Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 9 Next >>
Topic: That Shakespeare Thing Again Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
Posted: 20 July 2023 at 6:44am | IP Logged | 1 post reply
It's been a while since there's been any Shakespeare Authorship content on the JBF.

However, an incredible new work in the field has landed: "SHAKESPEARE WAS A WOMAN, AND OTHER HERESIES" by Elizabeth Winkler takes an innovative journalistic approach to the history of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. She writes about all the existing evidence, the various ways it is interpreted, and talks to the major figures representing the different camps, including Sir Stanley Wells as the leading expert from Stratford.

I went into it skeptical that such a wide approach could actually delve deeply and coherently, but I came away very impressed.

In giving every possible opportunity for the Stratfordians to present their case, she does justice to them. And, in being fair to the other arguments as well, she is able to cross-reference and let the evidence speak for itself.

The resulting impact is dire for the Stratford camp.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12441
Posted: 20 July 2023 at 12:44pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply
I wonder why, as far as I can see in an online preview, Ms. Winkler only mentions Diana Price twice and briefly in footnotes. Her case owes virtually nothing to Price's earlier book-length non-candidate broad-based examination...?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
Posted: 20 July 2023 at 3:38pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply
Interesting point, Michael. I am recalling now that she does use Price's work to dismiss the canard that we shouldn't expect to find any paper-trail for Shakespeare of Stratford as the Author. Price demonstrates that Shakespeare is unique in being the only "author" of his time about whom we find zero evidence from his life that he actually ever wrote anything.

But Winkler's "case" is really about the discussion that results from evidence like this. What is the history of the discussion? Who is and who is not able to actually grapple with these points?

Rather than building a strictly legal case against the Stratford man, she uses a journalist's voice to describe her journey into the Authorship debate and lets the different voices in the debate more or less "hang themselves".
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12441
Posted: 20 July 2023 at 4:34pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply
Thanks for clarifying, Mark.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
Posted: 20 July 2023 at 7:06pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply
Mark Haslett wrote: Price demonstrates that Shakespeare is unique in being the only "author" of his time about whom we find zero evidence from his life that he actually ever wrote anything.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
Shakespeare was attacked by Greene in his Groats-Worth of Wit (1592), lauded by Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia (1598), and alternately praised by Ben Jonson, who'd known him, in his commendatory verse prefacing the First Folio (1623) scorned him in private conversation with William Drummond and in his De Shakespeare Nostrat - but even if  varying his opinions over the quality of Shakespeare's writing, never once questioned his authorship. 

The plays were acted by The Lord Chamberlain's Men, later The King's Men, companies that William Shakespeare was both a member of and shareholder in. John Heminges and Henry Condell, who'd also been members of both companies, and known Shakespeare even longer than Jonson, created the Folio for the express purpose of commemorating his memory and described the plays contained within it as "his".
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132292
Posted: 20 July 2023 at 7:28pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply
The above is true only with certain assumptions being made. That the “upstart crow”, for instance, is the man from Stratford. But it’s very odd for Stratfordians to embrace this, since the reference describes the “crow” as a plagiarist. A curiously common phenomenon among Stratfordians. They will accept any reference that seems to be about their man, even if it unflattering.

Poking around, I found this, from the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:

“Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford, (born April 12, 1550, Castle Hedingham, Essex, England—died June 24, 1604, Newington, Middlesex), English lyric poet and theatre patron, who became, in the 20th century, the strongest candidate proposed (next to William Shakespeare himself) for the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.”

What’s wrong with this statement?

Well, start with the fact that, as a name, “William Shakespeare” exists almost exclusively as a by line on the Work. With only a few exceptions, references to the Stratford man (on legal documents and the like) give his name as some variant of Will Shaksper, with multiple spellings of the traditional Warwickshire pronunciation. Typical of the time, when scribes wrote what they heard.

The first use of the alleged playwright’s name on the Work gave us “Shake-speare”. Significant, since it was a theatrical custom at the time to use a hyphen followed by a lower case letter to indicate a false name.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
Posted: 20 July 2023 at 9:11pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply
JB wrote: A curiously common phenomenon among Stratfordians. They will accept any reference that seems to be about their man, even if it unflattering.

SB replied: Many of Shakespeare's contemporaries had a low opinion of his writing, finding it vulgar, crass, refusing to conform to the classical principles of unity of time, place and action which drama ought to have done. It's one of the reasons that Shakespeare's critical reputation was eclipsed so long by Jonson, whose plays do play by those rules. It's silly and dishonest to pretend that such references  weren't being made - why should Stratfordians do so?

JB wrote: What's wrong with this statement?

SB: Nothing. It's a perfectly reasonable, succinct statement about De Vere's being regarded by some as the alternative, true, author, of the plays. I don't agree with the proposition, but, as a statement, it's perfectly fair.

JB: With only a few exceptions, references to the Stratford man (on legal documents and the like) give his name as some variant of Will Shaksper.

SB: In his Palladis Tamia (1598), Francis Meres identifies Shakespeare as the author of a dozen plays, spelling his name as Shakespeare. He also commends De Vere separately, making it difficult to see how the former could be a pseudonym of the latter.

The royal patent confirming the creation of the King's Men in 1603 spells "William Shakespeare" in precisely that way. 

Among the other members of the company named in the patent are Richard Burbage, Henry Condell and John Heminges.

When William Shakespeare died in Stratford-Upon-Avon, he named Burbage, Condell and Heminges in his will, giving them some money to buy mourning rings.

In 1619, Burbage dies.

In 1623, the First Folio is published, in which Heminges and Condell state that they arranged for it to be created "onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow aliue, as was our Shakespeare, by humble offer of his playes".

It's obvious that the William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon and the William Shakespeare credited as the author of the plays in the Folio are one and the same. Or, in any event, I don't see what a reasonable - and I stress reasonable - alternative explanation could be.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
Posted: 21 July 2023 at 5:23pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply
Steven Brake's post is a good example of what's so effective about Winkler's book. The Stratfordians are so entrenched that they always misrepresent the evidence and use their obfuscation to mangle the debate.

Virtually nothing in that post is completely accurate and the details left out are vital to accurately understand what the actual state of the evidence is.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
Posted: 21 July 2023 at 5:27pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply
Jonathan Morris wrote an interesting piece about Shakespearean authorship here.

https://underthreehundred.blogspot.com/2011/09/shakey-ground .html
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
Posted: 21 July 2023 at 5:28pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply
Sorry, got the link wrong:

https://underthreehundred.blogspot.com/2011/09/shakey-ground .html
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
Posted: 21 July 2023 at 5:31pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply
Not sure why, but the link keeps getting a space added between the final word and the .html.

https://underthreehundred.blogspot.com/2011/09/shakey-ground .html
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
Posted: 21 July 2023 at 5:46pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply
Steven: It's obvious that the William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon and the William Shakespeare credited as the author of the plays in the Folio are one and the same. Or, in any event, I don't see what a reasonable - and I stress reasonable - alternative explanation could be.

**
It is "obvious" that you are ignoring the obvious discrepancies that undermine this conclusion.

For example, no one of serious academic/historical rigor looks at the Folio and thinks the Heminges/Condell contributions were actually written by Heminges/Condell. The entire folio appears to be the work of Jonson, according to Stratfordian scholars as well as doubters.

There is no mention of "Stratford on Avon" or any straight forward introduction of the author to the reader. Every reference that could be used to infer this connection is done so with cryptic language that invites further investigation and doubt.

The idea that investigating these doubts is "unreasonable" is where you leave things. Could that be because investigating them destroys the only evidence that connects the works to the Stratford man? That would be an obvious possibility.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 9 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE