The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[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?

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

WAB, you're the writer, I'm the detective. I would be curious to know how much of your verse is based upon personal creation, having been physically "in the kitchen," and how much of it is based upon things you have only heard about and read about. The paltry bit of writing I have done was entirely from personal experience and observation. The last bit of writing were two intros to trail guides for a local conservancy. As someone who is constantly tramping through the wilds the only research I did was to acquaint myself with the range of plant life native to those ecosystems. All else was from my own senses having been on those trails.

Of course, were I writing a history of America's Civil War like Shelby Foote I could hardly do the same and must rely on research.

The detective in me is always about sharing information. Ramon Jimenez has written about ten eyewitnesses to Shakespeare and their silence on TSM. I'm not beating a dead horse here because I know you are a Marlowe man, but it's just a bit more evidence that the orthodoxy surrounding authorship is full of holes. The first entry is by Camden and worth the read, even if one stops there.

Ten Eyewitnesses Who Saw Nothing: Shakespeare in Stratford and London

 

[Swammerdami]

I just noticed this.

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.

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???

A pen-name chosen for the long term would have to "look real." Edward de Vere had previously written under pen-names which looked fake, but for the long haul — if the intent were to disseminate a large body of work anonymously — a real name would be required. (Publishing as 'Anonymous' would just lead to questions, and those questions would soon lead to answers, given that de Vere was the courtier poet held in highest regard.)

Perhaps the only viable option was what was achieved: a 'front man' pretending to be an author, just as stated in the "Upstart Crow" message.

Was {G. Harvey's "Will Shakes Spears"} == {Wm Shakspere of Stratford} just a coincidence? I don't know, but some claim that Minerva shaking a spear is associated with authoring in general, and de Vere in particular.

One solution I've proposed, though I've not seen it elsewhere, is a serendipity. De Vere knew he needed a front man/pen-name, stumbled on a man named Will Shakespeare, and had a brainstorm! With or without Harvey's letter, 'Will Shake-speare' would have struck de Vere as a particularly beautiful and meaningful pen-name. Imagine Samuel Clemens looking for a front-man and stumbling on a man whose birth-name was Mark Twain. ("My good Mr. Shakespere, let me buy you a pint of the finest beer and discuss how I can help enrich you!")

Call me a crackpot? Whatever! But those familiar with Bayes Theorem will understand that the name-choosing scenario just outlined is further circumstantial support for the Shakespeare==front_man hypothesis.

 

[Swammerdami]

The detective in me is always about sharing information. Ramon Jimenez has written about ten eyewitnesses to Shakespeare and their silence on TSM. I'm not beating a dead horse here because I know you are a Marlowe man, but it's just a bit more evidence that the orthodoxy surrounding authorship is full of holes. The first entry is by Camden and worth the read, even if one stops there.

Ten Eyewitnesses Who Saw Nothing: Shakespeare in Stratford and London

I clicked and read. VERY compelling.

 

[WAB]

Yes, all very interesting.

 

[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?

WAB, you're the writer, I'm the detective. I would be curious to know how much of your verse is based upon personal creation, having been physically "in the kitchen," and how much of it is based upon things you have only heard about and read about. The paltry bit of writing I have done was entirely from personal experience and observation. The last bit of writing were two intros to trail guides for a local conservancy. As someone who is constantly tramping through the wilds the only research I did was to acquaint myself with the range of plant life native to those ecosystems. All else was from my own senses having been on those trails.

Of course, were I writing a history of America's Civil War like Shelby Foote I could hardly do the same and must rely on research.

The detective in me is always about sharing information. Ramon Jimenez has written about ten eyewitnesses to Shakespeare and their silence on TSM. I'm not beating a dead horse here because I know you are a Marlowe man, but it's just a bit more evidence that the orthodoxy surrounding authorship is full of holes. The first entry is by Camden and worth the read, even if one stops there.

Ten Eyewitnesses Who Saw Nothing: Shakespeare in Stratford and London

I appreciate your post, Moogly. But remember I am strictly an amateur. Calling me a "writer" would be accurate technically but not at all true practically, since I've never earned a cent for my scribbling. A few small publications of poetry, that's all.

However, there is a broad range of discussion and argument among authors about the "write from experience" advice, or more commonly, "Write what you know" (Since that was [essentially] Hemingway's dictum)

Here is a good article featuring discussion about it, albeit it is obviously slanted away from the "write what you know" philosophy:

https://lithub.com/should-you-write-what-you-know-31-authors-weigh-in/

My fave quote from that article:

Kazuo Ishiguro: Don’t Write What You Know

“”Write about what you know” is the most stupid thing I’ve heard. It encourages people to write a dull autobiography. It’s the reverse of firing the imagination and potential of writers.”

