| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132396
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 10:58am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
My support for William Shakespeare being William Shakespeare is essentially Occam's Razor - alternative candidates require far too many coincidences or conspiracies to make them work (and yes, I know that Marlow faking his death falls into the latter camp!:))••• One of the things that won my over to De Vere is the complete lack of need for coincidence and contrivance. Unlike other candidates—including the Stratford Man—no invention is required for Oxford. Merely Elizabethan business as usual.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132396
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 11:02am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
I've gotten myself in over my head here because I'm not really versed in this material and you clearly are. I can say that I've read what are, to my mind, convincing arguments against the certainty of your points. But that's kind of weak-sauce because I can't repeat them here in detail.••• Steven demonstrates a deep knowledge of Stratfordian mythology, but unless he’s holding back for some reason his knowledge of the oxford case seems, generously, superficial at best.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132396
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 11:06am | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
BTW...Michael mentions Diana Price, and her book I highly recommend. She is a lapsed Oxfordian, but still recognizes the inherent absurdity of the Stratford case. Without choosing a candidate, she demolishes Will Shaksper so thoroughly I doubt any rational thinker could stand unmoved.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7979
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 11:50am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Do you have an 'extra' copy of this book too?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8376
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 11:53am | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Sadly, that's the one book I was most hoping the library would have, but didn't.
I may check the used bookstore I go to next time I'm there, but I'm not sure what category they would have it under. Their organization system is weird at times. Went there looking for a Steampunk crafts book once, and after they looked in their computers, was told it would be under Science Fiction if they had it. (They didn't.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132396
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 11:59am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Amazon has it for $20.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132396
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 12:19pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
It is important to note, again, that much Stratfordian confusion seems to rise from their refusal to believe Oxford would hide behind a pen name, given that he was already known and praised as a playwright. But, again, I point out that Oxford himself may have had nothing to do with the subterfuge. Rather, as noted, the poet “Shake-speare” may have been the invention of printers and publishers trying to create a “brand”—too enthusiastically, perhaps, as one later play, KING JOHN, has come under doubt of being Shakespeare at all. As his works trickled out, Oxford could do nothing to stop their dissemination. Even Burley would have been stymied, since casually crushing the distribution would have drawn even more attention to the Work, something he would not have wished.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 3836
|
| Posted: 26 April 2019 at 3:15pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Curiosity about the authorship issue made me seek out Diana Price's book. Wow, it was compelling. The appendix's "Chart of literary paper trails" alone is pretty damning for Stratford's case.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 27 April 2019 at 2:54am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
JB wrote:
One of the things that won my over to De Vere is the complete lack of need for coincidence and contrivance. Unlike other candidates—including the Stratford Man—no invention is required for Oxford. Merely Elizabethan business as usual.
------------------------------------------------------------
For Oxford to be Shakespeare, he needs to desperately hide his prowess as a playwright, despite being acclaimed as one and suffering no ill consequences as a result (to the best of my knowledge? Or is there anything that happened to Oxford circa 1598, after Palladis Tamia is published, that Oxfordians point to as evidence that he did fall foul of the Queen, or Burghley?).
Oxford's either written plays from the 1580s, or perhaps 1570s, up to his death in 1604 that perfectly anticipate the development of literary trends and social concerns, and which Shakespeare somehow acquires and releases to give the illusion that he's writing them. Throughout, Oxford fumes impotently and does nothing. Why? Marlowe was killed, and it's been widely suggested that there's a lot more behind the official story (Anthony Burgess in A Dead Man In Deptford suggests that both Essex and Raleigh, while they hated each other, nevertheless saw common cause in having Kit killed). Kyd was tortured. Jonson ran foul of the authorities. What protection did the Warwickshire lad have that made him immune to reprisal?
