| Author |
|
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 25 January 2021 at 11:07am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Although I've been amused by some of the posters above using "Shaxper" when referring to Will of Stratford, the idea that the author used the name "Shakespeare", and it sounds a bit like "Shaxper", the two becoming conflated, simply won't fly.
There's nothing to connect Will with the art of writing? Well, no - apart from his longstanding membership of The Lord Strange's Men and The King's Men, the fact that we know that they performed the plays published under the name Shakespeare, that Heminges and Condell who'd known Will of Stratford arranged for as many plays as they could find to be collected in the Folio as a tribute to the man they had known, and that Ben Jonson, who'd also known Shakespeare, exalted his writing in a commendatory verse.
And that while he was more critical, then ambivalent, about Shakespeare's writing, he never once expressed doubt that he was a writer.
And the praise of critics like Francis Meres.
And the scorn of the author, or authors, of The Groatsworth Of Wit and The Parnassus Plays.
And the actions of Sir George Buck, who, as Master of Revels, confirmed Shakespeare's authorship.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
|
| Posted: 25 January 2021 at 2:20pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
The idea that an opportunist might take advantage when he discovers a way to profit from popular plays by someone who doesn't want credit is easy enough to follow, isn't it?
So try this:
A man named Shaxper...
Performs plays that, among those in the know, are attributed to a nobleman who'd prefer to remain nameless...
But who uses the pen-name "Shake-spear"...
Light-bulb goes off: Shaxper, the litigious and money obsessed man from Stratford, starts telling people he is Shake-spear.
He does so enough to become known for it. Exposing him threatens the actual Author. So no one ever does (except by implication -- "Upstart crow").
It may not be the truth, but it fits the facts.
And thus fitting, eliminates the need for all sorts of bizarre arguments like "The Author was clearly uneducated, despite all evidence of education in the plays and sonnets --because he got some things wrong (and Shaxper was uneducated)."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132288
|
| Posted: 25 January 2021 at 2:37pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
Even simpler:De Vere used no pen name. The Work was created for the entertainment of his peers, who knew who he was. But the Work also “trickled down” to the public theater, and largely out of Oxford’s control. The Work proved enormously popular, and producers and printers wanted to mark the “brand” so audiences would know what to look for. Enter Shaxsper. By his own effort or by election (by Jonson?) he becomes the face of the Work.* The first printer to use the name, tho, wants to make sure everyone knows this bumpkin from Stratford is not the Author and adds a wink and a nod to the title page, spelling the name phonetically and with a hyphen, Shake-speare. As previously noted, to a savvy audience, the second S being lower case would indicate a false name. _________ * A little too much so, perhaps. Hence the “upstart crow”.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 25 January 2021 at 3:45pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
De Vere used a pen name, for which there is no evidence, nor need given that he was publicly acclaimed as an author by Francis Meres in Palladis Tamia and suffered no ill consequences as a result. The pen name used is William Shakespeare. By happy chance, there is a fellow of that very name - that very unusual name - also associated with a theatre company, The Lord Strange's Men, later The King's Men. This fellow of the same name - the same unusual name - is also acclaimed by Meres in Palladis Tamia.
Throughout Shakespeare's time with both troupes, he repeatedly presents Oxford's work as his own. Oxford takes no measures of any kind to prevent this from happening, such as having Shakespeare arrested on trumped up charges, having him waylaid by vagabonds on dark night, or pre-empting Shakespeare by having the plays published but accredited to another person. Instead, he furiously continues to write and Shakespeare or his confederates keep nicking his manuscripts.
Alternately, Oxford has already written all the plays that Shakespeare will claim as his, anticipating the development of drama over the next twenty-odd years and giving the illusion that the plays were written roughly about the time they were first recorded as having been performed, rather than twenty-odd years previously. Oxford's ability to foretell the future is also shown by the way that he alludes to The Gunpowder Plot, discovered and foiled a year after his death, in Macbeth.
While displaying this incredible acumen, Oxford also cleverly makes small but telling errors of history, geography, and learning that indicate that the plays aren't written by a well-educated, widely travelled man. The success of this ploy is shown by the repeated mockery issued at them by well-educated contemporaries.
Sir George Buck, who, as Master of Revels, is responsible for supervising court entertainments, credits Shakespeare as being an author. Despite not being literate, Will of Stratford is able to convincingly portray him as a playwright so that Heminges and Condell, who'd known him for years, spend further years collecting the plays as a tribute to him.
Jonson writes a commendatory verse which refers to Mr William Shakespeare, the Swan of Avon. This is obviously Oxford, despite there being no evidence or need for him to have used a pseudonym, and who may have a property or two which the Avon runs past. It is emphatically not the Master William Shakespeare who was born, largely lived, and eventually died in a town called Stratford-Upon-Avon.
