Author |
|
Mark Haslett Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 6395
|
Posted: 23 June 2024 at 7:20pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Michael: I'm instead very interested in the evidence informing the arguments.
**
If you haven't read it, I can't recommend Atlantic journalist Elizabeth Winkler's book on the subject highly enough. She has the same position and intention as you do, and describes her investigation wonderfully. She looks at all the candidates, including Stratford Will, with an eye strictly on the history of the arguments and the nature of the evidence.
The history of the debate and the people who've been made and ruined by it is fascinating and her writing is excellent.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Penn Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12683
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 12:06pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Thanks for the recommendation, Mark. I've read about but not yet read Ms. Winkler's book.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Penn Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12683
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 12:30pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
QUOTE:
SB replied: As I've mentioned before, one of the odd benefits of Alternative Authorship theories is that they oblige Stratfordians to work harder. |
|
|
I'm not advocating for any alternative authors, or even doubt. As a Stratfordian I engage in these conversations because I think it is incumbent on all Shakespeareans to work as hard as possible.
Many among those who doubt or offer up alternative authors (primarily now Oxford) are neither dumb nor lazy. Anybody can be smart and industrious and still be wrong, of course. Stratfordians too. In any event, I believe that even if a traditional Shakespearean's mind remains fundamentally unchanged by the challenge of the best and brightest doubters, and nota bene vice versa, there is still value in the exchanges, as long as both sides are sincere.
So, there's nothing quibbling about taking a single piece of evidence (e.g., the Buc register entry) and examining it thoroughly, not only in the context of other evidence but also in isolation, and in every gradation between, to study as fully as we (of all sides) can and hopefully learn what we can about how much or how little it offers.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133196
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 12:58pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Perusing some of the articles and clips to be found online, I find my hackles rising at every mention of William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. It’s a minor point in the greater scheme of things, to be sure, but the surrendering of the name William Shakespeare to one whose own name was mostly something quite different creates a distinctly unfair advantage for the Stratford man and his supporters. When people commonly see or hear the name William Shakespeare they think immediately of the glover’s son from Stratford, tho the man himself (if we grant him a literacy he might not have possessed) might not have acknowledged the name as his own. It’s a spelling only rarely associated with him. As I’ve mentioned before, part of my fascination with the Authorship Question derives from how close to home it lands. I have on multiple occasions seen my name conflated with others who share it, from a well-known painter in Calgary, to a former significant other of Tilda Swinton’s, to a British cartoonist who even included on his website the disclaimer that he was “not the John Byrne who drew the X-Men”. Mix in various forgeries and other artists imitating my style, and we might wonder what a discussion of my work could look like in 400 years!
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Penn Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12683
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 2:05pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
One might well say that the case for, let's not even say Oxford, let's just say "Doubt" is maintainable even if Shaksper's name is represented by Shakespeare, accepting all variants, spelling, pronunciations, hyphens, etc..
Let's say that Shaksper, with all this connections to the theater and companies enacting the plays of Shakespeare, was the individual who was the only named person taking credit (many of the works were initially anonymous); nevertheless, the Shakespeare name representing that of Shaksper doesn't actually prove anything more than Stratford Will was taking credit for the work.
I'm sure can strike a Stratfordian who comes into the authorship question as immediately bonkers -- you people are arguing that the named author is not the named author? huh?! -- and yet, that's exactly so, because this argument does reveal how exclusively name-dependent the Stratfordian case is precisely because it is circular: Shaksper/Shakespeare is the named author and thus he's the named author.
What's the problem with that, though?
The Doubter asks, well, what if we postulate for the sake of argument that Shaksper took the credit, yes, with some form of his name appearing as author -- still, what else that we both know and don't know about his life is evidentiary support that his having thus taken the named credit logically leads to his authorship? We know a lot about Shaksper's business activities, we know nothing directly about his being an author, and then there's the circumstantial evidence to sift through, compile, compare, assess, etc. Is there no place for doubt? Just a few minor doubts? Some minor, some major? A lot of doubt?
This can't be but hard work!
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133196
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 2:23pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
When we consider that Shaksper, when working as a player broker, sold rights to works he did not actually own, it’s not a tremendous leap to imaging him claiming authorship, or being chosen to do so.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steven Brake Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016 Posts: 659
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 3:34pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Michael Penn wrote: So, there's nothing quibbling about taking a single piece of evidence (e.g., the Buc register entry) and examining it thoroughly, not only in the context of other evidence but also in isolation, and in every gradation between, to study as fully as we (of all sides) can and hopefully learn what we can about how much or how little it offers.
SB replied: If you took any bit of evidence in isolation, wouldn't it be hard to take it as definitive? But if you take it in context with other evidence, doesn't it - or they - become more compelling?
Michael Penn wrote: Let's say that Shaksper, with all this connections to the theater and companies enacting the plays of Shakespeare, was the individual who was the only named person taking credit (many of the works were initially anonymous); nevertheless, the Shakespeare name representing that of Shaksper doesn't actually prove anything more than Stratford Will was taking credit for the work.
SB replied: If a piece of work is attributed to someone, that's prima facie evidence that they are the author, or creator.
If there's disagreement or suspicions otherwise, the onus is on the sceptic to prove, or at least provide strong evidence, the contrary. This kind of goes back to the point I've made before - Alternative Authorship theories of any stripe are essentially negative, raising doubts against rather than making a positive case for.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Michael Penn Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12683
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 4:08pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
QUOTE:
SB replied: If you took any bit of evidence in isolation, wouldn't it be hard to take it as definitive? |
|
|
That's not a reply to me because I never said that considering any single piece of evidence in isolation is "definitive" about anything. But it can be helpful in any inquiry to consider a single piece of evidence in isolation to examine the limits of its own contents, understanding full well that every fact is potentially dependent upon an another, and yet, if the universe of examination begins and ends at the maximum, we can miss the trees for the forest.
