Shakespeare’s “Infinite Book of Secrecy”

630 thoughts on “Shakespeare’s “Infinite Book of Secrecy””

1. I like the inclusion of a picture of the Gail Kern Paster Reading Library in this article. My favourite quote from the eponymous former Folger Director is:

   ‘To ask me about the authorship question … is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist’s account of the fossil record.’

   It was all going quite well until the Earl of Oxford raised his fyckle head. Michael Dudley is like Alice’s White Rabbit, stalking the Shakespearean celebrations for an opportunity to lead the unwary down his rabbit hole, persuading them to eat the cake and drink the potion that will give them access to the Looking Glass World of Oxfordland, where nothing makes sense, no items of fact are admitted and the greatest poem ever written by one poet in praise of another, Ben Jonson’s Preface to the Folio itself, is treated as a crudely encrypted message only understood by themselves.

   Far from being “an ideal venue for authorship skeptics to raise what they feel are perfectly reasonable doubts” the Folio Tour will be greatly diminished if it allows itself to be stalked by a crew of credulous evidence manglers whose idea of skepticism is to reject the work of scholars, ignore the historical record, and deprive Shakespeare of due credit for his peerless work.

   I cannot think of a more inappropriate “venue” for such a debate.

   The most appropriate method for Oxfordians to honour the Bard would be to maintain a complete silence until 2017. These muddled, soi-disant “Skeptics” have no place anywhere near this tour.

2. It would have been helpful for the writer to be a little more familiar with Shakespeare’s history. Far from going unnoticed, Shakespeare’s passing was marked by a poem by William Basse. Basse’s poem suggests that Spencer, Chaucer and Beaumont, three renowned writers buried in “Poet’s Corner” in Westminster Abbey, should make room for Shakespeare’s body to also be placed in their “threefold, fourfold tomb.”

   Basse’s poem seems to have been popular. In early modern times, many poems circulated in handwritten manuscripts rather than print. Though such manuscripts (like everything else made 400 years ago from paper) were ephemeral, 27 manuscript copies of the poem survive. Considering how much of early modern poems and plays we know were created and has subsequently been lost, 27 surviving copies suggests that there were a vast number in circulation that have been lost.

   The popularity of the poem in manuscript may have encouraged publication of the Folio by the possessors of Shakespeare’s plays — his partners in the playing company of which he was a principal member, player and in-house playwright for many years. The company owned the rights to the plays and sought to prevent their publication. (They were far more lucrative to the players if people had to buy a ticket to experience Hamlet than if they could take it off their bookshelf!)

   The Basse poem’s popularity is shown also by other writers referring to it, with the expectation that their readers would be familiar with it.Ben Jonson responded in his introductory poem in the First Folio, in which he wrote, “My Shakespeare, rise; I will not lodge thee by Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lye A little further, to make thee a roome.” Perhaps a more pointed response is carved on Shakespeare’s tomb itself: “Blessed be the man that spares these stones, And cursed be he that moves my bones.” It suggests that the demand for Shakespeare’s body to join that of other prominent English writers may have started soon after Shakespeare’s death while his tomb was being finished. In the end, his surviving family, living in the enormous home Shakespeare bought in Stratford only steps from the church where he was entombed, prevailed.

   —

   The reason the writer of this article omitted this well-documented poem is made clear a few paragraphs later. It’s part of a set-up to spring the authorship question on the reader. The writer follows the dying fringe theory that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote the works in the Folger Exhibition.

   It’s certainly true that for Shakespeare, like most common people in London in the 1590’s and 1600’s, there’s little to document his day-to-day life. Though Shakespeare’s life is documented better than most of his contemporaries, the doubters insist that any evidence that doesn’t meet their idiosyncratic criteria cannot be trusted, and that if they can string together enough “coincidences” they will identify a different author.

   But those theories don’t hold water. The rise in the use of computer-aided analysis of writing style have aided in real discoveries about Shakespeare’s works, and of the early modern theater world. Far from the idea of a hidden author using an assumed name, surreptitiously handing over his masterworks to a front man, it is becoming clear that many early modern playwrights, including Shakespeare, thrived in a comparatively tiny London theater community. Collaboration between playwrights was common, including Shakespeare. The evidence for William Shakespeare’s authorship is overwhelming, and no significant scholar consider the anti-Stratfordian theory plausible.

   1. According to Kathman, the poem by Basse was written between the death of Stratford and the printing of the First Folio -HOWEVER even Kathman concedes that there is no evidence that William Basse wrote his poem any earlier than 1633.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Basse#Verse

   2. Yes, I too was shocked to see how leading this article was, and how many well-known facts were omitted or downright misrepresented, just to give the anti-Stratfordian conspiracy theories more weight. Boo!

      1. Like what? The question of the unpublished Basse poem has been discussed ad nauseum. Other than that I have not seen a single criticism that has even the slightest merit, and your team has ample time. Headlight, for example, claimed not to know about Justice Stevens University of Pennsylvania Law Review article even though it is linked in the article, which suggests that he is both woefully uninformed on the state of the debate, AND that he didn’t even read, or understand, the article, Piling on empty comments like “many well known facts…” etc. does nothing for your team but illustrate, once again, that you prefer to talk rather than read, think, or reconsider.

         1. Now that I’ve reviewed the 20+ year old article you cite, I can’t imagine why you think it is important. Justice Stevens was uninformed.

            I counted a number of odd errors and omissions in the piece. I’ll focus on his Act IV.

            He identifies three questions related to Shakespeare that he finds troubling.

            1. Shakespeare’s library. He wonders why Shakespeare’s library is not referred to in his will. This seems like an odd question for a jurist, but of course Stevens as a Federal judge and justice infrequently would have been reviewing wills. There really would be no point in Shakespeare enumerating his books separately from his other personal property, since he was bequeathing them all to his daughter Susanna and her husband Dr. Hall.

            He is specifically wrong when he says there is “no evidence that his house in Stratford ever contained a
            library.” On the contrary, Dr. Hall’s will mentions a “study of books” at New Place, and there was a complaint against Baldwyn Brooks for seizing Dr. Hall’s possessions, including books. The existence of a study and books in the home formerly owned by Shakespeare is certainly evidence that such a room existed in the home during Shakespeare’s lifetime.

            2. Dr. Hall’s notes of cases. I recently saw the discussion of the Federal Rule of Evidence given at the Shakespeare Fellowship meeting earlier this year. By those rules, Justice Stevens should know that the non-existence of a reference to Shakespeare in these books isn’t evidence of any kind. We have no evidence that Shakespeare was among Hall’s patients. To my knowledge, there are no references to his other personal, non-professional relations in the books. Why would his father-in-law’s profession enter into his writings?

            3. the seven-year period of silence. We’ve discussed the poem by Basse, which must have been written after the death of Beaumont in 1616, and prior to Jonson’s reference to it in the First Folio in 1623. There was no period of silence.

            1. That 20+ year old article is important to the Oxford cult because–Justice Stevens! They have a touchingly naive belief that expertise in one field translates to another, that a great jurist must necessarily be a fine literary scholar. Sadly, not a few great minds have fallen prey to crank beliefs of all sorts: alien abduction, cold fusion, psychokinesis, quantum consciousness, homeopathy, intelligent design, Oxfordianism…The phenomenon is so notorious among great scientists that it has a name: Nobel disease.

               See this page for a list of Nobel minds o’erthrown:

               http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

               And Oxfordians do love to court celebrities that they can flaunt, who are in turn cosseted and flattered, feeling themselves to be exceptionally intelligent, the heralds of the New Paradigm. You might call Derek Jacobi the Tom Cruise of the Shakespeare denialists.

3. psi2u2 aka Dr. Roger Stritmatter keeps complaining people who are convinced William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon are unwilling to consider that Edward de Vere is the true author. To be fair, I think people who support Dr. Stritmatter’s claim should read this critique of Dr. Stritmatter’s dissertation. Here’s a link. http://www.oxfraud.com/folger-bible-home

   1. The fact of the matter is that we consider their claims much more than they consider the actual evidence supporting the attribution to WS of Stratford. We spend countless hours reviewing their claims and their arguments, conducting research and examining sources. On the other side, you have people like Dr. Waugaman, for instance, who simply denies and summarily dismisses all of the evidence that WS was an actor. It isn’t convenient for his story and so evidence is ignored.

      1. ‘Dr. Waugaman, for instance, who simply denies and summarily dismisses all of the evidence that WS was an actor’ – I thought the argument was about whether or not he was a playwright? I don’t think anyone’s arguing that he was an actor. So maybe that’s why this evidence is being ignored. Try coming up with some evidence that he was a playwright next. I expect that you can’t, which is why you have resorted to proving that he was an actor. Maybe you could prove that he was a wool broker next?

4. A.R. Lyon (and many other posters here): You keep asking Oxfordians
   to “produce evidence” but they have been, for many decades; it just can’t be
   summarized in an online comments section. This scholarship is rich and
   provides a far, far more compelling Shakespeare than partisans for the
   Stratford Man have been able to pull together in more than 300 years.
   Please check out this list of books published since 2000, which together
   present an impressively persuasive case against Shakspere and for
   Oxford:

   https://uwinnipeg.worldcat.org/profiles/Dudleym/lists/3602561

   Cheers,
   Michael Dudley

   1. No, they haven’t been producing any actual evidence. It was recently admitted by Oxenfordians that they can produce not one scintilla of direct evidence in support of the proposition that their Lord wrote the works of Shakespeare. In addition,as is shown below in these comments, what the Oxenfordians promote as being circumstantial evidence doesn’t qualify as such.

      No one in the Oxenfordian camp has ever even attempted to refute the argument made as to their failure to produce circumstantial evidence. Instead, they choose to run away [as Mr. psi2u2 has done in these comments] or they wrestle with straw man arguments of their own design [as Mr. Regnier has done]. You are welcome to be the first to try…the argument is set forth in this comment thread.

      A prima facie case for the attribution of the works to William Shakespeare of Stratford is established by actual evidence in the historical record [a fact previously admitted by Professor Stritmatter], both direct and circumstantial, and nothing that any Oxenfordian has ever produced has even remotely served to make a persuasive rebuttal of that case. Actual evidence may only be rebutted by other evidence. You don’t have any such evidence. If you, or any other Oxenfordian, should disagree, please feel free to engage with the argument set forth below.

      Good luck,
      M. D. H. Johnson

   2. Mr. Dudley,
      Thank you for the link to your book list. Several people who have commented on your article and responded to Dr. Roger Stritmatter, have read and reviewed the books and found them wanting. The books are filled with special pleading, misreading, not understanding of Elizabethan and Jacobean history and the theatrical history of the period. For example, Diana Price creates her own methodology in order to filter out anything that undercuts her argument. Another example, the team of Stritmatter and Kositsky do not understand Shrovetide and do not know the history of Jacobean court masques. They also devote a chapter to a play, The Spanish Maze, which they are convinced is the first version of The Tempest. All we have of The Spanish Maze is the title, so their conjecture is worthless.

      In your little essay, you say after his death, William Shakespeare was uneulogized. He was. On the other hand, no one seemed to notice that Edward de Vere died in 1604. No one wrote one tiny little poem. Except for his second wife, I wonder how many people cried one little tear.

      As for your comments about the publications of William Shakespeare’s plays, it is clear you have no knowledge of how and why any Elizabethan or Jacobean play was published and you have no knowledge of printing practices during the period.

      Cheers,
      A. R. Lyon

      1. A.R Lyon —
         Yes it may be true as you say — I’m not a subject specialist in Elizabethan literature or printing history, but the fact remains that all the specialist knowledge regarding Shrovetide and masques and printing history in the world cannot construct a viable, coherent, plausible, document-based and internally consistent biography of the Man from Stratford that can tie him definitively to the works of Shakespeare.

         Cheers,
         Michael

         1. That’s like saying you can’t build a ladder to moon from K’Nex or Lego.

            Without miracles or any Oxfordian trickery, however, you can make a prima facie case for Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays from the historical record and what has come down to us from the man. It simply relies on a variety of building materials.

            Whereas to make a case for Oxford, you first have to discount everything that has ever been written by scholars on the development of Will’s art and Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre, since your choice of candidate died in 1604.

            Then you have swallow a raft of historical singularities, such as your belief in the use of an allonym, unique in the professional theatre.

            Then you have to swallow more enormities, like the fact that Oxford could not write anything beyond mediocre poetry and dull prose.

            Then you have to allow yourself to be thrilled with a process of replacing circumstantial evidence with trivial, trinket coincidences like the pirates.

            What you are trying to do is build a ladder to the moon with a dollar’s worth of marshmallow. Or buy yourself a new author with plastic beads.

         2. Mr. Dudley, have you actually ever read the Earl of Oxford? No one with an ear for writing could mistake the plod and dribble of his stuff for Shakespeare.

            C.S. Lewis, in his magisterial English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, sees him off in one dismissive sentence: “Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, shows here and there, a faint talent, but is for the most part undistinguished and verbose.”

            Even Oxfordians excuse his poetastery as juvenilia; but we have a great many of his letters, dated 1563-1604. In their 50,000 tin-eared, incoherent words—a Hamlet and a half—your case is damned.

         3. Mr. Dudley,

            You say, “The world cannot construct a viable, coherent, plausible, document-based and internally consistent biography of the Man from Stratford that can tie him definitively to the works of Shakespeare.”

            Well, let’s take a quick look at some evidence for Shakespeare, and see if, perhaps, you can be persuaded otherwise.

            As you requested, the evidence is “document-based.” I hope you will also deem it “internally consistent,” since no fanciful interpretations are necessary. And just as a matter of interest, the evidence is from a single year.

            In 1598 (still fairly early in Shakespeare’s career), Richard Barnfield’s poem, “A Remembrance of Some
            English Poets,” firmly places Shakespeare (no hyphen) with Spenser, Drayton, and Daniel. For easy reference, here are the final six lines.

            And Shakespeare thou, whose hony-flowing Vaine,
            (Pleasing the World) thy Praises doth obtaine.
            Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece (sweete, and chaste)
            Thy Name in fames immortall Booke have plac’t.
            Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever:
            Well may the Bodye dye, but Fame dies never.

            Then Frances Meres lists Shakespeare (no hyphen) nine times in “Palladis Tamia,” while naming the plays he
            had written to date (less 1st Henriad), as well as V&A, RoL, and his “sugred Sonnets.”

            Oxford is mentioned once for comedy only, which, interestingly, makes him not as anonymous as Oxfordians would have us believe. That list is also one that Shakespeare happens to be on, meaning Meres knew full well that Oxford and Shakespeare were quite different persons—and with quite different levels of literary accomplishment.

            Oxford had also been mentioned in other books on the poetic arts by Webbe (1586) and Puttenham (1588), and his poetry had been published under his name on several occasions. Such public acknowledgement further undercuts the claim that Oxford was forced to remain anonymous, a tenet which is crucial to Oxfordian theory, as it provides the necessary deus ex machina to explain why Oxfordians have no evidence to support their claim—because it was all suppressed to conceal Oxford’s identity.

            But back to Shakespeare. That same year, Q2 RII and Q2 RIII were printed with William Shake-speare on the by line, along with LLL by W. Shakespere. And just for the record, Q1 of Hamlet was by William Shake-speare, while Q2 – Q6 dropped the hyphen. Because spelling back then was irregular. Oxfordians, however, refuse to accept this fact, since it gets in the way of their theory. But what’s really precious is that while they claim the hyphen indicates a fake author, they’re really not sure what to do when the name is spelled “Shakespeare,” without the hyphen.

            As a general rule, if they think “Shakespeare” is being snarked, then it’s Stratford, but if “Shakespeare” is being praised, as in Barnfield’s poem, then it’s Oxford. Unfortunately for Oxfordians, that still leaves a number of sticky situations, for example, the royal patent from James I that reincarnates the LCM as the KM, and has “William Shakespeare” second on the list of “these our Servaunts.” But which Shakespeare is this? By this document, Shakespeare becomes a Groom of the Chamber. Which would seem to rule out the mighty Earl of Oxford, meaning this Shakespeare had to be the man from Stratford, who was listed second on the patent, after only Lawrence Fletcher, who James had brought with him from Scotland, where Fletcher had been “Comedian to his Majesty.”

            So 1598 was a very good year since Shakespeare was also granted a coat of arms, through his father, who had been bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon, as attested by William Dethick from the College of Arms in his defense of the grant. This makes William Shakespeare of Stratford the only Mr. Shake-scene in town–because the College of Arms lists no other Mr. William Shakespeares.

            And to put a nice little bow on top, the next year, the Parnassus plays mention Shakespeare (no hyphen) repeatedly, to include several references to the freshly minted Mr. Shakespeare, now a gentleman. And though a few years later, Q1 of King Lear was by the one and only M. William Shak-speare.

            It all fits, and ties Mr. Shakespeare to his plays and then the playwright to his hometown, Stratford.

            So Mr. Dudley, what do you think of this document-based evidence? And is it, perhaps, strong enough to raise at least some doubt about your belief in Oxford? Even if for a passing moment?

            If not, then would you be so kind as to share with us here a viable, coherent, plausible, document-based and
            internally consistent biography of the Man from Hedingham that can tie him definitively to the works of Shakespeare? And I’m sure you can make it fit here on this blog, just as I was able to do.

            1. Hi Benjamin — Yes, those references to Shakespeare are very well known, and there are dozens more like them. But the fact remains that the references by contemporaries to the writer Shakespeare are to a name only, and cannot be tied to the Stratford Man or any other individual. And yes there are documentary references to a William Shakespeare associated with the Globe and with actors and obtaining a coat of arms, but those pieces of evidence are non-literary in nature. There is a documentary-based biography of William Shakespere of Stratford, but there is nothing literary about it. That’s the essence of the Authorship Question.

               Cheers
               Michael

            2. Mr. Dudley,

               A few posts down, MHD Johnson wrote the following: “On the other side, you have people like Dr. Waugaman, for instance, who simply denies and summarily dismisses all of the evidence that WS was an actor. It isn’t convenient for his story and so evidence is ignored.”

               So I’m not surprised. Your response was, actually, predictable.

               But you didn’t have to be so obvious about it: “And yes there are documentary references to a William Shakespeare associated with the Globe and with actors and obtaining a coat of arms, but those pieces of
               evidence are non-literary in nature. There is a documentary-based biography of William Shakespere of Stratford, but there is nothing literary about it.”

               So there’s “nothing literay” about Barnfield’s poem?

               And “nothing literary” about Mere’s lists of poets?

               And “nothing literary” about Q2 RII and Q2 RIII with William Shake-speare on the by line?

               And “nothing literary” about LLL with W. Shakespere on the by line?

               And “nothing literary” about King Lear by M. William Shak-speare?

               And “nothing literary” about the First Folio by Mr. William Shakespeare?

               And “nothing literary” about Basse’s poem? As discussed here, mostly with “Bobleblah” (though I might summarize it for you in another post so you don’t have to pick through the rather lengthy thread).

               But enough.

               The Oxfordian posture is not only predictable, but also understandable. After all, what’s not to like about a grand conspiracy involving a lovably wayward Earl set in the great court of Queen Elizabeth. Why, you could
               even make a movie about it. (Rim shot off stage.)

               I must also chuckle at your demand for literary evidence, as if the title page of “King Lear” must say “By M. William Shak-speare of Stratford.” Of course, the First Folio does as much with Jonson’s “Sweet swan of Avon.”

               So I’ll just ask you this: Would you please provide a few examples of what you mean by “literary evidence.” This could actually be fun for both of us!

               And, if you’re not already working on it, “a viable, coherent, plausible, document-based and internally consistent biography of the Man from Hedingham that can tie him definitively to the works of Shakespeare.”

            3. The rule is, Ben, if it’s literary, it does not refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, if it’s not literary, then it is allowed to refer to him. Them’s the Oxie rules.

            4. Tom,

               Well, I want to give Mr. Dudley the benefit of the doubt.

               Hopefully, he’ll offer some examples of what he would deem literary evidence, perhaps even one or two using Oxford.

               Or better yet, share with us “a viable, coherent, plausible, document-based and internally consistent biography of the Man from Hedingham that can tie him definitively to the works of Shakespeare.”

            5. It always comes back to the pirates.

            6. O alas. There’s an unanalyzed assumption that there needs to be some “literary” thing (whatever that might be) about Shakespeare’s biography. That is anachronistic and based in a Romantic idea of authorship that makes little sense in Elizabethan England.

