The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[T.G.G. Moogly]

(By the way, I prefer 'Swammi' as the spelling of my nickname.)

Although Mr. Moogly and I are both arguing the case for Oxford, I want to be clear: He and I differ on several details. For starters, I treat 'Shaksper' and 'Shakespeare' as different spellings of the same name. (It would be nice to know about the very first attested 'Shakespeare' spellings, but I doubt it's important.) The equation between 'Shakespeare' and the man from Stratford is only very thinly attested during Stratford's life but it is attested (sort of), once before the publication of Venus and Adonis, in the disparaging "Upstart Crow" quotation allegedly by Robert Greene.

The talk of 'forensic proof' leaves me confused. Early in the thread there was a link to a Regnier video stating the oft-overlooked point that circumstantial evidence, especially when large in quantity, is often the best evidence. The real world isn't like Euclid's geometry; the Authorship should be approached like a problem in Bayesian probability, and NOT by attempting to derive it a la . . . ∅∉S ⇒ ∃f : ∀c∈S, f(c)∈c . . . .

An interesting question is WHICH circumstantial clues pointing at the Authorship will be most convincing to WHICH people. For me it's the totality of evidence, the HUNDREDS of coincidences linking Oxford to the Authorship. Perhaps it would behoove me to prepare a list of the, say, twenty most convincing clues. I've already listed a half-dozen or so strong clues, and am getting repetitious but there have been ZERO attempts in the thread to argue against any of them. I'll point to just one again: What canopy is the author of Sonnet CXXV speaking of with "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy"? Was that just a random word to rhyme with "eternity"?

I agree that it is the totality of evidence. The parallels in Anderson's SBAN are more than convincing.

A large piece of the issue is that Shakespeare the common man and genius has been mythologized, there's even a name we've all heard, Bardolatry. The first biographies of the Stratford man were mythologies, inventions. Eventually he became the national hero and was given a monument in Westminster. The portraits we see of the Stratford man are all inventions, basically taken from stock photos and statuary has been changed to reflect the "upgrades and beautifications." It's an industry. That history is clear. Those challenging historical evidence always claim there were inaccuracies and mistakes made, in essence burying their heads in the sand in the name of orthodoxy.

And really, who can blame them, they have a lot to lose if they speak up on behalf of historical accuracy. They perceive doing so as a threat to their security I suppose.

 

[WAB]

So you're in agreement that there is not any literally scientific, forensic proof? Just a very large amount of circumstantial evidence, perhaps a mathematical probability?

Even though that last thing has been contested. And even though most scholars have dismissed this so-called evidence...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you're in agreement that there is not any literally scientific, forensic proof? Just a very large amount of circumstantial evidence, perhaps a mathematical probability?

Even though that last thing has been contested. And even though most scholars have dismissed this so-called evidence...

There will never be proof like there is in axiomatic models, math, etc., but reasonable doubt is another matter. And as others have said, decisions about reasonable doubt are what we make. Even DNA is only circumstantial evidence even though people like to say 'this proves it.'

If you are ever able, get Anderson's SBAN. He is constantly relating De Vere's life to the Shakespeare Canon. It is a very convincing read. If not for tradition, if we were rationally deciding authorship today without the weight of orthodoxy's bias and a Shakespeare industry, De Vere would be the clear choice.

If two people are working with the same set of information, the same basic primary information, it doesn't matter that one is a scholar and one is not lest we make arguments from authority. I've taught much to my primary care physician, for example, about people with my condition. I am absolutely certain that I am more informed on the particular subject, have more experience, have read more studies and articles and the "proof" is that I was able to "cure" myself where all his remedies amounted to not. Knowledge is where one observes it, if one is an observer.

 

[WAB]

So you're in agreement that there is not any literally scientific, forensic proof? Just a very large amount of circumstantial evidence, perhaps a mathematical probability?

Even though that last thing has been contested. And even though most scholars have dismissed this so-called evidence...

There will never be proof like there is in axiomatic models, math, etc., but reasonable doubt is another matter. And as others have said, decisions about reasonable doubt are what we make. Even DNA is only circumstantial evidence even though people like to say 'this proves it.'

If you are ever able, get Anderson's SBAN. He is constantly relating De Vere's life to the Shakespeare Canon. It is a very convincing read. If not for tradition, if we were rationally deciding authorship today without the weight of orthodoxy's bias and a Shakespeare industry, De Vere would be the clear choice.

If two people are working with the same set of information, the same basic primary information, it doesn't matter that one is a scholar and one is not lest we make arguments from authority. I've taught much to my primary care physician, for example, about people with my condition. I am absolutely certain that I am more informed on the particular subject, have more experience, have read more studies and articles and the "proof" is that I was able to "cure" myself where all his remedies amounted to not. Knowledge is where one observes it, if one is an observer.