From somewhere else, I also love this quote:

“I want to be clear about this. If you wrote from experience, you'd get maybe one book, maybe three poems. Writers write from empathy.”
- Nikki Giovanni

I especially agree with that last bit about empathy. If I were to choose what I think are my best poems, I can safely say that empathy is their impetus, and at the heart of their meaning. At the risk of vanity, I will copy three. All three have been posted in the new poetry thread or the old one in the archives. At Wounded Knee was actually solicited by an editor in the UK for a magazine publication in 2006, Candelabrum (again, minor):

At Wounded Knee (revised version)

Three days, and no-one comes to close my eyes.
I am as cold and quiet as a stone
on the white ground. I wait and cannot rise.

Death steals less swiftly than a bullet flies:
the ache has time to settle in the bone.
Three days, and no-one comes to close my eyes.

Snow falls and whips; the wind still rips, and cries.
Here I remain like something broken, thrown
to the white ground. I wait, and cannot rise,

nor yet lie easy, as a dead man lies,
though surely death has claimed me for his own.
Three days, and no-one comes to close my eyes.

My spirit beats its awkward wings and tries
to take the air, but, like the snow, is blown
to the white ground. I wait and cannot rise

to charge like lightning through these winter skies
with ghosts of kin who see how still I've grown
in three days. No-one comes to close my eyes.
On the white ground I wait and cannot rise.

I've never been on the frozen ground in a field near death; I am not Native American; I was not at Woulded Knee; I do not believe in an afterlife. I was able to write this poem due to one significant aspect of my personality: Empathy. When I first saw the famous photo of Chief Bigfoot lying dead in the snow, and yet looking like he was ready to fight still, so passionate was his defense of his people, I knew that a poem was in order.

My second example poem:

Helga's Tear (1 May 1945)

The children down below, quietly sleeping,
forgot the din and panic, the toil and trouble.
They had our fragile honor in their keeping.

Winter had flown, and spring came softly creeping:
so daintily, she tiptoed through the rubble.
The children down below, quietly sleeping,

deaf to the bombs and shells, and deaf to weeping,
dreamed up green meadows out of beaten stubble,
and had our fragile honor in their keeping.

Then out of Hell they counted brown sheep leaping,
and devils, black and red, crying double, double!
The children down below, quietly sleeping,

when boughs were breaking in the whirlwind's sweeping,
when all the cradles tipped in the world's wobble,
still held our fragile honor in their keeping.

While most went gently, there was one eye peeping.
Blue dazzled where a tear had begun to bubble.
O children down below, quietly sleeping,
I have your fragile honor in my keeping.

I was of course not present during this senseless massacre of children; I have no connection to the Goebbels, except that I'm half-German; I have not lost any loved one to murder; I was not there in WWII; I have no acquaintance with the Goebbels family, or with any family which has suffered the death of SIX children, all at once, at the merciless hands of their own mother, Magda Goebbels. All I have is my humanity, my empathy. I envision the elder daughter as heroic in this poem. She apparently woke up and fought her sinister mother as the latter tried to make the former bite down on a cyanide tablet (which she eventually was forced to do). Helga Goebbels is a hero.

My third example poem: the hardest poem I have ever had to write:

Lethal Injection

One pinch, and winter drifts toward your heart.
Your eyes are dazzled by the thought and keep
a point transfixed in space - cold and apart,
two fathers watch them shudder into sleep.
Now I will speak, though I cannot forgive:
lifting the iron from my tongue I swear
three syllables that are too vain to live,
that fall out stillborn, withered in mid-air.

You cannot hear me now. You lie so still
my voice returns to me, its breath turned sour.
They lift the sheet and hide your face from view.
Most will forget your name. Two never will,
who'll waken nightly in this terrible hour
joined in the ritual of remembering you.

This poem is about two fathers (Line 4) who are witnessing the execution by lethal injection of a young man. One father is the father of the person being executed; the other father is the father of the victim: ie: the person the condemned one murdered.

Mind you, there is no question of the dying man's guilt. Perhaps he confessed. And we are to assume it was unjustified and horrendous.

Nonetheless, the poem is mainly about the LOVE the father of the condemned man feels for his son. Though he will not and cannot forgive his son for the senseless, brutal crime: Now I will speak, though I cannot forgive...

This poem came out of the thought that I had about: IF my own son committed a horrible, unforgivably brutal crime. How would I feel? How would I feel as I watched him die, wanting to comfort him but finding that completely impossible:

lifting the iron from my tongue I swear
three syllables that are too vain to live,
that fall out stillborn, withered in mid-air.

You cannot hear me now. You lie so still
my voice returns to me, its breath turned sour.

I sincerely hope y'all know what those "three syllables" are.

In case not:

Show

I love you

BUT, Moogly, I do not miss your point, or seek to belittle it! Any author will write from experience, and any author will write what they know, what they have seen and felt; but that is only part of the journey. Imagination and empathy fill in the rest.

...

