unknown disease? There are all sorts of medical conditions that make it hard to write. You aren't disputing that the Stratford businessman was an actor, are you? Price and Regnier aren't. They make much of the lack of contemporary references to him being a writer. Well, there are contemporary references to him being an actor. So how did he learn his lines if he couldn't read the scripts?

This has been the traditional response to a lack of literary evidence, namely to make things up. Why should we have to make up excuses about these signatures for the greatest poet and dramatist in the English language? It is obviously because the traditional picture of the man has him as a sweet, gentle, literary genius and common man. But it's a faith position, there is no evidence for it.

We know he was associated with the theater but are there any records of him playing a role, actually acting in a part where he had to read lines? No such record exists. We have his name on lists of groups, and we have mentions of persons in his group playing certain roles but we do not have him listed anywhere as playing any acting roles. That is to the best of my knowledge but if I am wrong I will certainly admit that I was wrong.

There is abundant documentary evidence showing that other writers of the Elizabethan times were writers, contemporaneous evidence from the times. We have their letters and correspondences and we have mention of them being paid to write. We have other persons talking about their writing. But we have no such thing for the Stratford man, nothing, no mention of his being a famous dramatist and poet. The record is blank. As Diana Price has said it's like hearing tales of the greatest aviator and having no record of their ever having been in an airplane.

It really is a shock to look for literary evidence for the Stratford man and find none in light of the traditional story of him. But that is simply the case, and is why the authorship question is as old as the man himself.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One interesting issue hasn't yet been mentioned in the thread. Contemporary lists of playwrights from this Elizabethan (and Jacobean) Golden Era are found in book chapters and pamphlets. With one exception, each of several lists either contains Oxford's name or Shakespeare's name but not both. Is this probative? I don't think so. We might call it a 3-to-1 subcoincidence, but it gets ignored alongside the septillion-to-one coincidental Hamlet resemblance.

But before reading on, consider the objection Stratfordians offer.

The one exception is a list by Meres(?) that shows both Oxford and Shakespeare as playwrights. That Meres shows them separately proves that the two playwrights were indeed two different people.​

Tell us what you think of that argument? Set aside your views on the Authorship Question; just tell me: Do you think Meres' list (among several contrary examples) proves that O and S were two different playwrights?

Pseudonyms were common back then. Let's remember that freedom of speech wasn't exactly around. Elizabethan England was nothing short of a police state. That De Vere and his Pseudonym were included doesn't prove anything.

And how exactly does "Shakespeare" appear on the list? How is it spelled? Is it hyphenated? The name Shakespeare appears on works of other writers, what are we to make of that?

 

[Bomb#20]

Wasn't it at least five Justices? ...
Even the mostly disgusting bunch we have now were smart enough to know that GOP lies were just too blatant. ...
Given points (a) through (d) above, the fact that five SCJs reject the Stratford hoax should by itself give us pause.

This is a really odd line of argument. You invite readers to respect people's opinions on account of they're being Supreme Court justices, while simultaneously stipulating that Supreme Court justices' opinions can be disgusting. Supreme Court justices are every bit as susceptible as anybody else to finding arguments convincing because they want to believe. Have you read Bush v Gore? An argument from authority is a feeble argument.

 

[Bomb#20]

The entire traditional accounting that these writings are from a genius, illiterate, Stratford businessman is the whopper of whoppers.

That is not, of course, the traditional accounting. The traditional accounting is that the Stratford businessman went to the Stratford Grammar School and was taught to read and write there. That he was illiterate appears to be your own interpolation.

That is not my personal interpolation, that is the evidentiary conclusion. There are no records of him going to any schools or mention of him going to any schools. It's all supposition.

That doesn't make it an evidentiary conclusion; that makes it a lack-of-evidentiary conclusion. You aren't going to produce that school's rolls for the 1570s and show Shakespeare wasn't on them. If "Where are his school records?" were evidence of illiteracy then we'd have to find practically everyone in England guilty of illiteracy. In the 1500s schools didn't keep track of their students the way they did in the 1900s. Besides, his father was one of Stratford's leading citizens. Why on earth would his kid not have gone to the grammar school?