If somebody claimed that the register entry by George Buc proves that he personally knew Will was the author Shakespeare, it's not invaluable to examine the contents of that register entry alone to see if that claim holds up. If it does, great. If it doesn't, also great, but then first that needs to be admitted, and second any other claims about it can be further examined, including by considering that original claim about this evidence in the context of other evidence: as I already said: "in the context of other evidence but also in isolation, and in every gradation between."
I've not been discussing the register entry to disprove Will = Shakespeare. I've said that even if it doesn't prove the identity, it doesn't disprove it. My interest is in examining evidence exactly as I've said. The inquiry about the register entry doesn't have to be "was Will Shakespeare?" It can be, rather, what I have already said I'm interested in: how much does the registry entry tells us in the manner of direct evidence about Will as Shakespeare? If taken alone, it tells us nothing, then -- so be it. One can then move on to considering it further more broadly. But again, as I've already said, it's perfectly fine to admit the limits of a single bit of evidence taken in one way and then move on to further ways as well as to further evidence.
I don't mean this ad hominem, Steven, but you tend to respond in a way that adds to or alters or deflects from my comments and thus forces me to repeat myself to re-confirm what I'd already exactly expressed.
There is undoubtedly prima facie value of an extant authorship attribution, Since I'm not advocating for any other author, that would also be a reply for somebody else.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steven Brake Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016 Posts: 659
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 4:16pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
JB wrote: It’s a minor point in the greater scheme of things, to be sure, but the surrendering of the name William Shakespeare to one whose own name was mostly something quite different SB replied: Not really. As is conventional for the time, "Shakespeare" was spelt in a variety of different ways, including - well, Shakespeare, but also Shakspere, Shakespear, Shaxper, etc. The name "William Shakespeare", spelt that way, was used in the royal patent of 1603 confirming the creation of The King's Men. I think it was also used in the bill of sale confirming the purchase of New Place in Stratford Upon Avon in 1597 and also a house in Blackfriars in 1613. It was also used in the First Folio, prepared for publication by Heminges and Condell, also named alongside Shakespeare in the royal patent of 1603. And on the subject of names, let's not forget Hamnet Shakespeare, Will of Stratford's only legitimate male heir, who dies just before the granting of a coat-of-arms to the Shakespeare family, and about three or four years before the writing of Hamlet, which has a major theme of the transitory nature of achievement and the undoing of legacy. JB wrote: When we consider that Shaksper, when working as a player broker, sold rights to works he did not actually own, it’s not a tremendous leap to imaging him claiming authorship, or being chosen to do so. SB replied: How did Will of Stratford (let's call him that) acquire the plays by De Vere, but published under the pseudonym Shakespeare? Why would De Vere (I'm assuming you still favour him as the alternative, true candidate) use a pseudonym, given that he was known as a playwright? What are the odds that he'd choose such an unusual surname - unlike something like, say "Smith, or "Brown" - which is the same as that of Will of Stratford (or at least one of the more common variants of the umpteen ones that his name is spelled as)? If they're being incorrectly attributed to the Stratford man, why does De Vere take no action? Why does he fume impotently rather than have this upstart bumped off? Why doesn't he acquire a proxy of his own, using him as a front, and pre-empting Will of Stratford's deception (this is kind of the plot of Anonymous, which suggests that Ben Jonson was going to pose as the author until Will of Stratford jumps in and ruins the plan)?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Cory Vandernet Byrne Robotics Member
Henchman
Joined: 16 April 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 852
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 4:34pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I lean toward Shaksper being a play-broker who took credit for other peoples work.
The Upstart Crow
Consider, probably the closest thing we have to modern day equivalent, Robert Kahn aka Bob Kane, for many years Bob Kane was created as the sole creator of the Batman comic stories. Hey, he was the only credited so he must have did them by himself. We know that's not the case, Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson and many others made huge contributions to the Batman mythos without credit.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steven Brake Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016 Posts: 659
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 5:06pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Cory Vandernet wrote: I lean toward Shaksper being a play-broker who took credit for other peoples work.
SB replied: And who oddly had a name - a highly unusual name - which was the pseudonym of the true author, and who never took any measures to prevent this upstart falsely taking the credit for the plays being unfairly attributed to him.
Who was never directly challenged in private or public for his supposed deception.
Cory Vandernet wrote: Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson and many others made huge contributions to the Batman mythos without credit.
SB replied: And which are now accepted, aren't they? Haven't DC credited Bill Finger alongside Kane as the co-creator of Batman for years? I'm not sure what the position is regarding Robinson.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Steven Brake Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016 Posts: 659
|
Posted: 24 June 2024 at 5:18pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Michael Penn wrote: If somebody claimed that the register entry by George Buc proves that he personally knew Will was the author Shakespeare, it's not invaluable to examine the contents of that register entry alone to see if that claim holds up. If it does, great. If it doesn't, also great, but then first that needs to be admitted.
SB replied: In an earlier post, I wrote: George Buc, Master Of The Revels, positively identified Shakespeare as the author of King Lear in 1607.
If I amend this to say that "George Buck's attestation in 1607 that King Lear was the work of William Shakespeare is generally accepted as evidence that it was by him" - do you disagree with it? If not, what wording would you consider to be fairer, or more accurate?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
|
|