Patrick O’Brian is pertinent. - "I don’t think he ever sailed in a three-master.” -
- Ursula K. Le Guin

About O'Brian (From Wikipedia):

in 1995, venture capitalist Thomas Perkins offered O'Brian a two-week cruise aboard his then sailing yacht, a 154 ft (47 m) ketch. In an article about the experience written after O'Brian's death, Perkins commented that "... his knowledge of the practical aspects of sailing seemed, amazingly, almost nil" and "... he seemed to have no feeling for the wind and the course, and frequently I had to intervene to prevent a full standing gybe. I began to suspect that his autobiographical references to his months at sea as a youth were fanciful.

More from Le Guin:

I got whatever knowledge I have of the hearts and minds of human beings, through imagination working on observation....

That is the truth of it.

Oxfordians seem (SEEM! - I am only suggesting what I see as a common thread) to have no regard for imagination, thinking instead that writing must come from experience.

 

[Swammerdami]

Beautiful poetry, WAB!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I know very little about Kit Marlowe or the Marlovian authorship theory. But I see that Marlowe

• was awarded Bachelor's and Master's degrees from Cambridge University;
• translated Latin texts;
• tutored Arabella Stuart Lady of Somerset, who was widely proposed as Heiress to the Throne of England;
• received favors from Lord Burghley and the Queen's Privy Council;
• may have provided special services for her Majesty or Her secret service.

(Were the "special services" similar to those Oxford allegedly provided? Some say they did collaborate on some of the history plays.)

So Marlowe was well-educated and had much contact with the Kingdom's elite. Is it "elitist" to propose Marlowe as the Author of Hamlet?

Oxfordians seem (SEEM! - I am only suggesting what I see as a common thread) to have no regard for imagination, thinking instead that writing must come from experience.

Please get your information about what Oxfordians believe by reading Oxfordians, and NOT by reading anti-Oxfordian screeds.

In one play, Oxford(!) describes an obscure painting he viewed in a private home. Is it reasonable to say an "imaginative" playwright would have known that painting? And would an "empathetic" playwright writing about lawyers have known the jargon and details of past cases?

I think the "Ten Eyewitnesses" paper helps show the unlikelihood of a Stratford authorship. As for the Oxfordian theory, the overwhelming number of coincidences (and not any issues with empathy or imagination) is telling. @ WAB — have you reached any verdict on "Will Monox and his great dagger"?

 

[WAB]

Beautiful poetry, WAB!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I know very little about Kit Marlowe or the Marlovian authorship theory. But I see that Marlowe

• was awarded Bachelor's and Master's degrees from Cambridge University;
• translated Latin texts;
• tutored Arabella Stuart Lady of Somerset, who was widely proposed as Heiress to the Throne of England;
• received favors from Lord Burghley and the Queen's Privy Council;
• may have provided special services for her Majesty or Her secret service.

(Were the "special services" similar to those Oxford allegedly provided? Some say they did collaborate on some of the history plays.)

So Marlowe was well-educated and had much contact with the Kingdom's elite. Is it "elitist" to propose Marlowe as the Author of Hamlet?

Oxfordians seem (SEEM! - I am only suggesting what I see as a common thread) to have no regard for imagination, thinking instead that writing must come from experience.

Please get your information about what Oxfordians believe by reading Oxfordians, and NOT by reading anti-Oxfordian screeds.

In one play, Oxford(!) describes an obscure painting he viewed in a private home. Is it reasonable to say an "imaginative" playwright would have known that painting? And would an "empathetic" playwright writing about lawyers have known the jargon and details of past cases?

I think the "Ten Eyewitnesses" paper helps show the unlikelihood of a Stratford authorship. As for the Oxfordian theory, the overwhelming number of coincidences (and not any issues with empathy or imagination) is telling. @ WAB — have you reached any verdict on "Will Monox and his great dagger"?

First, thanks for the compliment!

Oh, I thought I gave you my verdict on that "Will Monox and his great dagger". I have no idea what it refers to. It could very well refer to De Vere. Or it might not?? I do not know.

I don't have anything else to say about it, honest.

No, it is not elitest at all to propose that Marlowe composed Shakespeare; but I was reading about it and it seems there was plenty of witness at Marlowe's death, plenty of documentation, so it's unlikely in any case that Kit Marlowe wrote Shakespeare. The thing about Marlowe is - he was a superb poet, and was known to use unrhymed iambic pentameter (blank verse) in his extant plays (the ones we KNOW were Marlowe's) Not only that, he did it BEFORE Shakespeare, and the Bard is said to have been influenced by Marlowe.

There is no documentation of De Vere using blank verse. Or is there? Can I read some? There are some poems by De Vere in the galloping "fourteener" which was popular in his time; but there is no "Shakespeare" in that duly forgotten, plodding meter.

I don't think I specifically said it was "elitest" to propose De Vere as the possible author (if I did, forgive me, I was wrong); what's elitest is the presumption that a man lacking formal education could not be a great author. There are different kinds of "education". There is formal education, high school, college, university, degrees, etc; there is also practical education: ie, there is a way to learn things outside of academia and formally structured modes of teaching.

Some geniuses are self-taught. You have heard of autodidacts?

