The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[WAB]

Whoever wrote Shakespeare was without doubt a genius, Amyrich.

I always ignored the authorship question (until this thread was posted), never bothering to pay it any real attention, and I suspect that's what most people do, and always have done. But while I am not convinced that the Earl of Oxford was the real author, I now have doubts about the Stratford man, based on what I've looked into so far. This subject has grabbed hold of me at a good time, right when I needed something to think about and dig into.

I consider (and boy oh boy I am certainly not the first) that the writings attributed to William Shakespeare constitute the greatest contribution to English literature to date. In fact, I don't believe anyone else comes close.

Where I differ from some others is that I do not believe that the primary reason Shakespeare stands so far above even the greatest writers in English is that he was the greatest English dramatist (he may have been) or that he was, as people have written, somehow more in tune with human behavior and what drives that behavior than others, or that he had any special insights into humanity that others did not have, although in all of that he did certainly excel. I believe that the real reason Shakespeare is thought by many to be the greatest writer in the English language is because he was, and still is, the greatest poet in the English language.

 

[Swammerdami]

From people who are confident that the traditional view is correct — that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets — I'd like to know that they've considered some of the contrary arguments.

At a minimum those posting in this thread should have at least skimmed this thread! I'll repeat a few of the challenges I posed earlier:

• Explain the weird dedication of the Sonnets.
• Explain the weird preface to Troilus, 2nd ed.
• Comment on Peacham's anagram for the mystery writer.
• List a few coincidences that you admit to surprise.
• Is it odd that zero of Shaksper's friends, family or neighbors ever exhibited any book, manuscript, theater record or anecdote associated with this alleged playwright?
• Which 'bearing of a canopy' is the poet referring to in Sonnet CXXV?

I don't think it's asking too much that each visitor to the thread who dismisses the anti-Stratford case should offer a comment on at least one of the six points listed above.

 

[WAB]

From people who are confident that the traditional view is correct — that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets — I'd like to know that they've considered some of the contrary arguments.

At a minimum those posting in this thread should have at least skimmed this thread! I'll repeat a few of the challenges I posed earlier:

• Explain the weird dedication of the Sonnets.
• Explain the weird preface to Troilus, 2nd ed.
• Comment on Peacham's anagram for the mystery writer.
• List a few coincidences that you admit to surprise.
• Is it odd that zero of Shaksper's friends, family or neighbors ever exhibited any book, manuscript, theater record or anecdote associated with this alleged playwright?
• Which 'bearing of a canopy' is the poet referring to in Sonnet CXXV?

I don't think it's asking too much that each visitor to the thread who dismisses the anti-Stratford case should offer a comment on at least one of the six points listed above.

I am currently going through Tom Veal's blog, Stromata. Lots to take in there, from the traditional view; I've listened to several videos, debates and talks - just recently a good talk by Diana Price, an Oxfordian.

I will be busy with this for a good while. Thanks for the thread! You have certainly changed my thoughts about the Stafford man. I hope the thread will stick around.

 

[WAB]

From people who are confident that the traditional view is correct — that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets — I'd like to know that they've considered some of the contrary arguments.

At a minimum those posting in this thread should have at least skimmed this thread! I'll repeat a few of the challenges I posed earlier:

• Explain the weird dedication of the Sonnets.
• Explain the weird preface to Troilus, 2nd ed.
• Comment on Peacham's anagram for the mystery writer.
• List a few coincidences that you admit to surprise.
• Is it odd that zero of Shaksper's friends, family or neighbors ever exhibited any book, manuscript, theater record or anecdote associated with this alleged playwright?
• Which 'bearing of a canopy' is the poet referring to in Sonnet CXXV?

I don't think it's asking too much that each visitor to the thread who dismisses the anti-Stratford case should offer a comment on at least one of the six points listed above.

Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper? Because of the signatures? I admit, the signatures bother me some, but it's pretty well established the Stratford man's name was Shakespeare. There were lots of Shakespeares around then.

Some might think William Wordsworth sounds like a pen name. In fact I did when I was young and first heard of him, until I learned that in those days in England you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting some bloke named Wordsworth.

 

[Swammerdami]

Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper? Because of the signatures? I admit, the signatures bother me some, but it's pretty well established the Stratford man's name was Shakespeare. There were lots of Shakespeares around then.

