The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[Swammerdami]

Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?

London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults, but here no insult appears; instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.

So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?


In 1580 or thereabouts Oxford wanted to hire a literary assistant (amanuensis etc.) and Gabriel Harvey wanted the job. He wrote a very flattering letter to Oxford (and probably read it aloud during Her Majesty's Progress); the letter included the sentence "Thy will shakes spear(s)"^*. That this was Stratford's very name might be a pointless coincidence, but it might not.

* = The letter was actually in Latin. It might be probable that the particular "Will Shake-spear" translation was never in print prior to the 20th century — I don't know. The standard Anti-Oxfordian response is to tout alternate translations of the Latin, but "Will Shake-spear" is the translation found with wiktionary.org . (great site)

 

[WAB]

What tactic???

Damon and Pithias was decent dramatically but the writing was below average. Unmetered rhymed couplets. Thank God iambic pentameter took hold!

You don't want De Vere associated with that play! De Vere was a much better poet than Richard Edwards! Compare Oxford's poems with Damon and Pithias. You can read it here. Links on the page for what format you want:

http://elizabethandrama.org/the-pla...cal-importance/damon-pithias-richard-edwards/

That wasn't written by Oxford, as surely as Oxford didn't write Shakespeare.

So what tactic am I using? When I type "Shakespeare" I refer to the author of that canon - whomever they were. I won't type "Shaxper" - for good reasons.

What tactic am I using?

Or have I asked that already?

Oh, I see: a classic example of Oxfordians snatching at anything to link De Vere to Shakespeare. I was not aware of using a tactic, nor do I use "tactics" when discussing things. Oxfordians have often reached beyond the pale when considering what De Vere may have written: the Bible, Spenser, even ALL the major poetry coming out of England at that time. It is not a tactic to point to how silly that is; nor is it a tactic to say plainly and simply that David Gontar was reaching far beyond anything reasonable by suggesting that De Vere not only penned Damon and Pithias, but that this was somehow more proof that De Vere wrote Shakespeare!

Example from the play:

SCENE I.

In Town.

Here entereth Aristippus.


Arist. Too strange (perhaps) it seems to some

That I, Aristippus, a courtier am become:

A philosopher of late, not of the meanest name,

But now to the courtly behaviour my life I frame.

Muse he that lust; to you of good skill,

I say that I am a philosopher still.

Lovers of wisdom are termed philosophy.

Then who is a philosopher so rightly as I?

For in loving of wisdom proof doth this try,

That frustra sapit, qui non sapit sibi.

I am wise for myself: then tell me of troth,

Is not that great wisdom, as the world go'th?

Some philosophers in the street go ragged and torn,

And feeds on vile roots, whom boys laugh to scorn:

But I in fine silks haunt Dionysius' palace

Wherein with dainty fare myself I do solace

Ack! Even if it were De Vere's juvenilia it is execrable. Wordworth, Shelley, and Byron were writing good verse in their early teens.

"Recovery", he says. Well hardie-har. Again, you act as if it were a criminal act, or of someone in the grip of an addiction, or some sickness, to even consider that the Shakespearean canon may have been written by...of all people...the person it is credited to. Oh the horror!

ETA: Just saw Swammi's post.

Swammi: I might be tickled astray by the "His will shakes speares" pun, were it not for the fact that "Shakespeare" was and is a surname in not common but not terribly irregular usage.

How do you suppose these people got their surname? Should we call them all "Shaxper"?