If you'd wanted to say "We don't even know whether he was literate", that would be one thing; but when you say "de Vere's literary exploits went silent just as the illiterate Stratford man's began", you're making a positive claim that you know whether he could read and write. A positive claim requires positive evidence. Is there perhaps a letter from a servant mentioning that the Stratford businessman paid him to read business letters to him?

The many different biographies of the Stratford man have him supposedly doing all manner of things, all based on the traditional story of him having written the Shakespeare canon. All these suppositions are attempting to explain how he got the experience and knowledge, how he learned all the different languages and customs, all trying to explain his genius for literature. They are all guesses, every single one.

Exactly like your supposition that he was illiterate.

Why are you so convinced he was illiterate? ... There are all sorts of medical conditions that make it hard to write.

This has been the traditional response to a lack of literary evidence, namely to make things up. Why should we have to make up excuses about these signatures for the greatest poet and dramatist in the English language?

Um, because they're reasonable explanations? Being a great writer confers no immunity to all the medical problems that cursed the pre-modern era. And I didn't say he was the greatest poet and dramatist in the English language; I asked how you knew he was illiterate.

(Incidentally, it's not totally made up: the writings attributed to Shakespeare suggest the author had a peculiar interest in sexually transmitted disease. The author, whoever he was, may well have had gonorrhea; it would have been entirely normal for an Elizabethan doctor to have mistaken it for syphilis and treated it with mercury; and mercury poisoning causes tremors.)

Why are you so convinced he was illiterate? ... You aren't disputing that the Stratford businessman was an actor, are you? ... Well, there are contemporary references to him being an actor. So how did he learn his lines if he couldn't read the scripts?

We know he was associated with the theater but are there any records of him playing a role, actually acting in a part where he had to read lines? No such record exists.

There are records of him being paid after performances along with other actors. There are records where people called him a "player". Are you going to "make up excuses" for people treating him like an actor?

We have his name on lists of groups, and we have mentions of persons in his group playing certain roles but we do not have him listed anywhere as playing any acting roles.

Was everybody else in the troupe listed for particular roles? It would be entirely normal to mention who played the lead roles but not give every detail of who played whom. The simplest explanation would be that he didn't get leading roles because he wasn't the best actor.

There is abundant documentary evidence showing that other writers of the Elizabethan times were writers, contemporaneous evidence from the times. ... As Diana Price has said it's like hearing tales of the greatest aviator and having no record of their ever having been in an airplane.

It really is a shock to look for literary evidence for the Stratford man and find none in light of the traditional story of him. But that is simply the case, and is why the authorship question is as old as the man himself.

None of that is relevant to making a case that the man couldn't read. Can you quote Diana Price or anyone of her stature claiming the Stratford businessman couldn't read and/or wasn't even an actor? Or is it your own lack-of-evidentiary conclusion?

 

[Swammerdami]

... If you'd wanted to say "We don't even know whether he was literate", that would be one thing; but when you say "de Vere's literary exploits went silent just as the illiterate Stratford man's began", you're making a positive claim that you know whether he could read and write. A positive claim requires positive evidence. Is there perhaps a letter from a servant mentioning that the Stratford businessman paid him to read business letters to him?

The many different biographies of the Stratford man have him supposedly doing all manner of things, ... They are all guesses, every single one.

Exactly like your supposition that he was illiterate.
...
There are records of him being paid after performances along with other actors. There are records where people called him a "player".

I'm afraid I must take Mr. Bomb's side in this sub-debate. One "handwriting expert" claims that Shaksper's inconsistent signatures suggest illiteracy, but I don't know how much weight to give that. And records from the Stratford grammar school were destroyed in fire, IIRC. Of course there are various records making Shakespeare a player, indeed a principal, in the theater company. There might be hoax involvement there, but the "not without mustard" skit seems to make Shaksper's personal involvement in the theater certain.

Obviously I also have much sympathy with Mr. Moogly's position. If Shaksper were literate, why is there no evidence of that? Stratfordians who came forth to comment on going to school with the great writer? ZERO. Shaksper's son-in-law Dr. John Hall kept a journal, in which he comments on Stratford "poets." Mentions of his father-in-law? ZERO.

 

[Amyrich]

I am a firm believer of 'Innocent until proven guilty'. In this case, until and unless there are sound proofs or evidences against Shakespeare's authorship, I would like to believe that he was a genius playwright and continue to marvel at his written words.