Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 9 Next >>
Topic: That Shakespeare Thing Again Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
Posted: 26 July 2023 at 8:03pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

@Michael Penn: No, I'm not disputing that some members of the nobility didn't want their work to be published, or only allowed it to be done anonymously, or even that others took the credit for it. But it does seem to be a self-imposed ban rather than an imposition, and one that could be broken without any real loss of status.

De Vere was lauded in his lifetime - as Oxfordians are quick to point out - for being among the best for comedy, and didn't, as far as I know, suffer any kind of penalty in consequence. His daughter pleaded with Cecil to allow her husband, the Earl of Derby, to continue writing plays for the common people (or that the common people enjoyed).

"We agree and can move on".

Yes, that's probably for the best! :)


Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12466
Posted: 26 July 2023 at 9:40pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply


 QUOTE:
No, I'm not disputing that some members of the nobility...

Oy gevalt. The original source says "very many" nobles, not some. So, you do dispute it...? 

And -- De Vere you bring up, yet again, for the third time, when I've repeatedly stated I'm not an antistratfordian and thus not advocating for him in the slightest and I haven't mentioned him at all.

...moving on. :(
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6144
Posted: 26 July 2023 at 10:52pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Steven Brake belongs on the Mount Rushmore of dissemblers.



There is no such thing as a straight answer from him.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
Posted: 27 July 2023 at 9:13am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

I have no doubt that 500 years from now there will be people who refuse to believe that a boy born into poverty in New York’s Lower East Side in 1917, the son of a garment factory worker with little education beyond high school, could become the greatest cartoonist in history.

 

They’ll say that he would have to be someone with a much higher social status and education. They’ll say that no one man could possibly have produced such a massive volume of brilliant, highly influential work, decade after decade, on his own – there must have been a group of writers and artists working together in secret, publishing it all under a pseudonym.

 

And all evidence to the contrary will be dismissed in any way they choose.

 

But the simple, inescapable truth is this: all the money in the world, all the teachers in the world, can’t buy you a single ounce of creativity. Some artists are greater than others. And those artists are usually hard-working, self-effacing people who keep their feet on the ground and don’t feel any need to proclaim their genius to the world. They don’t have to, because they express themselves through their work.

 

I can easily believe that William Shakespeare wasn’t a big deal in his own village in his lifetime. That isn’t “evidence” he wasn’t real. To suggest otherwise is to not understand how creative people function.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
Posted: 27 July 2023 at 12:18pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Michael Penn wrote: Oy gevalt. The original source says "very many" nobles, not some. So, you do dispute it...? 

SB replied: That's quibbling a bit, isn't it? No, I'm not disputing Puttenham's comments (assuming that he was indeed the author of The Arte of English Poesie) that "very many" nobles didn't want their authorship to be known, and that their writing was sometimes published anonymously, or misattributed to someone else. 

However, it also seems that this was a self-imposed injunction - no noblemen would dream of wishing to be known as a mere writer! - rather than a monarchical, or state, imposition, and that when it was breached - as in the case of Oxford and Stanley - there were no consequences.

Michael Penn wrote: And -- De Vere you bring up, yet again, for the third time, when I've repeatedly stated I'm not an antistratfordian and thus not advocating for him in the slightest and I haven't mentioned him at all.

SB wrote: I've brought up Oxford, and Stanley, as examples of cases in which members of the nobility could have their authorship be known, and suffer no consequences as a result.

If you're not anti-Stratfordian, fair enough, although it does seem odd to cite Puttenham's quote about members of the nobility suppressing knowledge of their authorship if you're not in favour, or at least trying to offer some degree of support, to the Oxfordian position.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6144
Posted: 27 July 2023 at 4:39pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

We see in this thread a good example of what Winkler demonstrates in her book -- the Shakespeare Lit community simply will not deal with the evidence in the authorship question.

Presented with evidence that would tend toward doubt, the Shakespeare lit expert turns immediately away from looking at the evidence and into the discussion of the character of the doubters.