            7. > There is a documentary-based biography of William Shakespere of Stratford, but there is nothing literary about it.

               I suggest you read *William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life* (1975) by S. Schoenbaum, chapter 11, “Plays, Plague, and a Patron” and chapter 14, “His Majesty’s Servant”.

   3. Compelling how, though? Is the Oxford narrative compelling because it depends on a conspiracy? Because it’s more exciting than a perfectly reasonable story about a person moving from the provinces to London and becoming a writer? It isn’t because of anything “impressively persuasive” in the evidence, in my reading of it.

      1. It has pirates in it.

         1. Exactly.

   4. Mr Dudley, linking to a list of twelve publications by neo Anti-Shakespearean writers and stating “[their] scholarship is rich and provides a far, far more compelling Shakespeare than partisans for the Stratford Man have been able to pull together in more than 300 years”, is rich indeed!

      In the interests of providing the unaligned neutral with EVIDENCE of Shakespeare’s authorship, I hope the Shakespeare Allusion-Book 1591 to 1700 will be informative.

      https://archive.org/stream/shakspereallusio01ingluoft#page/n5/mode/2up

      The opening sentences of the preface are to savour: “These volumes were not made in a day. Thirty years have passed in their compilation, and the thousands of books from which their contents have been drawn stretch over 300 years.”

      To be clear, I’m not appealing to higher authority or suggesting the academy is always right, what I am saying is the collected allusions of Shakespeare’s contemporaries and people who knew him personally, provide compelling testimony for his authorship.

      And, of course, gives Oxfordian scholars the task of showing that:-

      a) Persons making reference to Shakespeare had all been duped by (according to some Oxfordians) an illiterate posing as a poet, playwright and actor. (How did he learn his lines?)

      b) Persons making reference to Shakespeare all knew he was a stooge for de Vere, but never said a word to anyone, ever. And that they each had some reason for keeping the big secret. As in all of them! What was the reason?

      c) Or, there were indeed contemporaries of both Shakespeare and de Vere who were ‘in on the secret’, and who contrived hidden messages in their references which were so hidden, they have only recently been discovered.

      d) Why it’s taken so long for anyone to notice, and what special knowledge enabled them to discern hidden or cryptic messages about de Vere, made by people within or adjacent to Shakespeare’s circle?

      Here’s a list to get you Oxfordian scholars going….to make life easier only the years 1591 to 1604 are shown in this snippet from Chronological List of Shakespeare Allusions Vol 1. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/257a3f66eaef5de217111a65a7db9b080fcb5076b65cfe580b293be78af18141.png

      1. Hi Mr. Gordon —
         Of course Oxfordians realize that there are dozens of contemporary references to Shakespeare during the years in question — and thank you for the link to the Internet Archive, I look forward to reviewing it! — but we point out (again and again) that there is nothing that can be gleaned from these allusions that tie the author Shakespeare to the man who lived in Stratford-Upon-Avon *during the latter’s lifetime*. Even Stanley Wells will admit as much.

         I like to think of the situation as analogous to a hypothetical future in which Samuel Clemens is unknown to history, and biographers, documenting dozens of references to a “Mark Twain” uncover a man born with that very name — say, a rural businessman — and then proceed over decades and centuries to construct biographies about how this businessman wrote such works as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, making up for their tenuous evidence with plenty of “must haves” and “it is reasonable to assumes.”

         Thanks again for the link!

         Cheers, Michael

         1. Mr Dudley, somewhere in this thread, there was a call to provide any documentary reference connecting Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon with his Globe sharer, actor and writer namesake, Shakespeare of London.

            As an admirer of Nina Green’s tremendous research, I was more than happy to cite her paper referring to documents in the National Archive.

            “SUMMARY The documents below are the pleadings and orders in a lawsuit brought in the Court of Requests by John Witter against John Heminges (1566-1630) and Henry Condell (1576?-1627) in 1619.”

            The pertinent extract is this:

            “The position taken by John Heminges in his answer was that Augustine Phillips did not hold his interest at his death directly from Nicholas Brend by the lease made 21 February 1599, because under that original lease Augustine Phillips, William Shakespeare of
            Stratford upon Avon (1564-1616), Thomas Pope (d.1603), John Heminges and William Kempe had held one moiety as joint tenants with Cuthbert Burbage (1564/5-1636) and Richard Burbage (1568-1619).” [Copyright Nina Green 2011]

            Ms Green’s comments aside, Ben Jonson’s ‘Sweet Swan of Avon’ reference to Shakespeare should be sufficient evidence of a connection. No?

            1. Professor Wells is simply wrong in this instance. There are numerous references to the author, during the lifetime of William Shakespeare of Stratford, as Mr. William Shakespeare, Gent., [or variations thereof], all of which serve to uniquely and specifically identify the author as the man from Stratford. In addition, there are also references to the author as the actor William Shakespeare and the “fellow” of Burbage and Kempe, also during the lifetime of the man from Stratford.

               Of course, the “in his lifetime” exclusionary rule Oxenfordians attempt to apply is utter garbage, in law or in historiography.

            2. …you’re right to point up exclusionary ‘rules’. Mr Dudley (elsewhere in this thread) seems also to exclude non literary material being admitted to debate.

            3. Hi Mr. Gordon —
               That Mr. Shakespere of Stratford-Upon-Avon was a shareholder in the Globe and associated with theatrical people in a financial capacity is generally accepted among Oxfordians; but again, this is a non-literary record. The other problem is that Alexander Waugh recently published a paper demonstrating contemporary references to Hampton Court being referred to as “Avon” — and in association with Jonson’s references to Eliza and James and the banks of the Thames, certainly makes a compelling case that the Swan of Avon was a courtly poet-playwright: http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Waugh.Swan-of-Avon.pdf

               Best,
               Michael

            4. > The other problem is that Alexander Waugh recently published a paper
               demonstrating contemporary references to Hampton Court being referred to
               as “Avon”

               Keep using that argument! We on this side love Alexander’s little “discoveries”, and we ourselves try to do all we can to publicize them. Good luck with them.

            5. Waugh’s Avon paper is sheer fantasy.

               http://oxfraud.com/100-braver-new-avon

            6. Indeed, Nat. I took the liberty of expanding on your work by reference to Mr Dudley’s preference for literary argument. For some bizarre reason, he appears to want to avoid the non literary material, from which almost all conjecture for de Vere’s authorship derives.

               He cited Waugh, and he got you!

            7. An Oxfordian quirk that I’ve noticed is that once you answer with genuine, documented evidence of the type that historians use, they tend to disappear from the conversation.

            8. Tom, there’s an after dinner story (not apocryphal, I’m told) about two of England’s fast bowler cricketers. One called Fred Trueman and the other Brian Statham. Both very good players.

               As bowlers, they weren’t expected to score many runs, but would rib each other as to their respective abilities when faced with highly competent opponents. Trueman asserted he would be last man standing, if Statham lost his wicket.

               When Trueman was bowled first ball and retired to the pavilion, where he was met with derision from Statham

               To which he replied…I slipped in the shit you left behind!

               Are the Oxfordians taking it in turns to soil the turf?

            9. >> “That Mr. Shakespere of Stratford-Upon-Avon was a shareholder in the Globe and associated with theatrical people in a financial capacity is generally accepted among Oxfordians…”

               Right…in order for Oxenfordians to maintain their story it is vital for them to deny any and all of the evidence that shows that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an actor with the LCM and KM, some of which follows:

               1. The court payment in 1595 to “William Kempe William Shakespeare & Richard Burbage servantes to the Lord Chamberlain”. On 15 March 1595, the Treasurer of the Queen’s Chamber paid “William Kempe William Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage servants to the Lord Chamberleyne” for their performances at court in Greenwich on 26th and 27th December 1594.

               2. The 1599 listing of the Globe Theater as being occupied by “Willielmo Shakespeare et aliorum”

               3. The three contemporary legal documents (two from 1601 and one from 1608) which list the primary tenants of the Globe theater as “William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, gentlemen.”

               4. The Return from Parnassus Part 2, in which the actor “Kemp” refers to “our fellow Shakespeare”

               5. The license for the creation of the King’s Men in 1603, in which “William Shakespeare” appears second. The
               Lord Chamberlain’s Men were licensed as the King’s Men on 19 May 1603. The document lists “Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly” as members of the troupe. Shakespeare’s prominence is indicated by the fact
               that he appears second on the list, behind only Lawrence Fletcher, who had acted for King James in Scotland, and who was the king’s favorite actor.

               6. The account of red cloth distributed to the King’s Men for James’s procession into London in 1604; they are prominently identified as “Players,” and William Shakespeare appears first on the list. On 15 March 1604 King James, The actors who were named were “William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillipps, Lawrence Fletcher, John Hemminges, Richard Burbidge, William Slye, Robert Armyn, Henry Cundell, and Richard Cowley.”

               7. The will of Augustine Phillips, member of the King’s Men, which leaves money to “my fellow William Shakespeare” as well as to seven other members of the King’s Men. The will of Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605, proved 16 May 1605, bequeaths, “to my Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould, To
               my Fellowe Henry Condell one other thirty shillinge peece in gould . . . To my Fellowe Lawrence Fletcher twenty shillings in gould, To my Fellowe Robert Armyne twenty shillings in gould . . . .” All of the people who Phillips calls his “fellows” were actors in the King’s Men. Augustine Phillips’s bequest of 30 shillings to his “Fellowe” Shakespeare was written 11 months after the Earl of Oxford’s death.

               8. The record of Shakespeare ye Player in the Heralds Office.

               9. The cast lists included in Jonson’s Folio. The 1616 Folio of Ben Jonson’s Works contained cast lists for his plays. The cast list for Jonson’s Every Man in His Humor, which was performed in 1598, includes “Will Shakespeare, Aug. Philips, Hen. Condel, Will. Slye, Will. Kempe, Ric. Burbadge, Ioh. Hemings, Tho. Pope, Chr.
               Beeston, and Ioh. Duke.”. The cast list for Jonson’s Sejanus, performed in 1603, includes “Ric. Burbadge, Aug. Philips, Will. Sly, Ioh. Lowin, Will. Shake-Speare, Ioh. Hemings, Hen. Condel, and Alex. Cooke.”

               10. In his will, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon left a bequest “to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard Burbage & Henry Cundell a peece to buy them Ringes.”

               11. The First Folio poem by Ben Jonson.

               From thence to honour thee, I would not seeke
               For names; but call forth thund’ring Æschilus,
               Euripides, and Sophocles to us,
               Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
               To life againe, to heare thy Buskin tread,
               And shake a stage : Or, when thy sockes were on,
               Leave thee alone, for the comparison
               Of all, that insolent Greece, or haughtie Rome
               Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.

               12. Three poems by Davies.

               13. On 13 March 1602, John Manningham of the Middle Temple recorded in his diary a racy anecdote about
               Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare:

               14. Greene’s Groats-worth….[possible reference]

               15. Willobie, His Avisa, with its reference to WS, the “old player”…[possible reference]

               16. Sir Richard Baker, a contemporary of Shakespeare and a friend of John Donne, published Chronicle of the Kings of England in 1643. Sir Richard was an avid fan of the theater, also writing Theatrum Redivium, or the Theatre Vindicated. In the Chronicle, for Elizabeth’s reign he notes statesmen, seamen, and soldiers, and literary figures who are mostly theologians with the exception of Sidney. In conclusion he says,

               “After such men, it might be thought ridiculous to speak of Stage-players; but seeing excellency in the meanest things deserves remembering . . . For writers of Playes, and such as had been Players themselves, William Shakespeare and Benjamin Jonson, have specially left their Names recommended to Posterity.” — from How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts, by Tom Reedy and David Kathman].

               ———————-
               I often wonder what contortions and gyrations the Oxenfordian mind must embrace when confronted with such evidence. If the mind admits the evidence that Shakespeare was an actor, then the evidence that the actor was the author must also be dismissed through some twisted form of mental gymnastics. So much easier to simply deny the existence of the evidence and indulge in myths about theater investors or rural businessmen.

            10. Thanks for your reply, Michael.

                As I understand it, you are amongst those who think ‘The Stratford Man’ and William Shakespeare, actor and shareholder in the Globe etc are two unconnected individuals going by the same name?

                You appear to dismiss the reference to the London and Stratford Shakespeare connection provided by Ms Green, as a ‘non literary record’. What’s wrong with non literary records? Oxfordians make frequent references to them (pirates, me harty) in support of conjecture supposedly paralleling de Vere’s life in works attributed to Shakespeare. (Hamlet in this case)

                Surely you realise the case for de Vere is conjectured almost entirely from non literary records? But if you speak for your Oxfordian colleagues, I’m sure mine at Oxfraud would be happy to confine future discussion to literary material. However, if you’re flying solo and looking for a safe place to land….avoid Avon because you’ll crash in the Thames…

                You made reference and linked to Alexander Waugh’s paper: The following extracts are from an article written by Nemo Whilk, titled ‘Brave New Avon’ and available here:-

                http://www.oxfraud.com/100-braver-new-avon

                “When reading antiquarians, one must beware of etymologies. They are so often fanciful. Books copy other books. Inventions harden into fact.

                Waugh writes: “In his Cygnea Cantio (1545) Leland explained that Hampton Court was called ‘Avon’ as a shortening of the Celtic-Roman name ‘Avondunum’ meaning a fortified place (dunum) by a river (avon), which ‘the common people by corruption called Hampton.’

                Not quite. Cygnea Cantio is mute on etymology. In his commentary on the poem, Leland explained almost none of this. And that last clause refers to another Avondunum entirely, a “famous city amongst the Simeni.”

                Cygnea Cantio itself is a gloriously dotty Latin poem, in which Leland floats down the Thames from Oxford to the sea in swan-form, doubtless cruising for a Leda to assail. Along the way, cob Johannes passes any number of praiseworthy places, all of which are given Latin toponyms, some authentic and some improvised.

                Of Leland’s Cantio, its editor and translator Dana F. Sutton writes that “his standard procedure is to mention some location in the poem by using the Celtic place-name he at least thought it had possessed in the Roman (or, failing that, Saxon) period.” (The emphasis is mine.)

                So a number of Leland’s toponyms are sheer invention: nonce-words, inkhorn terms. Holofernes stuff. Did the man on the Clapham omnibus ever speak of Westminster as Thornega and Fulham as Volucrum Domus? Did anyone?

                And Hampton Court? Was it really ever known as Avon? Avondunum?

                Not outside of Leland at his highest-flown, and Leland’s copyists. I think it may be more useful to ask where it was called “Avondunum.” Not in Ptolemy or Tacitus. Not always in neo-Latin texts, not even by Leland himself. Elsewhere, he called it “Hamptona” and Hugo Grotius, “Hamptincurta.” But it’s “Avondunum” in the later gazetteers, though with an asterisk: “according to Leland.” Says he.

                “There’s a gloss from the Syllabus appended to Leland’s Genethliacon: “Avondunum. Anglice [in English] Hamtoncourte.” Waugh adds, “This etymology was supported by Raphael Hollinshed, who wrote in his Chronicles (1586) that ‘we now pronounce Hampton for Avondune.’” That’s “Holinshed” to most of us. And 1587. Those mistakes are merely slovenly. More crucially, Waugh has once again failed to notice—or suppressed—the context of his quote. Holinshed was writing of a very different “Auon, otherwise Nene, which … beginneth foure miles aboue Northampton.” Could this be that other, famous Avondunum Leland spoke of, his “urbi celebri apud Simenos”? No. Leland’s “Venta Simenorum” is Winchester: so his Simeni must inhabit Hampshire. Southampton then. Another other Avondunum?”

                Are you sure you want to allow only literary evidence?

                Best wishes, Michael…..

                Mike Gordon

            11. Mr. Dudley,

                You probably feel that the Shakespeareans here are piling on.

                But you could put a quick stop to it if, as I asked a while back, you provided some actual evidence for Oxford. Simply citing a list of 12 Oxfordian books is not evidence that anything in them is actually evidence for Oxford.

                By that logic, any theory with a dozen or so books written on it would constitute proof that the theory is true. Well, there hundred of books about intelligent design. By your standard, that means you accept ID?

                The whole SAQ is rather much simpler. Just show us a few pieces of actual evidence for Oxford. Even a single bit will do. Pick just one thing out of those 12 books, and let’s examine it critically.

                BTW, I should add that like at least one of your interlocutors here, I too applaud you for offering a “Shakespearean” reading of the poem, “If women could be fair.” But I also hope the replies you received show how far off base your interpretations, however sincere, actually were:

                1- Eliz era works flooded with classical allusions, esp by the University wits. Shakes was actually an underachiever in this regard. Read V&A. Amazing how few footnotes needed even for today’s readers. That’s why “our Fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye, Jonson, too” (Parnassus2, IV,iii). He did NOT load up his works with classical allusions.

                2- Legal terms. I went to Walmart to “purchase” a new TV to replace one that shorted out due to the bad electrical repair work we had done at the house. Fortunately the electrician was licensed and “bonded,” so I it’s not coming out of my pocket. =o)

                3- As Nat Wilk pointed out, hawking was a common enough sport. And training the bird was work of yoerman. Likewise, “haggard” was an utter commonplace. You may find a score of uses in just 1567 (see EEOB). And there are half-a-dozen uses in Geoffrey Fenton’s English translation of Francois de Bellforest’s French trans of Bandello’s Novelle (one of Shakespeare’s sources for Othello).

                Problem here is one of perspective. From your perspective, these all seem great and wondrous connections. But they aren’t. They are commonplaces, admittedly not by your/our 21st century standards, but certainly 400 years ago in England. And thus they are not the least bit probative.

                Which brings us right back to the original question.

                And let’s keep it simple.

                Please offer us just one single piece of actual evidence that Ox was Shakespeare. No high-level hand-waving. No sweeping generalizations. Just one piece of actual hard evidence.

                Like a poem written shortly after Oxford’s death that suggests he should be buried with the other great poets in Poet’s Corner. And should say he died in 1604 and was from Hedingham. After all, the evidence should be literary, as you demand of Shakespeare.

         2. > there is nothing that can be gleaned from these allusions that tie the
            author Shakespeare to the man who lived in Stratford-Upon-Avon *during
            the latter’s lifetime*.

            To the contrary, those references to “Master” (Mr) William Shakespeare in the Stationers Registry entries and poem titles most certainly refer to the armiguous gentleman from Stratford, as confirmed by records of the College of Arms. The identifying title was included in many contemporary references to Shakespeare. What is your explanation for those?

5. The issue at stake in this debate is that Stratfordians and Oxfordians have different notions (and standards) of what constitutes evidence. I’m not qualified myself to comment on this but will defer to an actual lawyer, Tom Regnier, on this matter: https://youtu.be/qRAQMQPkcS4

   1. > The issue at stake in this debate is that Stratfordians and Oxfordians
      have different notions (and standards) of what constitutes evidence.

      Given that there is such a thing as a scholarly methodology, and given that “Stratfordians”, as you call them, comply with that methodology, where do you think that puts Oxfordians?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method

      1. The Newsweek debate that Regnier refers to was such a comprehensive disaster for Oxfordians that it has been saved for posterity and is available here.

         http://oxfraud.com/file-list

         Reading the discussion thread, you will not need any legal qualifications to see that Regnier:-

         a. completely misrepresents what he calls ‘the Stratfordian’ case
         b. reuses arguments on evidence previously shredded in the thread by MDJohnson
         c. continues to fail to grasp why his claims do not qualify as evidence
         d. abandons the debate entirely after failing to explain why items such as those he lists in the talk fail to qualify as circumstance, much less circumstantial evidence
         e. believes that the debate isn’t won by argument but by who can field the biggest flock of sheep to upvote posts. His count is way off, too.

         I’m astonished that the Oxfordians have posted the video here.

         There is no evidence for Oxford’s authorship. Direct, circumstantial or otherwise.

         (Note that the pirates appear in TR’s list of his best evidence. Ha-harrr, Jim lad).