Abraham Shakespeare (c. 1966–2009), American lottery winner and murder victim
Clive Shakespeare (1949–2012), English-born Australian pop guitarist, songwriter and producer
Craig Shakespeare (born 1963), former association football player and manager
Frank Shakespeare (born 1925), American diplomat and media executive
Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, 1st Baronet (1893–1980), British Liberal politician
James Shakespeare (c. 1840–1912), South Australian organist
Joseph A. Shakspeare (1837–1896), mayor of New Orleans
Nicholas Shakespeare (born 1957), British novelist and biographer
Noah Shakespeare (1839–1921), Canadian politician noted for his involvement in the anti-Chinese movement
Olivia Shakespear (1863–1938), British novelist and playwright
Percy Shakespeare (1906–1943), British painter
Robbie Shakespeare (born 1953), Jamaican musician and producer, part of Sly and Robbie
Stanley Shakespeare (1963–2005), American football player
Stephan Shakespeare (born 1957), founder of market research company YouGov and of 18 Doughty Street
Tom Shakespeare, 3rd Baronet (born 1966), geneticist and sociologist
William Shakespeare (American football) (1912–1975), American football player
William Shakespeare (singer) (1948-2010), stage name of Australian singer John Cave (also known as John Cabe or Billy Shake)
William Shakespeare (tenor) (1849–1931), English tenor, pedagogue, and composer
William Geoffrey Shakespeare (1927–1996), 2nd Baronet Shakespeare of Lakenham, general practitioner in Aylesbury
William Harold Nelson Shakespeare (1883–1976), cricketer for Worcestershire in the interwar period

Note: These are only well-known and accomplished persons named Shakespeare. - WAB

Do you image that De Vere chose the name William Shakespeare and that there were no other "Shakespeares?" And do you imagine that he just happened to pick a pen-name which was virtually the same as an actor in the very theatrical environment he worked in???

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

WAB,

Don't be so highbrow. Come down to earth. Claw around with the lesser creatures.

 

[Swammerdami]

Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?

London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults, but here no insult appears; instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.

So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?


In 1580 or thereabouts Oxford wanted to hire a literary assistant (amanuensis etc.) and Gabriel Harvey wanted the job. He wrote a very flattering letter to Oxford (and probably read it aloud during Her Majesty's Progress); the letter included the sentence "Thy will shakes spear(s)"^*. That this was Stratford's very name might be a pointless coincidence, but it might not be.

* = The letter was actually in Latin. It might be probable that the particular "Will Shake-spear" translation was never in print prior to the 20th century — I don't know. The standard Anti-Oxfordian response is to tout alternate translations of the Latin, but "Will Shake-spear" is the translation found at wiktionary.org . (great site)

appears

 

[WAB]

"Will. Monox with his great dagger"? -Swammi.

What pray tell is this? There is precious little on the Internet to inform me.

I have come across this:

In his youth, the Earl of Oxford was a renown jouster. He participated in many of Queen Elizabeth's Accession Day tilts. The name Launce may be an allusion to this, as may the names Launcelot and Shakespeare. Thomas Nashe, in his various allusions to Oxford, refers to him as Pierce Penniless, and Will Monox with "his great dagger".

I can't seem to copy from the page (have tried many times), but go to the bottom of here:

https://www.shakespearetarot.com/thef00l

What do I need to know to think that Monox with his great dagger in any way relates to De Vere?

There is also this:

http://www.anonymous-shakespeare.com/cms/index.233.0.1.html

I have seen references to De Vere aplenty, but have yet to see anything that suggests he could have written Shakespeare.


​Alas!

I see this, after searching around:

But Tom Nashe admitted he too was present at the banquet, and when he later wrote to Gabriel Harvey, he made a coded reference to the third man as “Will Monox” (an anagram of Will Oxon.—Oxon. being the conventional Latin abbreviation for Oxford, hence the need for not naming him in a letter).

from: https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/26/jse_26_3_ReviewRoper.pdf

Mnn...m'kay. But how exactly is Will Monox an anagram of Will Oxon? What happened to the "M".?

Not that it matters.

This is clutching at straws.