The only straight forward point to be made is that anyone who would "offer some degree of support" to the case for doubt is suspicious and a target for innuendo and charges of "conspiracy thinking." Discussion of the evidence is reluctant and dishonest.

The fact is: good evidence for doubt exists.

Historians, lawyers and judges tend to be quick to recognize this. "Good evidence for doubt exists" is the state of things in the authorship question and Winkler shows that experts from the Folger Library to colleges around the world are recognizing this.

The recalcitrant Shakespeare lit community trumpets in solemn, absolutist tones that the evidence for Stratford Will is iron-clad and beyond any doubt. But this is, in a word, bullshit.

"Good evidence", in the legal sense, means undeniable evidence which tends toward a conclusion-- without necessarily proving the case. It is "good evidence" because it has to be accounted for outside of the contrary theory of the case.

There is very little "good evidence" that Stratford Will wrote the works-- a surface-reading of the first folio, the similarity of "Shaksper" to "Shakespeare", and the historic attribution. That is it.

"Good evidence" for doubt hits every one of these points. But this thread points out how inane the project of getting a Shakespeare Lit expert to look at the evidence can be.

Good evidence exists, nonetheless, strongly suggesting that:
-Shaksper had no education,
-Shaksper could not write,
-the name "Shake-speare" was recognized at the time as a pseudonym for a hidden-poet,
-the works of Shake-speare required sources that Shaksper had no access to,
-the writer of Shake-speare's works had immunity from Lord Burghly which none of his contemporaries had,
-that Shaksper never met Southampton
-the works of Shake-speare were all completed by 1604 and that the poet of the Sonnets was dead by 1609
-that the folio was designed to purposely leave the identity of Shake-speare in a mist of doubt with clues to signal that it is done to wink at those in-the-know while keeping others in the dark.

The case for any candidate to write the works has to accommodate ALL the evidence we have, as we find it.

If evidence suggests Jonson wrote the Heminges and Condell letters, if a contemporary says the poet "takes his name from Shaking and Spears", if the Stratford man's will has no evidence that he ever owned a single book or knew how to use punctuation, then the case for any candidate has to account for these strange facts-- it can't just ignore them with a wave of the hand.

But that hand-waving is all the Shakespeare lit crowd has to offer.

On the other hand, every Supreme Court Justice who has looked at the Authorship Question has been convinced that the case for doubt is valid. Historians who look at the case recognize doubts of the historic attribution are valid and many are quick to say the evidence likely points away from Shaksper.

The point of this is not to say that all people must admit the case for doubt proves Shakespeare-the-bard didn't come from Stratford-on-Avon. The point is that the camp who says "all people must admit there is no case for doubting that Shakespeare-the-bard came from Stratford-on-Avon" are being destructive toward a valid, evidence-based curiosity about the origins of the greatest literary works in history.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6144
Posted: 27 July 2023 at 4:58pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Scott: I have no doubt that 500 years from now...

**

For this comparison to be apt, history would have to erase all evidence that this person had access to comics in his formative years while leaving evidence that the person had another career at the same time growing and selling crops, lending money, and suing people in the courts for small sums. It would require that the artist become hailed throughout the world as the greatest artist to ever visit the medium, without anybody ever recording a single interaction about cartooning. This cartoonist's will would have to make no mention of anything connected to cartooning, while making sure that every piece of furniture he owned was accounted for. There would have to be only 6 tiny pieces of his original work remaining-- 6 signatures that don't match in any way. There would have to be many rumors of him being the front for another artist. There would have to be no known images of this person's face until 8 years after his death.

Then that would approach what it takes to make this comparison you are trying for. Otherwise-- nah.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
Posted: 27 July 2023 at 7:07pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Mark Haslett wrote: We see in this thread a good example of what Winkler demonstrates in her book -- the Shakespeare Lit community simply will not deal with the evidence in the authorship question. Presented with evidence that would tend toward doubt, the Shakespeare lit expert turns immediately away from looking at the evidence and into the discussion of the character of the doubters.

Mark Haslett also wrote: You would make a terrible historian with your shifting attitude toward the role of doubt in an investigation. 