         1. Their standard of evidence is “Think Looney”….

            1. A great slogan for their forthcoming celebrations of the 100th anniversary of Looney’s first book.

   2. Mr. Regnier has misrepresented the argument, as shown below. You can defer to him all you want but he is still wrong. In the long Newsweek thread, which he references in this video, he failed to engage in a discussion of the argument as to why What Oxenfordians claim to be circumstantial evidence does not actually qualify as such. He is still failing to confront that argument and chooses to wrestle a straw man of his own invention. Oxenfordian method in a nutshell, and the Oxenfordian “standard” as to evidence is whatever can be thrown at the wall plus an unproven assumption or two. Anyone can witness it in this very thread:

      Premise: Basse was a retainer in service to Norris;
      Premise: Norris was married to one of de Vere’s daughters, though they split in 1606 and were never reunited;
      Premise: Basse is the author of a poem about Shakespeare written some time between 1616 and 1622;
      Oxenfordian Conclusion: Basse was a part of the conspiracy to hide the real author.

      Once again, if any Oxenfordian, including Mr. Regnier, wishes to defend the logic of their methodology, and show the inferential process involved in their “standard” as to circumstantial evidence, I do wish they would step forward and actually attempt to do so.

6. Calling Dr. Waugaman! Calling Dr.Waugaman!

   There’s a Shakespeare post that you didn’t get to first. Incredibly, three other people beat you there.

   Here’s the link:

   http://spitalfieldslife.com/2015/12/13/a-map-of-william-shakespeares-shordiche/

   So please get busy and mark your spot. =O)

   https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/dd/48/10/dd4810617f1a6093f08c43739cba91b0.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.pinterest.com/pmcintyre3/the-far-side/&h=316&w=236&tbnid=m75tkaNh15OD3M:&docid=xcUWxTCeEQrzlM&ei=SFlwVoWZBMGFmwHq6YmADg&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwiF3c_yvN7JAhXBwiYKHep0AuAQMwglKAQwBA

7. Mr. Dudley,

   Elsewhere you just posted, “4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the question). [Shakespeare was Shakespeare]

   Come now. You know better.

   Shakespeare was Shakespeare, because that’s where the evidence leads us, however much Oxfordains refuse, consistently, to accept that evidence–as even you have already done here.

   The beggars are the Oxies, who are certain Oxford was Shakespeare, and then proceed to make the evidence fit their theory.

   That’s bassackwards logic

   But what’s so astounding is that Oxies rather shamelessly (and, it seems, unwittingly) admit as much.

   For example, in a recent discussion elsewhere, an Oxfordians chastised me for not being able to see that Gullio (Return from Parnassus Part I) is a caricature of Shakespeare. My interlocutor concluded: “If you were to suspend your disbelief and step into the Authorship/Oxfordian context, you would have to admit that it is a pretty funny send-up of the whole affair.”

   Indeed, if I would just beg the question and look at the play though an Oxfordian lens, then I’d see that any praise for Shakespeare is snarkery, wink wink. Except if it’s impossible to dismiss the praise, in which case, Shakespeare is actually Oxford (as with, for example, Barnfield’s “Remembrance”). All very convenient. All very chummy.

   And if there’s a foolish character in the play, like Gullio, no matter how dissimilar to Shakespeare, then it must be a caricature of the Stratford man, because this would fit the authorship theory that Oxfordians believe in as a matter of faith—since it remains evidence free.

   A more glaring example of this fatal flaw, which permeates all Oxfordian exegesis, appears on one of the premier Oxfordain blogs, where Politicworm writes:

   “Stratfordians simply ignore the central factor in our thesis, the hiding of the authorship! To them, everything published that refers to the authorship is straightforward and to be taken at face value. Since it’s clear (to us) that William of Stratford could not possibly have written the plays, or anything for that matter, there being no direct evidence of his ability to write but the six shaky signatures on legal documents, the attribution to someone else must have been due to the need to hide the identity of the true author. Therefore, to us, everything published by the Establishment that refers to the authorship is necessarily suspect.”

   This is stunning: “Stratfordians simply ignore the central factor in our thesis, the hiding of the authorship!” How dare they disagree with us! We know that there really was a conspiracy to suppress Oxford’s name. Those Stratfordians just don’t get it. If they’d just look at everything our way, they’d see how right we are.

   And worse: “Everything published by the Establishment that refers to the authorship is necessarily suspect.” Thus Oxfordians think they have the right to ignore any evidence that goes against them, because it’s suspect. And the corollary: anything that isn’t evidence
   for Oxford can be—if properly “interpreted.” The old “Heads we win, tails you lose.”

   In short, Oxfordians are convinced all the marbles in the jar are boar blue, even though the jar is full of white marbles

   And of course they would, since they’re wearing glasses with boar blue lenses.

   Thus Oxfordians, despite all their contortions, still have not found any actual evidence to support their theory.

   Not a jot.

   But Mr. Dudley, if I’m wrong here, please share with us the first piece of evidence for Oxford, the piece that Looney promised us almost 100 years ago. And if you succeed, you will have taken the first step in building “a viable, coherent, plausible, document-based and
   internally consistent biography of the Man from Hedingham that can tie him definitively to the works of Shakespeare.”

   One small step for Oxford. One giant leap for mankind.

   1. Mr. Hackman —
      You write, “The beggars are the Oxfordians, because they are certain [Oxford was
      Shakespeare], and then proceed to make the evidence fit their theory.” This is incorrect on two counts: One, Oxford was identified because he fit a very carefully constructed profile, not because he was named first and then his partisans tried to shoehorn evidence to fit him. The “coincidences” and circumstantial evidence have continued to strengthen Looney’s hypothesis. The second is that — as Thomas Kuhn wrote in his book The Structures of Scientific Revolutions — our theory helps gives shape to the evidence, not the other way around: Once the author is recognized as an orphaned spendthrift courtier poet who travelled to Italy and is later disgraced, the plays and poems — especially the sonnets — are no longer so mysterious.

      Yes, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, but only in the sense that Mark Twain wrote Mark Twain.

      Cheers,
      Michael

   2. Mr. Hackman —
      You write, “The beggars are the Oxfordians, because they are certain [Oxford was
      Shakespeare],
      and then proceed to make the evidence fit their theory.” This is
      incorrect on two counts: One, Oxford was identified because he fit a
      very carefully constructed profile, not because he was named first and
      then his partisans tried to shoehorn evidence to fit him. The
      “coincidences” and circumstantial evidence have continued to strengthen
      Looney’s hypothesis. The second is that — as Thomas Kuhn wrote in his
      book The Structures of Scientific Revolutions — our theory helps gives
      shape to the evidence, not the other way around: Once the author is
      recognized as a spendthrift courtier poet who loses his father, travelled to
      Italy and is later disgraced, the plays and poems — especially the
      sonnets — are no longer quite so mysterious.

      Yes, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, but only in the sense that Mark Twain wrote Mark Twain.

      1. Mr. Dudley,

         I will have to read up on Kuhn. Will be interesting to see if he’s actually as helpful to your theory as you seem to believe.

         Meantime, you keep avoiding the task at hand: providing just one piece of actual evidence for Oxford.

         Instead, you offer Kuhn, which is just more high-level hand-waving. And surely Kuhn must require evidence in the first place. He’s not talking about shaping conjecture or speculation, but shaping observations that have a logical, causal relationship to the theory being tested.

         So again, please proved a single piece of actual evidence for Oxford’s authorship.

      2. My heavens, you’re naive. “Very carefully constructed” here means rigged or gerrymandered, to suit certain prejudices and unmet desires—and not only snobbery. Looney was a Positivist. There was much dissatisfaction in his time that the Chandos portrait didn’t look =English= enough: a “distinctly Italian type,” “a decidedly Jewish physiognomy.” There is still talk of the Stratford man’s “usury.” So Mr. Looney—much concerned with bloodlines—found himself a whiter Shakespeare.

         Understand: I am not saying that you are a racist, but that Looney’s Positivism shaped his construction of Shakespeare.

         “Once the author is recognized as a spendthrift courtier poet who loses his father, travelled to Italy and is later disgraced…” If that’s what you’re looking for, that’s what you’ll find.

      3. >> “Oxford was identified because he fit a very carefully constructed profile…”

         What an amazing admission. Ignoring or summarily dismissing actual historical evidence which establishes a prima facie case that William Shakespeare of Stratford authored the works of Shakespeare, Looney constructed a scheme based entirely on his own subjective interpretation of the works and what he thought the author should have been like, and then he settled on Oxenford because of some of the poetry he had written [poetry that isn’t Shakespearean in the slightest]. Following that, Oxenfordians take some coincidences, that they are never able to make work as actual circumstantial evidence, and interpretations of fictional works, and try to fit them into Looney’s scheme. Their speculative interpretations are used to justify the “accuracy” of their speculative interpretations. And yet they still can’t rebut the prima facie case and they still can’t explain the inferential process whereby they get from their premises [many of which are not factual in the first place] to their ultimate conclusion.

         1. “…poetry that isn’t Shakespearean in the slightest.”

            And some that isn’t even Oxford’s.

         2. Hi MDH Johnson
            Actually, that’s no admission at all; Looney was very explicit about his methodology. That you appear astonished at this tends to confirm the suspicion among many Oxfordians that a lot of Stratfordians don’t even bother reading the books you’re so quick to condemn and dismiss.

            Michael

            1. Michael

               Your assumption is unfounded. I have read Looney and I’m not astonished at Looney. I am astonished that someone of your obvious intelligence should admit to giving more evidentiary weight to the subjective “profiling” in which Looney engaged above actual historical evidence, and, even more troubling in my view, fail to recognize the poverty of such a method.

               We are all fallible human beings, as you rightly noted above; in order to address that condition, we have developed systems of thought and scholarly method to arrive at the “truth” of the matter as best we can manage. As far as I can determine, all of those systems [science, law, historiography, etc.] rely upon the consideration and primacy of actual evidence in the process of arriving at ultimate conclusions. Oxfordian method does not treat evidence as primary; in fact, it treats evidence as something to be ignored, summarily dismissed, denied — in the worst cases, evidence is something to be twisted out of any recognizable shape to fit a preconceived agenda [see Price on *Timber*, Chiljan on *Passionate Pilgrim*, Ray on the Droeshout, etc.]. Or, in many cases, a god is made of the gaps in our knowledge.

               What we have here are two diametrically opposed approaches to evidence and methodology. I wonder why you consider the one that Oxfordians employ to be more “compelling” than the other.

            2. My apologies; I jumped to conclusions on your readings. And thank you for granting my intelligence. But I’m not giving more weight to Looney’s profiling than I do to evidence; it was a starting point, much more has been learned since. But yes, we are seeing two apparently irreconcilable approaches to evidence. Obviously I reject your characterization of our attitude towards evidence; and we are not likely to agree on what actually constitutes “evidence.” But the difference is that Oxfordian are at least seeking to solve an historical and literary problem, where you and your peers apparently see none.

            3. No apology necessary but thank you just the same.

               Let’s look at a specific example regarding our dissimilar approaches to evidence. Earlier in this very thread, an Oxfordian wrote the following:

               “As
               I already said, you guys can talk about Basse and his poem as
               much as you like and it does not change the fact that there is
               an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against your
               assumption. As stated elsewhere in this discussion, it is
               relevant that Basse was, at the approximate this poem was
               written, actually in the employee of Edward de Vere’s
               son-in-law, William Norris.

            4. I daresay everyone here has read Looney (pronounced Loo-nee, rhymes with moon, according to his family), or as much as they could stand. What is really interesting is how many candidates have been put forth based on profiles that were just as carefully constructed as Looney’s was. How do you explain that? They just use the wrong criteria? But their profiles all derive from the same place that Looney got his: the plays and poems.

               I’ve noticed that you have yet to answer any of my questions to you, all of which concern documentary evidence and all of which contradict some statement you made.

               > But the difference is that Oxfordian are at least seeking to solve an
               historical and literary problem, where you and your peers apparently see
               none.

               We and our “peers” make up 99.7% of the world’s Shakespeareans, and that is not likely to change unless you come up with a really, really big fist.

8. Nat Whilk wrote:
   > Mr. Crowley, You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

   If so, you could have dealt with my points, and said where they were wrong. (One can dream. It’s like watching David Cameron. He’s asked a question. He says something ‘in reply’. But there’s rarely any connection to the question.)

   > He would have rhymed “shake”with “beck.”
   In modern English, a “long a” is a diphthong.

   In what form of ‘modern English? Is it diphthong in Dundee? And in Cardiff? And in rural Devon? On Tyneside? In Liverpool?

   > It’s different in sound from a short a: “grayt” doesn’t rhyme with “bet.” In early modern English, a “long a” is a pure vowel. “Gret” rhymes with “bet.” To be precise, it’s an open-mid front unrounded vowel, like the first “e” in “every,” but drawn out a little: ehh. In IPA, it’s written ɛ:

   This is nonsense. Exactly the same questions have to be asked. You can’t possibly suggest a “. . . to be precise . . ” unless you specify the accent you have in mind. Every vowel (and most consonants) will be different — often radically different — as you go around the country.

   David Crystal’s OP (Original Pronunciation) is a fiction. It’s based on the assumption that everyone in England spoke in the same way in 1600 — across regions and across classes. He forgot (or chose to ignore) the huge, very obvious and widely-known variations. But his nonsense went down so well (with the massed, often academic, dopes) that it became difficult to row back, and put in corrections. The whole ‘theory’ is so bad that it should have been withdrawn. However when was idiocy ever a problem in academia? Let alone in Stratfordia? Shakespeare ‘scholarship’ is a massive tide of filth. Seemingly unstoppable.

   So we get ‘Mummerset’ as the supposed accent of the London stage! God help us.

   The only proper course in this kind of enterprise would have been to try to do one’s best in getting the speech-forms of the ‘good Southerne’ described by ‘Puttenham’. That was the language of the court, and would have been that of the poet, and of the London actors. Unfortunately, it was also the one most susceptible to changes in fashion, over the centuries. And it’s what we have inherited.

   > You can tell how Shakespeare spoke by looking the words he rhymes. In the Sonnets, we find that “waste” (30) and “haste” (123) rhyme with “past”; “taste,” with “last” (90); “grave,” with “have” (81); “greater,” with “better” (81).

   No, you can’t. Firstly, we have the problem of accents (as above). We can be sure that it wasn’t Cockney — the speech of nearly all Londoners. We can be certain it wasn’t ‘Mummerset’. Secondly, when we see a rhyme which clashes with modern English (e.g. ‘love / prove’) we can assume (as a working hypothesis) that one has stayed much the same over the 400 years and was close to the modern, and the other diverged from its Elizabethan pronunciation. But which?

   Sometimes the answer is easy. The final ‘y’ (e.g. in ‘memory’, ‘husbandry’, ‘posterity’) should rhyme with ‘eye’ or ‘die’. The modern pronunciation, rhyming with ‘see’, produces inferior verse, quite apart from any bad rhyme.

   From fairest creatures we desire increase,
   That thereby beauty’s rose might never die,
   But as the riper should by time decease,
   His tender heir might bear his memory:

   1. If it isn’t now, it will soon become apparent that not only does Mr Crowley not know where he is, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

      1. The quickest way to observe Mr. Crowley’s lack of understanding of poetry is to search “Ray Mignot” in the HLAS archives. Following is a brief history of the episode and Mr. Crowley’s comments there:

         > > Why don’t we have a parody of Oxford by him [Raleigh] if
         > > Oxford was indeed parodying him?

         > PC: If you tried to parody Oxford/Shake-speare, it
         > was very much at your own risk. It would have
         > been a mug’s game, and one that you could
         > only lose.

         That’s odd — h.l.a.s.’s own Jim (KQKnave) did exactly that: he
         parodied Oxford/Shakespeare in his celebrated “Ray Mignot” sonnet,
         putting a conspicuous grammatical gaffe in the very first line and
         including metrical and other solecisms; however, far from “losing” at
         this supposed “mug’s game,” he won spectacularly: he completely conned
         Mr. Crowley, who proclaimed the poem genuine and would brook no
         dissent, despite the cautionary commentary of the sane. Indeed, here
         are some of the extravagant praises bestowed upon the poem by none
         other than Mr. Crowley himself:

         “It’s too good. It shows too great a degree of familiarity with
         the Elizabethan world for it to be a hoax. Its author has too
         much sympathy with, and understanding of, the Oxfordian cause.
         I have to conclude that it really is Oxford’s.”

         “So, on the face of it, it is a magnificent discovery. (As
         Richard Kennedy says, it’s front-page stuff.)”

         “But if it is a hoax, just who is good enough to create it?
         Certainly no one in this ng. And the notion that anyone
         connected with the Stratford Trust has such a capacity is
         close to unthinkable. Seriously — is there anyone alive with
         that sort of talent, experience, knowledge and understanding?”

         [Savor the delusion here: “[I]s there anyone alive with that sort of
         talent, experience, knowledge and understanding?”]

         “Unless I’m seriously mistaken, it marks the end of the
         authorship debate — or, at least, the beginning of its end.
         The present crowd of useless academics will have to die out.
         But the real debate will be over.”

         “Even if it was _by_ another Elizabethan poet, to whom could it
         be _addressed_? Who was the one person that the whole country
         wanted to see with a legitimate and undisputed heir? It’s just
         about possible to see Oxford being able to address the canonical
         sonnets to her (and maybe this one too — if it was ever sent)
         but there’s no one else.”

         In response to the objection

         “>I find the sonnet disorganized, whoever wrote it. I have no
         problem with the possibility that the hoaxer didn’t know what
         he was doing,…”

         Mr. Crowley rejoined:

         “This is nonsense. You can’t put together good (almost great)
         poetry without knowing what you are doing — particularly when
         you’re knitting together, in a very precise manner, two very
         well-known sets of highly controversial historical and literary
         episodes.”

         The objection continued:

         “>and happened to put together some words that you found it easy
         to interpret as you wanted to, and would probably have been able
         to do with ANY sonnet.”

         But Mr. Crowley would not be gainsaid. The self-proclaimed expert
         (who of course knows *far* more about these matters than worthless
         academics who have devoted their lives to their study) rejoined:

         “This is fatuous nonsense. If any of my interpretation is
         arbitrary or haphazard, or does not fit the facts, then say so.”

         [Of course, *many* people have said so, and in no uncertain terms, but
         trying to acquaint Mr. Crowley with the real world is rather like
         trying to explain quantum electrodynamics to a deaf toad.]

         “It is [fun] — it’s glorious. This is not the story of the
         year or of the decade or of the century. It’s the literary
         and historical story of both this millenium and the next.”

         Fancy the work that is “the literary and historical story of both this
         millenium and the next” containing a schoolboy howler in its first
         line — and the eminent critic Mr. Crowley not even noticing!

         > Firstly, Oxford was of immensely
         > higher status, and of far greater ability.

         If Oxford was so incomparably better than Raleigh that the latter
         could not possibly have parodied Oxford’s style successfully, yet Jim
         did so in such a way as to draw from Mr. Crowley such lavish praise,
         it must follow that Jim far surpasses Raleigh as a poet!

         I would be much obliged if someone who is not in Mr. Crowley’s
         killfile would point out to him the manifest absurdity of his claim
         that “If you tried to parody Oxford/Shake-speare, it was very much at
         your own risk. It would have been a mug’s game, and one that you could
         only lose” in light of Mr. Crowley’s own expert assessment of the “Ray
         Mignot” sonnet. — David Webb

9. For anyone who doubts or disparages Edward de Vere’s writing for being non-Shakespearean, I would refer them to his poem “Women’s Changeableness” (http://www.elizabethanauthors.org/oxfordpoems.htm) which Oxford’s discoverer J. Thomas Looney realized resembled the style of Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis. The first stanza reads,

   If women could be fair and yet not fond,
   Or that their love were firm, not fickle still,
   I would not marvel that they make men bond
   By service long to purchase their good will;
   But when I see how frail those creatures are,
   I laugh that men forget themselves so far.

   To mark the choice they make, and how they
   change, How oft from Phoebus do they flee to Pan;
   Unsettled still, like haggards wild they range,
   These gentle birds that fly from man to man;
   Who would not scorn and shake them from the fist,
   And let them fly, fair fools, which way they list?

   Looney realized — as many of you who are familiar with Shakespeare may as well — that this poem is remarkably Shakespearean. Note the references to classical mythology (e.g., Juliet wishing the sun to go to ‘Phoebus’ lodging’) the easy and familiar use of legal terminology (bond and purchase) the metaphoric use of hawking – an aristocratic sport – and the “frailness” of women — as Hamlet said, “Frailty thy name is woman”. Women are compared to “haggards” — wild, untamed hawks — something Othello does as well. If you can’t detect Shakespeare in this passage then…well, I’d question your familiarity with him.