I will try to get the book.

Did you catch, or have I failed to mention, that Anderson is a member of the ShakesVere group on Facebook? As is that Stritmatter (sp?) fellow? I am considering asking them to visit the thread at Eratosphere, where several widely published poets, in the UK, USA, and elsewhere, did not seem to show interest in the possibility of the Earl's having written Shakespeare. There was, however, Mary Meriam, who is in the Mary Sidney camp; and a William Ray, an Oxfordian. In my most humble (well not really but I do the schtick) opinion, what you and Swammi ought to do is seek out widely-published, awarded, well-known, people who are currently living and active in the formal, hard-copy world of publication, who are specifically working in, or at least understand, traditional, metered poetry, and try to get them to look at the evidence for Oxford objectively.

***

Now, to Swammi,

re: "canopy". You will not like my answer, and I admit, it is not a scientific answer, and I am sure it is a convenient answer for people who do not wish to look into the evidence for Oxford's authorship, who dismiss it out of hand, for commercial, "religious", or whatever reason.

I put my 'answer' in another thread, the iambic pentameter thread, hoping you and Moogly would see it, as well as other interested parties.

In the event you have not read it, I will copy and paste that remark here (and please see the thread for over all context) :

Keats' work should constitute a reminder to people that genius does not care about class (which doesn't really exist anyway save as a convenient term), or education. Also as proof that one does not have to experience something in order to write about it powerfully. The potential and power of the imagination is not fully comprehended by science, yet; or so I believe. - WAB

 

[Swammerdami]

So you're in agreement that there is not any literally scientific, forensic proof?

Before agreeing with this, I'd want a definition of "literally scientific, forensic proof", or examples of what sort of evidence might constitute such proof.
(a) A contemporary claim that Oxford wrote one of the certainly-Shakespeare works?
(b) A single manuscript with one poem attributed to Oxford and another to Shakespeare?
And, besides names on title-pages, does evidence of that sort exist for other writers of that era?

For (a), is Peacham's book off limits because "TIBI NOM. DE VERE" is written in anagram form?

For (b), since Moogly is reading SBAN, I'll ask him to comment on The Passionate Pilgrime published 1599 via Anne Cornwallis, resident at Fisher's Folly discussed in SBAN on page 232, but especially note the first paragraph on page 233. The relevant text is on page 235 of the SBAN edition at Google Books.

The first link above is to a webpage discussing The Passionate Pilgrime with its early version of Sonnet CXXXVIII — scientific forensic proof that Miss Cornwallis' source was close to the true author!

But let me concede upfront that neither Peacham's nor Cornwallis' work comes remotely close to definitive proof of anything.

 

[WAB]

So you're in agreement that there is not any literally scientific, forensic proof?

Before agreeing with this, I'd want a definition of "literally scientific, forensic proof", or examples of what sort of evidence might constitute such proof.
(a) A contemporary claim that Oxford wrote one of the certainly-Shakespeare works?
(b) A single manuscript with one poem attributed to Oxford and another to Shakespeare?
And, besides names on title-pages, does evidence of that sort exist for other writers of that era?

For (a), is Peacham's book off limits because "TIBI NOM. DE VERE" is written in anagram form?

For (b), since Moogly is reading SBAN, I'll ask him to comment on The Passionate Pilgrime published 1599 via Anne Cornwallis, resident at Fisher's Folly discussed in SBAN on page 232, but especially note the first paragraph on page 233. The relevant text is on page 235 of the SBAN edition at Google Books.

The first link above is to a webpage discussing The Passionate Pilgrime with its early version of Sonnet CXXXVIII — scientific forensic proof that Miss Cornwallis' source was close to the true author!

But let me concede upfront that neither Peacham's nor Cornwallis' work comes remotely close to definitive proof of anything.

'a)' would be a giant leap forward, at least.

Sorry, I do not have my own definition of what would constitute "literally scientific, forensic proof". I am not a scientist. There are scientists at TFT. We could invite one of them to join us and offer an opinion? fromderinside was a scientist, now retired. That's one I know for sure, who is still active. He and I knocked heads many times on various topics, especially in the late oughts. Whew! We had some doozies.

May we take a look at Derby again? As I mentioned, and as I am sure you know, and indeed have spoken on it in this thread, William Stanley was close to De Vere. He lived to old age, and his years covered those of the Stratford man. You said yourself that Stanley collaborated on plays with De Vere. We also know that Stanley was an author, and probably a poet, as there is proof in a letter. From Wikipedia:

Greenstreet [edit]

Derby's candidacy was first raised as a possibility in 1891 by the archivist James H. Greenstreet, who identified a pair of letters written in 1599 by the Jesuit spy George Fenner in which he reported that Derby was:

busied only in penning comedies for the common players.[2] [bold mine]

Fenner was disappointed that Derby was devoting himself to cultural pursuits rather than politics because his family were thought to be sympathetic to the Catholic cause and were possible claimants of the throne in the event of Queen Elizabeth's death.