In other words, someone who has no command of the facts feels completely free to call out others arguing with more facts than he has as using "straw man arguments" with a "general absence of logic."

The absurdity of exchanging posts with you is exhausting. I not only have to bat down your misrepresentation of the facts, but I also have to navigate your constant mind reading and vacuous misrepresentation of the entire debate.

Talking with you is like talking to a three-year-old. At this point, I have to believe you’re doing it on purpose.

Not to laugh in your face, but WTF? You are not a serious person.

Mark Haslett wrote: The recalcitrant Shakespeare lit community trumpets in solemn, absolutist tones that the evidence for Stratford Will is iron-clad and beyond any doubt. But this is, in a word, bullshit.

SB replied: Far from being dogmatic about Shakespeare, the academic community endlessly questions what we do, and can, know about him and his work -  what he was like, what his views were, how they informed, or can be gauged from, the plays, the role of collaboration in writing them, which is becoming more recognised and accepted, so that The New Oxford Shakespeare editions of Henry VI: Parts One, Two and Three will credit Christopher Marlowe as the co-author - a significant, indeed major, development.

Mark Haslett wrote: There is very little "good evidence" that Stratford Will wrote the works-- a surface-reading of the first folio, the similarity of "Shaksper" to "Shakespeare", and the historic attribution. That is it.

SB replied: His name. His highly unusual name.

The name of his son, "Hamnet", who died shortly before the Shakespeare family were granted their coat of arms, and the production, about five years later, of the play "Hamlet", which has the strongly running theme about the transience of achievement, the failure of legacy.

The contemporary Parnassus Plays, which describe Shakespeare as actor, poet and playwright, but lacking a university education.

The long-standing relationship between him and Heminges and Condell, who arranged for the publication of the First Folio. The naming of all three in the royal patent confirming the creation of The King's Men, with Shakespeare named as "William Shakespeare" (again, this is a bit of a red herring, given the fluidity of spelling in the period).

The commendatory poem by Ben Jonson, which teases Shakespeare for being poorly educated, criticisms that Jonson would make years later, and more bitterly, in private conversation with William Drummond, and then made again posthumously, and less bitterly, in De Shakespeare Nostrat - but while varying in their opinion of  Shakespeare's writing, never once express any doubts that Shakespeare was the author.

There's more.

Market Haslett wrote: Good evidence exists, nonetheless, strongly suggesting that:
-Shaksper had no education,
-Shaksper could not write,

SB replied: There's no evidence for this. Jonson's poem says that Shakespeare's learning was inadequate, not non-existent. The Parnassus Play's jibe at Shakespeare for not having had a university education, but this isn't quite the same as saying he had "no" education.

And if Will of Stratford was a front for the true author, or a con-man stealing his credit, he must have been at least literate, if not a literary genius, to have made his pretence credible. 

Mark Haslett wrote:
-the name "Shake-speare" was recognized at the time as a pseudonym for a hidden-poet,

SB replied:

By whom? Jonson evidently doesn't seem to have thought so.

Mark Haslett wrote:

-the works of Shake-speare required sources that Shaksper had no access to,

SB wrote:

Such as? The history plays relied (or largely drew upon) the historical writing of Hall and Holinshed. The Roman plays drew upon Plutarch, or Thomas North's translation of him. 

Mark Haslett wrote:
-the writer of Shake-speare's works had immunity from Lord Burghly which none of his contemporaries had,

SB replied: What "immunity"? Why was this required? How do we know Shakespeare needed it, and how did he acquire it?

Mark Haslett wrote:
-that Shaksper never met Southampton

SB replied: How do you know that?

Mark Haslett wrote:
-the works of Shake-speare were all completed by 1604 and that the poet of the Sonnets was dead by 1609

SB replied: The chronology of the plays isn't absolutely agreed upon, but there is a general view that they continued up to 1614, with The Two Noble Kinsmen, written in collaboration with John Fletcher, probably being the last piece of writing Shakespeare created for the stage. It's almost universally agreed that Macbeth was written after The Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

Mark Haslett wrote:
-that the folio was designed to purposely leave the identity of Shake-speare in a mist of doubt with clues to signal that it is done to wink at those in-the-know while keeping others in the dark.