   1. Thanks for that. It’s almost impossible to get anyone to say anything about Oxford’s own work. Almost all Oxfordians try to have it dismissed as juvenilia and change the subject when it crops up.

      In the recent ‘doubter’ publication “30 second Shakespeare” edited by Ros Barber, a Marlovian, there is a chapter devoted to the strength of Shakespeare’s women. Will wrote strong determined women, witty intelligent women, noble leaders and tarts with hearts. It’s not, therefore, unfair to conclude that he liked women.

      If you look at this poet’s sentiments, in the first verse, you can see a man who deprecates the whole sex. The poet has no specific grievances, nor is there any evidence of recent falling out, a disastrous argument. No painful disagreement or complaints about desertion or a cutting remark, all of which are easy to find in the sonnets. This poet isn’t addressing an individual female, he’s listing his complaints about the whole gender.

      By the penultimate line, he is positively scornful. He’s doesn’t share Will’s appreciation of the fair sex. In fact he laughs at men who do.

      If this poem were by Shakespeare, we would look for some characteristically well-turned phrase, some intensely compressed thought or some way of expressing an emotion that is unique and illuminating. This poet can’t do it. In fact, this poet writes in clichés. You will very rarely find hackneyed or well-used phrases in Shakespeare’s work. This poem is almost entirely composed of pedestrian thought expressed in a second-rate, unremarkable, unoriginal language.

      It is nothing like Shakespeare. Here are Shakespeare’s haggards in Othello.

      If I do prove her haggard,
      Though that her jesses were my dear heartstrings,
      I’ld whistle her off and let her down the wind,
      To prey at fortune. Haply, for I am black
      And have not those soft parts of conversation
      That chamberers have, or for I am declined
      Into the vale of years,—yet that’s not much—
      She’s gone. I am abused; and my relief
      Must be to loathe her. O curse of marriage,
      That we can call these delicate creatures ours,
      And not their appetites! I had rather be a toad,
      And live upon the vapour of a dungeon,
      Than keep a corner in the thing I love

      Can you really, REALLY not see the difference between the clumsy, prosaic, conventional

      But when I see how frail those creatures are,I laugh that men forget themselves so far.

      and the exquisitely complex thought captures and expressed in

      I had rather be a toad,
      And live upon the vapour of a dungeon,
      Than keep a corner in the thing I love

      And if not, how about:

      O curse of marriage, That we can call these delicate creatures ours,
      And not their appetites!

      and Oxford’s whole poem, which does not come close to covering the same amount of emotional ground. There are tears in the audience as Othello, a black general in the white Venetian army finally sacrifices his hard-won prize, the love of Desdemona, to the sin of jealousy as he utters these lines.

      Can you really see anyone being moved in the same way by Oxford’s loveless, sour whining.

      1. Sicinius to Michael Dudley
         > It’s almost impossible to get anyone to say anything about Oxford’s own work.

         There’s little or no verse that has reliably been ascribed to him.

         > If this poem were by Shakespeare, we would look for some characteristically well-turned phrase, some intensely compressed thought or some way of expressing an emotion that is unique and illuminating. This poet can’t do it. In fact, this poet writes in clichés. You will very rarely find hackneyed or well-used phrases in Shakespeare’s work. This poem is almost entirely composed of pedestrian thought expressed in a second-rate, unremarkable, unoriginal language.

         Agreed. This poem (‘If women could be fair and yet not fond’) was not by Shake-speare. A reliable and unambiguous ascription of it to Oxford would put a very large question over his candidacy.

         But one poem I would definitely ascribe to Oxford is below. In fact, I’d say that there was no one else who could have written it.

         Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
         Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
         Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
         Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
         Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
         Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
         Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
         Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
         In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
         To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
         With patient mind each passion to endure?
         In one desire to settle to the end?
         Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
         As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

         1. Happy to ascribe that to Oxford.

            That’s two things we agree on. It really is Christmas.

   2. Good God! If you can see Shakespeare in that plodding repetitiousness, I question whether you’ve ever really read him! I suppose library science has no literature requirements.

   3. You’ve never read any Elizabethan poetry, have you? If you think this hackneyed stuff is “remarkably Shakespearean,” then—I’m sorry—you can’t tell feces from foie gras.

      Any 10-year-old boy at a grammar school could write of Phoebus—and in Latin, too. Any servant-maid could talk of “bond” and “purchase.” Hawking was a common enough sport. The rarer birds were expensive—”a peregrine for a prince, a kestrel for a knave”—but the practice and the language were the same. Besides, the real work of training hawks was done by churls. And calling one’s mistress a haggard was an utter commonplace. You may find a score of uses in 1567 alone. There are half-a-dozen each in Geoffrey Fenton’s English translation of Francois de Bellforest’s French rendering of Matteo Bandello’s Novelle (Shakespeare’s source for Othello), and in George Turbervile’s Epitaphes, epigrams, songs and sonets. His sentiments (and tump-ti-tump) are much like Oxford’s:

      The Louer to a Gentlewoman:

      But now you are become so wylde
      and rammage to be séene,
      As though you were a haggard Hawke,
      your maners altred cléene.
      You now refuse to come to fist,
      you shun my woonted call:
      My luring lyketh not your eare,
      you force mée not at all.
      You flée with wings of often chaunge
      at random where you please:
      But that in time will bréede in you
      some fowle and fell disease.

      1. In Turberville’s The booke of faulconrie or hauking (1575), he writes “Of the hobbye. OF all birdes of praye that belong to the Falconers vse, I know none lesse than the Hobbye vnlesse it be the Merlyn. … And this is so ordinary a hawke, and the practise that I speake of so generall, as there is not the simplest bowre or pea∣sant but doth know it.”

      2. “You’ve never read any Elizabethan poetry, have you?”

         You see, this is why you Frauds are losing the debate. You really can’t control yourself, can you?

         1. It’s quite reasonable to assume Mr. Dudley’s nescience, given that he doesn’t recognize the commonest of tropes and references, and thinks they’re unique to Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford, who are therefore identified. He might as well say that any painting with an angel in it is a Botticelli. To be fair, Mr. Dudley is hardly unique in this. “There’s a haggard in both” is bad method, much used by denialists.

            1. Nat –
               Of course other Elizabethan poets used classical references, legal metaphors, hawking metaphors and expressed conflicting emotions about women; but I think you would be hard-pressed to find one that did all four Shakespearaan flourishes in the same poem, to say nothing of two stanzas. It’s the concentration of these devices that I find compelling.

               Cheers,
               Michael

            2. Why don’t you find actual evidence in the historical record to be compelling?

               You have trotted out Hank Whittemore’s list as evidence that Oxenford wrote Shakespeare.. But none of Hank’s reasons actually qualifies as circumstantial evidence for the proposition that Oxenford wrote Shakespeare. The fact that you, and your fellow Oxenfordians, don’t understand the concept of circumstantial evidence, and the inferential process which it entails, couldn’t be shown any better than by your citation of Hank’s 100 “Reasons”.

               At the very same time that you elevate coincidence [minus the logical process which can make such into circumstantial evidence FOR the ultimate conclusion which you are trying to prove], you fail and refuse to engage with the actual direct and circumstantial evidence supporting the attribution of the works to Shakespeare of Stratford.

            3. But these aren’t “Shakespear[e]an flourishes,” just Elizabethan commonplaces, and multiplying them isn’t going to make a poem any more Shakespearean. You might as well say that someone has two legs, brown hair, a shirt, and a running shoes–he must be the suspect. It’s not his =topoi= that make Shakespeare distinctive, it’s his language—and Oxford’s poetic skills are woefully inadequate.

         2. What is it exactly that you see, what evidence exists, which leads you to conclude that you and your fellow Oxfordians are winning the debate?

            Did you notice that your Basse turned out to be a crappie?

            Have you figured out a way yet to logically explain how your “best evidence” even qualifies as circumstantial evidence for your ultimate conclusion that Oxenford wrote Shakespeare?

         3. My god! The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt has surged to over 3250! It’s an intellectual tidal wave in a bathtub!

         4. As Nat points out, this is a perfectly fair inference based on the evidence in this column.

            Michael Dudley made a series of wrong assumptions but admits his shortcomings and asks for analysis, which is then provided.

            Unlike Michael, you openly boast of your discriminatory powers and qualifications yet you have demonstrated, so far, even less awareness and understanding of what the poem under discussion is about.

            Did you notice that your Basse turned out to be a crappie?

            It’s still all hands to the pumps on that one. They’re going down fast.

      3. And seriously, Mr. Dudley—if you can’t tell this wretched stuff from Shakespeare, if you have no idea what makes the poet glorious, then what you want from the First Folio is nothing more than objectified culture capital: a prize in the game.

      4. I find it humorous that the masked “Nat Whilk” starts of as she does with a rhetorical question like “you’ve never read any Elizabethan poetry, have you?” and follow this by reproducing George Turberville’s “(tump-t-sump)” verses with the claim attached to them that the express “sentiments much like Oxford’s”

         Although Turberville was an associate of Oxford’s and there is therefore good reason to suppose that some similarities in the themes or forms of their verses would be the same or similar, the implication that this poem is anything like Oxford’s is simply a bald lie.

         If Oxford’s poem “If Women Could be Fair,” was so terrible, why was it — and not Turberville’s poem — chosen for inclusion in Frances Turner Palgrave’s “Golden Anthology” of English verse, the most influential poetry anthology ever published? It is included among Palgrave’s selection in the first editions of that hugely popular production. It should be inserted that this book’s popularity was by no means a result of its pandering to popular taste. It was because Palgrave became known to readers of poetry as a man capable of so carefully selecting and arranging the parts of an anthology in order to endow new meanings by the arrangement of the poems; Palsgrave’s anthology is greater than the sum of its parts, because it was created by an innovator and genius in the field of the literary anthology. The Golden Anthology itself was, moreover, constructed imaginatively through Palgrave’s close friendship with poet laureate Tennyson during annual holidays the spent abroad or in England.

         For these reasons there is no serious question that this particular anthology was the most important and influential of the 19th century and quite probably of all time, especially if one discounts anthologies written purely to fill the academic market. If someone wants to say it was only the second most popular anthology of all time, that’s fine – let’s just remember it was also the one that Alfred Lord Tennyson consulted on.

         All this becomes very interesting when you realize that de Vere’s poem is among those selected for the original Golden Treasury under the editorially chosen name “A Renunciation.” Here it is:

         F WOMEN COULD BE FAIR AND YET
         NOT FOND.

         IF women could be fair and yet not fond,
         Or that their love were firm, not fickle still,
         I would not marvel that they make men bond
         By service long to purchase their good will ;
         But when I see how frail those creatures are,
         I laugh that men forget themselves so far.

         To mark the choice they make, and how they change,
         How oft from Phoebus do they flee to Pan ;
         Unsettled still, like haggards wild they range,
         These gentle birds that fly from man to man ;
         Who would not scorn and shake them from the fist,
         And let them fly, fair fools, which way they list ?

         Yet for our sport we fawn and flatter both,
         To pass the time when nothing else can please,
         And train them to our lure with subtle oath,
         Till, weary of their wiles, ourselves we ease ;
         And then we say when we their fancy try,
         To play with fools, O what a fool was I !

         I think this is the poem Mike Leadbetter relies on for his accusation that de Vere was a misogynist. I don’t think most women would agree with him on that interpretation. I hope you can also hear that this is not “(tump-t-sump)” in the slightest. There is a reason Palgrave and Tennyson liked it. You don’t have to like it, but you don’t get to get away with passing off in public the stupid claim that this poem is an inferior lyric in the history of the genre. Its not. Get over it.

         1. “If Oxford’s poem “If Women Could be Fair,” was so terrible, why was it — and not Turberville’s poem — chosen for inclusion in Frances Turner Palgrave’s “Golden Anthology” of English verse, the most influential poetry anthology ever published?” Why is everything an appeal to authority? They give you specific critiques that refute Mr. Dudley’s original claim for IWCBF’s “Shakespearean” qualities. You respond by saying that since the poem was in an influential anthology, it MUST be a good poem.

            But this is merely a diversion. The question is not whether IWCBF is good, bad or indifferent, but whether it manifests Shakespearean qualities. Dudley says it does, but his criteria are all incorrect:
            1. classical allusions were all the rage; nothing that would argue that this poem is written by the author of the canon;

            2. everyone in society would be familiar with basic terms of falconry which were a commonplace — it was a sport engaged in at all levels. Certainly something that a man raised in a country town like Stratford might have heard about and participated in.
            3. It’s an embarrassing reach for Dudley to call “purchase” and “bond” legal terms that would be a telltale indication of co-authorship with Shakespeare. Notice that Dudley falsely assumes that Shakespeare had legal training (there’s no indication he did; and for that matter, neither did Oxford).
            4. So what’s left? The author of this poem calls women “frail?” Does Mr. Dudley believe that anyone referring to women as frail is therefore Shakespeare?

            1. Headlight wrote:

               > 2. everyone in society would be familiar with basic terms of falconry which were a commonplace — it was a sport engaged in at all levels.

               Not true. See the Wikipedia article on ‘Falconry’.

               “ . . . Falconry was largely restricted to the noble classes due to the prerequisite commitment of time, money, and space. In art and in other aspects of culture such as literature, falconry remained a status symbol long after it was no longer popularly practiced. . . “

               Falcons need their own accommodation: their ‘mews’. (Btw, in the unlikely event of ever finding yourself in such a mews, take care not to stand within several feet of the rear end of a large falcon; they defecate explosively.) Their care is highly specialised, and needs full-time attention. They need to be flown regularly — by an experienced and well-equipped practitioner, who will try not to lose too many. If that person is going to look after one falcon, he might as well do so for many. The occupation of ‘falconer’ was a necessary and respected one. But someone has to pay, and do so well. In practice, only the rich could afford the hobby. Accordingly, the possession of falcons (and the hobby of falconry hunting) became a mark of status. Its language was also obscure and esoteric.

               > Certainly something that a man raised in a country town like Stratford might have heard about and participated in.

               The Stratford man would have heard of the sport, and possibly seen his betters in the field, but he would not have participated in it — unless he was specifically invited to do so, over an extended period (since much training and practice is necessary). All that is most unlikely. Nor would he have learnt its language.

            2. “Accordingly, the possession of falcons (and the hobby of falconry hunting) became a mark of status. Its language was also obscure and esoteric.”

               I notice that only the last sentence of your response actually addresses my comment — “everyone in society would be familiar with basic terms of falconry which were a commonplace” — and then only with an unsupported assertion. Your theory that the language was obscure is ridiculous: the terms were used commonly in writings of the time, in the exact same context comparing women and untamed birds of prey.

               A contemporary example would be thoroughbred racing. The “sport of kings” is one that like falconry requires carefully trained animals, special facilities and equipment and great skill to participate directly in the race, but which common people are engaged in professionally (someone mucks out the stalls) and that they would know about (the commoners at the pub would talk about their betters). And certainly, a farmer with some land might well take up falconry. Not an expensive sport, just one that takes patience and a little extra space in a barn.

            3. headlight wrote:
               >> “Accordingly, the possession of falcons (and the hobby of falconry hunting) became a mark of status. Its language was also obscure and esoteric.”

               > A contemporary example would be thoroughbred racing. The “sport of kings” is one that like falconry requires carefully trained animals, special facilities and equipment and great skill to participate directly in the race, but which common people are engaged in professionally (someone mucks out the stalls) and that they would know about (the commoners at the pub would talk about their betters).

               An absurd analogy. The public attended horse-races. Do you think falcons could hunt (or the prey not be startled) in the presence of a mob? Do you believe that the public could ‘follow’ the results of a falconry hunt, or place bets on the outcome? Is there any record in history of such things? Of course not.

               Secondly, the participants in falconry hunting were roughly equivalent to horse-racing jockeys. Both would have known far more than any member of the public. No one could pretend to be a jockey in the presence of a racing professional. Likewise no one could pretend to have hunted with falcons among others who knew the sport.

               > — “everyone in society would be familiar with basic terms of falconry which were a commonplace” — and then only with an unsupported assertion. Your theory that the language was obscure is ridiculous: the terms were used commonly in writings of the time, in the exact same context comparing women and untamed birds of prey.

               Father John Gerard was a Catholic priest in England under Elizabeth.

               “ . . . Gerard, having been brought up a member of the upper class, was able to maintain successfully the cover of a gentleman at leisure. He was the object of the candid envy of other priests because he was familiar with the technical language of falconry — a useful resource in idle conversation with laymen. . . “

               https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol5no2/html/v05i2a12p_0001.htm

               At one time (can’t find exact reference at the moment) over an extended period (several weeks AFAIR) he tried to teach a colleague (another priest) enough of the technical language, so that he could also get by in a similar manner. But he failed hopelessly.

               > And certainly, a farmer with some land might well take up falconry. Not an expensive sport, just one that takes patience and a little extra space in a barn.

               Quite ridiculous. You won’t find one record of such a thing. The status of falconry was so high that, no doubt, it was attempted on occasion — but never with success. No ‘falconry infrastructure’ ever existed to assist or supply such people.

            4. “the participants in falconry hunting were roughly equivalent to horse-racing jockeys. Both would have known far more than any member of the public. No one could pretend to be a jockey in the presence of a racing professional. Likewise no one could pretend to have hunted with falcons among others who knew the sport.”

               I agree. The references to falconry in Shakespeare’s works were metaphorical — nobody was pretending to have hunted with falcons.

               “ . . . Gerard, having been brought up a member of the upper class, was able to maintain successfully the cover of a gentleman at leisure. He was the object of the candid envy of other priests because he was familiar with the technical language of falconry — a useful resource in idle conversation with laymen. . . “

               Exactly — he could idly converse with laymen about falconry. That is to say, laymen (not the nobles) would talk about falconry. Shakespeare’s references were not technical — they would be easily understood by anyone in the audience. As I said, the terms were commonplace.

               I do appreciate your willingness to provide actual evidence, especially since it torpedos your own argument.

            5. Mr. Crowley really wants to read T. R. Henn’s The Living Image: a whole book on Shakespeare’s imagery of blood sports, of hawking, hunting, shooting and fishing. At Cambridge, Henn was taught by E. M. W. Tillyard (The Elizabethan World Picture); in turn, he taught T. H. White (who would become a falconer, self-taught), and had the joy of marking a student essay of his on Malory, which Henn recalled as being “wild, violent, very funny; clearly the germ of The Sword in the Stone.” In a later generation, he taught Ian McKellan.

               He writes: “The language,’the termes of art’ proper to all these activities [blood sports], was technical and complex. The countryman, of whatever social rank, would know it, and use it instinctively.” (Henn was a countryman himself, from County Sligo.) “To the arriviste, who had perhaps newly purchased an estate and wished to be received into circles which we should now call ‘county,’it presented a special problem. He had to learn this new language.”

               Henn quotes Return from Parnassus, in which Amoretto (landed gentry with a “Lady Grandmother” who sends him venison) plagues his tutor and supposed master with “the discourse of Hunting .. tormenting him awhile with our words of Arte” until “the poor Scorpion became speechlesse.” The whole basis of gentility is the owning of land: Amoretto would have more in common with the men who worked the land, than he would with a scholar who had lived by candlelight,

               In Every Men In His Humour, Stephen says “I have bought me a hawk, and a hood, and bells, and all; I lack nothing but a book to keep it by.” He has to study Greek as well: a language which every Doric shepherd knew. A countryman wouldn’t need a book.

               Mr. Crowley would do well to note that in thoroughbred racing, the jockeys are skilled hirelings. Just so in falconry: nearly all of the hard work, the arduous training, the feeding and nursing of the raptor, was done by churls. The nobleman’s job was to look terrific poncing about with a falcon on his glove; the countrymen saw to it that the bird knew its work, and did not rip the Earl’s face off in a fit of spleen.

               Other servants would do all the hard work of writing interludes. Oxford’s job was to tell they what he wanted and take credit for it, in Italian gloves, ravishingly perfumed.