Greenstreet argued that Fenner's dismissive comment revealed that unknown works were penned by Derby. He argued that these could be identified with the Shakespeare canon. He suggested that the comic scenes in Love's Labour's Lost were influenced by a pageant of the Nine Worthies only ever performed in Derby's home town of Chester. He also argued that the comic character of the pedant Holofernes in the play is based on Derby's tutor Richard Lloyd, who wrote a dramatic poem about the Nine Worthies that appears to be parodied in Holofernes' own production on the topic in the play.[3] Greenstreet attempted to develop his ideas in a second paper,[4] but died suddenly at the age of forty-five in 1892, leaving his arguments incomplete.

Also, and while it is actually irrelevant, Stanley was quite the man of the world, wasn't he? There is a story, though a credited one, that this adventurous aristocrat killed a tiger. A. TIGER! While it is a rotten thing to do, in general, to kill such a magnificent creature, according to accounts it appears the Earl may have had to do it defensively. At any rate, this was no pampered sissy loafing around at court, mooning at beautiful women and penning sonnets. NOT that De Vere was either! It looks to me that he was the Indiana Jones of the aristocracy at that time. Such a man, who also had a gift for poetry, and was busy writing plays for the rabble, and who presumably did so with the intent of remaining anonymous, I can very comfortably imagine being a genius who could have written the Shakespeare plays, or at least a good deal of the super-amazing metrical bits (and a substantial amount of the prose parts).

In fact, I believe there is a better chance that Stanley was the real genius, and that perhaps Oxford penned much of the work, even some of the metrical parts that are not exemplary (there are plenty of places in the works where the presence of poetic and literary genius seems absent).

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

***

Whitman could write in metrical verse, and indeed did, early on, but he wrote nothing memorable in that vein. He dismantled the metrical jail (as the great but terribly neglected Lithuanian/American/Hebrew& English poet Menke Katz called it) to give himself space to work as he wanted, without the constraints (or restraints, depending on how one looks at it) of rhyme and meter. Why? Could it have been because he knew he could not master the traditional forms to such a degree that would establish him as a poet of notice? Wouldn't it be better to be known as a groundbreaker, in the avant garde, a rebel, as a poet ought to be? Maybe, maybe not. He was not singular in this. William Carlos Williams and Allen Ginsberg both began writing stilted, imitative formal poetry, but turned to free verse as a better form of poetic expression. The world is better for the three of them and their chosen paths.

As for Mark Twain: again, a genius, no doubt. Brilliant author and wit. But was he a poet? I believe he may have penned a handful of poems, but he is certainly not known for them. I suspect he did not have the ear to know the real reason 'Shakespeare' became so famous and beloved. Stephen King, a great writer, talks about his desire to be a poet, and his coming to the realization that he sucks at it. There are many great authors of prose who were middling poets. James Joyce was one, and he was certainly a literary genius.

As for the Supreme Court Justices: same thing. Are they readers of poetry? Are any of them skilled poets? I do not know. You could tell me.

Derek Jacoby, John Gielgud, both wonderful Shakespearean actors. They make/made Shakespeare's words come alive, ring beautifully in the ears of audiences around the world. I love them both. I would think they know /knew all about the technicals of poetic meter in English. They can/could hear beautiful poetry and grand oratory, metrical or prosaic, but are/were they qualified to see that Oxford's extant poems are no match for the Sweet Bard of Avon - whoever that might have been?

I like a remark made by Roger Slater (publishes under the surname Schecther), from the Eratosphere thread:

The problem is, the plays are too good for anyone to have written. Hence the skepticism that it could have been Shakespeare, and hence our own skepticism that it could have been someone else.

https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/show...ptOO8Hc1Lvk_ZlQ7ie-BnxJ-_5YtlpzHjuKQQo-mPbWos


Until we meet again...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I will try to get the book.

Did you catch, or have I failed to mention, that Anderson is a member of the ShakesVere group on Facebook? As is that Stritmatter (sp?) fellow? I am considering asking them to visit the thread at Eratosphere, where several widely published poets, in the UK, USA, and elsewhere, did not seem to show interest in the possibility of the Earl's having written Shakespeare. There was, however, Mary Meriam, who is in the Mary Sidney camp; and a William Ray, an Oxfordian. In my most humble (well not really but I do the schtick) opinion, what you and Swammi ought to do is seek out widely-published, awarded, well-known, people who are currently living and active in the formal, hard-copy world of publication, who are specifically working in, or at least understand, traditional, metered poetry, and try to get them to look at the evidence for Oxford objectively.