I think of myself as an autodidact. I never had a formal lesson in the writing of poetry. I never sat at anyone's knee as a "student"; I never had a mentor. I learned about poetry by combing through books since I was about fourteen. I learned how to write formal verse by reading how it was done, and teaching myself step by step.

But that doesn't matter, because I'm a nobody, a nothing in the world of poetry.

 

[Swammerdami]

Thank you again, WAB, for participating in this thread. It's motivated much re-reading and reflection on my part. You've made good points, and it's good to have my opinions challenged. Bottom line however: Although I've always acknowledged a big gap between the skills and styles of Shake-speare and Oxford, I now find the circumstantial evidence pointing away from Stratford and toward Oxford to be stronger than ever.

Whatever the real solution might be, people who don't acknowledge that the Authorship is a mystery are uninformed.

Oh, I thought I gave you my verdict on that "Will Monox and his great dagger". I have no idea what it refers to. It could very well refer to De Vere. Or it might not?? I do not know.

I don't have anything else to say about it, honest.

No, it is not elitest at all to propose that Marlowe composed Shakespeare; but I was reading about it and it seems there was plenty of witness at Marlowe's death, plenty of documentation, so it's unlikely in any case that Kit Marlowe wrote Shakespeare....

... There is no documentation of De Vere using blank verse....

I never suggested that it was elitest to propose De Vere as the possible author; what's elitest is the presumption that a man lacking formal education could not be a great author. There are different kinds of "education". There is formal education, high school, college, university, degrees, etc; there is also practical education: ie, there is a way to learn things outside of academia and formally structured modes of teaching.

Some geniuses are self-taught. You have heard of autodidacts?

The "Will Monox" quote is just one of many things that point strongly to Oxford for which Stratfordians have no answer. Of course nobody can be 100% certain of its meaning, but I posted a strong syllogism pointing at its meaning. Anti-Oxfordians are left repeating "Another inside joke nobody today will ever decipher."

I called attention to Marlowe because you (a) say you are doubtful about a Stratford authorship, (b) proposed Marlowe as author, (c) accused Oxfordians of deprecating the uneducated Stratford's imagination. Your same argument might apply against Marlovism or anti-Stratfordianism more generally.

(And you respond with ... questions about blank verse? The path to fruitful debate is to keep our eyes on one ball at a time! ... BUT ... am I wrong that Shakespeare et al used blank verse mainly in plays? Their stand-alone poems did rhyme. Blank verse attributed to Oxford doesn't survive because plays attributed to him don't.)

For those (not you) who turn anti-Stratfordianism into deprecation of the uneducated, let me mention Mark Twain again: the charge is refuted in his case: He was strongly anti-Stratfordian, and yet glorified the ignorant peasant girl Joan of Arc. (He wrote a book about each.)

As for autodidacts ... I'm rather one myself! (I won't call myself a genius, but my test scores and resume would surprise many.)

 

[WAB]

Swammi,

You are absolutely correct on calling me on the blank verse thing. That was silly of me, since blank verse was only used for plays at the time (as far as I know - at least until John Milton wrote Paradise Lost). To repeat: that was tremendously silly of me.

Albeit, I do regret that none of De Vere's writing for performance has endured. I am left wondering why. He was of the nobility, and not minor, but quite prestigious. The Earldom of Oxford was and is a big deal.

I realize it was acceptable for nobility to pen plays and masques for royalty, but that it was considered beneath them to do the same for the common rabble. I get it; but I am left wondering why the "acceptable" work is not extant. Why doesn't De Vere's work for the royal court survive, at least? What was to be gained by its destruction, or whatever happened to it?

Perhaps I have it wrong, and the fact is any literature, or dramatic work for performance, was considered beneath nobility? But then what about the poems that bear De Vere's name? It was okay to publish poems as an Earl but NOT plays or dramatic pieces? I don't get it.

As for "Will Monox and his great dagger". Sure, it could be a reference to De Vere. But is it certain?

Also, if major dramatists like Ben Jonson and Thomas Nashe (and Greene, for that matter), knew that Will Shakespeare of Stratford was only a front-man, then we come back to the original objection made by [MENTION=20]Bronzeage[/MENTION]; ** early (early!) in the thread: that it would have required literally hundreds of people - actors, playwrights, various business people, theatre staff, etc - to keep this secret. You may have heard a popular song lyric about keeping secrets:

"Two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

But my conjectures and doubts mean NOTHING! There are qualified scholars arguing this very issue all over the world. We are just the peanut gallery.

It is nice that we can remain friendly! I refuse to get too worked up about this, as I did earlier in the thread...

I do not know enough to have an opinion that matters, save to me.

I still say Bronzeage had the best answer:

** - Bronzeage, from an early post in this thread:

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

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

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

I think the above is worth thinking about.

 

[Swammerdami]

... Albeit, I do regret that none of De Vere's writing for performance has endured. I am left wondering why. He was of the nobility, and not minor, but quite prestigious. The Earldom of Oxford was and is a big deal.