More Thomas Nashe, referring to Will Monox:

I and one of my fellows, Will. Monox (Hast thou never heard of him and his great dagger?) were in company with him a month before he died[75], at that fatal banquet of Rhenish wine and pickled herring (if thou wilt needs have it so), and then the inventory of his apparel came to more than three shillings (though thou sayest the contrary). I know a broker in a spruce leather jerkin with a great number of gold rings on his fingers and a bunch of keys at his girdle shall give you thirty shillings for the doublet alone, if you can help him to it. Hark in your ear, he had a very fair cloak with sleeves, of a grave goose-turd green; it would serve you as fine as may be…

One thing to be taken from this excursion: Listen to Tommy Nashe! Excellent writer...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Great exchange.

Can someone speculate why there are plays in the name of William Shake-speare that by all accounts are not part of the Shakespeare canon?

Why is Edward DeVere's bible part of the Shakespeare Folger Library?

 

[WAB]

Great exchange.

Can someone speculate why there are plays in the name of William Shake-speare that by all accounts are not part of the Shakespeare canon?

Why is Edward DeVere's bible part of the Shakespeare Folger Library?

Good questions both.

I personally feel there are some plays, or at least one, which had scarce if anything to do with Shakespeare: Henry the VIII. In my reading, I feel it basically sucks, and cannot have been the same hand that penned Macbeth, Lear, Tempest, Othello, etcetera. There are others, such as Pericles, or maybe even Timon of Athens - and some do not believe Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus (actually, it smells like Marlowe...)

Why have such plays been entered into the canon? I have one answer:

There have been multitudes of Shakespeare scholars through out the last four centuries. These people know far more about Shakespeare (and/or the accepted canon of Shakespearean work) than I do. I take it as a given that my opinions and feelings mean little compared to literal lifetimes of studying and examining everything surrounding the Bard of Avon.

If scholars come to an agreement that such and such a work might not have been Shakespeare, then I nod and deal with it (though I may privately disagree or come to my own opinion - knowing that my opinion means all of - Jack Squat - in the long run.)

As for De Vere's Bible being included in the SFL - I do not know! I do know that at Oxfraud there is much material into that subject:

https://oxfraud.com/index.php/bible-home

 

[Swammerdami]

My last post may have been over-wrought. Let's take it slowly.

Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?

1. London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters and pamphlets.
2. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference.
3. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed.
4. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults,
5. but here no insult appears;
6. instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.
7.So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?

I've labeled the seven sentences of the syllogism. Do you agree with #1? #2? Tell us when you're ready to move on to #3.

 

[WAB]

My last post may have been over-wrought. Let's take it slowly.

Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?

1. London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters and pamphlets.
2. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference.
3. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed.
4. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults,
5. but here no insult appears;
6. instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.
7.So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?

I've labeled the seven sentences of the syllogism. Do you agree with #1? #2? Tell us when you're ready to move on to #3.

What's with the large font in your prior post? You realize that is the same as dumb Americans speaking to people who don't speak English, and raising their voices in the idea that speaking loudly will help others who speak different languages to understand them? It is insulting, which was your intention; but that's okay, I notice you do it to other people in other threads. I notice that lots of all o' y'all put things in large font to insult your interlocutors. Some of you lament that you can't write your posts in crayon. You and the others ought to stop that. You should take it as given that anyone who participates at this site can bloody read. Not only that, it makes you look angry and overly challenged.

You're not going to teach me how to Google? Yet another insult. Gee, thanks!

"Let's take it slowly..." ??? Another insult!

You wrote: Just for starters,

Swammi: the M in "Will Monox" seems unnecessary — but may I assume you know a LITTLE bit of French? — and — behold — a separate occurrence of "Will Oxon" without the M improves the hypothesis. And who said it HAD to be an anagram?

I was responding to this, which I posted above, a quote from a page I linked to (Post #405):

But Tom Nashe admitted he too was present at the banquet, and when he later wrote to Gabriel Harvey, he made a coded reference to the third man as “Will Monox” (an anagram of Will Oxon.—Oxon. being the conventional Latin abbreviation for Oxford, hence the need for not naming him in a letter).