***

Now, to Swammi,

re: "canopy". You will not like my answer, and I admit, it is not a scientific answer, and I am sure it is a convenient answer for people who do not wish to look into the evidence for Oxford's authorship, who dismiss it out of hand, for commercial, "religious", or whatever reason.

I put my 'answer' in another thread, the iambic pentameter thread, hoping you and Moogly would see it, as well as other interested parties.

In the event you have not read it, I will copy and paste that remark here (and please see the thread for over all context) :

Keats' work should constitute a reminder to people that genius does not care about class (which doesn't really exist anyway save as a convenient term), or education. Also as proof that one does not have to experience something in order to write about it powerfully. The potential and power of the imagination is not fully comprehended by science, yet; or so I believe. - WAB

I refamiliarized myself with Keats, as much as one can in 60 minutes using wiki. Keats is certainly a great poet, and during his lifetime was a known writer. The same cannot be said for the Stratford man. It may logically follow that if Keats can write great poetry and be dead by age 25 then so can any man, but we don't have anything known to be written by the Stratford man. It's all supposition.

Do we have works with Keats name on them that are not written by Keats?
Do we only have six scraggly, tortured signatures from Keats?
Do we have an absence of contemporaneous attestation that Keats was a writer?
Did Keats display a vast knowledge of subjects and languages in his writings?
Did Keats attend school? Yes, we have records. Did the Stratford man attend school? We have no records, letters, or any indication that he was ever schooled.
Are there voids in Keats' life where we are forced to guess as to his disposition?

I could continue but one gets the gist. My contention is not that a given man cannot produce great literature, only that the Stratford man did not. I fear this argument is an example of whataboutism. Whataboutism is not evidence for the Stratford man.

WAB, what about Swammi's inquiry about Peacham? What are your thoughts? And we all agree Shakespeare poetry is great stuff. It matters not whether SCOTUS judges are poetry buffs. They are making evidentiary decisions. It could be poetry, it could be scrimshaw. It honestly doesn't affect the evidentiary outcome. I may be biased because I have a literary interest and position if I am a judge and Shakespeare is my hobby but we don't have that situation.


I could probably formulate more questions but that's good for now.

 

[Swammerdami]

A problem with a Stanley authorship are his dates, 1561 - 1642. He quit writing when at the height of his power? And there is evidence (use of past tense, "everliving poet") that the author was dead by 1609. The same objection applies to other candidates (except Marlowe!).

(Another minor matter which hasn't been mentioned but suggests that the playwright was dead by 1609 involves astronomy! The plays have many references to astronomical events so we know this was a great interest of the playwright. Yet he never mentions Galileo's stunning discoveries!?!)

'a)' would be a giant leap forward, at least.

I don't understand what you mean here.

I like a remark made by Roger Slater (publishes under the surname Schecther), from the Eratosphere thread:

The problem is, the plays are too good for anyone to have written. Hence the skepticism that it could have been Shakespeare, and hence our own skepticism that it could have been someone else.

Until we meet again...

I like the quote, though doesn't it apply even more to the poems? The mismatch in quality and style does give me pause.

I totally lack literary expertise so shouldn't try to address this topic, BUT here is a poem published by Robert Frost when he was 20 years old. Am I wrong to call it very inferior to his mature work? Most comparisons are based on Oxford's very early poetry; upthread I show a poem or two written in his 30's which seem much better to me.

And, ignorant as I am, I think I'd have no trouble distinguishing the poetries of Frost and Poe! Are the styles of Marlowe, for example, and Shakespeare similar enough that they could be the same person? (Whether Oxford and Shakespeare have similar or different styles — setting aside "quality" — is a controversial topic.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here is an interesting find. I will be devouring it one day hopefully soon.