I realize it was acceptable for nobility to pen plays and masques for royalty, but that it was considered beneath them to do the same for the common rabble. I get it; but I am left wondering why the "acceptable" work is not extant. Why doesn't De Vere's work for the royal court survive, at least? What was to be gained by its destruction, or whatever happened to it?

Perhaps I have it wrong, and the fact is any literature, or dramatic work for performance, was considered beneath nobility? But then what about the poems that bear De Vere's name? It was okay to publish poems as an Earl but NOT plays or dramatic pieces? I don't get it.

I don't think we can be certain about the exact nature of the "taboo" against publishing. Oxford was not the only courtier playwright; IIUC none of them are associated with specific play titles or manuscripts. And, as discussed earlier, he'd "painted himself into a corner", e.g. by accepting the 1000-pound salary for writing propaganda plays and keeping his authorship secret.

Moogly or I linked to a long paper titled "Twenty Poems of Edward de Vere ..." Here's a URL, though NOT the same URL as given up-thread.

The author describes the care he took to settle on 20 poems almost universally regarded as Oxford's; he rejected many, e.g. poems published by George Gascoigne, allegedly an Oxford pen-name. Most of the poems were attributed to Oxford by Professor Steven May — a Stratfordian — and the others were agreed by him as possible or probable.

Eight of the 20 poems (#2-#9) were published without Oxford's consent in The Paradise of Dainty Devices (1576) — they were shown as by "E.O." IIRC, Oxford insisted that the poems be removed in subsequent editions. #1 was published under Oxford's by-line in the preface to Cardanus Comforte (1573); apparently as Bedingfield's patron this was OK. The other eleven seem to lack a contemporary by-line, but have been credibly attributed to Oxford. (Some of them, I think, were songs from Lyly's plays.)

TL;DR: With the exception of #1, Oxford did NOT publish poems under his own name.

The "Twenty Poems" paper answers some of your other questions, and mentions a pre-Looney "pro-Oxfordian" poet, Walt Whitman.

As discussed by Cheryl Eagan-Donovan (2017), scholars studying many great poets—Walt Whitman, Arthur Rimbaud, and Sylvia Plath, to name just a few diverse examples—have noted how dramatically they may change and develop their voices over time. Not just the extent but the pace and timing of development may vary greatly. Some poets blossom from immaturity to mastery while still precociously young (Rimbaud is a famous example), and some (like Whitman) much later, in middle age.The first edition of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass (1855), a radical break with anything he (or anyone) had written before, appeared when he was 36. ... A leading expert on Whitman (Schmidgall 4) notes that the great American poet’s “iographers and critics have unanimously accounted his early poetry [published into his early 30s] ... very bland stuff, indistinguishable from the countless chunks of poetasting produced to satisfy ... [newspaper] weeklies and dailies. ... These [early] poems never rise above the arch or maudlin ....”

In sum, the allegedly mysterious “gulf” between these early de Vere poems and the Shakespeare canon is much ado about nothing. De Vere had more than sufficient time to grow and develop as a writer—in effect, to become Shakespeare—between his mid-20s and his mid-40s (see, e.g., Ogburn 390-97). Sobran, for example, noted that “whoever wrote The Tempest was at one time capable of writing Titus Andronicus, a play so inferior to Shakespeare’s mature work that its authorship was formerly in doubt” (231). The posited evolution of de Vere into Shakespeare is certainly far less mysterious than the many puzzling incongruities of the Stratfordian authorship theory. To quote a staunchly orthodox Stratfordian, if only we had evidence even remotely comparable to this massive array of poetic parallels to “bridg[e] the vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of [‘Shakespeare’ the author] and the mundane inconsequence of the documentary record” concerning Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon (Schoenbaum 568).

Whitman, it should be noted, was himself a Shakespeare authorship doubter.Indeed, he anticipated the Oxfordian theory as early as 1888, observing that “only one of the ‘wolfish earls’ so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works” (52, referring specifically to the English history plays).

 

[Swammerdami]

Estimating probabilities is an interesting art. I felt confident that O.J. Simpson was guilty based on lots of circumstantial evidence and the lack of any alternative hypothesis.

A famous controversy in Contract Bridge arose in 1965. Terence Reese (one of the greatest players ever) and Boris Shapiro were accused of using illegal hand signals in the World Championship. Many bridge fans did not believe the allegations (and the pair were acquitted in an informal British trial with a "reasonable doubt" criterion or some such). But it was very clear to me that the allegations had to be true. So clear that the deniers baffled me. Why? Careful perusal of the evidence and estimating the likelihood of any alternative explanation. (Decades later, after Reese passed away, Shapiro confessed that "that wicked man" had forced him to cheat.)

Similarly it was obvious that Anita Hill's accusation were true in the famous confirmation hearings (with Senator Biden presiding!) decades ago. Why? Simply consider the evidence and estimate the a priori probabilities of hypotheses.

As for "Will Monox and his great dagger". Sure, it could be a reference to De Vere. But is it certain?

I just wrote that it is NOT 100% certain! Is it more than 90% probable? I certainly think so, and personally would estimate the chance as much higher than 90%.