First of all, please base your opinion about the authorship on the relevant facts, not on whether you think I'm being "snarky" or something. And the spelling "Shaksper" has been around since the 19th century or earlier to refer to the man from Stratford: it is not a recent Oxfordian fetish. I will call him "WS" in this post to avoid giving further offense.

The main reason to insist on the spelling deviation is to avoid ambiguity. It is understandable that "Shake-speare" might seem to refer to the author of "Shake-speare's Sonnets" whoever that might be. To avoid that confusion it is common to refer to WS with one of the spellings that he actually used.

I don't know about other Shakespeares in Stratford — though obviously they'd be happy to insist on the Shakespeare spelling once their man became so famous — but I will need a cite that this was the common spelling for him and his immediate family prior to 1620. Be aware that many or most transcripts found on the 'Net use "modernized spelling" where "Shaksper" or its variants are transmuted just like any archaic spelling. Actual images of documents are often behind paywalls; even when viewable I have great difficulty reading old handwriting.

WS's last will and testament is the one important document with which WS was personally involved. It uses the spelling "Shackspeare" (sometimes read as "Shackspere"). WS's 1613 signature on the Blackfriars Gatehouse conveyance is one of the few WS signatures that is almost legible: Please tell us if you get anything but "Shaksper" from that. Even this signature is hard to read but "Shaksper" has 8 letters while "Shakespeare" has 11. It's hard to squint and squeeze 9 letters out of the 8-letter Blackfriars signature let alone 11. This wasn't a clerk misspelling a surname; this is a signature.

Yet Stratfordians think that the man who insisted on "Shake-speare" (or at least "Shakespeare") for all his literary works had a will drawn up for "Shackspeare" and signed an important deed with "Shaksper." Does not compute.

I will be sorry if the thread degenerates into squinting at old "Shaksper/Shakespeare" handwriting. So I offer you a choice from among three options:

(1) Find citations that Shakespeare rather than Shakspere or its variants was the preferred spelling by WS' family prior to 1620.
(2) Retract the claim
(3) Answer one of the six far more relevant questions in the post you quoted.

 

[Swammerdami]

... And the spelling "Shaksper" has been around since the 19th century or earlier to refer to the man from Stratford: it is not a recent Oxfordian fetish.

This was poorly phrased. What I mean was that Walt Whitman, for example, used "Shaksper" to refer to the alleged author from Stratford. (I hope we don't need to debate whether Whitman was trying to be snarky, or just thought this reduced ambiguity.)

And by the way, Walt Whitman thereby joins a long list of literary greats who doubted the putative authorship. I consider the opinions of such literary greats more relevant than which side has the 51% needed to prevail in a Wikipedia editing war.

 

[WAB]

Egads.

I already said that I now doubt that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare. In fact I said it more than once. Did you not catch that?

See post #103 for starters.

And I will not comply with your demands, just because you demand it. I'll write what I want to write.

I will, in fact, repeat what I've said already:

I doubt that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. I think he was a mediocre poet until his thirties for sure, and probably remained one.

Also, this:

First of all, please base your opinion about the authorship on the relevant facts, not on whether you think I'm being "snarky" or something.

is one of the reasons a lot of people like to refrain from getting into squabbles online. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I base my opinion on this on whether I think you are being snarky or not???

Do people really base their opinions about things upon the emotions of others? Perhaps some do, but the fact is you have NO reason to make that assumption of me. I have been kind and courteous to you, AND, I have written plainly that YOUR thread has caused me to doubt the Stratford man's authorship. Isn't that at least something of a gain for you, even though I'm a nobody?

 

[Swammerdami]

I apologize. Your "Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper?" did resemble, slightly, the snarky comments I've seen elsewhere, but I "escalated" stupidly.

 

[WAB]

I apologize. Your "Why do you insist on calling him Shaksper?" did resemble, slightly, the snarky comments I've seen elsewhere, but I "escalated" stupidly.

Not a problem. No worries. And thanks again for this thread, and for indirectly sparking my renewed interest in life. I am being quite serious, by the way. In case you aren't aware, I have been depressed and suicidal over the past couple years. I have spoken all about it in the Support Fireside forum, and elsewhere.

Thank you!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... I now doubt that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare.