Twenty Poems of Edward de Vere
Echo in the Works of Shakespeare

One objection to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship—often voiced by
defenders of the orthodox view that the author was William Shakspere of Stratford-uponAvon (1564–1616)—has been that de Vere was allegedly a mediocre or even “bad” poet. It
has been claimed that his few surviving early lyrics fail to show the promise, originality,
sophistication, or literary polish of the mature works of Shakespeare. We test that theory
against the poems themselves by exploring the frequency and detailed specificity of their
echoes in the later Shakespearean works. The evidence supports two related conclusions:
(1) The argument that de Vere’s early poetry was “bad” stands in defiance of the
views of his own contemporaries and can only reflect a lack of familiarity with his
importance in the development of the early Elizabethan lyric voice.
(2) The argument that de Vere cannot have been Shakespeare because he was
allegedly a bad poet is turned on its head by a careful study of the two bodies of work. The
echoes explored here prove that Shakespeare habitually reverted to imagery, ideas,
figurative language, and diction pioneered in de Vere’s early lyrics. Either Shakespeare was
inordinately fond of and influenced by them—or the same man wrote both in two different
phases of literary development.
We do not explore the complex and hotly disputed issues of computer-assisted
“stylometrics” or forensic linguistics.2 Instead, more humbly, we merely collate the parallel phraseology, ideas, and figurative devices common to both Oxford’s early lyrics and the
published Shakespearean works...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you're in agreement that there is not any literally scientific, forensic proof?

Before agreeing with this, I'd want a definition of "literally scientific, forensic proof", or examples of what sort of evidence might constitute such proof.
(a) A contemporary claim that Oxford wrote one of the certainly-Shakespeare works?
(b) A single manuscript with one poem attributed to Oxford and another to Shakespeare?
And, besides names on title-pages, does evidence of that sort exist for other writers of that era?

For (a), is Peacham's book off limits because "TIBI NOM. DE VERE" is written in anagram form?

For (b), since Moogly is reading SBAN, I'll ask him to comment on The Passionate Pilgrime published 1599 via Anne Cornwallis, resident at Fisher's Folly discussed in SBAN on page 232, but especially note the first paragraph on page 233. The relevant text is on page 235 of the SBAN edition at Google Books.

The first link above is to a webpage discussing The Passionate Pilgrime with its early version of Sonnet CXXXVIII — scientific forensic proof that Miss Cornwallis' source was close to the true author!

But let me concede upfront that neither Peacham's nor Cornwallis' work comes remotely close to definitive proof of anything.

If orthodoxy and the Shakespeare industry were not standing in the way, that one "coincidence" in her notes would be enough to convince any objective person free of confessional interests that De Vere and Shakespeare are one and the same. The issue is not that this anonymous poem from Anne Cornwallis's notes while at Fisher's Folley, later published under the name of William Shakespeare is revealing, rather the issue is our national hero, that common genius from Stratford who has been mythologized and deified.

And heaven forbid we sin against. Defend the Stratford myth and our vested interests at all costs, even if discrediting and casting aspersion upon primary evidence need occur. Mercy.

This is precisely the kind of evidence that prevents the Shakespeare Authorship Trust from accepting an open authorship challenge. They know they are toast.

Thanks, Swammi. I am about fifty pages short of that point in the book.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've been devoting a lot of time to the Authorship Controversy since I started this thread. Messrs. Moogly and WAB have been also. As I suggested earlier, I may owe all of us an apology.

Here is an interesting find. I will be devouring it one day hopefully soon.

Twenty Poems of Edward de Vere
Echo in the Works of Shakespeare

Thanks for the link; this was new to me. I'll be perusing it off and on over the next days.

Another of my hobbies is the history of math. Your link reminded me of the connection between Oxford and the famous mathematician Girolamo Cardano. (Anderson also mentions this.) This in turn reminds me that Georg Cantor was also an anti-Stratfordian.

Cantor was no dummy. He invented the Theory of Transfinite Numbers which David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, called "one of the supreme achievements of purely intellectual human activity."

 

[WAB]

I will try to get the book.

Did you catch, or have I failed to mention, that Anderson is a member of the ShakesVere group on Facebook? As is that Stritmatter (sp?) fellow? I am considering asking them to visit the thread at Eratosphere, where several widely published poets, in the UK, USA, and elsewhere, did not seem to show interest in the possibility of the Earl's having written Shakespeare. There was, however, Mary Meriam, who is in the Mary Sidney camp; and a William Ray, an Oxfordian. In my most humble (well not really but I do the schtick) opinion, what you and Swammi ought to do is seek out widely-published, awarded, well-known, people who are currently living and active in the formal, hard-copy world of publication, who are specifically working in, or at least understand, traditional, metered poetry, and try to get them to look at the evidence for Oxford objectively.

***

Now, to Swammi,

re: "canopy". You will not like my answer, and I admit, it is not a scientific answer, and I am sure it is a convenient answer for people who do not wish to look into the evidence for Oxford's authorship, who dismiss it out of hand, for commercial, "religious", or whatever reason.

I put my 'answer' in another thread, the iambic pentameter thread, hoping you and Moogly would see it, as well as other interested parties.