Nashe was probably speaking of a playwright or theater patron; the person's status as a nobleman would have been a likely reason to keep his identity cryptic. As operator of Fisher's Folly, Oxford was known to meet frequently with playwrights like Nashe and Greene. The connection from "Monox great dagger" to "Oxford and the ceremonial SWORD of state he bore as GREAT Chamberlain" is pretty direct. Do you have any alternate hypothesis? Without the "Will", this connection might not be controversial at all. But the suggestion that "Monox" was named "Will" certainly should raise an eyebrow!

By itself, I might find "Will Monox" laughable. When combined with dozens of similar coincidences, application of Bayes' Theorem becomes lop-sided.

 

[Swammerdami]

Also, if major dramatists like Ben Jonson and Thomas Nashe (and Greene, for that matter), knew that Will Shakespeare of Stratford was only a front-man, then we come back to the original objection made by Bronzeage early (early!) in the thread: that it would have required literally hundreds of people - actors, playwrights, various business people, theatre staff, etc - to keep this secret. You may have heard a popular song lyric about keeping secrets:

"Two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

I'd agree with "probably at least a hundred" but draw the line before "literally hundreds of people." (I disagree about "various business people, theatre staff, etc." though it's hard to be certain without knowing exactly how the hoax played out — we don't.)

But most of those in on the secret would have had incentive to keep mum: Oxford's relatives, and the Queen's spies and agents, of course; but also those who were aware that the hoax was authorized by the Queen herself, and that revealing it would incur her wrath. There would have been no incentive to divulge. Ben Jonson and the publisher of Greene's book are two examples where a 180-degree shift can be seen to occur when they were presumably informed of the hoax.

Could a few hundred people keep a secret? I like to bring up the example of Britain's Ultra secret during World War II. Hundreds of people were in on that secret, yet it didn't become public until the mid 1970's, some 35 years after the secrecy began!

And — don't forget — there WERE many cryptic references to the hoax. One poem mentions that Shake-speare used "a borrowed name"; and so on.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I still say Bronzeage had the best answer:

** - Bronzeage, from an early post in this thread:

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

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

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

I think the above is worth thinking about.

What's with the word Shamspeare? Do we as adults really need to engage our fourth grade emotional intellects? That's what Stratfordians are fond of doing with the name Looney. Can't we be adults? Can't we discuss the evidence on its merits?

As to the claim that "all it would take is a disgruntled stage hand" assumes that stage hands knew the sources of all the plays. Why would I make such an assumption? How do I know how many people knew that Oxford was the source of the play? The word "Shakes-speare" appears on many works that are clearly from another author, there is virtually 100% agreement on that by both Oxfordians and Stratfordians. Should we assume that all the stage hands who propped all those plays also knew who the real authors were? Doesn't this seem like a silly argument?

And associating it with moon landing hoaxers is just another breach of intellectual integrity. Lets please deal with the evidence and leave the emotional insults outside.

Worth noting is that it is common to discuss Elizabethan England anachronistically, transporting today's norms back into the times. We should not do that. As WAB attests, the Earl of Oxford could not place his name on plays that clearly spoke of royal intrigue. That point should be quite clear to anyone who has seriously looked at the times and why this was necessary. If I have not then my opinion is based on applying present cultural norms to those times. Why would I do that? The old adage applies, "Garbage in, garbage out," as any problem solver knows. If your data is flawed you will emerge with flawed conclusions.

WAB asks why there are no plays in Oxford's name. The contention is that the Shakespeare Canon is the work of Oxford (or Oxford and associates) and not TSM. So there are most definitely works by Oxford.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Also, if major dramatists like Ben Jonson and Thomas Nashe (and Greene, for that matter), knew that Will Shakespeare of Stratford was only a front-man, then we come back to the original objection made by Bronzeage early (early!) in the thread: that it would have required literally hundreds of people - actors, playwrights, various business people, theatre staff, etc - to keep this secret. You may have heard a popular song lyric about keeping secrets:

"Two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

I'd agree with "probably at least a hundred" but draw the line before "literally hundreds of people." (I disagree about "various business people, theatre staff, etc." though it's hard to be certain without knowing exactly how the hoax played out — we don't.)

But most of those in on the secret would have had incentive to keep mum: Oxford's relatives, and the Queen's spies and agents, of course; but also those who were aware that the hoax was authorized by the Queen herself, and that revealing it would incur her wrath. There would have been no incentive to divulge. Ben Jonson and the publisher of Greene's book are two examples where a 180-degree shift can be seen to occur when they were presumably informed of the hoax.

Could a few hundred people keep a secret? I like to bring up the example of Britain's Ultra secret during World War II. Hundreds of people were in on that secret, yet it didn't become public until the mid 1970's, some 35 years after the secrecy began!

And — don't forget — there WERE many cryptic references to the hoax. One poem mentions that Shake-speare used "a borrowed name"; and so on.