That's how it worked for me. It came down to reasonable doubt about the Stratford man based on an absolute paucity of evidence in his favor. And interestingly enough, I felt similarly about De Vere for quite a while, and for exactly the same reason. But then I became aware of his life, his accolades for theater and the style of his writing combined with the fact that his career simply stopped. So I think you may be headed down the same path.

The authorship question has two parts, the literary question and the scientific question. For me it's primarily a scientific, forensic, evidentiary question. The literary connections to De Vere's life and experiences is just icing on the cake.

 

[WAB]

... I now doubt that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare.

That's how it worked for me. It came down to reasonable doubt about the Stratford man based on an absolute paucity of evidence in his favor. And interestingly enough, I felt similarly about De Vere for quite a while, and for exactly the same reason. But then I became aware of his life, his accolades for theater and the style of his writing combined with the fact that his career simply stopped. So I think you may be headed down the same path.

The authorship question has two parts, the literary question and the scientific question. For me it's primarily a scientific, forensic, evidentiary question. The literary connections to De Vere's life and experiences is just icing on the cake.

I may very well become an Oxfordian.

That being said, I want to speculate on a couple things:

First, let's say De Vere wrote Shakespeare, and that it was his intention that the Stratford man took credit honestly, and because De Vere wanted him to and because there was an arrangement between them, then wouldn't it behoove Oxfordians to honor the Earl's wishes and stop trying to prove that he was The Author (a term used by a traditionalist which I will adopt, seeing as Aquinas referred to Aristotle as The Philosopher out of reverence)?

If the reason De Vere went to such trouble was to preserve his reputation as a person of nobility - and what other good reason can be? - then he meant for that to stick indefinitely. Why, I say, would he think it was a good thing for people a few centuries later to expose him as The Author? I believe that he would not like that at all, and that Oxfordians are therefore doing him a disservice. Also, if he was The Author, then he damn well knew that there was no-one he was aware of who was writing as magnificently as he was. There is scant reason to think he did not know it. The Author's work is so supreme, that I often wonder if they were not showing off a bit, sort of the way Alexander Pope did, who was very aware of his tremendous superiority to others in his niche - the composition of satire in heroic couplets.

I would think it contradictory that De Vere was so concerned about tainting his reputation, or his family's, by writing for the common folk, and by rubbing elbows with such rabble, and simultaneously be so modest as to be the greatest poet writing in English (a big deal even though English was still in its adolescence then - there were LOTS of writers, playwrights, and poets around, and it is known that there was a healthy competitive spirit among them - ) and yet concoct an elaborate plan, which would have had to obtain the confidence and secrecy of whomever was involved, to NOT ever be given credit for it. I posit that The Author was so far ahead of anyone else in England at the time, such a magnificent poet and author, that there is virtually no way they thought that their work would not continue to grow in popularity and influence over time.

Secondly, with respect to the authorship by committee theory, and/or the theory that De Vere surrounded himself with great writers/poets in order to improve significantly. This may have happened, but there are two problems: 1) Since there were no poets around nearly as talented as The Author, it seems unlikely that any number of teachers could have caused him to get THAT good. Such excellence is, in my opinion, native for the most part. Not that a person is born a brilliant artist and doesn't have to take any troubles to learn something and practice a great deal in order to become excellent; what I mean is that such extraordinary talent cannot be taught. It's just there. Refined, sure, a great and through much effort, probably; but there is a remote possibility that The Author found it quite easy. That would explain their prolific output, and also explain why they didn't take great pains to preserve manuscripts, or go around proving to people that they were really a writer.

Thirdly, a new theory, once which I have not heard yet with respect to the Shakespeare Authorship question: Could The Author have really been illiterate? Could he have had this native talent with language I mentioned and yet...rats, an interruption, must go. To be continued...

 

[WAB]

[Deleted this post]

Never mind the third theory!

 

[Swammerdami]

I may very well become an Oxfordian.

That being said, I want to speculate on a couple things:

First, let's say De Vere wrote Shakespeare, and that it was his intention that the Stratford man took credit honestly, and because De Vere wanted him to and because there was an arrangement between them, then wouldn't it behoove Oxfordians to honor the Earl's wishes and stop trying to prove that he was The Author (a term used by a traditionalist which I will adopt, seeing as Aquinas referred to Aristotle as The Philosopher out of reverence)?