- In the words of Steve Martin: Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Calm yourself down or don't expect any further conversation about Oxford coming from me; and once I'm gone, I am sure you've noticed that no-one else on this discussion board is even remotely interested in this overblown infatuation with De Vere (probably caused in great part by the film Anonymous. Film is especially persuasive when done well, and even more so when you have an actor [who played De Vere] who is magnetically handsome, gracious, and charming). Not that you and Moogly have been persuaded by it (I don't even know if either of you saw it), but apparently many have, as evidenced in the Facebook group about Oxford, Shakesvere.

You will notice that I have been patient with you and Moogly, and have entertained your belief in De Vere to the best of my ability. Some would say I have been "humoring" you both - which would not be that far from the truth.

It is possible that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Possible, but far from certain.

ETA: "Tell us when you're ready to move on to #3..." - So fucking condescending! Oh alright, alright! I have been condescending at times as well, so I forgive you, because I love you. Where's the hug smilie?

I am not interested in the Monox w/ his great dagger conversation. So it is cryptic? Everything is cryptic and secretive (and conspiratorial) for Oxfordians. Or so it seems.

I think I said this before but it bears repeating: My patience and good will with this silliness is getting all three of us absolutely nowhere. The best responses to the OP came from DBT and Bronzeage at the beginning of the thread. And Bomb#20 had some excellent commentary and questions that were not given a fair...ahem...

shake.

 

[Swammerdami]

I apologize. You're right; I got angry, mostly due to personal stresses and lack of sleep, and started pounding on the keyboard. And I do have a brattish habit of responding to any perceived insult with 1000-fold escalation. One of my friends says, with good reason, that I remind him of Donald Trump!

Sincere apologies again. Whether there was first condescension in your own posts is irrelevant: I shouldn't have reciprocated at all, let alone a thousand-fold.

I should resist any urge to keep bumping this thread. I wrote the first posts, many months ago, because it gives me a certain pleasure to set my own thoughts into clear writing; I thought I did so. There's no reason I should worry about how others respond.

To me, the "Will Monox" mention is interesting because it strongly implies that Nashe was, for whatever reason, associating the name "Will" with Edward de Vere. It doesn't prove that de Vere wrote Hamlet. It doesn't tell us whether de Vere's poetry was good or bad. Why Nashe wanted to connect de Vere to "Will" may remain forever a mystery.

That Nashe sentence demonstrates that fellow playwrights — for there is no doubt that de Vere was a playwright, whether mediocre or not — tip-toed around identifying him explicitly. It SEEMS to imply that "Will" was — for whatever reason — a nickname or joke name that could be associated with de Vere. I hoped for something like "Interesting. Yes, it seems to imply such a connection, but ..." However, as far as I can tell you've not acknowledged that the quote even refers to Edward de Vere.

Whatever faults Oxfordians have, anti-Oxfordians are often too dismissive of such clues, in my opinion.

And once more, sincere apologies for my bizarre and inexcusable temper.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I apologize. You're right; I got angry, mostly due to personal stresses and lack of sleep, and started pounding on the keyboard. And I do have a brattish habit of responding to any perceived insult with 1000-fold escalation. One of my friends says, with good reason, that I remind him of Donald Trump!

Sincere apologies again. Whether there was first condescension in your own posts is irrelevant: I shouldn't have reciprocated at all, let alone a thousand-fold.

I should resist any urge to keep bumping this thread. I wrote the first posts, many months ago, because it gives me a certain pleasure to set my own thoughts into clear writing; I thought I did so. There's no reason I should worry about how others respond.

To me, the "Will Monox" mention is interesting because it strongly implies that Nashe was, for whatever reason, associating the name "Will" with Edward de Vere. It doesn't prove that de Vere wrote Hamlet. It doesn't tell us whether de Vere's poetry was good or bad. Why Nashe wanted to connect de Vere to "Will" may remain forever a mystery.