But which is the actual conspiracy, to think that Oxford was the author, a man for which we have much historical information, or that TSM was the author, a man for which we have no evidence that he was even literate let alone interested in writing anything?

It is important to remember that there are zero references to TSM as a writer of any kind during his lifetime and for seven years after he died in 1616. When persons today happen upon the Authorship question they do not know this. They assume TSM is the writer and assume that all those "biographies" of TSM's life are not inventions. They are not aware of evidence to the contrary and so assume that TSM was the author and known as such during his lifetime when nothing could be further from the truth, further assuming that there are crackpots trying to smear his good name. It's a great bit of propaganda and is the single most important dynamic of the authorship question.

Absolutely no one today would connect TSM and the Shakespeare Canon were it not for the publication of the First Folio in 1623. This is where the first dots get connected. This is a pretty fantastic bit of historical evidence which when taken with all the other circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly argues against TSM.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Estimating probabilities is an interesting art. I felt confident that O.J. Simpson was guilty based on lots of circumstantial evidence and the lack of any alternative hypothesis.

A famous controversy in Contract Bridge arose in 1965. Terence Reese (one of the greatest players ever) and Boris Shapiro were accused of using illegal hand signals in the World Championship. Many bridge fans did not believe the allegations (and the pair were acquitted in an informal British trial with a "reasonable doubt" criterion or some such). But it was very clear to me that the allegations had to be true. So clear that the deniers baffled me. Why? Careful perusal of the evidence and estimating the likelihood of any alternative explanation. (Decades later, after Reese passed away, Shapiro confessed that "that wicked man" had forced him to cheat.)

Similarly it was obvious that Anita Hill's accusation were true in the famous confirmation hearings (with Senator Biden presiding!) decades ago. Why? Simply consider the evidence and estimate the a priori probabilities of hypotheses.

As for "Will Monox and his great dagger". Sure, it could be a reference to De Vere. But is it certain?

I just wrote that it is NOT 100% certain! Is it more than 90% probable? I certainly think so, and personally would estimate the chance as much higher than 90%.

Nashe was probably speaking of a playwright or theater patron; the person's status as a nobleman would have been a likely reason to keep his identity cryptic. As operator of Fisher's Folly, Oxford was known to meet frequently with playwrights like Nashe and Greene. The connection from "Monox great dagger" to "Oxford and the ceremonial SWORD of state he bore as GREAT Chamberlain" is pretty direct. Do you have any alternate hypothesis? Without the "Will", this connection might not be controversial at all. But the suggestion that "Monox" was named "Will" certainly should raise an eyebrow!

By itself, I might find "Will Monox" laughable. When combined with dozens of similar coincidences, application of Bayes' Theorem becomes lop-sided.

I've only ever been a juror one time but it was a fascinating experience. Eye witnesses take the stand and their testimonies directly contradict each other's. I'm not talking about expert or character witnesses either, I'm talking about witnesses to the same event. So as a juror you are forced to come to a decision about what actually happened and who's testimony is likely to be the truth based on everything else that occurred.

In this particular case the main evidence was a video of the event taken from the pressbox overlooking a football game. A brawl ensued after the game involving the police after which an individual was charged on six felony counts ranging from inciting a riot to assaulting police officers. Some of the charges occurred out of camera range but a large portion of the charges emanated from activities that were recorded by the camera.

Also of note was the fact that superintendents and athletic directors from different school districts also testified and were also involved in the melee. On one occasion a superintendent was pointing out to the jury what was happening while the video was being played. The problem was that not a single juror could agree with his description. It was as if he thought we would simply believe him based on his authority. Who knows? In any case, the evidence argued against conviction, the primary evidence being the actual video recording.

In the end we as a jury agreed that what had ensued was essentially a police riot, ignited by one officer violently attacking and throwing a person to the ground for no reason. When we saw it happen on the video you could hear a collective groan from the jury box. The police charges were a smokescreen to cover their mistake and that's all it was. A judge should have looked at the evidence and dismissed the charges long before the trial ever occurred. It was that obvious.

Sorry for being longwinded.

 

[Swammerdami]

There are two hypotheses about William Shakespeare the playwright.

(A) He was one specific man who wrote plays and contributed them to a specific theatrical company in which he had a strong financial interest. (That essential company underwent several name changes: Lord Chamberlain's Men, Lord Hunsden's Men, King's Men, and earlier perhaps Sussex's Men.)

(B) He was a non-writing opportunist who represented himself, with or without permission, as the author of several plays, possibly written by two or more different playwrights (at least some of whom sought anonymity).

Let's look at some facts and see which hypothesis fits.

The word "Shakes-speare" appears on many works that are clearly from another author, there is virtually 100% agreement on that by both Oxfordians and Stratfordians. Should we assume that all the stage hands who propped all those plays also knew who the real authors were? Doesn't this seem like a silly argument?