If the reason De Vere went to such trouble was to preserve his reputation as a person of nobility - and what other good reason can be? - then he meant for that to stick indefinitely. Why, I say, would he think it was a good thing for people a few centuries later to expose him as The Author? I believe that he would not like that at all, and that Oxfordians are therefore doing him a disservice. Also, if he was The Author, then he damn well knew that there was no-one he was aware of who was writing as magnificently as he was. There is scant reason to think he did not know it. The Author's work is so supreme, that I often wonder if they were not showing off a bit, sort of the way Alexander Pope did, who was very aware of his tremendous superiority to others in his niche - the composition of satire in heroic couplets.

I would think it contradictory that De Vere was so concerned about tainting his reputation, or his family's, by writing for the common folk, and by rubbing elbows with such rabble, and simultaneously be so modest as to be the greatest poet writing in English (a big deal even though English was still in its adolescence then - there were LOTS of writers, playwrights, and poets around, and it is known that there was a healthy competitive spirit among them - ) and yet concoct an elaborate plan, which would have had to obtain the confidence and secrecy of whomever was involved, to NOT ever be given credit for it. I posit that The Author was so far ahead of anyone else in England at the time, such a magnificent poet and author, that there is virtually no way they thought that their work would not continue to grow in popularity and influence over time.

Secondly, with respect to the authorship by committee theory, and/or the theory that De Vere surrounded himself with great writers/poets in order to improve significantly. This may have happened, but there are two problems: 1) Since there were no poets around nearly as talented as The Author, it seems unlikely that any number of teachers could have caused him to get THAT good. Such excellence is, in my opinion, native for the most part. Not that a person is born a brilliant artist and doesn't have to take any troubles to learn something and practice a great deal in order to become excellent; what I mean is that such extraordinary talent cannot be taught. It's just there. Refined, sure, a great and through much effort, probably; but there is a remote possibility that The Author found it quite easy. That would explain their prolific output, and also explain why they didn't take great pains to preserve manuscripts, or go around proving to people that they were really a writer.

These are good points you raise, WAB. In this reply I'll just address the motives for the hoax.

While the facts clearly point to Earls never taking credit for their published poetry during that era — as a matter of "dignity" — Oxford had a far more important motive for secrecy. This was brought home to me by the Bonner Cutting video I cite in #55. Rereading that post, I see I failed to emphasize the key point: Oxford had to keep the "insider" authorship of the propagandist history plays secret. This pro-Tudor propaganda would have had its effect completely reversed — into anti-Tudor sentiment — had it become known that, instead of a random or unknown writer, they were written by Her Majesty's intimate on Her Majesty's order! Similarly, even inside courtier information with no propagandist purpose would haunt Oxford and the Queen if the inside authorship became known.

How Oxford felt about this is irrelevant: He was under orders from the Absolute Monarch of England to conceal his authorship. Indeed the annual ₤1000 payment could be regarded as "hush money." Remember that this was a time of great political intrigue, disputed claims to the throne, planned coups and assassinations. King James I, newly crowned and not even an Englishman, inherited the throne because of his Tudor blood and hardly wanted to stoke anti-Tudor sentiment. One specific incident suggests that King James was concerned about Oxford's secret, and may have seized a "To be opened on my death" letter. I mention this at the end of #25, but I'm afraid this interesting incident got lost: #25 was even longer than my usual over-long posts. ::gak::

Did Oxford regret that he would not be known as the Author? Some of the Sonnets suggest exactly this: LXVI ("gilded honour shamefully misplaced ... art made tongue-tied by authority"), LXXXI, CXI ("my name receives a brand"), CXXXV, CXXXVI. Perhaps it's a strain to claim these sonnets lament his anonymity ... but they make far less sense if written by Stratford.

Anyway, the Oxford Earldom went dormant centuries ago. Declassification of secrets is normal with the passage of time; U.S. intelligence agencies declassify even HUMINT after 75 years. I don't think celebration of his writing would upset Edward de Vere by now!

 

[WAB]

Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.

What Is a Shakespearean Sonnet?

Hey WAB,

Not sure the source anymore but the argument went along the lines that it makes historical sense to credit De Vere with the new sonnet form, just based on dates and attribution. The link I posted above just talkes about the Shakespearean Sonnet as a poetic form. I'd have to dig around to find the information regarding De Vere.

Enjoy the ride!