            6. Same with foxhunting, which is a closer analogy. This is a very expensive field sport. There is technical language but it extends far beyond the Master who isn’t usually the wealthiest nob but the horseman who knows the field best. Anyone who lives in a village near a hunt will know that there are no dogs involved, that hounds give tongue, have drive, cast, honour, nose and occasionally riot.

               The idea that hunting knowledge is elite knowledge is just plain, flat-out wrong.

            7. Headlight wrote:
               > The falconer would be a servant. And there would be apprentice falconers, mews cleaners, higher level servants who oversee the work of the falconer who would need to know something of the sport, and their relatives and children.

               This is largely nonsense. Falconry was a hobby or sport with its own arcane terms and ‘language’, much as (say) dancing, fishing, fencing, cookery, judo, or cricket. It takes time and practise to learn what there is to know, and become competent at it. It’s nearly always achieved in a group, and there are commonly professional trainers involved. But there is no way that the likes of “mews cleaners”, or estate managers, or the relatives of the professional trainers would become involved in the past-time, or acquired expertise or significant elements of the vocabulary.

               > All commoners, all familiar with basic falconry terms.

               All commoners, and apart from apprentice falconers, all quite ignorant about the sport.

               > For every noble with a mews full of birds, twenty commoners would be involved– according to your own account.

               There were only 80 nobles in England ~1600; many would not have employed falconers (e.g. Oxford). But other rich commoners would have done so. Only the very largest of mews would have needed a staff of 20 — an average of ~5 would be my guess. And each mews would have entertained maybe 20 regular hunters — all upper-class associates of the rich owner.

               > Exactly — he could idly converse with laymen about falconry.

               You misread ‘laymen’. This was in a discussion about priests.

               > Shakespeare’s references were not technical — they would be easily understood by anyone in the audience.

               Shake-speare’s references were numerous, frequent and often highly technical e.g. that on ‘imping out’. Explicit and detailed notes are often needed to explain them. But they were understood by almost everyone in his intended audience: that made up of Elizabethan courtiers including, above all, the Queen.

               > As I said, the terms were commonplace.

               Yeah, yeah. Since every illiterate groundling went hunting with hawks on most week-ends, they would have understood the hundreds of allusions to falconry, including this one:

               Of human dealings. If I do prove her haggard,
               Though that her jesses were my dear heartstrings,
               I’d whistle her off and let her down the wind
               To prey at fortune.

               The stupidity of Strats never ceases to amaze.

            8. Mr. Crowley: do not impute your own abysmal ignorance to the Elizabethans. They could understand and speak their own language perfectly: and the use of “imping out”–both literally and metaphorically–was commonplace, though I’ve yet to find an aristocrat who employed it.

            9. A large estate would run on a hierarchy. Someone other than the Earl himself oversaw the work of the falconer; someone accounted for the costs of feeding and maintaining them. Do you imagine that the falconer’s boss and the paymaster were ignorant of the sport? In my experience, it isn’t wise for an overseer not to be familiar with terms that his lordship might use and expect to be passed to an underservant. Or when the master spoke of haggards and whistling off, would the head gamekeeper just stammer, “sorry, your lordship, I don’t understand what you mean; I’ll get the falconer and you can repeat what you just told me.”

               “You misread ‘laymen’. This was in a discussion about priests.”

               So the priest was in your view talking about lay *nobles*, or according to you the even smaller subset of nobles who owned falcons? In context,

            10. One such country man was John Frith, of Temple Grafton. He was known as a man who could heal an ailing hunting bird. As vicar of the church there, he was not a nobleman, but undoubtedly would have been knowledgeable of the sport. He also presided over the marriage of young Will Shakespeare, and Anne Hathaway.

            11. “Their care is highly specialised, and needs full-time attention. They need to be flown regularly — by an experienced and well-equipped practitioner, who will try not to lose too many. If that person is going to look after one falcon, he might as well do so for many. The occupation of ‘falconer’ was a necessary and respected one.”

                Undoubtedly. The falconer would be a servant. And there would be apprentice falconers, mews cleaners, higher level servants who oversee the work of the falconer who would need to know something of the sport, and their relatives and children. All commoners, all familiar with basic falconry terms. For every noble with a mews full of birds, twenty commoners would be involved– according to your own account.

         2. psi2u2 is clearly feeling the Christmas Spirit and is showering gifts upon his opponents.

            Firstly Palgrave’s Golden Treasury is, as every English schoolboy knows, not intended as the summit of Parnassus but as a primer, to be found in every 11-year old schoolboy’s desk as it was in mine. The name is a clue. Psi2u2 may even be misquoting it deliberately, rather than through ignorance. The fact that Palgrave added his own titles wherever the poet had negligently omitted them is a bit of a clue. Tsk! John Keats. What were you thinking?

            Then we have his Buy One Get One Free offer on Standard Oxfordian Deviations. Here’s the first. As always, geography in general, and proximity to The Earl of Oxford in particular, is a more important discriminant to the Oxfordian critic than anything a poet may have written.

            Although Turberville was an associate of Oxford’s and there is therefore good reason to suppose that some similarities in the themes or forms of their verses would be the same or similar

            Good reason? Another schoolboy howler, this one good enough to get you kicked down into 2B where they had to share Palgraves one between three. The idea that proximity to Oxford triggers some osmotic process which makes poems assume a set standard ‘themes’ or ‘forms’ before slipping into the black hole that allows them to attributed to the Earl is central to the Oxfordian thesis. They claim, for example, for no better reason than they were under the same very large roof for a few months, that the 12-13 year old Oxford was responsible for Golding’s translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. If he was, he peaked right there. Nothing later attributed to Oxford is better than Golding.

            And here we have psi2u2 making the same ridiculous claim. Poets can live side by side their whole lives and not resemble each other in the slightest. Of course genres will develop but that’s not what psi2u2 is claiming. His idea that poets who met each other would sound the same is absurd and only usable in arguments where poetry itself is not under scrutiny.

            Oxfordian authorship arguments, for example.

            Note how Professor Psi2u2 makes no detailed claims for the poem of his own, quotes the whole thing, leaves it to the reader to be impressed, and bases his entire claim for its quality on its appearance in Palgrave. Can we assume Prac Crit is outside his skill-set? It would be fair on this evidence.

            His second gift is straight out of the 10-Point Plan:

            I think this is the poem Mike Leadbetter relies on for his accusation that de Vere was a misogynist. I don’t think most women would agree with him on that interpretation.

            Pick the bones out of that. Straw man argument, false assumption, platitude, appeal to generalised assumption etc, etc. But what the Professor is doing here is distracting attention from the fact that I have responded to Michael Dudley’s request for analysis of the poem. Instead of referring to that, we have a misquoted reference to something half-remembered from the past. He’s trying to start a different discussion, drawing attention away from the fact that he has nothing to say.

            A central feature of the Oxfordian case is that biographical detail (those pesky pirates again) trumps the historical record, topical reference and the exigencies of stylistic development. You don’t need to look at De Vere’s poetry to realise he mistreated women. It’s all over his biography. So it is perfectly logical (and permitted under Oxfordian rules) to point out that a poem which deprecates women might be written by a poet who gives them a hard time.

            If psi2u2 doesn’t understand that the poem is misogynistic, (though perhaps not far beyond the level of the times), then it is proof that he has not understood it. And I fear for his understanding of women.

            If he thinks the sentiments are Shakespeare’s, then it is proof that he has not understood Shakespeare.

            I told you it was Christmas.

            1. No comment.

         3. There is one critical observation in psi2u2’s post.

            I hope you can also hear that this is not “(tump-t-sump)

            As evidence, one of the stanzas he offers has six lines of pentameter containing 48 monosyllables. Perhaps he would like to explain?

            1. Or perhaps he would not.

   4. Hey, Steven May lists this as only “Possibly by Oxford”—now’s your chance to disclaim it!

      1. Give the man some credit, at least he tried to explain what he saw as Shakespearean in the poem. Roger, though he publicly promised more than once to do the same for “My Mind to Me A Kingdom Is”, just abandoned the project.

   5. Or, just maybe, he’s (whoever it is) working in the same vein as Thomas Wyatt whose “They Flee From Me” uses similar imagery and even vocabulary.

      1. Ah, but Wyatt could write!

         1. Agreed. “They flee from me” is a much better poem. I just mean to say that it’s not a uniquely “Shakespearean” set of images.

10. Dear fellows, I would like your opinions on a list I have compiled of phrases found in Lewes Lewkenor’s The Usage of English Fugitives under the King of Spain (published in 1595 but partially written in 1589) and those phrases found across the canon. Lewkenor’s treatise is fairly short, but he manages to get in quite a considerable amount, although many of them are common phrases of the period. Anyway, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

    Lewkenor – pretending all love and meekeness
    Shakespeare – Love and meekness, lord, Become a churchman better than
    ambition: Henry VIII: V, iii

    Lewkenor – he saw them both lie dead and bleeding
    Shakespeare
    – Who finds the heifer dead and
    bleeding Henry VI, part II:
    III, ii

    Lewkenor
    – to avoyde the effusion of Christian blood,
    Shakespeare
    – To stop effusion of our christian blood King Henry VI, part I: V, i

    Lewkenor
    – Let them onely wince that
    feele their galled backe rubbed

    Shakespeare
    – Touches us not: let the galled
    jade wince, Hamlet: III, ii

    Lewkenor
    – malign against the florishing happinesse of our estate
    Shakespeare
    – Though wayward fortune did malign
    my state, Pericles V, I

    Lewkenor
    – tumultuous, and in a manner irreconcileable broils
    Shakespeare-
    Now here a period of tumultuous broils. King Henry VI, part
    III: V, v

    Lewkenor
    – not able to play the lion,
    was contented for a while to counterfeit the fox
    Shakespeare
    – This lion is a very fox for his valour. A Midsummer Night’s Dream: V, I

    Lewkenor
    – come creeping out of the woodes hunger-starved
    Shakespeare
    – And give them life whom hunger
    starved half dead. Pericles,
    Prince of Tyre: I, iv
    ‘Hunger-starved
    wolves’ and ‘Hunger staved men’ appear in 1 Henry vi.i.v and 3 Henry vi
    i.iv.

    Lewkenor
    – the rigor of the lawes
    Shakespeare
    – Let him have all the rigor of the
    law. King Henry VI, part II:
    I, iii

    Lewkenor
    – and I doubt not but they shall
    Shakespeare – and i doubt
    not but to fashion it
    Much Ado
    About Nothing: II, I

    Lewkenor
    – buzzed a feare into your heads
    Shakespeare – That is not quickly buzzed into his ears? King Richard II: II, I

    Lewkenor
    – our chronicles, and all the
    stories of our time, will for ever, to the shame of their stocke and parentage, record them for traitors
    Shakespeare
    – HAMLET: Good my lord, will you see the players well bestowed? Do you
    hear, let them be well used; for they are the abstract and brief
    chronicles of the time: after your death you were better have a bad
    epitaph than their ill report while you live.

    Lewkenor
    – the birdes that flie unto the
    bait without regarding the lime twigs are easiliest intangled

    Shakespeare
    –The bird that hath been limed in a bush,
    King Henry VI, part III: V, vi

    Like lime-twigs
    set to catch my winged soul. King Henry
    VI, part II: III, iii

    Have all limed bushes
    to betray thy wings, And, fly thou how thou canst, they’ll tangle thee:

    But fear not thou, until thy foot be
    snared, Nor never seek prevention of thy foes. King Henry VI, part II: II, iv

    Lewkenor
    – incouraging them to take armes
    against her majestie

    Shakespeare
    – Or to take arms against a sea
    of troubles, Hamlet: III, i

    Lewkenor
    – to the utter ruine of them
    and their houses

    Shakespeare
    – And utter ruin of the house
    of york. King Henry VI, part III:
    I, i

    Lewkenor
    – neyther truly do I think that in their
    hearts

    Shakespeare
    – and what they think in their
    hearts they may effect, Merry
    Wives of Windsor: II, ii

    Lewkenor
    – how cruelly and tiranously did they use
    Shakespeare
    – And none but tyrants use it cruelly. Timon of Athens: III, v

    Lewkenor
    – ingrafted malice
    Shakespeare
    – For in the ingrafted love he bears to caesar– Julius Caesar: II, i

    Lewkenor
    – laide their heads together

    Shakespeare
    –How the young folks lay their heads together! The Taming of the Shrew: I, ii

    Desolate. I see
    them lay their heads together to surprise me. King Henry VI, part II: IV, viii

    Ay, all you have laid your heads
    together– King Henry VI, part II: III,
    i

    Lewkenor
    – times to know his pleasure

    Shakespeare
    – To know his pleasure Love’s Labour’s Lost: II, i

    I’ll whisper with the general, and know
    his pleasure. All’s Well that Ends
    Well: IV, iii

    Lewkenor
    – scornfully and with derision

    Shakespeare
    – Scorn and derision never come
    in tears: A Midsummer Night’s
    Dream: III, ii

    Lewkenor
    – subjected to the disdain and bitter scorn

    Shakespeare – disdain and scorn ride sparkling in her eyes, Much Ado About Nothing: III, i

    Lewkenor
    – can indure an usage so scornful and contumelious
    Shakespeare
    – With scoffs and scorns and contumelious taunts. King Henry VI, part I: I, iv

    Lewkenor
    – under the dissembled colour of a false affection
    Shakespeare
    – Or both dissemble deeply their affections: The Taming of the Shrew: IV, iv

    Lewkenor
    – therewith doth bleare the worlds eyes
    Shakespeare
    – While counterfeit supposes bleared thine eye. The Taming of the Shrew: V, I

    Lewkenor
    – to recite …would be a matter too tedious
    Shakespeare
    –’twould be too tedious to repeat;
    Pericles, Prince of Tyre: V, i

    Lewkenor
    – such violent ends
    Shakespeare
    – These violent delights have violent
    ends Romeo and Juliet: II, vi

    Lewkenor
    – I never remember to have beheld a more pittifull spectacle
    Shakespeare
    – The saddest spectacle that e’er I view’d. King Henry VI, part III: II, I

    piteous spectacle! Julius Caesar: III, ii

    Lewkenor
    – strake the old man so inwardly to the heart
    Shakespeare
    – my heart bleeds inwardly that my father is so King Henry IV, part II: II, ii

    Lewkenor
    – been hindered in the course
    Shakespeare
    – But when his fair course is not hindered, The Two Gentlemen of Verona: II, vii

    Lewkenor
    –the stings and terrors of a guilty conscience
    Shakespeare
    – The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Hamlet: III, i

    Lewkenor
    – that all is not gold that glistereth fair
    Shakespeare
    – All that glisters is not gold, Merchant of Venice: II, vii

    Lewkenor
    – I touch these things the more sparingly, because they happened before my
    time of being there
    Shakespeare
    – But touch this sparingly, as
    ’twere far off King

    Lewkenor
    – Let atheists and traitors breathe out
    Shakespeare
    – Ha! durst the traitor breathe out
    so proud words? King Henry VI,
    part III: IV, I

    Lewkenor
    – a well tuned music, an
    agreeing concord, and perfect
    harmonie of government

    Shakespeare
    – If the true concord of well-tuned sounds, Sonnets: VIII

    Replying shrilly to the well-tuned
    horns, Titus Andronicus: II, iii

    Lewkenor – I think they would
    not refuse to hear Ulysses speak,
    Shakespeare
    – hear what Ulysses speaks. Troilus and Cressida: I, iii Who, as
    ulysses says, opinion crowns
    Troilus and Cressida: I, iii

    Lewkenor – nevertheless, upon I know not what suspicion,

    Shakespeare
    – Appears 34 times across the plays

    Lewkenor – I who write it am
    full of wonder and amazement

    Shakespeare
    – All torment, trouble, wonder and
    amazement The Tempest: V, I
    ‘Amazement’ is one of the words coined by Shakespeare.

    Lewkenor – the fall of so
    many men of great courage and
    valour,

    Shakespeare
    – Purpose, courage and valour,
    this night show it: Othello: IV, ii

    Lewkenor – most barbarous and bloody practise

    Shakespeare
    – O barbarous and bloody
    spectacle! King Henry VI, part II:
    IV, i

    Lewkenor – In manner and form

    COSTARD: In manner and form Love’s Labour’s Lost: I, i

    ·
    Shakespeare – In that pleasant humour they posted to Rome; and intending, by their secret and sudden arrival. The Rape of Lucrece.

    ·
    Lewkenor -‘upon secret and sudden causes, as treachery, intelligence, or espial, or some such base matter as requireth secrecy, and not to be delayed.’ The Estate of English Fugitives.

    Phrases common to Lewes Lewkenor (found in The Estate of English Fugitives) and the plays of Shakespeare;

    to hear Ulysses speak,

    hear what Ulysses speaks.
    Troilus and Cressida: I, iii

    In the mean time

    Will not stick

    To the end

    I know not what (34)

    I would be loath to do (And that, my lord, I shall be loth
    to doe: The Two Gentlemen of Verona:
    III, ii)

    In all my life (8)

    Were a wonder

    In the teeth

    The face of the earth

    By reason of his (2)

    Wonder and amazement

    Courage and valour

    Under colour of

    To his face

    his very heart

    I will not touch

    I do much wonder

    Do what you can

    Nothing in the world

    To know his pleasure

    Dispose of them

    Lay their heads together

    In all haste (2)

    Thrust him down the stairs (2)

    Unable to resist

    Two and two

    Not the least

    Think in their hearts

    One against the other

    in the end (11)

    to the uttermost (10)

    from time to time (3)

    in the dark (5)

    set at liberty

    as it is said

    to and fro

    and which is more (6)

    before or after

    in all the world (70)

    know it to be true (2 MFM)

    more and more (6)

    demand of me

    of what degree soever

    into the bowels

    consumed with fire (3)

    of evil life

    for his pains

    deep and dead

    by good hap (5)

    terms most bitter (And thou hast given me most bitter
    terms. King Henry V: IV, viii)

    the present time ( 7)

    and I doubt not but

    serve their/your turn

    I would fain know

    In my judgement (2)

    By the means (3)

    Fools paradise

    In my opinion (4)

    I can assure you (5)

    All were well (3)

    By the nose

    Exceed the compass

    As I say (10)

    Wicked conscience

    Clean consumed

    Not stick to

    In manner and form

    Pretty jest

    Good cheer (13)

    As I hear (12)

    From time to time (3)

    Rotten carcass (2)

    Right and justice

    One to another (3)

    The tune of (9)

    The which is (2)

    One of these days (2)

    For his sake (15)

    Trow you (15)

    Last gasp (3)

    You may imagine

    For the time (8)

    Bereave him of

    Stand affected (2)

    Traitors breathe out

    Malicious practices

    Corrupted mind

    Sore eyes

    Effusion of Christian blood

    Unfought withal

    Haughty minded

    Above measure

    Will and pleasure

    Ill-favouredly (4)

    Meaner sort

    1. Not going to fly. All of these phrases are commonplace, like Mr. Dudley’s “haggard.” “For his sake,” “I know not what,” “good cheer.” To make any argument at all, you’d have to find some truly distinctive phrasings used only by Lewkenor and Shakespeare–and even then, you could only argue the influence of one on the other, or look for a common source. You need to learn how to use EEBO and LION.

       Secondly, you’re comparing one short book to the entire canon of–I forget how many hundred thousand words. In a corpus that size, you could probably find matches to almost any writer in the English language: Edith Wharton, Groucho Marx.

       1. Thanks Nat, that’s helpful, I should at least limit it to those plays that were written by 1595. I’ll checkout EEBO and LION.

    2. William Corbett writes: “Amazement’ is one of the words coined by Shakespeare.”

       Not so. “Amazment” appears twice in William Patten’s The calender of Scripture VVhearin the Hebru, Challdian, Arabian, Phenician, Syrian, Persian, Greek and Latin names, of nations, cuntreys, men, weemen, idols, cities, hils, riuers, [and] of oother places in the holly Byble mentioned, by order of letters ar set, and turned into oour English toong. 1575. It is given as the English translation of the Latin “stupor.” “Amaz[e]ment” also appears in Spenser’s The faerie queene (1590) and in the anonymous The true tragedie of Richard the third (1594).

       1. Thanks, I took that from a list of words coined by WS, not compiled by me…Edmund Spenser was a friend of Lewes Lewkenor’s and they wrote dedicatory verses to each others works.