Yes, the byline "Shakespeare" was appended to several plays that ALL scholars agree were simply NOT written by the man who wrote King Lear. Does this seem odd? The traditional explanation is that the Quarto printers were not worried about any copyright laws and felt that the name would increase sales^*. But is this really plausible? The playwrights Marlowe and Jonson were also quite admired; were their names made to suffer the same indignity? Even if there were no legal risks in stealing a name in this fashion, might not the quarto printers, or those who fed them scripts, been worried about repercussions from this chicanery?
. . . (* - This is one of many examples were Stratfordians need to do backflips. In 1596 Stratford was so famous that book-printers were purloining his name, yet in 1616 he was so obscure that his death passed unnoticed! )

Hypothesis (A) - Zero ; Hypothesis (B) - One.


The relationship between playwright and plays can be approached from the opposite direction. Shakespeare was, allegedly, an apprentice or journeyman player trying to build a relationship by supplying new plays to Lord Chamberlain's Men and its predecessors, and was financially rewarded for his loyalty. But look at what I wrote in this thread back in November:

"Had Shakespeare been a real playwright affiliated with a theater company, his plays would presumably have been written for that company. Yet Henry VI part 3 was performed by three different companies before its early first printing, and the early Titus and Adronicus is known to have been performed by yet a fourth company."​

My note-keeping is so bad that I'm not sure now what all of these four other companies were, but two of them were Pembroke's Men and Queen's Men.

Hypothesis (A) - Zero ; Hypothesis (B) - Two.

 

[WAB]

WAB asks why there are no plays in Oxford's name. The contention is that the Shakespeare Canon is the work of Oxford (or Oxford and associates) and not TSM. So there are most definitely works by Oxford. - Moogly.

****
WAB asks why there are no plays in Bacon's name. The contention is that the Shakespeare Canon is the work of Bacon (or Bacon and associates) and not TSM. So there are most definitely works by Bacon.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

WAB asks why there are no plays in Oxford's name. The contention is that the Shakespeare Canon is the work of Oxford (or Oxford and associates) and not TSM. So there are most definitely works by Oxford. - Moogly.

****
WAB asks why there are no plays in Bacon's name. The contention is that the Shakespeare Canon is the work of Bacon (or Bacon and associates) and not TSM. So there are most definitely works by Bacon.

WAB, I like it! I like it because we're doing a great job of debunking orthodoxy on the authorship question.

Much has been said about DeVere's life as it relates to the Canon. But I honestly admit I have a blank when it comes to Bacon. Could you provide or link the strongest morsels?

 

[WAB]

WAB asks why there are no plays in Oxford's name. The contention is that the Shakespeare Canon is the work of Oxford (or Oxford and associates) and not TSM. So there are most definitely works by Oxford. - Moogly.

****
WAB asks why there are no plays in Bacon's name. The contention is that the Shakespeare Canon is the work of Bacon (or Bacon and associates) and not TSM. So there are most definitely works by Bacon.

WAB, I like it! I like it because we're doing a great job of debunking orthodoxy on the authorship question.

Much has been said about DeVere's life as it relates to the Canon. But I honestly admit I have a blank when it comes to Bacon. Could you provide or link the strongest morsels?

Not at all! Bacon most certainly didn't write Shakespeare.

As far as "debunking orthodoxy" - I have been very clear - more than clear, I have insisted, that I am not a Stratfordian, let alone someone who defends Stratfordian Orthodoxy.

Review the thread. Can you quote me, or lead me to, by way of post number, a post where I stated an orthodox opinion? Please, do this.

I HAVE suggested that TSM could be the Author, but I have not spent any amount of time arguing for it.

I have spent my time putting forward a position that is Contra-Oxford. I base my opinion on...well, you know already.

***

I do have a theory, however:

Perhaps the poems that Oxford took credit for are not in fact written by him? He took credit for a handful of mediorcre poems so that no-one would be able to successfully tie those bland works with the works of "Shakespeare". After all, it was the Earl's wish that no-one would ever unravel his secret, no?

What better way to ensure no-one would connect Oxford with Shakespeare than to make sure the poems attributed to Oxford were markedly inferior to the work attributed to Shakespeare? No-one would think to associate them???

It's a perfect plan. In this way, no-one with any literary acumen would associate De Vere with "Shakespeare". Hence, Oxford's anonymity would be assured forever!

In summary: The Earl of Oxford did not write the mediocre poems to which his name is attached. They were the scribblings of a nobody. All to ensure no-one ever made the connection between Oxford and "Shakespeare."

 

[Swammerdami]

I do have a theory, however:

Perhaps the poems that Oxford took credit for are not in fact written by him? He took credit for a handful of mediorcre poems so that no-one would be able to successfully tie those bland works with the works of "Shakespeare". After all, it was the Earl's wish that no-one would ever unravel his secret, no?...

In summary: The Earl of Oxford did not write the mediocre poems to which his name is attached. They were the scribblings of a nobody. All to ensure no-one ever made the connection between Oxford and "Shakespeare."

I assume you're being sarcastic. Is that correct?

And did you miss the recent post where I patiently explained that Oxford "took credit" for just One (1) of the twenty poems most strongly attributed to him?