 

[WAB]

Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.

What Is a Shakespearean Sonnet?

Hey WAB,

Not sure the source anymore but the argument went along the lines that it makes historical sense to credit De Vere with the new sonnet form, just based on dates and attribution. The link I posted above just talkes about the Shakespearean Sonnet as a poetic form. I'd have to dig around to find the information regarding De Vere.

Enjoy the ride!

Thanks, O ye Great Googly Moogly,

I am well-versed (pun intended) in the sonnet, Shakespearean and Petrarchan. I believe I have posted samples of both in the New Poetry Thread. Though I think the Petrarchans are written in alexandrians rather than IP. I Don't know if that disqualifies them from being Petrarchan, but they follow that rhyme scheme. One is an amorous poem about unrequited love, the other is written in reverence and is intentionally imitative of Derek Walcott, to my mind a grand master who, while very well-known, awarded, and appreciated, is still not appreciated enough. If you have not read his Omeros, take a look at it.

For whatever reason, the Bard's sonnets never grabbed hold of me the way the plays did. I do love Venus & Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and have read both of them with great relish, but even so, neither of them have had the same effect on me as the plays. I really should say, in various parts of the plays, by which I mean to refer to the places where I believe the Author is "in the zone" and humming along on all cylinders, some bits never cease to amaze, even astonish me. I should be grateful for my memory problems, since I can go into any play and still find big long bits which I have zero recollection of, and it's like reading them for the first time.

I noted to Swammerdami that I am planning on looking into the scientific, forensic evidence I believe you mentioned. I've looked at most of the videos in this thread, but if there's one containing material in that vein I must have missed it. Can you provide a link or two, or point me to a vid here, on that note? Thanks in advance, and remember, don't expect too much detailed response from me regarding that, because I'm dumb all over (and maybe even a little ugly on the side).

 

[WAB]

Thanks, S.

I had read about the Earl"s involvement with Queen and country, but had forgotten. My memory problems seem to be getting worse. It gets really annoying at times.

Regarding the Sonnets, I have never paid them much attention. I've read them, of course. I actually have spent more time on Sidney's sonnets than on Shakespeare's. Sidney to me is way up there.

Now I have good reason to dig into them more.

What Is a Shakespearean Sonnet?

Hey WAB,

Not sure the source anymore but the argument went along the lines that it makes historical sense to credit De Vere with the new sonnet form, just based on dates and attribution. The link I posted above just talkes about the Shakespearean Sonnet as a poetic form. I'd have to dig around to find the information regarding De Vere.

Enjoy the ride!

Thanks, O ye Great Googly Moogly,

I am well-versed (pun intended) in the sonnet, Shakespearean and Petrarchan. I believe I have posted samples of both in the New Poetry Thread. Though I think the Petrarchans are written in alexandrians rather than IP. I Don't know if that disqualifies them from being Petrarchan, but they follow that rhyme scheme. One is an amorous poem about unrequited love, the other is written in reverence and is intentionally imitative of Derek Walcott, to my mind a grand master who, while very well-known, awarded, and appreciated, is still not appreciated enough. If you have not read his Omeros, take a look at it.

For whatever reason, the Bard's sonnets never grabbed hold of me the way the plays did. I do love Venus & Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and have read both of them with great relish, but even so, neither of them have had the same effect on me as the plays. I really should say, in various parts of the plays, by which I mean to refer to the places where I believe the Author is "in the zone" and humming along on all cylinders, some bits never cease to amaze, even astonish me. I should be grateful for my memory problems, since I can go into any play and still find big long bits which I have zero recollection of, and it's like reading them for the first time.

I noted to Swammerdami that I am planning on looking into the scientific, forensic evidence I believe you mentioned. I've looked at most of the videos in this thread, but if there's one containing material in that vein I must have missed it. Can you provide a link or two, or point me to a vid here, on that note? Thanks in advance, and remember, don't expect too much detailed response from me regarding that, because I'm dumb all over (and maybe even a little ugly on the side).

No worries, I found a few things...wil! be checking them out.

P.S. The sonnets I mentioned must be in the archives. Couldn't find them.

When I get a chance to write at length, I have a question about De Vere's need for secrecy.