          1. Lists of “words coined by WS” are under heavy revision. With so much of the corpus of printed English available in searchable form, Shakespeare looks far less outstanding in terms of vocabulary–indeed, he is outshone by Webster, Marlowe, Jonson and others. It’s not the size of his vocabulary that’s amazing–it’s what he does with it.

             http://www.dispositio.net/archives/501

             1. That’s an interesting piece. I’d like to hear more about the words he compounded from Greek and Latin, as I have little Latin and less Greek…

                The last two sonnets in the sequence present Shakespeare scholars with a particularly thorny problem: could William Shakespeare read Greek? These two sonnets play on a conceit first used by the sixth-century Byzantine poet, Marianus Scholasticus, available only in the original Greek, and as Don Paterson has remarked, ‘the trouble is that these two sonnets play very closely to their original, and imply something like a first hand acquaintance.’[1]

                [1] Reading Shakespeare’s Sonnets. P. 473. Don Paterson.

                I’ve done a little revision myself –

                Cashiering (or degradation ceremony) generally within military forces is a ritual dismissal of an individual from some position of responsibility for a breach of discipline. From the Flemish ‘Kasseren’ the phrase entered the English language in the late 16th century, during the wars in the Low Countries, although the O.E.D. states that the first printed use in this sense appears in Shakespeare’s Othello (1603) it appeared in the 1595 tract The Estate of English Fugitives by Lewes Lewkenor, ‘imploring his help and assistance in so hard an extremity, who for recompence, very charitably cashierd them all without the receipt of one penny.’
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashiering

11. Wow. Three hundred comments! On one level I’m certainly
    pleased to see that my article has generated so much interest and discussion.
    On the other hand I find the overall tone – as is so often the case with this
    topic online — rather dispiriting. So, in the spirit of the season, let me
    offer a few comments, and a wish.

    First of all, we need to recognize that the topic in which
    we are engaged is a matter of history, and like such matters is subject to
    contestation and interpretation. Even for well-documented and indisputable
    historical events – such as wars — historians will still debate sequences of
    events, causal factors, the actors involved, their motivations and the
    consequences of those events. Granting this, how much less certain can all of
    us be about what occurred between a man and his muse, writing alone, 400 years
    ago?

    The fact is, we are all of us fallible humans relying on historical
    documents written by other fallible humans, and retained and preserved through historical
    events and happenstance. We simply cannot argue from certainty about matters
    that nobody but the author witnessed; as such, we – all of us – need to be more
    provisional and qualified about our claims.

    Do I believe that Oxford was Shakespeare? Yes, the weight of
    evidence leads me to what I feel is a reasonable inference and conclusion. The
    works of Shakespeare make much more sense to me, and are much more rich and real
    to me, understanding them to come from the pen of Edward de Vere.

    Can I prove it? No.

    Do I believe it with the religious conviction of an
    unalterable truth? No.

    Would I be open to being proven wrong? Yes, I would like to
    think so.

    In that spirit, I thank all the commenters — and I’m sorry
    I haven’t had time to read all you’ve written here – I have learned some
    interesting things here. But I do wish we can – all of us – engage in this
    conversation in a more respectful manner, recognizing our own limitations and
    fallibility.

    So here’s the wish: Can we please all agree that we are all
    Shakespeareans, that we all share a love for the writings of Shakespeare and a
    desire to understand them better, and are sincerely motivated by a desire to
    honour the author? What’s more, can we all please agree that in matters 400
    years removed, we must be much more cautious about claiming a monopoly on
    truth?

    Best wishes for the Season,
    Michael

12. Wow. Three hundred comments! On one level I’m certainly
    pleased to see that my article has generated so much interest and discussion.
    On the other hand I find the overall tone – as is so often the case with this
    topic online — rather dispiriting. So, in the spirit of the season, let me
    offer a few comments, and a wish.

    First of all, we need to recognize that the topic in which
    we are engaged is a matter of history, and like such matters is subject to
    contestation and interpretation. Even for well-documented and indisputable
    historical events – such as wars — historians will still debate sequences of
    events, causal factors, the actors involved, their motivations and the
    consequences of those events. Granting this, how much less certain can all of
    us be about what occurred between a man and his muse, writing alone, more than 400 years
    ago?

    The fact is, we are all of us fallible humans relying on historical
    documents written by other fallible humans, and retained and preserved through historical
    events and happenstance. We simply cannot argue from certainty about matters
    that nobody but the author witnessed; as such, we – all of us – need to be more
    provisional and qualified about our claims.

    Do I believe that Oxford was Shakespeare? Yes, the weight of
    evidence leads me to what I feel is a reasonable inference and conclusion. The
    works of Shakespeare make much more sense to me, and are much more rich and real
    to me, understanding them to come from the pen of Edward de Vere.

    Can I prove it? No.

    Do I believe it with the religious conviction of an
    unalterable truth? No.

    Would I be open to being proven wrong? Yes, I would like to
    think so.

    In that spirit, I thank all the commenters — and I’m sorry
    I haven’t had time to read all you’ve written here – I have learned some
    interesting things here. But I do wish we can – all of us – engage in this
    conversation in a more respectful manner, recognizing our own limitations and
    fallibility.

    So here’s the wish: Can we please all agree that we are all
    Shakespeareans, that we all share a love for the writings of Shakespeare and a
    desire to understand them better, and are sincerely motivated by a desire to
    honour the author? What’s more, can we all please agree that in matters more than 400
    years removed, we must be much more cautious about claiming a monopoly on
    truth.

    Best wishes for the Season,
    Michael

    1. Mr Dudley…Michael,

       Personally, I’m not interested in honouring the author. My concern is to address arguments made about the historical record and the literature.

       Whilst I endorse your appeal for less vitriol and more reasoned argument, I cannot but wonder why you ignored my query about where debate should focus. You mentioned, in a reply to me, as I take it, that non literary records are inadmissible. Whilst, in the same reply you referred me to Alexander Waugh’s article about ‘Avon’. The context being my query about your good self and other Oxfordian attempts to deny any link between Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon and Shakespeare (Globe sharer and actor) of London.

       You completely ignore the literary counter to Waugh I cited and linked to, and produced a volte face concerning historical records in your post. “The fact is, we are all of us fallible humans relying on historical documents written by other fallible humans”

       I agree we’re all fallible, and repeat my support of your good intentions, but come off it, Michael. You cannot have it both ways.

       Thanks for you article and best wishes…

       Mike Gordon

       1. Hi Michael — Sorry, I think I must have missed the query you mentioned. Wasn’t intentional. Let me look back at that and I’ll get back to you.

          Thanks,
          Michael

          1. No problem, Michael. Take your time and enjoy the festive season.

             Best wishes…

       2. Hi Mike —
          I think you’re referring to your question if I believe Will of Stratford and William Shakespeare the Globe shareholder to be two different people. No, I don’t. I think they’re the same; but I don’t believe he was the playwright. As for the literary counters to Waugh’s findings, I gather that the testimony he is citing is seen as not reliable; I’m not qualified to comment directly on that, only to suggest that if such contemporary writings are not to be read at face value then perhaps we could look at Ben Johnson’s testimony in t First Folio with a similarly critical eye. And finally, I’m not at all suggesting that non-literary documents are inadmissable; however for a literary figure such as Shakespeare one would expect at least *some* literary documents. That all the evidence for your candidate (excluding title pages) is non-literary and posthumous should, I think, be seen as a problem. If your side could produce actual literary-related records (recording payment for writing plays, correspondence, testimony from his lifetime linking him to playwriting) then there wouldn’t be an authorship problem.

          Cheers
          Michael

          1. >> “That all the evidence for your candidate (excluding title pages) is non-literary and posthumous should, I think, be seen as a problem. If your side could produce actual literary-related records (recording payment for writing plays, correspondence, testimony from his lifetime linking him to playwriting) then there wouldn’t be an authorship problem.”

             Evidence, in the form of contemporary documents, that refers to WS of Stratford, specifically and uniquely, as being the writer of the same name, dated during his lifetime:

             1599 (From The Returne from Parnassus, Part I; MS in Bodleian Library)
             “Mr. Shakspeare” [more than once]

             [Would this not be considered a literary reference?]

             23 August 1600: “Entred for their copies vnder the handes of the wardens. Twoo bookes. the one called: Muche a Doo about nothinge. Thother the second parte of the history of kinge henry the iiijth with the humors of Sr John ffalstaff: Wrytten by mr Shakespere. xij d”.

             [Would this not be considered a literary reference?]

             26 November 1607: “Entred for their copie under thandes of Sr George Buck knight & Thwardens A booke called. Mr William Shakespeare his historye of Kynge Lear as yt was played before the kinges maiestie at Whitehall vppon St Stephans night at Christmas Last by his maiesties servantes playinge vsually at the globe on the Banksyde vjd”.

             This appeared on the title page of King Lear Q1 (1608) as “M. William Shak-speare: HIS True Chronicle Historie
             of the life and death of King Lear and his three Daughters”.

             [Would this not be considered a literary reference?]

             1610 (From The Scourge of Folly by John Davies of Hereford; registered October 8)
             “Mr. Will: Shake-speare”
             [Literary evidence]

             1612 (From “Epistle” to The White Devil by John Webster)
             “M. Shake-speare”
             [Literary evidence]

             1614 (From Runne and a Great Cast by Thomas Freeman)
             “Master W. Shakespeare”
             [Literary evidence]

             1615 (From continuation to 1614 in ed. 5 of John Stow’s Annales, by Edmund Howes)
             “M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman”

             1616 (Q6 Lucrece)
             “Mr. William Shakespeare” (title page)
             [Is this not literary evidence?]

             Can you identify another Master William Shakespeare other than the one from Stratford? His name, specifically linked to him by the use of the honorific suited to his status as a Gentleman [following the grant of a coat of arms to his father], appears in the documentary record…and it is all within his lifetime, as you require. If you don’t believe that this qualifies as evidence supporting the conclusion that the author was WS of Stratford, I can only request your explanation as to why you believe such a thing — and, additionally, why these items do not qualify, in your opinion, as evidence that is both contemporary and literary?

             Here are some other references to him as “Mr.” Shakespeare, gent., which tie him directly to the theatre where his plays were performed.

             1601
             (Deed transfering the Globe and other Southwark properties from Nicholas Brend to Sir Matthew Brown and John
             Collett as security for a 2500-pound debt; October 7)
             “Richard Burbadge and William Shackspeare gent.”

             1601
             (Updated deed for the above transaction; October 10)
             “Richard Burbage and William Shakspeare gentlemen”

             1608
             (Deed transferring the Globe and other properties from John Collett to John Bodley; November 11)
             “Richard Burbadge & William Shakespeare gent”

             1. Shakespeare was a reasonably popular name at the time, and William was very common, so I’m sure he wasn’t the only one in England. But have you considered that Shake-speare could be a pseudonym? Evidence for your candidate would include references to Stratford (such as in the first folio) and personal accounts of people at the time meeting a man named William Shakspere who they say wrote the plays (which we do not have). Lists of people referring to Shake-speare the author, not the person, do not count as evidence. Apart from the ‘Stratford moniment’ reference in the first folio, and possibly other hints in the same book, I have seen no real evidence for your candidate. And the evidence that you do have is posthumous, cryptic and unspecific and all comes from one source – Ben Jonson.

             2. >> “Shakespeare was a reasonably popular name at the time, and William was very common, so I’m sure he wasn’t the only one in England.”

                You’ve just demonstrated quite clearly that you simply don’t understand the evidence and the argument as to the grant of the coat of arms, and the status as gentleman with the accompanying honorific, as they serve to make the case for WS of Stratford. It really shouldn’t be that difficult for you or anyone else to grasp, but you obviously haven’t done so. That fact, your repetition of your previous uninformed comments, and your continued denialism, all lead me to believe that we have reached a point of diminishing returns, and so I bid you farewell.

             3. Ok, but have you noticed that your ‘gent’ references overwhelmingly refer to Shakespeare as an actor not a writer? The references to Shake-speare the playwright that you have listed above do not contain the word ‘gent,’ except for one. So how are these in any way proof of your candidate? Why do you bother to list all of these examples? It’s just a filler so you can look like you have something to say. Also Oxford was a gentleman since he had a coat of arms. What is there to stop him using a pseudonym and adding ‘gentleman.’ Actually it appears that he did not do this, as ‘gent’ does not appear on the plays and poems. One reference in 1615 seems to refer to him as ‘gent,’ but this is by no means proof that the name was not a pseudonym.

                Why do you think Richard Brome referred to Shakespeare as ‘that English earl’ ? Since you think one reference to Shake-speare as a ‘gentleman’ somehow proves he was the man from Stratford, don’t you think that this reference calling him an ‘earl’ contradicts it? One way to sort out this muddle would be to remember that Oxford was both an earl and a gentleman.

             4. Ha ha! As if you are the arbitrator of what counts as evidence.

                http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1577harrison-england.asp#Chapter%20I

             5. So was Oxford not a gentleman then?

             6. cc: “So was Oxford not a gentleman then?”

                He most certainly was not, in any sense of the word.

             7. I think you’re wasting your time with “cc”….he/she doesn’t understand the rather simple argument about the coat of arms and the status of gentleman, and obviously is not very well-informed as to early modern society.

             8. An empty noisemaker: s/he simply repeats Oxfordian talking-points without comprehension.

             9. Exactly…did you see some of the alleged evidence for Oxenford that cc posted above. Life is too short to waste time on someone who doesn’t even know the basic facts in the dispute.

             10. It is all evidence. You are right that it is not proof. But it certainly is evidence. Look up the definition of evidence.

             11. One last time [I promise].

                 No, sorry, your coincidences and your interpretations of early modern texts are not evidence…but that is another argument that, so far, no Shakespeare denialist appears to understand and I’m not going to waste it on you.

             12. Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. It doesn’t have to prove the assertion only support it. Once the evidence mounts up, then the assertion gets close to being proven.

             13. You’re providing me with such amusement after a long day that I’ll make one last point to try to help educate you…

                 >> “Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion.”

                 Factual premise: Shakespeare was alive at the dame time as Samuel Daniel.
                 Conclusion: Therefore, Daniel wrote Shakespeare.

                 That works under your definition. Try looking under Black’s Law Dictionary.

                 With that, I have better things to do, and I really can’t afford to waste any more time with you. Enjoy your holiday.

             14. No, that is an argumentum ad absurdum. People being alive at the same time clearly does not mean they are the same person or wrote each others works.

                 Just read some of the evidence I provided above. You can see that it all does indicate that Oxford is more like to have been the author than if this evidence had not come to light.

                 The Stratford side has evidence too, but not enough of it, and it all seems to come from Ben Jonson, who was being very cryptic about it all.

                 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRAQMQPkcS4

             15. Why did Brome refer to Shakespeare as an English earl?

             16. I understand your point about ‘gentleman.’ I think that it is extremely weak. I have explained that ‘gentleman’ also had a more ambiguous and general usage for any distinguished person. Also what is to stop a writer writing under a pseudonym and using the title ‘Mr.’ It is a pseudonym.

                 Also I am trying to find this information, but please can you help me find the evidence of when ‘Mr’ became more commonly used. This is key to your point.

             17. I have understood your point, but I think it is very weak. I will explain this below

             18. What coat of arms? You mean the one they forgot to put that in the First Folio?

             19. >> AW: “What coat of arms? You mean the one they forgot to put that [sic] in the First Folio?”

                 That’s a fine non sequitur, Alexander. Thanks for pitching in to show Oxenfordian methodology at work.

             20. He was actually. In ‘Titles of Honour, 1624’ John Selden talks of ‘our English use’ of the word gentleman simply referring to it as ‘convertible with nobilis’ and being an ambiguous term for someone who is elevated by rank or personal qualities. Shakespeare the author could therefore be referred to as a gentleman. However, he usually was not. This only apparently happens on one or two occasions.

             21. Yeomen are those which by our law are called Legales homines, free men born English, and may dispend of their own free land in yearly revenue to the sum of forty shillings sterling, or six pounds as money goeth in our
                 times. Some are of the opinion, by Cap. 2 Rich. 2 Ann. 20, that they are same which the Frenchmen call varlets, but, as the phrase is used in my time, it is very unlikely to be so. The truth is that the word
                 is derived from the Saxon term Zeoman, or Geoman, which signifieth (as I have read) a settled or staid man, such I mean as, being married and of some years, betaketh himself to stay in the place of his abode for the better maintenance of himself and his family, whereof the single sort have no regard, but are likely to be still
                 fleeting now hither now thither, which argueth want of stability in determination and resolution of judgment, for the execution of things of any importance. This sort of people have a certain pre-eminence, and more estimation that labourers and the common sort of artificers, and these commonly live wealthily, keep good houses, and travel to
                 get riches. They are also for the most part farmers to gentlemen (in old time called Pagani, et opponuntur militibus, and therefore Persius calleth himself Semipaganus), or at the leastwise artificers, and with grazing, frequenting of markets, and keeping of servants (not idle servants, as the gentlemen do, but such as get both their own and part of their masters’ living), do come to great wealth, insomuch that many of them are able and do buy the lands of unthrifty gentlemen, and often setting their sons to the schools, to the universities, and to the Inns of the Court, or, otherwise leaving them sufficient lands whereupon they may live without labour, do make them by those means to become gentlemen. These were they that in times past made all France afraid. And albeit they be not called
                 “Master,” as gentlemen are, or “Sir,” as to knights appertaineth, but only “John” and “Thomas,” etc., yet have they been found to have done very good service.

                 William Harrison
                 (1534-1593):
                 Description Of Elizabethan England, 1577

                 In Shakespeare’s day, a coat of arms and status as a gentleman still meant quite a bit — which is why so many attempted to attain that status [some, allegedly, even through bribery] and also why so many authors of the time satirized those who sought to attain that status. In subsequent years, the title lost much of its meaning. It is rather ironic that Oxenfordians make such a big deal out of Sogliardo and his coat of arms and status seeking, and yet they fight to the point of blubbering stupidity the argument that the Shakespeare coat of arms led to WS being identified as Mr. WS, Gent.

             22. I have explained that ‘gentleman’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright.

                 In ‘Titles of Honour, 1614’ John Selden talks of ‘our English use’ of the word gentleman simply referring to it as ‘convertible with nobilis’ and being an ambiguous term for someone who is elevated by rank or personal qualities.

             23. One last one…thanks for proving my point as to the uses of Mr./Master with Shakespeare. It only came into use after the grant of the coat of arms to his father and was used in the technical sense.

             24. But the pseudonym Mr. Shake-speare could indicate an artisan and have nothing to do with the ‘technical sense.’ Mr was also just a sign of respect for people who had distinguished themselves in any art.

             25. In response to a list of documentary evidence which identifies the author as Mr. William Shakespeare, Gent., during his own lifetime, the best that cc can come up with is…

                 “Shakespeare was a reasonably popular name at the time, and William was very common, so I’m sure he wasn’t the only one in England.”

                 That is laughable and is clear evidence that cc doesn’t even understand the argument that is being made about he honorific and status.

          2. Michael Dudley writes: “As for the literary counters to Waugh’s findings, I gather that the testimony he is citing is seen as not reliable…”

             Don’t blame his sources. Waugh’s fantastical interpretations pale before his grievous errors of fact. He is not citing testimony but inventing it. In his Avon paper, he writes: “By far the grandest, most elaborate and most frequently used Court theatre, throughout the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, was the Great Hall at Hampton Court. … It was here that … Queen Elizabeth herself acted … and where she mounted huge shrove, summer and Christmas-tide festivals of plays annually from 1572.”

             If he’d bothered to look, he would have found that Hampton Court was favored by Elizabeth for just ten years, 1568-1577, either at Christmas or Shrovetide, but not both. (There were no “summer … festivals of plays.”) If I may quote my response:

             “In the first twenty years of her reign, from 1558 through the Christmas season of 1577-8, [Elizabeth] would have seen roughly 120 masques, plays, interludes, and devices. In that time, she spent seven Christmases and two Shrovetides at Hampton Court. That’s 32 plays out of 120, just under 27%

             “In the next 25 years, 1578-1603, she would have seen another 150 plays. Just six were at Hampton Court, in the plague years of 1592-4. That’s a miserable 4%.

             “Over her whole reign, that’s 38 of 275, or 13.8%.