In the event you have not read it, I will copy and paste that remark here (and please see the thread for over all context) :

Keats' work should constitute a reminder to people that genius does not care about class (which doesn't really exist anyway save as a convenient term), or education. Also as proof that one does not have to experience something in order to write about it powerfully. The potential and power of the imagination is not fully comprehended by science, yet; or so I believe. - WAB

I refamiliarized myself with Keats, as much as one can in 60 minutes using wiki. Keats is certainly a great poet, and during his lifetime was a known writer. The same cannot be said for the Stratford man. It may logically follow that if Keats can write great poetry and be dead by age 25 then so can any man, but we don't have anything known to be written by the Stratford man. It's all supposition.

Do we have works with Keats name on them that are not written by Keats?
Do we only have six scraggly, tortured signatures from Keats?
Do we have an absence of contemporaneous attestation that Keats was a writer?
Did Keats display a vast knowledge of subjects and languages in his writings?
Did Keats attend school? Yes, we have records. Did the Stratford man attend school? We have no records, letters, or any indication that he was ever schooled.
Are there voids in Keats' life where we are forced to guess as to his disposition?

I could continue but one gets the gist. My contention is not that a given man cannot produce great literature, only that the Stratford man did not. I fear this argument is an example of whataboutism. Whataboutism is not evidence for the Stratford man.

WAB, what about Swammi's inquiry about Peacham? What are your thoughts? And we all agree Shakespeare poetry is great stuff. It matters not whether SCOTUS judges are poetry buffs. They are making evidentiary decisions. It could be poetry, it could be scrimshaw. It honestly doesn't affect the evidentiary outcome. I may be biased because I have a literary interest and position if I am a judge and Shakespeare is my hobby but we don't have that situation.


I could probably formulate more questions but that's good for now.

Moogli,

Let me say I don't take much issue with anything that you wrote. As you know, I already doubt the Stratford Man's authorship, and said that at the outset of the thread, although I am not as certain as you are that he did not write the poems and plays. I believe it appears, due to the lack of evidence, that he was not a man of letters, and especially in light of the fact that Shakespeare's works are of such a superior quality; but I cannot just accept that there is iron-clad proof, since there are people who know vastly more than I do about it who say that there is not. For me, it is a case of having to take one side's word over another's. There are many scholars and people who have researched the life of the Stratford Man, and of those there are many who have written books about him, who contend that there is ample evidence that he was the author of the poems and plays attributed to him. What you want me to do is assume without full knowledge, that the anti-Stratfordian position has been demonstrated to be true to the point of comfortable certainty, if not absolute certainty. I cannot do that, because I do not know enough. Then you want me to take a step further and assume that since we can be reasonably certain that the Stratford bloke did not write Shakespeare, we can then move on an be readily open to the Oxfordian Authorship theory, despite the face that we already know that he was not a great poet into his twenties, and even possibly into his thirties; and even though we know that there are other candidates for Authorship who had established themselves as superior writers and/or poets than De Vere, such as Marlowe and Bacon.

You and Swammi have asked me a slew of questions, as challenges, which I admit I have not answered very well, or indeed have not addressed at all. But the same can be said for a multitude of interested parties. Some Shakespearean scholars, and people in general, ignore the authorship question entirely. I readily admit that this must be frustrating for you, and I personally would not do such a thing. And there are still others who have tried to address the Oxfordian position but have not done so in a very impressive manner. Tom Veal wrote that some of these people even enter debates without really being prepared, and end up looking foolish. But there are others still who have prepared, who have done the homework, and who have taken on the Oxfordians in a serious and thorough manner, who have run their own "scientific" tests, and who have concluded that De Vere could not have written Shakespeare. Do you suppose I am qualified to pooh-pooh their findings? Of course not. Like you, and Swammi, I do not argue with experts, on either side of an issue.

I trust the scientists who claim that climate change, global warming, is certainly true, but there are a few outliers who are reputable but nonetheless not convinced. Let me tell you, despite my strong trust in the findings of the overwhelming majority of experts, I would not argue with scientists or meteorologists who held the dissenting opinion, because I am not qualified to have such a discussion. You see?

Now, as for this dangblasted canopy. Hey, it's a line in a poem, and it seems to be used metaphorically to me. Wouldn't an educated man in that time, in that place, know something about English royalty and the various ceremonial niceties that courtiers and other members of the aristocracy had to undertake in their daily lives around Her Most Esteemed and Most Totally Awesomely Terrifyingly Dangerous Majesty? I would imagine. Especially a man who was a performer in a company of players who might actually have to put on a show for her! Talk about much ado about nothing.

I have a LOT more to say but will leave off here, and hopefully address Swammi's post before I have to return to work...

Parting is such sweet sorrow...

EDIT! - added later.

Sorry! It wasn't you that asked about the canopy, it was Swammi. You asked about "Swammi's inquiry about Peacham." Well, I don't know what you refer to. I will have to go upthread and find where that question was asked.