Oh goodie, the edit post option is still there. Got to the laptop:

***

In regard to the Oxford theory, and the reason(s) for anonymity:

Let's assume the Oxford authorship is true, and that the main reason he had to remain anonymous was political, ie that it was not solely due to social etiquette or vanity. This would indeed go far to explain everything, and I get it.

But it seems to me that if that were the case, why would some kind of absolute proof of the Earl's authorship not have been preserved? I don't mean just a pile of evidence, I mean absolute proof, as in a document telling it all in explicit and certain terms, signed by everyone involved, or at least the notables? Would it have been so difficult to preserve such a document for a few centuries? Or no, not even that, but just long enough for the danger to subside?

Okay, let's say then that any kind of concrete proof was out of the question, since discovery would have been so catastrophic that no such risk could be taken. Alright, that still leaves a substantial possibility that the secret could have been preserved and passed down through the generations orally. I would think it no trivial matter at all that something so huge as the identity of arguably the greatest writer in English would be left up to even a very large amount of evidence by way of cryptic clues, or evidence that would require scientific (and as Oxfordians say, forensic) means to discover and explain it, especially since such means did not even exist at the time.

A couple possibilities: that the secret failed to be kept over generations; or perhaps documentary proof (meaning the total truth, the whole story, spelled out explicitly and in no uncertain terms) has gone missing.

Maybe Oak Island keeps the secret to this day (some of the people involved with that project imagine that it's not treasure buried there, but Shakespeare's manuscripts). Not impossible. Or maybe it's tucked away somewhere else.

 

[WAB]

Please see posts #116 and #117.


One last thing (okay two):

I maintain that Marlowe, of all the candidates suggested thus far (and they are legion) was the best poet. While not on a level with Shakespeare's writings, he had become excellent, even at 29, when he was killed in a bar fight. I can imagine him becoming as good as The Author over time, with plenty of time to hone his craft.

He signed his name "Marley", by the way. Spellings and signatures were varied in those days. Also, since the Stratford man is known for certain to have been a business man, he would have had to sign a myriad of documents. Is it so far-fetched to think a person might get lazy with his signature? I know I've gotten lazy with mine, especially in these days where you have to sign your name a thousand times just to get in to see a new doctor.

 

[WAB]

... I now doubt that the Stratford man wrote Shakespeare.

That's how it worked for me. It came down to reasonable doubt about the Stratford man based on an absolute paucity of evidence in his favor. And interestingly enough, I felt similarly about De Vere for quite a while, and for exactly the same reason. But then I became aware of his life, his accolades for theater and the style of his writing combined with the fact that his career simply stopped. So I think you may be headed down the same path.

The authorship question has two parts, the literary question and the scientific question. For me it's primarily a scientific, forensic, evidentiary question. The literary connections to De Vere's life and experiences is just icing on the cake.

[Please see posts #116, 117, and 118]

Regarding accolades: as you know it was common, even necessary perhaps, at least for the common rabble, to flatter aristocrats even if such flattery was undeserved.

As for the style of his writing: I submit that there are no similarities in style, or precious few, at least with respect to much of the poetry in the plays. I cannot comment on the letters as I've only read one in its entirety, and dipped into several others. That being said, I saw nothing that sounded like what one finds all through the plays. But alas, I'm a nobody, and a newcomer to this, so my opinion means naught.

I have read much about correlations in usage of words, phrases, and spellings, but since the Author and De Vere were contemporaries, both poets, and both writers, that's to be expected.

Tom Veal, at the Stromata blog, and I believe David Katham, mention a few Oxfordians (and provide extensive quotes from their texts), referring to the styles of writing and the evidence compiled regarding corellations, correspondences, what have you. Neither of them were remotely convinced, nor has the greater majority of the community of Shakespeare scholarship been. I am not making an argument by popularity or authority. I have not been persuaded, after all, with their patent dismissal of strictly anti-Stratfordian arguments. I simply must assume that academics, scholars, especially those who have invested so much time in the Authorship question, know something about the scientific, forensic data, or at least enough to venture an educated opinion.

However, I do bear in mind that there are other reasons for dismissing the Authorship question altogether. Good ones, too. I will leave off here for now. Just remember, my mind is open, and I do not dismiss the question, or De Vere.

 

[WAB]

Egads.

The first sentence in the last paragraph in post #119 - the one directly above this post - should have read:

"However, I do bear in mind that there are other reasons for dismissing the pro Stratfordian position altogether."