In private conversation, and in later years, Jonson revises his earlier glowing opinion of William Shakespeare, but while criticising his works never states that he did not write them.
Or - William Shakespeare from Stratford-Upon-Avon did indeed write the plays - possibly alongside different collaborators over the years - that were published under his name. His extremely unusual name.
Edited by Steven Brake on 25 January 2021 at 4:25pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
|
| Posted: 25 January 2021 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
JB: De Vere used no pen name. [emphasis on "NO"]
Steven: De Vere used a pen name, for which there is no evidence...
??
**
Steven: By happy chance, there is a fellow of that very name - that very unusual name - also associated with a theatre company...
Mark: There is no example of the Stratford man using the name "Shakespeare" in his life. The works were never published under his name, thus turning your "open and shut" argument into the beginning of the mystery: Why not?
And why consider it at all that Oxford didn't stop Shakespeare from "nicking" his manuscripts? What possible motive would have for stopping this?
And this canard of "telling mistakes" proving the works were not written by a well-educated man is tired. It is a settled issue for anyone with the expertise to judge who looks into the issue --Shakespeare the author was highly educated. I've already given you a list of experts who prove Shakespeare's knowledge of the law was great. Similar lists of experts testify to the works' bounty of knowledge on medicine, history and Italy. If his works were a final exam, his score would be statistically close to 100% correct. Attaching the word "telling" and "repeated" to the errors cannot make this point more legitimate.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 26 January 2021 at 2:17am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
@Mark: Why did you quote JB in the beginning of your post?
Mark: Performs plays that, among those in the know, are attributed to a nobleman who'd prefer to remain nameless... But who uses the pen-name "Shake-spear"...
Me: De Vere used a pen name, for which there is no evidence (etc). ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- Mark: There is no example of the Stratford man using the name "Shakespeare" in his life. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- See Palladis Tamia. See John Manningham's diary entry about William The Conqueror coming before Richard III. See the Royal Patent of 1603, establishing The King's Men in which the name of William Shakespeare, and spelt exactly that way, comes second on the list. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- ----- What possible motive would have for stopping this? ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- -- Oxford has supposedly written brilliant plays that another low-born person is getting the credit for. Why does he tolerate such an affront to his artistic skill and social status? ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- -- And this canard of "telling mistakes" proving the works were not written by a well-educated man is tired. It is a settled issue for anyone with the expertise to judge who looks into the issue --Shakespeare the author was highly educated. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- Not to Greene (or whoever was the author of Groatsworth), the author(s) of The Parnassus Plays, and Ben Jonson. Not to the innumerable critics of Shakespeare who've since followed, and who, while loving the plays, aren't blind to the mistakes within them.
Shakespeare was a brilliant writer. He didn't always understand his sources. The former is in no way annulled by the latter.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
|
| Posted: 26 January 2021 at 12:18pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
I thought you were replying to JB's simpler version of events.
Evidence of Oxford using a "pen-name" is interesting. Oxford was known during his lifetime to be a secret writer who did not allow his works to be published under his name. In 1589, the anonymous author of The Arte of English Poesie stated: “I know very many notable gentlemen in the court that have written commendably and suppressed it … or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it, as if it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem learned and to show himself amorous of any good art.” This 1589 book also referred to “courtly makers, noblemen... who have written excellently well, as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest. Of which number is first that noble gentleman Edward Earl of Oxford...”
In the same book where Meres refers to Shakespeare’s private and unpublished sonnets as "privately circulated" [i.e. scandalous -- a strange accomplishment for some provincial actor and horse holder]-- Meres says that Oxford was one of the best writers of comedy. Yet no comedies have come down to us under his name.
There is more to say, but I has to run!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132288
|
| Posted: 26 January 2021 at 12:39pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
The aforementioned chart comparing Shaksper to his contemporaries.Apologies for the poor quality. Best I could find online. 
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 26 January 2021 at 4:43pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Evidence of Oxford using a "pen-name" is interesting. Oxford was known during his lifetime to be a secret writer who did not allow his works to be published under his name. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- And was acclaimed as a writer by Francis Meres in Palladis Tamia, which also praises Shakespeare, making it clear that they are two different people - or I don't see how it can be considered otherwise.
I've seen it argued that as a member of the nobility, De Vere daren't have let it be known that he was the author of plays, or plays viewed for the public, rather than courtly entertainments, but, as I've posted before, Meres comments don't seem to have affected De Vere's position or reputation in any way.
Are there any examples of a member of the nobility being "outed" as having written for the common folk, and suffering disgrace in consquence? ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- The table from Price's book isn't quite the knock-out punch it purports to be. Some of the questions are repetition - 2, 5, and 6 are pretty much the same, and all can be countered by noting how the Globe burned down in 1613, with the possibility that lots of material was lost. Yes, I know it's unprovable speculation! And many scholars argue that Shakespeare's handwriting is found in the manuscript of Sir Thomas More.