Alternately, Oxford is writing from the 1590s to the 1600s, and every time he does, Shakespeare, or another intermediary acting on his behalf, nicks the manuscript and passes it off as his own. Oxford is furious, then writes another play. Which Shakespeare, or another intermediary, nicks, then passes of as his own. Oxford is furious, then writes another play. Which Shakespeare, or another intermediary, nicks, then passes of as his own. And this happens over and over again for years, with Oxford helplessly compelled to write and unable to prevent Shakespeare from claiming the credit.
Contemporaries of William Shakespeare seem to have no doubt that he was the author. Jonson vacillates between public teasing and private jibes, but while he can be both admiring and critical of Shakespeare's writing, he never doubts that he was the author.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
Steven demonstrates a deep knowledge of Stratfordian mythology, but unless he’s holding back for some reason his knowledge of the oxford case seems, generously, superficial at best.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
I admit to not having read Looney directly, just commentaries about him. I do have Ogburn's book, which I've skimmed and intend to dive into at some point! And, as I've posted above, and earlier in this thread, I'm more than happy for Oxfordians, Baconians, or Marlovians - or indeed, supporters of any other possible candidate - to argue their case, or suggest further reading.
As I've noted above, when it comes to the authorship question, Stratfordians really only have themselves to blame. Doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are intertwined with adulation of him, and the insistence upon a Divine Shakespeare, who was possessed of an unearthly and inexplicable genius inevitably invites scepticism.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
But, again, I point out that Oxford himself may have had nothing to do with the subterfuge. Rather, as noted, the poet “Shake-speare” may have been the invention of printers and publishers trying to create a “brand”—
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
Isn't the Oxford position that "Shakespeare" is an allusion to Harvey's address to Oxford that "thy countenance shakes a spear"? Again, as above, happy to have this clarified, or be corrected.
But, again, the whole pseudonym business is the epitome of coincidence and contrivance. What need did De Vere have for a pseudonym? His role as a playwright was known, and did not , as far as I'm aware, incur any disgrace.
What are the odds that such an odd name would be picked, and that there should be another chap associated with the theatre - first with the Lord Chamberlain's Men, who became the King's Men? Why were Heminges and Condell so convinced that the man they knew was indeed the author that they spent years trying to acquire as many copies of the plays as they could as a memorial to him? Why did Johnson, who knew Shakespeare, and while ambiguous over the quality of his writing and dismissive of his lack of learning, never doubt that he was the author? If he was in on the gag (as Anonymous states), what purpose did he have in maintaining it long after Shakespeare, De Vere, and Burghley were dead? Why was Sir George Buck, Master Of The Revels, in no doubt that Shakespeare was the author of King Lear?
Were all these people - and there are of course more - fools, who had the wool thoroughly pulled over their eyes? Or did they feel some need to maintain the façade long after the danger in not doing so had passed?
Let's say for arguments sake the Jonson, say, in one of his typical pique's of truculence, announced that Shakespeare's plays were actually Oxford's works. What ill-fate would have befallen him in Jacobean England? Would James VI and I have given a damn either way?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132396
|
| Posted: 27 April 2019 at 4:48am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Curiosity about the authorship issue made me seek out Diana Price's book. Wow, it was compelling. The appendix's "Chart of literary paper trails" alone is pretty damning for Stratford's case. ••• Isn’t it, tho! Shakespeare the invisible!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 27 April 2019 at 5:21am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
@ Petter Myhr Ness and JB:
I've just ordered Price's book, which I didn't think was readily available (or affordable!) here in the U.K, but I've just seen it at a very reasonable price on Amazon.
In what may be a first, I'm not going to complain about spoilers! When comparing Shakespeare to his peers, and arguing that the evidence proving their authorship is solid, or more solid, against the non-existence for him,, how does she then account for them (particularly Jonson, but also Webster, Heywood and Beaumont) vouching for the former?
If this is too technical and protracted a discussion to have on the JBF, I can cheerfully wait until her book arrives next week!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132396
|
| Posted: 27 April 2019 at 9:00am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
A long ARTICLE covering many of the points from both sides. Price is quoted at length.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|