SB replied: On the contrary, the Folio is perfectly clear. It contains plays written by William Shakespeare and collected by John Heminges and Condell in tribute to the man they'd known for decades.

Mark Haslett: The case for any candidate to write the works has to accommodate ALL the evidence we have, as we find it.

SB replied: Yes. And, making allowances for some excessive Bardolatry and mythologizing, which needs to be toned down and swept away, William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon does. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6144
Posted: 27 July 2023 at 9:58pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Market Haslett wrote:
Good evidence exists, nonetheless, strongly suggesting that:
-Shaksper had no education,
-Shaksper could not write,

SB replied: There's no evidence for this.

**

"There is no evidence for this"

Here is the whole problem in talking to you. You say this a lot. What does this phrase mean to you?

Unless discussing a settled matter of fact (which Shakespeare's education definitely is not) the proper understanding of evidence is not that it is "for" or "against" something-- but only what it is and how it fits into a theory of the case.

The only way to approach an unsettled matter is to make a claim and then discuss how the evidence backs it up. You might say, "On the contrary, I believe he had an education and here is the evidence I use to back this claim..." But you can't say "there's no evidence" to support another interpretation because that's all there is: facts in evidence.

And the evidence to be drawn on to support the claim that Shaksper had no education is quite a lot. Far more than can be said for the claim that he had an education --and that's not even controversial to say. This is conceded by all Stratfordians of any measure of honesty-- the evidence is against Shaksper, but the plays exist, so he must have had an education and it must have happened (despite the lack of any evidence). That's the honest case made by honest Stratfordians. Pity we can't count you among them.

SB replied: On the contrary, the Folio is perfectly clear. It contains plays written by William Shakespeare and collected by John Heminges and Condell in tribute to the man they'd known for decades.

**

Refusing to acknowledge the universally observed oddities in the folio does not, in any way, constitute an argument-- "gentle Shakespeare" who was not born a noble, when "noble" is the only way "gentle" was used at the time. Shaksper became a gentleman, some would point out, but then-- how could they have remembered it on page one, then forgotten to put the coat-of-arms on page two? Digges looks forward to a future when "time will dissolve thy Stratford moniment" and bring a fresh appreciation of Shakespeare-- that's straight forward? "Dissolve" meant "solve" at the time, as in "solve a riddle." The only straight-forward interpretation is that, in time, people will figure out something hidden now in Stratford and get a new understanding of this folio.

Which theory of the case does that fit better?

"On the contrary, the Folio is perfectly clear," you say. Yeah-- if you don't read it.

Edited by Mark Haslett on 27 July 2023 at 10:02pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15837
Posted: 28 July 2023 at 3:12am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

What I would contribute to this thread:

The topic is interesting, but the rhetoric has been disappointing.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
Posted: 28 July 2023 at 7:47am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Mark Haslett wrote: Here is the whole problem in talking to you. You say this a lot. What does this phrase mean to you?

SB wrote: By "evidence", I mean facts. 

Mark Haslett wrote: Unless discussing a settled matter of fact (which Shakespeare's education definitely is not)

SB replied: True. There's the possibility that Shakespeare attended the The King Edward VI School, but no evidence that he did. There's also Jonson's poem, which teases Shakespeare's inadequate learning, and the Parnassus Plays mocking his lack of university education.

Mark Haslett wrote: The only way to approach an unsettled matter is to make a claim and then discuss how the evidence backs it up. You might say, "On the contrary, I believe he had an education and here is the evidence I use to back this claim..." But you can't say "there's no evidence" to support another interpretation because that's all there is: facts in evidence.

SB replied: Alternative Authorship theorists often deride Shakespeare as a mere businessman, perhaps a broker who bought the plays of others and passed them off as his own.

If he was a businessman, he must have been able to read and write. It would have been impossible for him to have conducted business otherwise.