             “Between 1603 and 1614, James saw 156 performances by the King’s Men alone. Of these, 146 were at Whitehall. One was at Wilton, one at either Cecil’s or Southampton’s house, and just eight were at Hampton Court: seven in the plague year 1603-4, plus one more for the King of Denmark in August 1606 (another outbreak). That’s 5.1% He reigned until 1625, and never saw another play at Hampton Court. Figuring that he saw about as many plays in the second eleven years of his reign as he did in the first—call it 300 total—that’s an Hampton Court score of 2.6%.”

             Sadly, Waugh’s style of unfounded assertion is what Oxfordians call “scholarship.”

             Michael Dudley: “I’m not qualified to comment directly on that, only to suggest that if such contemporary
             writings are not to be read at face value then perhaps we could look at Ben Johnson’s testimony in t First Folio with a similarly critical eye.”

             Really? And which other of his elegies are insincere? His verses for his infant daughter? For his son? Would you care to tell me how these lines are insincere?

             Farwell, thou Child of my Right-hand, and Joy;
             My Sin was too much hope of thee, lov’d Boy,
             Seven Years tho’wert lent to me, and I thee pay,
             Exacted by thy Fate on the just Day.
             O, could I lose all Father, now. For why,
             Will Man lament the state he should envy?
             To have so soon scap’d Worlds, and Fleshes rage,
             And, if no other Misery, yet Age?
             Rest in soft Peace, and ask’d, say here doth lie
             Ben. Johnson his best Piece of Poetry.
             For whose sake, henceforth all his Vows be such,
             As what he loves may never like too much.

             1. The usual desperate stuff from Avon Lady. You only have to post “Waugh” and “Avon” anywhere online and “Ding Dong! Avon calling!” – fantasy fiction writer Greer Gilman swings into action calling herself “Nat Whilk” frantically trying to prove that Avon was not a name for Hampton Court, that Hampton Court was not an important theatre venue in Jacobethan times, that Ben Jonson did not use puns, that swans don’t swim in the Thames, that I am a rotten researcher etc, etc, ad nauseam, but ‘Avon’ was a name for Hampton Court; it’s a proven fact and that’s all there is to it. Hard cheese for Hampton Court Lady!

             2. Many thanks for exposing Nat’s identity. Do you know what aliases Paul Edmondson writes under?

             3. “that I am a rotten researcher etc,”
                Thanks for bringing this up. It is certainly true — your discovery of monkey faces on Shakespeare’s tomb pretty clearly demonstrated your research takes the form of making up gibberish in hopes of getting a rise out of the Oxfordians. Also not a very good writer, and a poor proof reader as well. And a despicable dishonorable twit. If it weren’t for your famous parentage you’d be another anonymous Oxfordian like William Ray. In that regard, you resemble the Earl of Oxford.

             4. Ad hominem…

             5. I’m directly responding to a statement in Waugh’s post. Learn to discern. He’s asserting that he’s a good researcher; his past research findings are relevant evidence on whether that assertion is correct. And in fact, his prior output is mostly garbage: poorly reasoned, poorly written, just enough for an Amazon e-book to be sold to his tiny Oxfordian audience. The “hard cheese” he refers to is the swiss cheese of his reasoning — soured milk with large gaps. It wasn’t long after his Avon book came out that it was conclusively disproved. Sad Alexander still seems to hold a grudge.

             6. Any reference to his ‘prior arguments’ and his ‘proofreading skills’ to try to discredit his argument is an ad hominem, I’m afraid.

                ‘Avon’ was not disproved at all. Are you denying that it was a name for Hampton court?

             7. Aw, hopefully someone bought you a packet of Diddums for Christmas.

                http://www.oxfraud.com/100-braver-new-avon

    2. Excellent conciliatory post, Michael.

       No one has claimed a monopoly on the truth (well psi2u2, perhaps—there’s a man who’s certain).

       However, we are not in the dark. Scholarship reduces the attenuation of the pendulum of history and even if it doesn’t quite come to rest, it does settle down sufficiently to make statements which can be treated with a high level of certainty. Describing Will Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the plays is one such certainty. There is enough tangible direct and circumstantial evidence to be certain.

       That the 17th Earl of Oxford was not the author of the Shakespearean canon is another such certainty, I’m afraid. He simply didn’t live long enough to be Shakespeare or write well enough to have been any Bankside Professional playwright.

       We can state with certainty that there is no tangible evidence connecting Oxford to the plays. We can state definitely that all computerised stylometric testing has ruled him out. We can state definitely that no one has made a case for his authorship that the Faculty is willing to listen to.

       So the scope for doubt is extremely limited and only extremely good evidence could ever threaten the status quo. And there simply isn’t a trace of any kind of such evidence, anywhere. And until there is, the idea that Oxford wrote the work cannot be allowed into the mainstream of Shakespearean education and scholarship any more than creationism can be allowed on the science curriculum.

       1. Sicinius,

          Describing Will Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the plays is one such certainty. There is enough tangible direct and circumstantial evidence to be certain.

          Not true. It’s the reason you never dare to response my posts, isn’t it?

          That the 17th Earl of Oxford was not the author of the Shakespearean canon is another such certainty, I’m afraid. He simply didn’t live long enough to be Shakespeare or write well enough to have been any Bankside professional playwright.

          Not true. I told you already. Oxford initiated the Shakespeare project. You assumed Shakespeare is done by one person. He started, died early, others continued.

          We can state with certainty that there is no tangible evidence connecting Oxford to the plays. We can state definitely that all computerised stylometric testing has ruled him out. We can state definitely that no one has made a case for his authorship that the Faculty is willing to listen to.

          The Faculty can’t be always right. You can’t beat my evidence, not yet. The truth is cruel. The Faculty can’t read Shakespeare.

          1. “The Faculty can’t be always right. You can’t beat my evidence, not yet. The truth is cruel. The Faculty can’t read Shakespeare.”

             In almost a century, the case proposed for Oxford has been carefully examined and rejected by virtually every person who has studied it carefully. If your claim is that every academic who has studied this issue over the course of four centuries except one guy is fundamentally wrong, it really is your burden to prove it. Reading Shakespeare isn’t the issue. This is not a question of interpretation of the plays, because there is no evidence that the author of the play was writing autobiographically. You have not presented any evidence other than alternative readings of the works, spun to seemingly reflect some incident from Oxford’s life. You cannot prove that Oxford was writing autobiographically because there is some incident in common between the plays and his life,and simultaneously prove that it was Oxford whose biography was being written because of the same incident.

             The truth is cruel. Your evidence was imaginary. People see patterns they want to see if they look hard enough. The academy is headed back to their real areas of interest because the SAQ is a dead end. Not only aren’t they arguing against your side’s “evidence,” they aren’t reading your journals or books. Your folks are talking to each other in an echo chamber. You build assumption on assumption. By the time the “big fist” emerges, it will seem disconnected from rational thought.

             You know how Sherlock Holmes would reach remarkable conclusions from mundane observations, each building on its predecessor? It works great in fiction. In history, once you’ve made the baseless assumption that the name Shakespeare on the title page of the First Folio can’t refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, all the baseless assumptions piled on top of that are similarly rubbish. GIGO.

             1. headlight,

                This is one of the evidence that the Faculty can’t read Shakespeare.
                I’ve hundreds of such evidence, another simple one here.
                Word’s logic is the true battlefield.
                Now, can you solve “Costard Broken in A Shin”?

             2. As you state in one of your posts, the question is between whether you alone have uncovered the true meaning intended by Shakespeare, or whether you have contriving a meaning of your own unintended by the author. If you overanalyze a text (any text) you can find meaning that was never intended by the author. Much of the SAQ comes from earnest people seeing patterns that seem meaningful, but ones that were unlikely to have been created or intended by the author. You might want to consult a psychiatrist.

             3. Truth is cruel, headlight. You can’t solve that. Here is another one the faculty failed to read: “Rosemary and Romeo begin both with a letter” but not R.

                I just show you how Shakespeare riddles with anagram and sound. Now, with hundreds of such word plays, I can prove the Faculty can’t read Shakespeare, right?

             4. James Thurber wrote a short story called The Macbeth Murder Mystery in which a Poirot fan mistakenly buys the wrong Penguin paperback, mistaking the Shakespeare play for an Agatha Christie detective novel.

                She reads Macbeth intent on solving the murder because, of course, Macbeth couldn’t have done it (too obvious).

                This is the same game.

             5. Sicinius,

                Word’s logic is the true battlefield, no game. If you can’t solve a line, you just can’t. I repeat my post here. This is difficult for those who don’t know Sonnets well.

                Shakespeare’s Sonnet 7 riddles Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great (disguised by sun); “son” means a poet’s creation here. This can’t prove Marlowe wrote sonnet 7 yet, but is a good starting point. The true question will be, why 7?

                “So God blessed the seuenth day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his worke, which God had created and made.” (GEN 2:3)

                Marlowe was an atheist as that “atheistic Tamburlaine.” He didn’t rest. If this is the intention of Seven, what about One?

                (Sonnet 1) From fairest creatures we desire increase, …
                (GEN 1:1) In the beginning God created the heauen and the earth. …

                Shake-speares Sonnets considers itself Bible of the literature world.

                Creature has the definition of “one who owes his fortune and position to a patron; one who is actuated by the will of another, or is ready to do his bidding; an instrument or puppet” (OED 5, 1587).

                Sonnet 1’s creatures are poets who desire more works from their patron. Actually, all 154 sonnets are riddled, every one of them. Shakespeare is greater than the world can imagine. Don’t kill it.

                “Close, Marlowe, but no cigar.” Are you sure?

             6. Sicinius,

                I use word’s logic only, no game like James Thurber to play around. A true battle, right?

                After the miracle of 153 “great fishes,” Jesus asked Simon Peter three times:

                John 21:15 … louest thou me more then these? … Feede my lambes.
                John 21:16 … louest thou me? … Feede my sheepe.
                John 21:17 … louest thou me? … Feede my sheepe.

                If one loves Jesus more than these, one can feed Jesus’ lambs only.
                If one loves Jesus without any comparison, one can feed Jesus’ sheep.

                Portia’s shall-shall-must lottery borrows the form of lambs-sheep-sheep.

                Many “love” words after the miracle of 153 hint at God and Love.
                “The little Loue-God lying once asleepe” (sonnet 154).
                The similarity of sonnet 153 and 154 reduces the count to 153.

                Shake-speares Sonnets considers itself Bible of the literature world
                via sonnet 1, and a miracle via sonnet 153/154.

             7. You’ve convinced me. Nobody, not even Shakespeare himself, could understand the works the way you do. You are the first and only person to read them this way. You should do everything possible to maintain the secret, and keep the academy from it. To do this, craft a hat from aluminum foil.

          2. >> “Not true. It’s the reason you never dare to response my posts, isn’t it?”

             It is more likely that the true reason nobody wants to “response” [sic] your posts is that we fully realizes that you are even more of a crank than Crowley is and you, and your delusions of grandeur and your silly notions about Shakespeare, are simply not worth the bother. Your “evidence” is not actually evidence.

             “Shakespeare is the happy hunting ground of all minds that have lost their balance.” – James Joyce

             1. “Costard Broken in A Shin” is a good riddle by Shakespeare, playing with Plain, Plantain, Lenvoy, Salve, Francis and Enfranchise. Simple question, MDHJohnson, can you solve it?

                My “evidence” is actually evidence when you can’t solve it.

             2. Good. We have now identified at least a portion of your problem. You believe [sincerely, it appears] that your delusional gibberish is magically transformed into evidence when someone rational is unable to make any sense of it.

                What part of “your crankery is not worth the bother” did you not understand?

             3. MDHJohnson, you can’t solve it. “Costard Broken in A Shin” can only be solved by one-way anagram. I’ve hundreds of such examples. You failed at the first one. Riddle and anagram make Shakespeare’s works greater, especially the 154 sonnets, all being riddled. You can start from sonnet 53, which describes an Actor on the stage.

                Like Michael said, Best wishes for the season.

       2. Sicinius (to Michael Dudley) wrote:

          > Scholarship reduces the attenuation of the pendulum of history and even if it doesn’t quite come to rest, it does settle down sufficiently

          Stratfordian ‘scholarship’ has never shifted an inch from its fatuous inception, where it took the prevailing assumptions without the slightest question. It has never since been able to face up honestly to the range of questions that any sceptic can pose. Where are all the supporting documents? How come the poet himself was so silent about his personal background? How come he never praised (or criticised) another poet? How come he never remarked on any public event of his day (such as the death of the monarch, of the accession of James)? How come everyone of his day was also so silent — especially those who knew your candidate personally. How come no one ever remarks that England’s great literary art was (supposedly) the sole Renaissance Art financed from the pockets of the Common People?

          > to make statements which can be treated with a very high level of certainty. Describing Will Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the plays is one such certainty.

          You have to be a credulous fool to believe that the Stratford man could be the author of such works. Ok, there are a few tiny bits of ‘evidence’ pointing in his direction, but they are so few and so weak — and so readily contrived — that they have to be disregarded. Some people at the time wanted the ignorant masses to believe that he was the author, and they made a few half-hearted efforts to mislead, but the resulting nonsense was too much, even for those mounting the cover-up. They did their best to row back, putting hyphens into a name that was already ‘over the top’, and leaving all manner of other clues; but the stupidity had already taken off, and there was, apparently no stopping it.

          > There is enough tangible direct and circumstantial evidence to be certain.

          There is NO circumstantial evidence. That’s the point. And the few ‘direct’ bits are ridiculous. For example, no one who has any knowledge of Elizabethan literature should be taken in by the name. It could not be more obviously a pseudonym — even without the hyphens.

          > That the 17th Earl of Oxford was not the author of the Shakespearean canon is another such certainty, I’m afraid. He simply didn’t live long enough to be Shakespeare

          On the contrary, everyone accepts (usually without much thought) that the Canon was Elizabethan. Occasionally there is a vague attempt to fit it into a Jacobean setting (which is where Stratfordian dating has to place it) but it never begins to work, and is always rapidly forgotten.

          > or write well enough to have been any Bankside professional playwright.

          He wrote a lot better than your candidate.

          > We can state with certainty that there is no tangible evidence connecting Oxford to the plays.

          What ‘evidence’ do you regard as ‘tangible’? Would a known familiarity with most of the places where the plays are set count?

          > We can state definitely that all computerised stylometric testing has ruled him out.

          Since the only criterion for ‘success’ in such tests is “Does it back up the Stratfordian case?”, they are worthless.

          > We can state definitely that no one has made a case for his authorship that the Faculty is willing to listen to.

          What “Faculty” is this? Would it be as disinterested in the outcome as (say) the Vatican professors of astronomy around 1620 were about heliocentrism?

          > So the scope for doubt is extremely limited and only extremely good evidence could ever threaten the status quo.

          The illiteracy of your candidate not being a relevant issue?

          > And there simply isn’t a trace of any kind of such evidence, anywhere.

          There’s the very name of your own man, the worthlessness of the ‘direct’ evidence supporting him, the close identification of much Elizabethan verse with Oxford (and here I am most certainly not talking about the kind of garbage produced by Hank Whittemore and other PT twerps).

          > And until there is, the idea that Oxford wrote the work cannot be allowed into the mainstream of Shakespearean education and scholarship any more than creationism can be allowed on the science curriculum.

          That’s exactly the kind of language that has been heard before every intellectual revolution. You might even realise that not so long ago Creationism was orthodoxy — and still is in many parts of the world. (Did those Brothers teach you Evolutionary theory?)

          1. we must be much more cautious about claiming a monopoly on truth.

             Right on cue, in come the Oxfordian claims to have a monopoly on truth.

             Further down the thread, there’s an instance of a famous Oxfordian technique—”I must be right because this famous person agrees with me”—appeal to authority. The subject of Leslie Howard crops up.

             Leslie Howard is claimed to be an Oxfordian because in the film ‘Pimpernel Smith’, his character espouses the idea that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays. They clearly haven’t seen the rest of the film or read Baroness Orczy’s book on which Howard’s classic ‘Scarlet Pimpernel’ is based.

             If they had, they would know that Howard’s character is pretending to be an Oxfordian to convince the Nazi authorities that he is stupid.

             It’s a great tactic.

             It worked then and it still works well today.

             Rubbish like this is what Oxfordians call evidence. If you think I’m exaggerating for effect, have a look at one of their videos. In fact, this one was a key presentation at their last conference:

             On the subject of evidence.

             It has pirates in it.

             1. That is not appeal to authority; it is appeal to celebrity, more fitting for advertising than a literature discussion.

             2. In the real world, it is an appeal to be given a free pass to abandon logic and common sense.

             3. Ben Jonson made you think you had that, but he was too clever for you.

             4. You mean like when the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust dragged in poor old Prince Charles to bolster their myths?

             5. Leadbetter, you seem to think that anti-Stratfordians claim a “monopoly on the truth” and that Stratfordians are more, what? – open? enquiring? inquisitive? free-thinking? There are two books on Shakespeare authorship currently on sale, one is called ‘Shakespeare Beyond Doubt’, the other is called ‘Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?’ guess which one is by Stratfordians and which by anti-Stratfordians…and guess which one sells more copies?

       3. Hi Sicinius —
          Thank you for your comments. However, as you write, “Describing Will Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the
          plays is one such certainty. There is enough tangible direct and
          circumstantial evidence to be certain.” Well…sorry, but the fact that so many reasonable and intelligent people for the better part of 200 years disagree with this proposition is pretty solid prima facie evidence that we cannot be certain. So…this will continue to be a subject of debate until something new and convincing is discovered.

          Cheers,
          Michael

          1. I’m afraid you’re confused about what makes a prima facie case. It is useless to pretend that there is no evidence for Shakespeare’s authorship. The evidence lies on his title pages, in the stationers register, in the legal records of the Globe and the Blackfriars Theatre, and the disputes about splitting up of the profits from the activities of those theatres, in the Preface to the First Folio, in the eulogies written by his fellows, and the monument created by his neighbours and fellow parishioners.

             Attempts to dismiss the items which make up this prima facie case continue to be made, speciously by people espousing other candidates. Always reasoning backwards from their conclusions, the hundreds of attempts which have been made to do this certainly do not create, in themselves, a new alternative prima facie case. They do not create anything. They have not produced any supporting evidence. They rely entirely on the acceptance of speculation and coincidence which fall short of what constitutes circumstantial evidence. None of it qualifies as evidence and most of it barely qualifies as circumstance.

             As you can see in this very thread, at the point where Oxfordians are asked to produce an inference which connects their coincidences to the premise that Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s work, even the high priests disappear like soap bubbles in the sunlight.

             So I’m afraid there is no halfway point between us at which we are happy to concede there is enough room for doubt to allow candidates like Oxford to be considered has canon authors.

             Oxford died in 1604, with a third of the Canon as yet unwritten. His candidature is therefore an impossibility.

             1. Mike Leadbetter (aka ‘Sicinius’ – a salaried lobbyist for the Stratfordian cause) claims ‘a third of the [Shakespearean] canon was unwritten by 1604’? Can he prove it? Why did Shakespeare make no reference to any printed source after 1604?

          2. There are reasonable and intelligent educators and scientists who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. Should their disagreement with the scientific consensus be considered as evidence that the age of the earth should remain open to “debate until something new and convincing is discovered”…?

             The tangible direct and circumstantial evidence supporting the attribution of the works to Shakespeare of Stratford has been deemed “convincing” by the vast majority of people who have considered the question for the last 400 years [I’d say 99.97% would be a conservative estimate as to the number who have accepted the traditional attribution]. For myself, I see no reason [and I use that word intentionally] why the doubts of a microscopically small group of doubters, some of whom are quite obviously denying the very existence of actual evidence, should make this an issue for continuing debate — at least not in the academic realm. Out here in the far reaches of internet wharrgarbl it is an interesting, if harmless, hobby.

    3. Mr. Dudley,

       You’ve done well here, more so since you have been outnumbered, at least for the last few days.

       I hope you would acknowledege that the vitriol was mostly with the other far more strident Oxrfodians, not yourself.

       But however conciliatory your last post, it still contains at least statemets that cannot go unremarked.

       First, your write, “The works of Shakespeare make much more sense to me, and are much more rich and real
       to me, understanding them to come from the pen of Edward de Vere.”

       You are treating your subjective reading of the canon as if it were justification, i.e., evidence, that Oxford was the author. And tghis, of course, is not evidence. How you “feel” is not evidence.