That Nashe sentence demonstrates that fellow playwrights — for there is no doubt that de Vere was a playwright, whether mediocre or not — tip-toed around identifying him explicitly. It SEEMS to imply that "Will" was — for whatever reason — a nickname or joke name that could be associated with de Vere. I hoped for something like "Interesting. Yes, it seems to imply such a connection, but ..." However, as far as I can tell you've not acknowledged that the quote even refers to Edward de Vere.

Whatever faults Oxfordians have, anti-Oxfordians are often too dismissive of such clues, in my opinion.

Elizabethan public theater wasn't like theater today. It was held in low regard, similar to how we today think about strip clubs, romance novels and pornography. DeVere was an Earl of Oxford, which would be similar to being a senator or supreme court justice or other person in high, respectable public office. This is why there are all these cryptic references to him and his writing. Even if publicly associated with these plays he could claim they were not his.

But he wouldn't even have to do that because Elizabethan England was a police state of the first order. Even insinuating that an Earl of Oxford and close associate of the Queen was writing porn would get you imprisoned and maybe have your hand cut off or your tongue removed. So lets not get all anachronistic about the times thinking things were like today. Not even close.

I submitted the question about DeVere's bible. What do I get? Go check it all out at Oxfraud. Seriously? That's it?

Swammi, feel free to bump the thread whenever. There is always more information to share on the subject.

And thanks, WAB, for the participation!

 

[WAB]

I apologize. You're right; I got angry, mostly due to personal stresses and lack of sleep, and started pounding on the keyboard. And I do have a brattish habit of responding to any perceived insult with 1000-fold escalation. One of my friends says, with good reason, that I remind him of Donald Trump!

Sincere apologies again. Whether there was first condescension in your own posts is irrelevant: I shouldn't have reciprocated at all, let alone a thousand-fold.

I should resist any urge to keep bumping this thread. I wrote the first posts, many months ago, because it gives me a certain pleasure to set my own thoughts into clear writing; I thought I did so. There's no reason I should worry about how others respond.

To me, the "Will Monox" mention is interesting because it strongly implies that Nashe was, for whatever reason, associating the name "Will" with Edward de Vere. It doesn't prove that de Vere wrote Hamlet. It doesn't tell us whether de Vere's poetry was good or bad. Why Nashe wanted to connect de Vere to "Will" may remain forever a mystery.

That Nashe sentence demonstrates that fellow playwrights — for there is no doubt that de Vere was a playwright, whether mediocre or not — tip-toed around identifying him explicitly. It SEEMS to imply that "Will" was — for whatever reason — a nickname or joke name that could be associated with de Vere. I hoped for something like "Interesting. Yes, it seems to imply such a connection, but ..." However, as far as I can tell you've not acknowledged that the quote even refers to Edward de Vere.

Whatever faults Oxfordians have, anti-Oxfordians are often too dismissive of such clues, in my opinion.

Yes, Swammi, it is interesting. The Oxfordian position is very compelling. I also apologize for my dismissive comments, which are entirely unqualified, since I have not sufficiently researched all the information.

Moogly - I wish I could say more about De Vere's bible, but I don't know enough about it.

 

[Swammerdami]

Unless there's good reason to think otherwise, I'd dismiss the fact that de Vere's Bible ended up at Folger as an irrelevant coincidence. (Does Folger have lots of miscellaneous documents from that era?)

The significance of Oxford's Bible is that his underlinings show NEW (previously unnoted: cf. Scientific Method) connections between the Bible and the Plays, e.g.

One of the marked passages (Philippians 2:15) includes not only the words “naughtie” and “worlde”, but also, in a footnote (pasted in on the right), the word “candle”, thus providing three key words in Portia’s Merchant of Venice speech, “How far this little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a naughty world.” (V, ii, 61-2)

(I think I noted this connection to Portia's speech earlier in this thread, but it was easier to Google "De Vere's Bible candle" than to use TFT search! Stritmatter claims at least 100 other connections.)


