| Posted: 27 January 2021 at 12:33pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Mark: The consequence is not the issue. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Steven: ?
I thought that was precisely the point of the Oxfordian, or anonymous noble author argument - that they daren't let their authorship be known, because of the consequences to them. Apologies if I've misunderstood this point. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
Mark: At this point, you have really failed to uphold your points beyond repeating them. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- - Steven: My points have been repeated, and sometimes expanded upon, because they haven't been countered, or satisfactorily answered. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- -
Mark: You were taught the "fact" that the Author was unschooled. Therefore, some questionable references to such become, to you, unshakable proof that this is so. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- -- Steven: I wasn't taught that Shakespeare was unschooled. I believe that he did go to the King Edward's School, while cheerfully conceding that there's no solid proof that he did. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
Mark: The legal expertise found in Shakespeare's works lay this notion to waste on its own. But then he does it again with medicine. And again with knowledge of Italy. And again with knowledge of falconry, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- Steven: The plays do display a strong sense of legal understanding (see particularly the Salic law scene in Henry V, interminable though it it). But as Oxfordians - or anti-Stratfordians, if you'd rather - themselves note, one of the things we do know about Will of Stratford is that he was a litigious man. Indeed, this often forms part of their case against him - he seems to sue for fairly innocuous reasons, but doesn't seem to press suits when it comes to the publication of bad quartos of his plays (or "the plays", if you'd prefer).
The plays also show repeated errors in history and geography that are difficult - not impossible, but difficult - to reconcile with a classically-educated, well-travelled author. And to a deeply erudite contemporary like Ben Jonson, Shakespeare's errors were comical. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- - Mark: Taken as a whole, the amount of research that Shaxper is alleged to have done ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- --- Steven: Oh, again with the "Shaxper"! Look at the spelling of his name in the royal patent creating, or confirming, The King's Men! :)
And what rare, or virtually unaccessible, texts, are you referring to, and in respect of what plays? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ---- Mark: "Genius" doesn't begin to cover it. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Steven: Shakespeare was a literary genius, who could write brilliantly on subjects that he didn't always fully understand.
The plays aren't academic treatises. They were meant to be entertaining. And they were, and still are. That they have factual errors in no way undermines their artistic success. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- - Steven, replying to Mark rRegarding the history of alternative authorship theories - I won't repost the post, directly above this one - yes, alternative authorship theories begin to gain purchase as a kind of reply, or response, to a similar growth in Bardolatry.
However frustrated Stratfordians may be over Oxfordian, Marlovian, Baconian, etc theories of authorship, they need to acknowledge that it's their own insistence on Shakespeare's infallible genius that have provoked them. Acknowledging his collaborators - Nashe, Kyd, Marlowe, Middleton, Fletcher, etc - and accepting that every line by "Shakespeare" probably wasn't written by him may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it will lead to a greater appreciation of the works, a correct allocation of credit, and a refutation of alternative authorship. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- -- Mark: The Stratfordian case has inertia and tradition. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- Steven: Oh, there's lots of myths and wild speculation, no doubt. But there's a lot of evidence that can't just be shrugged at. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- ----- Cory: Fenner's complaint is that Derby is undertaking frivolous work rather than dedicating himself to the Catholic cause.
Steven: The latter might be considered treasonous, but in what sense is the former causing Derby to suffer disgrace? ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- Cory: In 1601 Elizabeth wrote to Robert Cecil against a ban on her husband's involvement in plays. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- - Steven: Unless I've misunderstood your comment, Elizabeth was pleading with Cecil that her husband be allowed to continue writing plays for common people - is that correct? If so, that demonstrates that however incommensurate such an activity was for someone of noble birth - and I'm not denying that, incidentally! - it wasn't something scandalous that had to be suppressed at all costs?
Edited by Steven Brake on 27 January 2021 at 12:55pm
|