My kingdom for a disability check, and leisure time, so I could do this all day! I would love it! Who needs fast cars or beautiful women?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

WAB, you are a courtier poet. Once more unto the breach. It is all good.

 

[Swammerdami]

Now, as for this dangblasted canopy. Hey, it's a line in a poem, and it seems to be used metaphorically to me. Wouldn't an educated man in that time, in that place, know something about English royalty and the various ceremonial niceties that courtiers and other members of the aristocracy had to undertake in their daily lives around Her Most Esteemed and Most Totally Awesomely Terrifyingly Dangerous Majesty? I would imagine. Especially a man who was a performer in a company of players who might actually have to put on a show for her! Talk about much ado about nothing.

I agree that the canopy is a weak and minor issue. It would definitely NOT make the List of 100 Most Convincing Reasons to think Oxford wrote Hamlet. Nevertheless I must comment here.

As I mentioned, one Stratfordian site seemed to guess that the canopy was born for H.M. Elizabeth only one (1) time during her entire reign. Processions in which the Queen marched with the highest nobles in the land holding her canopy were NOT something "undertaken in daily lives."

There were plenty of Earls and Barons who would be stunned by the honor of bearing the Queen's canopy for a rare ceremony of high state. Could a commoner understand this? Sure, although it strikes me as more likely they'd assume that it was only a minor honor, contingent on the other duties and honors that noble might be needed for at that ceremony. Would it be the metaphor likely to pop into such a poet's mind? I don't think so.

Peers of the Realm are still status-seekers. The honor of bearing the canopy, whether granted or denied, would be a metaphor likely to occur to England's senior Earl.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are some topics on which I like to comment even though my comments have zero evidentiary value. In this category I'll mention the quality of Oxford's poetry.

No. 4: "The Loss of My Good Name"

Framed in the front of forlorn hope, past all recovery,
I stayless stand t'abide the shock of shame and infamy.
My life, through lingering long, is lodged in lair of loathsome ways,
My death delayed to keep from life the harm of hapless days.
My sprites, my heart, my wit and force in deep distress are drowned;
The only loss of my good name is of these griefs the ground.

And since my mind, my wit, my head, my voice and tongue are weak
To utter, move, devise, conceive, sound forth, declare and speak
Such piercing plaints as answer might, or would, my woeful case,
Help crave I must, and crave I will, with tears upon my face
Of all that may in heaven or hell, in earth or air, be found
To wail with me this loss of mine, as of these griefs the ground.

Help gods, help saints, help sprites and powers that in the heaven do dwell,
Help ye that are to wail, ay wont, ye howling hounds of hell,
Help man, help beasts, help birds and worms that on the earth doth toil,
Help fish, help fowl that flocks and feeds upon the salt sea soil,
Help echo that in air doth flee, shrill voices to resound
To wail this loss of my good name, as of these griefs the ground.

No. 2: "Even as the Wax Doth Melt"

Even as the wax doth melt, or dew consume away
Before the Sun, so I, behold, through careful thoughts decay,
For my best luck leads me to such sinister state
That I do waste with others' love, that hath myself in hate,
And he that beats the bush, the wished bird not gets,
But such I see as sitteth still, and holds the fowling nets.

The Drone more honey sucks, that laboureth not at all,
Than doth the Bee, to whose most pain least pleasure doth befall;
The Gardener sows the seeds whereof the flowers do grow,
And others yet do gather them that took less pain, I know;
So I the pleasant grape have pulled from the Vine,
And yet I languish in great thirst while others drink the wine.

Thus like a woeful wight I wove my web of woe;
The more I would weed out my cares, the more they seem to grow.
The which betokeneth hope, forsaken is of me,
That with the careful culver climbs the worn and withered tree
To entertain my thoughts, and there my hap to moan,
That never am less idle, lo, than when I am alone.

Are these not beautiful lyrics? My skill and appreciation with poetry is so weak as to make my opinion worthless, but I like these more than much highly-regarded poetry.

If these poems have a lyrical flaw I'll guess it is over-reliance on alliteration, and reliance on excessive sing-song meter. But these are flaws easily corrected as a poet matures. (These are not the best poems among the 20 at Moogly's interesting link; indeed I chose No. 2 because of its possibly excessive alliteration.

The theme in "The Loss of My Good Name," by the way, is echoed in several of the Sonnets.

 

[WAB]

Swammi,

Before I go into the canopy as metaphor question:

Will you please take a look at the line,

"Thus like a woeful wight I wove my web of woe "

Would the Sweet Bard of Avon write such a line? In earnest? No. Would he write it in jest? As parody? I think he might.