At the risk of beating a dead horse, the "Will Monox ... and his great dagger" quote now strikes me!

When I first encountered that quote I was already aware of many dozens of "coincidences" connecting Oxford to the Works, and this was just another one. Ho-hum; It didn't seem so special.

But looking at it in isolation, it now strikes me as special! It seems almost unquestionable that Thomas Nashe is referring to Edward de Vere and, for whatever reason, connecting him with the name "Will." Do anti-Oxfordians offer any explanation for this?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Unless there's good reason to think otherwise, I'd dismiss the fact that de Vere's Bible ended up at Folger as an irrelevant coincidence. (Does Folger have lots of miscellaneous documents from that era?)

The significance of Oxford's Bible is that his underlinings show NEW (previously unnoted: cf. Scientific Method) connections between the Bible and the Plays, e.g.

One of the marked passages (Philippians 2:15) includes not only the words “naughtie” and “worlde”, but also, in a footnote (pasted in on the right), the word “candle”, thus providing three key words in Portia’s Merchant of Venice speech, “How far this little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a naughty world.” (V, ii, 61-2)

(I think I noted this connection to Portia's speech earlier in this thread, but it was easier to Google "De Vere's Bible candle" than to use TFT search! Stritmatter claims at least 100 other connections.)


At the risk of beating a dead horse, the "Will Monox ... and his great dagger" quote now strikes me!

When I first encountered that quote I was already aware of many dozens of "coincidences" connecting Oxford to the Works, and this was just another one. Ho-hum; It didn't seem so special.

But looking at it in isolation, it now strikes me as special! It seems almost unquestionable that Thomas Nashe is referring to Edward de Vere and, for whatever reason, connecting him with the name "Will." Do anti-Oxfordians offer any explanation for this?

Obviously the reason DeVere's bible is there is because it's Elizabethan, along with many other such things. I do think it is a great irony. Now if it disappears, being the tremendous piece of circumstantial evidence that it is, I'll get suspicious. It would have been nice had DeVere written a marginal note, "perfect for Lear." But even such a note would be dismissed by the SBC as happening after the fact.

The circumstantial case is simply overwhelming. We all owe a tremendous debt to Looney for his detective work and dedication and love of the subject.

If you pick up Stratfordian literature you constantly hear the refrain that there was no doubt about the author being TSM for 200 years. Of course that's bull, as anyone who has investigated the subject knows. There were questions for thirty years before TSM died in 1616, as you indicate, all credible and factual. Stratfordians don't attempt to answer these questions and instances. They continue to peddle propaganda because it suits their economic interests.

 

[WAB]

Nevermind

 

[WAB]

Well, I was booted out of ShakesVere on Facebook.

Hey Swammi and Moogly, I found a published poet who is an Oxfordian. His name is Gilbert Wesley Purdy. I don't know anything about his poetry, except that he's published at some pretigious venues (such as Jacket) but one of his books intrigues me to no end:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X4JUJAU/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

One (or is it three??) sonnets theorized as Shakespeare's.

Anyone know if these sonnets are on the Internet anywhere? This book was published in 2015. One would think such a monumental discovery would be all over the place? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious. I honestly want to read these sonnets and see if they stack up to the Bard (whomever they were).

I see another page about the book, but no taste of the sonnet(s):

https://bookshop.org/books/discovered-a-new-shakespeare-sonnet-or-three-actually/9781514750407

Little else that I can see. Dang it!

 

[Swammerdami]

I also hit a brick wall with Googling: no excerpt from any alleged sonnet, nothing about the alleged book with the sonnets. Purdy has a 2017 book about which Google Books says "Preview unavailable, Searching inside unavailable." Purdy seems more focused on getting $4.95 for his Kindle-book than with anything else.

I don't think ordinary Google Search searches Usenet, so I did a search for "Purdy" at a Usenet Shakespeare group. I got one hit, and that "Purdy" is a misspelling for "pretty" or such in some rant about Marlowe. (The Google Groups interface to Usenet is so sabotaged now the URL Google gave me may not even take you to the post with "purdy.")