If he was merely a front for the true author, again, he must have been literate, if not a literary genius, in order to have made the facade convincing.

Mark Haslett wrote: And the evidence to be drawn on to support the claim that Shaksper had no education is quite a lot...the evidence is against Shaksper, but the plays exist, so he must have had an education and it must have happened (despite the lack of any evidence). 

SB replied:  It can't be proven that Shakespeare attended the nearby King Edward VI School, and he certainly didn't go to university.

Jonson's poem doesn't say that Shakespeare had no education, but that he was inadequately learned, criticisms which Jonson repeated more harshly in private conversation with William Drummond.  

The plays make constant errors that are inconsistent with someone who did receive a formal, classical education.

Mark Haslett wrote: The only straight-forward interpretation is that, in time, people will figure out something hidden now in Stratford and get a new understanding of this folio.

SB replied: What is the purpose of such an elaborate ruse? By the time the Folio was published in 1623, pretty much anyone who would have been harmed or damaged by the truth about the true Author's identity being revealed was dead. 

Why create a Folio supposedly riddled with ambiguity, subtle clues and hidden meaning rather than simply proclaiming that (for example, and taking him as the most favoured candidate) the plays within the Folio were by De Vere?


Edited by Steven Brake on 28 July 2023 at 7:52am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
Posted: 28 July 2023 at 9:44am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

This is what Jonathan Morris has to say about other proposed candidates for the author of the plays, and about the lack of knowledge that Shakespeare displays in his work (and also knowledge that a nobleman would be unlikely to have):



That’s the problem with the conspiracy theories. Why would someone spend so much time and effort writing the plays and poems only to allow a lowly Stratford actor to take all the credit?


None of the theories has a convincing answer to this question. They have, however, come up with various candidates for the shrinking violet in question.


Number one in our list of people who didn’t write Shakey’s plays is Francis Bacon. His name was put forward by the not-entirely-coincidentally-named Delia Bacon. Apparently Francis led a team of top scribes, including Edmund The Faerie Queen Spenser and Sir Walter ‘More than a sailor’ Raleigh on a mission to improve the morale fibre of the nation. The main drawback with this theory is that we have examples of Francis Bacon’s writing - and he was crap.


Candidate number two is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. In his favour, he was very well-educated. Problem is, he died in 1604, which means he’d have had trouble putting references to the gunpowder plot into Macbeth or hearing about the shipwreck for The Tempest. There’s also the snag that if he did write the plays, he’d have been writing for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men – rivals to his own theatrical troupe. All this notwithstanding, it’s hard to take this theory seriously because it was dreamt up by a guy called John Thomas Looney. Who thought there was nothing remotely amusing about his name.


Third on the list is Christopher ‘Kit’ Marlowe, who would not only have to had to adopt an entirely new literary style in order to have written Shakey’s plays, he would also have to had to survive being stabbed to death in 1593.


Number four... well, to be honest, the list goes on forever. The thing is, no matter how persuasive each case may be, the best candidate for the author of Shakey’s plays always turns out to be the Bard with the beard himself.


Although he was the son of a glove-maker, he had, by our standards, an extremely thorough classical education, an average school day consisting of Latin, more Latin, and extra double Latin. It’s not implausible that a young actor would become a proficient playwright after a decade or so of touring – particularly as he’d have been learning a new play every couple of weeks.


There’s also the sheer number of references in Shakey’s plays to rural life. While you can imagine a young Stratford lad learning all about courts and Kings through play-acting, it’s hard to imagine a member of the upper classes picking up Warwickshire slang for flowers or the jargon of leather tanners.


But what really marks Shakey out as the writer of his plays is the stuff he doesn’t know. A more well-travelled writer – such as Edward de Vere – would’ve known that Venice is famous for its canals, that Bohemia hasn’t got a coastline, that Verona and Milan aren’t seaports and that the quickest way of getting from France to Spain is not by going through Italy.


And that’s the proof that Shakey wrote his plays, and not somebody better-educated from the ruling classes. Because only the son of a glove-maker from Stratford could have had such a poor grasp of basic European geography.




Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 9 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

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