Point 1, regarding education, is again misleading. It's unprovable speculation that Shakespeare attended the King's New School. But insistence that a superb education is a prerequisite for being considered the author is the preserve of alternative authorship theorists. The majority view is that the plays don't reflect deep learning or wide travelling, and instead display errors that indicate the exact opposite. This was also the view of many of Shakespeare's contemporaries, including Jonson.
Shakespeare didn't receive a commendatory verse? Well, of course he did - from Jonson, in the First Folio. Jonson is the real bugbear for alternative authorship theorists. Price gives him a tick in every box, but, alas, Jonson is one of the best witnesses for Shakespeare's authorship, exalting him in the First Folio, condemning him in discussion with Drummond, offering ambivalent or begrudging praise in Timber, but never doubting that he was the author.
Do we know what books Shakespeare owned, or borrowed? No, like his education, it's speculation. But it's entirely possible they formed part of the inheritance given to Dr John Hall and Susannah Hall. Not provable - I concede that!
Notice of death - William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon was named alongside Heminges, Condell and Burbage, and others, as being part of The King's Men. His name was spelled that way. Not as "Shaxper", "Shackspear", or any other variant.
Heminges, Condell and Burbage were all named in Shakespeare's will. The first two spent years collecting plays that they had no doubt were written by the man they had known for years (as I've speculated above, perhaps Burbage was involved too, but died himself in 1619, before the First Folio was published). Jonson wrote a verse commending Mr William Shakespeare as the Swan of Avon. Mr William Shakespeare was born, largely lived, and certainly died, in Stratford-Upon-Avon, and it beggars belief to suggest that Jonson is referring to anyone else but him.
And again, this brings me back to the question I asked before - what is the basis of alternative authorship theories? If it's argued it's just a coincidence, that a pen-name was associated with someone who just had a similar sounding name - what are the odds of such an unusual pseudonym being shared by someone who also worked in the theatre and was part of the troupe that performed said plays and who never seems to have aroused any suspicion their part that he was anything but the author who had written the plays that they put on?
If it's a conscious ploy - I won't use the loaded term "conspiracy - then why? Did Oxford, say, having already used the pseudonym Shakespeare, deliberately look for someone using the same name, and then employ him, or use him as a front man? Or was it again a coincidence that he chose to take advantage of?
If it was a ploy, then Shakespeare can't have been the ill-educated fool he's argued to be, otherwise the illusion collapses at the first hurdle, and a list like Price's, intended to refute him as author, instead serves to prove how illogical it is for him to have been a fraud.
It's late, and I'm tired, so I'll retire for the night. I will repeat, though, that I have enjoyed this back and forth! :)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
|
| Posted: 26 January 2021 at 6:51pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Looking into Robert Greene:
I cannot find the claim that Greene made it clear he believed Shakespeare had no education supported anywhere.
What I do find is that Greene was a prose writer who specialized in writing about London's criminal underground. He was a kind of pulp-gossip writer with strong opinions and a reputation for exposing truth.
I can't find any evidence that he knew Shaxper, but his "upstart crow" insult is held by the Stratford camp to be a stinging insult which refers to Shakespeare as a plagiarist.
Then, in the same breath, they say Shakespeare was widely recognized as a plagiarist with no original works.
Further, his remarks are printed in 1592 -- a point at which, by the orthodox-timeline, Shakespeare had only written between (at most) 10 and (as few) 2 of his 37 plays. If so few plays, openly acknowledged as derivative -- then why does Greene go after Shakespeare this way?
All of this makes more sense if these plays (and more) were written by an author Greene admires and that he was calling Shakespeare out for being an actor who dares take credit for the work of a writer as a crow beautified by another bird's feathers.
Steven, maybe you can point me to some remarks by Greene on the Author's lack of education?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
|
| Posted: 26 January 2021 at 7:00pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Steven: Are there any examples of a member of the nobility being "outed" as having written for the common folk, and suffering disgrace in consquence?
**
The consequence is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not it was done. And you were just provided with evidence from the period saying that YES, DeVere did it.
Why you find that to mean he would not or could not do it, I cannot understand.
At this point, you have really failed to uphold your points beyond repeating them.
That's the power of inertia. 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.
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.
Taken as a whole, the amount of research that Shaxper is alleged to have done (while commuting between Stratford and London) with a Grammar school education is astonishing. He learned whole passages from legal cases and rare texts that are locked away in obscure London libraries, recounting some of them with enough accuracy to convince experts today that he was actually schooled in law and medicine and sailing and falconry --all while running involved and successful businesses in Stratford.
"Genius" doesn't begin to cover it.
Edited by Mark Haslett on 26 January 2021 at 7:06pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132288
|
| Posted: 26 January 2021 at 7:13pm | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
Many of Shakespeare’s plays were derived from older sources—some of which had yet to be translated into English.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|