Life is too short to worry about "scholars" like this. I maintain a Wish-List at an on-line book-store, but I'm passing on Mr. Purdy!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's a market for such trinkets. Maybe Purdy is such a vendor. I do not know but remain curious. The manufacture of biblical artifacts and their sale among collectors and believers occurs similarly. The church of my youth allegedly had the relics of Saint Mathias entombed within the altar. Really? But believers believe so the market thrives.

On a completely different note I made a realization today, no doubt expressed elsewhere, perhaps by many persons. It is that Oxford accomplished precisely that which he continues to be known for and doubted of, namely that he is the author. He continues to have plausible deniability and continues to have accreditation. It's mind blowing, really. It was so during his life and continues to be so.

In a way I was also booted out of the Facebook site in that I was never granted entry. It was the only reason i signed up for Facebook.

What the world needs is a book with the complete writings of Oxford. I mean everything, his letters, his early poetry, everything he transcribed that is at Hatfield, the whole works.
And of course the Shakespeare canon.

If TSM was the writer why did he hyphenate his name?

 

[WAB]

There's a market for such trinkets. Maybe Purdy is such a vendor. I do not know but remain curious. The manufacture of biblical artifacts and their sale among collectors and believers occurs similarly. The church of my youth allegedly had the relics of Saint Mathias entombed within the altar. Really? But believers believe so the market thrives.

On a completely different note I made a realization today, no doubt expressed elsewhere, perhaps by many persons. It is that Oxford accomplished precisely that which he continues to be known for and doubted of, namely that he is the author. He continues to have plausible deniability and continues to have accreditation. It's mind blowing, really. It was so during his life and continues to be so.

In a way I was also booted out of the Facebook site in that I was never granted entry. It was the only reason i signed up for Facebook.

What the world needs is a book with the complete writings of Oxford. I mean everything, his letters, his early poetry, everything he transcribed that is at Hatfield, the whole works.
And of course the Shakespeare canon.

If TSM was the writer why did he hyphenate his name?

That's a good question, Moogly. Maybe TSM was not the writer?? And maybe Oxford was?

 

[Swammerdami]

Purdy's book is the least of my worries w/r researching claims on the topic. Consider this claim from Anderson's book. He suggests that the Author attended the single performance of a Dido which was performed only once (when TSM was 19 years old), but with a play-script surviving today. (But can anyone find that script on-line?) Guest of honor for the presentation was Albert Laski, a Polish General. This episode supposedly motivated a speech in Hamlet.

I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was never acted; or if it was, not above once; for the play, I remember, pleas'd not the million, 'twas caviary to the general; but it was (as I receiv'd it, and others, whose judgments in such matters cried in the top of mine) an excellent play, well digested in the scenes,...

One speech in't I chiefly lov'd. 'Twas AEneas' tale to Dido, and thereabout of it especially where he speaks of Priam's slaughter. If it live in your memory, begin at this line- let me see, let me see:

'The rugged Pyrrhus, like th' Hyrcanian beast-'​

'Tis not so; it begins with Pyrrhus:

'The rugged Pyrrhus, he whose sable arms,...​

But then I try to check into this, I hit pay-walls. (And how might the play be "never acted" if it was "caviar to the general"? Adding confusion is that Marlowe wrote another Dido a few years later.)

A lot of other claims are hard to pursue. Shame on whoever started this thread, rekindling my interest in this down-the-rabbit-hole topic!

ETA: Irrelevant perhaps, but I was intrigued that Giordano Bruno, the famous "heretic," also allegedly attended the 1583 performance of Dido.

EETA: Apparently TWO Didos were performed at that special 1583 presentation, Gager's (in Latin?) and Marlowe's. And I found a documentary video:
http://edox.org.uk/projects/performing-dido/performing-dido-film/