You don't want to know what the formidable Alexander Pope might have made of such a line. I say that even though I don't care for Mr Pope all that much as a person, since he had the audacity to butcher Shakespeare's works for the sake of cleaning them up for the consumption of the hoighty -toighty readership of his day.

Well, that is the accepted reason. My pet theory is that he ruined them out of envy.

Sorry. While I believe Oxford was a good poet at times, I do not believe that he could have improved SO much as to have written Shakespeare.

More later. For now, an article for readers, lurkers, potential viewers elsewhere, and anon...

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/...ol-if-shakespeare-wasnt-shakespeare.html?_r=1

 

[WAB]

So you're in agreement that there is not any literally scientific, forensic proof?

Before agreeing with this, I'd want a definition of "literally scientific, forensic proof", or examples of what sort of evidence might constitute such proof.
(a) A contemporary claim that Oxford wrote one of the certainly-Shakespeare works?
(b) A single manuscript with one poem attributed to Oxford and another to Shakespeare?
And, besides names on title-pages, does evidence of that sort exist for other writers of that era?

For (a), is Peacham's book off limits because "TIBI NOM. DE VERE" is written in anagram form?

For (b), since Moogly is reading SBAN, I'll ask him to comment on The Passionate Pilgrime published 1599 via Anne Cornwallis, resident at Fisher's Folly discussed in SBAN on page 232, but especially note the first paragraph on page 233. The relevant text is on page 235 of the SBAN edition at Google Books.

The first link above is to a webpage discussing The Passionate Pilgrime with its early version of Sonnet CXXXVIII — scientific forensic proof that Miss Cornwallis' source was close to the true author!

But let me concede upfront that neither Peacham's nor Cornwallis' work comes remotely close to definitive proof of anything.

See post above this.

Re: The Passionate Pilgrim (the p!ot thickeneth!) :

http://www.leylandandgoding.com/shakespeare_a_neville_lens

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sorry. While I believe Oxford was a good poet at times, I do not believe that he could have improved SO much as to have written Shakespeare.

Some of Shakespeare drama is so so. Don't you agree? This is why there was disagreement as to whether it really was authored by Shakespeare? The myth is that the Stratford man just sat down one day and noble verse began, that he shut it on and off like a faucet. This is silly.

 

[WAB]

Sorry. While I believe Oxford was a good poet at times, I do not believe that he could have improved SO much as to have written Shakespeare.

Some of Shakespeare drama is so so. Don't you agree? This is why there was disagreement as to whether it really was authored by Shakespeare? The myth is that the Stratford man just sat down one day and noble verse began, that he shut it on and off like a faucet. This is silly.

Yes, no doubt. Some of the material in the plays is so-so.

And yes, that the Stratford bloke would do that would be silly.

It is established that there was collaboration. Yes! Yes! Lol. Now the voice in my head sounds like some actress in a film from the forties:

Yes! Yes! Alright, damn you! I killed her! And I would kill her again! Now kiss me, you fool! (violins, credits...)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sorry. While I believe Oxford was a good poet at times, I do not believe that he could have improved SO much as to have written Shakespeare.

Some of Shakespeare drama is so so. Don't you agree? This is why there was disagreement as to whether it really was authored by Shakespeare? The myth is that the Stratford man just sat down one day and noble verse began, that he shut it on and off like a faucet. This is silly.

Yes, no doubt. Some of the material in the plays is so-so.

And yes, that the Stratford bloke would do that would be silly.

It is established that there was collaboration. Yes! Yes! Lol. Now the voice in my head sounds like some actress in a film from the forties:

Yes! Yes! Alright, damn you! I killed her! And I would kill her again! Now kiss me, you fool! (violins, credits...)

With De Vere we see a normal literary trajectory. With the Stratford man we embrace a miracle.

 

[WAB]

Yes, no doubt. Some of the material in the plays is so-so.

And yes, that the Stratford bloke would do that would be silly.

It is established that there was collaboration. Yes! Yes! Lol. Now the voice in my head sounds like some actress in a film from the forties:

Yes! Yes! Alright, damn you! I killed her! And I would kill her again! Now kiss me, you fool! (violins, credits...)

With De Vere we see a normal literary trajectory. With the Stratford man we embrace a miracle.

Okay. So where are we at?

I agree we should doubt the Stratford Man as sole author, perhaps as an author at all. But I am by no means persuaded that he was illiterate. For one, he would have to have had someone read the parts to him in order to memorize them. Makes me wonder why an illiterate person would want to become an actor.

ETA: by the way, I am still not sold on two other major issues:

I don't think the variance in the signatures is terribly strong evidence that TSM was illiterate, for reasons posited by orthodoxists, and my own (which I will explain).

I don't think that no mention of books in the wlil is a big issue (which I will explain).