       Second, you appeal to ignorance, a common enough logical fallacy, when you claim, “we are all of us fallible humans relying on historical documents written by other fallible humans, and retained and preserved through historical events and happenstance. We simply cannot argue from certainty about matters that nobody but the author witnessed.”

       You are, in effect, claiming that events in Elizabethan England are unknowable because they happened 400 years ago and because humans are fallible (to extent that we are unable to interpret the documentray record). That’s simply not true. There much that we know, largely because of the many historical documents that offer prima facie evidence of eventar

       1. >> “You’ve done well here, more so since you have been outnumbered, at least for the last few days.”

          I would change that “outnumbered” to “abandoned”….

          1. That, too.

             1. And it doesn’t appear that the mission to the SV page is going to help…there’s still no sign of the cavalry.

                It is a shame, really. The Newsweek thread took place nearly a year ago now. The Oxenfordians have had all of that time to formulate a response to the argument that what they propose as “circumstantial evidence” does not actually qualify as such. The best they have done so far is the superficial treatment given by Regnier in his conference presentation, but that is, in fact and as has been shown, a misrepresentation of the actual argument.

                In this thread, Mr. psi2u2 touted the Basse poem as evidence for de Vere as the author of Shakespeare. When challenged to show how, exactly, he could logically get from that premise to his ultimate conclusion, he simply vanished [as has happened with all Oxenfordians who have been similarly challenged]. Mr.psi2u2 had the opportunity to try to explain why he thought that the preponderance of the evidence indicated that the Basse poem, in all of its incarnations, should not be considered as evidence supporting the traditional attribution, but he sped away, never to be heard from again on that particular subject. It seems he couldn’t find a way to defend his unstated premise that there was a conspiracy [unlike Crowley, who simply states it as a fact, even though he has no evidence whatsoever to show such a conspiracy].

                Bringing up the Basse poem, and Mr. psi2u2’s claim that it somehow was evidence for his Lord, did have one beneficial result. It was subsequently shown [thanks, Nat] that the proposed premise as to Basse being an employee of Norris was not even factually correct. The evidence for Shakespeare of Stratford as the author has been further strengthened by this particular debate. It’s the real, documentary evidence that Crowley and Jim F. and others can’t begin to rebut.

                Stratford >>> Basse >>>Winner
                Oxenford>>> Basse >>>Scratched

                So, if you are ever wondering if it is at all worthwhile to even engage with Oxenfordians, as I often do, this provides a fine example as to why we do so. And this isn’t the first time, and probably won’t be the last, that such a result is achieved.

                What do you want to bet, though, that some Oxenfordian in the very near future will offer up Basse, and his alleged relationship to Norris and thus to Bridget Vere, as circumstantial evidence for Oxenford being Shakespeare?

             2. Also in this thread, Michael and Roger continue to claim they can see Shakespearean quality in Oxford’s poetry but continue to be incapable of identifying any examples of it. And once again, the question of evidence was raised and the Oxfordian Mute Button was pushed.

             3. They have a “mountain” of evidence, or so they continue to tell us. The problem is that each and every time we ask to see the mountain it is entirely enveloped in a fog [produced by their fog machines].

                As someone said, Stattfordians and the Shakespeare denialists don’t appear to even agree on what qualifies as evidence. We use evidence the same way that it is used in the legal realm and in historiography. They use it to mean evidence that “is of a TOTALLY different nature from what you would count as ‘evidence'” {That’s a quote from Crowley over at HLAS, although he never did define what he meant by the term or what the evidence supposedly was, despite repeated requests}. Until they explain exactly what they mean by evidence, and show the methodological process in which it acquires some evidentiary weight and relevance to support their ultimate conclusion, they will continue to topple over.

                ‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

                ‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

                Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

                ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

                ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

             4. I personally do not think Shakspere was the author. I am not sure if it was Oxford or not, but he seems to be the best candidate we have at the moment. Both arguments (the one for Stratford and for Oxford) lack proof. Oxfordians do have a very large number of what would be remarkable coincidences if Oxford turned out to have nothing to do with the plays at all. Stratfordians have a few posthumous references which might appear to support their candidate, but they are cryptic and unclear and all come from one source -Ben Jonson, seven years after Shakspere’s death. However, the problem with the Stratford argument, which does not exist if we consider Oxford, is that Shakspere would have been writing under his own name with absolutely nothing to hide, so we should therefore expect a lot more evidence for him than we would for a candidate writing under a pseudonym and trying to hide his authorship (‘my name be buried where my body is’ (Shake-speare sonnets. etc.)) Furthermore, it is extremely odd that the author of Richard II, who apparently was not hiding his identity, and a commoner writing under his own name, would not have been punished by the Queen for his audacity.

                Lack of evidence for any candidate other that Shakspere makes perfect sense. They were hiding their identity, whoever they were, so they were covering their tracks on purpose. The lack of evidence for Shakspere, on the other hand, is very strange. Not only is there no real evidence that he was the author, but there is also no evidence of education, travels etc. which we would expect from the author of the works.

             5. >> “I personally do not think Shakspere was the author. I am not sure if it was Oxford or not, but he seems to be the best candidate we have at the moment. Both arguments (the one for Stratford and for Oxford) lack proof.”

                Sorry, but you are only half right. There is more than sufficient evidence in the historic record to establish a prima facie case that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works. In any of the methodologies that we as infallible humans have adopted to establish something as accepted fact [to prove something], once such a case has been made, it can only be rebutted by evidence. There is no evidence to even come close to proving that any other “candidate” had anything whatsoever to do with the writing of the Shakespeare works.

                >> “Oxfordians do have a very large number of what would be remarkable coincidences if Oxford turned out to have nothing to do with the plays at all.”

                No, they really don’t have any such thing, and they certainly don’t have anything remotely resembling evidence that would serve to rebut the case for WS of Stratford.

                >>”Stratfordians have a few posthumous references which might appear to support their candidate, but they are cryptic and unclear and all come from one source -Ben Jonson, seven years after Shakspere’s death.”

                This statement is factually incorrect. I’d suggest that you read *Shakespeare, In Fact* by Irvin Matus. The references to Shakespeare are not cryptic or unclear [unless one approaches them with a predisposed bias to view them in that way], they are not all from Jonson, and they are not all “posthumous” [whatever you may mean by that term and whatever effect you think that has on actual evidence].

                >> “However, the problem with the Stratford argument, which does not exist if we consider Oxford, is that Shakspere would have been writing under his own name with absolutely nothing to hide, so we should therefore expect a lot more evidence for him than we would for a candidate writing under a pseudonym and trying to hide his authorship…”

                The historic record contains more than enough evidence to make the case for Will of Stratford, and it has done so for four hundred years. Arguing from your personal incredulity as to what “we should therefore expect” to find is a logical fallacy.

                “Furthermore, it is extremely odd that the author of Richard II, who apparently was not hiding his identity, and a commoner writing under his own name, would not have been punished by the Queen for his audacity.”

                Shakespeare’s fellow actor, Augustine Phillips, was called before investigators and deposed following the Essex Rebellion. It appears that the explanation which he gave was sufficient to avoid punishment of the actors and the author. Again, you are arguing from personal incredulity. Do you have any actual evidence?

                >> “Lack of evidence for any candidate other that Shakspere makes perfect sense.”

                No, actually, it doesn’t make any sense at all, but it is a convenient double standard for you to promote. Your argument is that the evidence that there was a conspiracy to hide the name is that there is no evidence of a conspiracy to hide the name. If you think that’s a winning argument, please continue with it.

                >> Not only is there no real evidence that he was the author…

                Continuing to make this incorrect statement does not make it true. It only serves to depict you as a denialist.

                >> “but there is also no evidence of education, travels etc. which we would expect from the author of the works.”

                Argument from personal incredulity, making a god of the gaps, etc. Do you have anything remotely resembling evidence which rebuts the prima facie case for William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

             6. Point by point:

                1/ You do not have to prove another candidate in order to doubt the orthodox candidate. You are creating a false dichotomy. Even if it was not Oxford, that does not mean that it was Shakspere. I understand that the first folio may give the impression that it was Shakspere at first glance or ‘prima facie’ as you put it. However, you have not read it closely enough. Why do you think Shakespeare’s dates and coat of arms are missing? Why do you think Jonson warns us about ‘seeliest ignorance’ when interpreting the preface? Why do you think there are only a few clever hints that Shakspere could be the man, which at closer inspection have double or triple meanings?

                2/ Coincidences include: Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl. His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible etc etc….

                3/ A lot of the ‘evidence’ you provide is just the name on the plays. You fail to take into account that this does not necessarily refer to the man from Stratford and could easily be a pseudonym. I have looked at the evidence, and the first folio is by far the strongest evidence you have, it is posthumous, and it was written by Ben Jonson. I suspect he also wrote the Heminge and Condell entry.

                4/ ‘It has done for four hundred years’ – That’s an ‘appeal to tradition.’ Traditions have often been proven wrong e.g the idea that the earth is flat. I have explained the lack of evidence above.

                5/ I admit to this argument of personal incredulity. However, it seems more likely to me that the actors pleaded ignorance, something which the writer would be unable to do. Again, this is based on some speculation, so feel free to withdraw this point from my repertoire. It can just be an added bonus, once you have understood my main points.

                6/ No, my argument is that there should be some real evidence for Shakspere, especially since he was supposedly writing under his own name. See Diana Price’s list of literary paper trails. Shakspere is unique in the lack of evidence for the orthodox candidate who was supposedly writing under his own name.

                7/ My main problem with Shakspere is lack of evidence. However, a reference to Shakespeare as an ‘earl’ goes against the orthodox candidate. Thomas Vicars says that Shakespeare took his name from ‘shaking’ and ‘spear.’ Weever refers to Shakespeare as ‘spurious.’ Ben Jonson telling readers to watch out for ‘seeliest ignorance’ when reading the preface, suggests double meanings. There are many references which suggest a pseudonym. And the evidence for Shakspere is very weak.

             7. >> “Also in this thread, Michael and Roger continue to see Shakespearean quality in Oxford’s poetry but continue to be incapable of identifying any examples of it.”

                From the beginning, the Oxfordian case was anchored in Looney’s belief that Oxford’s verse resembles Shakespeare’s so closely as to reveal a common authorship. In Chapter Eight of *”Shakespeare” Identified*, he prefaced his comparative analysis of their poems with the admission that “our case will either stand or fall” as readers are convinced that De vere’s poetry does in fact “contain the natural seed and clear promise” of Shakespeare’s verse. He ended his comparison of De Vere’s poetry with Shakespeare’s by stating that the affinity he had established between them was “the most critical in the piecing together of the case [because it] reveals what we claim to be a most extraordinary correspondence in the details of the work.” Yet Looney himself was unable to detect that “natural seed and clear promise” at all accurately. By relying on A. B. Grosart’s nineteenth-century edition of the Earl’s poetry, he unknowingly depended on a corrupt text of Oxford’s work and a canon that was significantly in error. I found that six of the twenty-three poems claimed for De Vere in Grosart’s edition were wrongly attributed.

                — ‘The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford As Poet and Playwright’, Steven W. May; Tenn. Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 [Fall, 2004], p. 222.

                Oxford’s verse, in short, lacks any unique features of style, theme, or subject to connect it with Shakespeare’s poetry. The most critical aspect of Looney’s Oxfordian theory, by his own admission, is thus grounded on nothing at all. [Ibid, p. 225]

                After the publication of my edition of Oxford’s verse in 1980, references to the Earl’s poetry all but disappeared from Oxfordian polemic. The authentic canon of De Vere’s poetry is a great embarrassment to the movement because it so manifestly contradicts the claims of Looney and his followers that the Earl’s verse in any way resembles the poetry of William Shakespeare. The chasm between the two poets is immense. [Ibid, p. 232]

             8. Sicinius wrote (to MDHJohnson)

                > Also in this thread, Michael and Roger continue to claim they can see Shakespearean quality in Oxford’s poetry but continue to be incapable of identifying any examples of it. And once again, the question of evidence was raised and the Oxfordian Mute Button was pushed.

                It’s more that you have, once again, pushed the Stratfordian mute button on your hearing aid. It happens so regularly and persistently that there is obviously some automatic ‘switch-off’ connection to your brain.

                As I wrote here recently:
                _______________________________________________
                But one poem I would definitely ascribe to Oxford is below. In fact, I’d say that there was no one else who could have written it.

                Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                With patient mind each passion to endure?
                In one desire to settle to the end?
                Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                As nought but death may ever change thy mind.
                _________________________________________________

                This poem has some highly specific ‘Shakespearean qualities’. Surely you can identify them?

             9. Also in this thread, Michael and Roger continue to claim they can see Shakespearean quality in Oxford’s poetry but continue to be incapable of identifying any examples of it. And once again, the question of evidence was raised and the Oxfordian Mute Button was pushed.

                Either point me at a reply from Roger or withdraw your insult and I might think about playing your game.

             10. It’s a sonnet, more or less–you’ve omitted the echoes to each quatrain: “Love … Love … Love.” Of course, it doesn’t have the intellectual structure of a proper sonnet: the argument and turn. It’s merely a plodding monody of end-stopped questions, with one dreary monotonous answer: “Love … Love … Love.” There is absolutely no metrical variation: I count, I think, 104 monosyllables, 13 disyllables, and a lonely “regarding.” There is no imagery worth speaking of, no metaphor (save the dead common “paint … thy face”). There is absolutely nothing here worth reading.

                 Shakespeare is witty, beautiful, astonishing, moving, memorable.

                 This is extruded sonnet product, the Kraft cheese of poetry in individually wrapped lines.

             11. Nat Whilk wrote:

                 It’s a sonnet, more or less–you’ve omitted the echoes to each quatrain: “Love … Love … Love.”

                 I doubt that they are authorial. They just don’t ring true.

                 > Of course, it doesn’t have the intellectual structure of a proper sonnet: the argument and turn. It’s merely a plodding monody of end-stopped questions, with one dreary monotonous answer: “Love … Love … Love.” There is absolutely no metrical variation: I count, I think, 104 monosyllables, 13 disyllables, and a lonely “regarding.” There is (of course) no play between line and sentence. There is no imagery worth speaking of, no metaphor (save the hackneyed “paint … thy face”). Indeed, there is not one genuine idea in this forced march of banalities. There is absolutely nothing here worth reading.

                 Indeed, and you are only scratching the surface of its truly appalling badness. There is the awful alliteration: “taught thy tongue” “woeful words”. There is the painful ‘filling in’ with pointless words, simply to pack the metre, and get the rhyme “ . . . alas, my heart”. There is the mindless sentimentality — and we’re still on the first two lines.

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                 Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                 Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                 Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                 Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                 Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                 Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                 Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                 In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                 To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                 With patient mind each passion to endure?
                 In one desire to settle to the end?
                 Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                 As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

                 However, it’s explicitly from one courtier to another. Yet no Elizabethan courtier would dare to come out with such tripe. Maybe only a few courtiers could write good poetry, but nearly all could tell the difference between good work and stuff as bad as this.

                 So what’s going on?

                 It’s pretty obvious. One poet (who may not be great, but who is, at least, competent) is writing an appallingly bad poem in the voice of another. Nor is it hard to identify his target — the poet being parodied. He writes a lot of ‘woeful words’. He sighs, and suffers grief. He paints his face. Someone in the court (nor is it difficult here to guess who) has given him ‘grace’. He ‘scorns the world’ and possibly has no friends at all at court (the ‘regarding but thy friends’ being sarcastic).

                 > Shakespeare is witty, beautiful, astonishing, moving, memorable.

                 Shake-speare was also a real human being, who got annoyed at times, and who could use his talent to hit out.

                 > This is extruded sonnet product, the Kraft cheese of poetry in individually wrapped lines.

                 Each piece is mouldy, and stinks to high heaven — which is exactly what the poet intended.

             12. Nice recovery.

                 It isn’t a parody. See MND for a parody of Golding. It is par for Oxfordian course. The Earl never wrote or said a satirical word, as far as I know.

             13. Judging by his letters, the Earl had no idea how badly he wrote.

                 So, Mr. Crowley, what were these “highly specific ‘Shakespearean qualities'” you imagined you saw?

             14. Leave it to Crowley to create a fantasy in a futile attempt to explain away his Lord’s putrid poetry, and, when he does, it is straight out of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure: “I meant to do that….”

             15. Nat Whilk wrote:

                 > So, Mr. Crowley, what were these “highly specific ‘Shakespearean qualities'” you imagined you saw?

                 First things first. It’s important to place this sonnet in its proper context, as far as you can, even if you are Strat and quite lost in the world.

                 This sonnet is written in the voice of Oxford’s great rival at court, Walter Raleigh. He has just displaced Oxford as the prime favourite of the Queen, and was a rival in poetry, as well as in much more important matters. Oxford had been friendly with him, and quite possibly introduced him to the court. He had certainly assisted Raleigh in his early days there. But now their positions were reversed. Raleigh was hated generally by the aristocratic courtiers but, with the favour of the Queen, he had little need of them and, much of the time, he seemed to go out of his way to offend them. That’s the point of the reference to ‘friends’. Raleigh introduced new fashions into the court — fashions that Oxford could not afford, even if he had the inclination to follow them: colourful clothes, long hair, earrings, perfume and face-paint.

                 Raleigh’s poetry was poor, even if (obviously) not this poor. He favoured monosyllables, and strongly emphasised ‘woe’ and other complaints. There is much more that could be said on Raleigh generally, on his poetry, and on this poem, but it’s not the place — unless someone wants to question my reading.

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                 Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                 Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                 Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                 Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                 Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                 Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                 Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                 In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                 To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                 With patient mind each passion to endure?
                 In one desire to settle to the end?
                 Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                 As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

             16. Mr. Crowley, your capacity for sheer unfounded invention is breathtaking. “This sonnet is written in the voice of Oxford’s great rival at court, Walter Raleigh…” Do you even know when you’re telling taradiddles?

                 “Confabulation, the
                 recital of experiences that have no foundation in fact and the glib
                 untruthful answering of questions usually in compensation for a gap in
                 memory.”

                 Mr. Crowley: “Raleigh’s poetry was poor, even if (obviously) not this poor. He
                 favoured monosyllables, and strongly emphasised ‘woe’ and other
                 complaints.”

                 Add Sir Walter Ralegh to your very long list of the unread. As a poet, he could scrub floors with Neddy Hedingham. It’s far likelier that this dreadful sonnet was Ralegh mocking Oxford, as he did Marlowe:

                 IF all the world and love were young,
                 And truth in every shepherd’s tongue,
                 These pretty pleasures might me move

                 To live with thee and be thy love.

                 Time drives the flocks from field to fold,

                 When rivers rage and rocks grow cold;

                 And Philomel becometh dumb;

                 The rest complains of cares to come.

                 The flowers do fade, and wanton fields

                 To wayward winter reckoning yields:

                 A honey tongue, a heart of gall,

                 Is fancy’s spring, but sorrow’s fall.

                 The gowns, thy shoes, thy beds of roses,

                 Thy cap, thy kirtle, and thy posies

                 Soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten,—

                 In folly ripe, in reason rotten.

                 Thy belt of straw and ivy buds,

                 Thy coral clasps and amber studs,

                 All these in me no means can move

                 To come to thee and be thy love.

                 But could youth last and love still breed,

                 Had joys no date nor age no need,

                 Then these delights my mind might move

                 To live with thee and be thy love.

                 The monosyllables were Oxford’s signature; though Ralegh (if this poem is Ralegh’s) could deploy them wittily.

                 Her Face, her Tonge, her Wytte,
                 So fayre, so sweete, so sharpe,
                 First bent, then drew, then hytte,
                 Myne Eye, mine Eare, my Hartt:

                 And Ralegh’s sonnets move like poetry:

                 METHOUGHT I saw the grave where Laura lay,
                 Within that temple where the vestal flame

                 Was wont to burn : and, passing by that way,

                 To see that buried dust of living fame,

                 Whose tomb fair Love and fairer Virtue kept,

                 All suddenly I saw the Faery Queen,

                 At whose approach the soul of Petrarch wept;

                 And from thenceforth those graces were not seen,

                 For they this Queen attended ; in whose stead

                 Oblivion laid him down on Laura’s hearse.

                 Hereat the hardest stones were seen to bleed,

                 And groans of buried ghosts the heavens did pierce:

                 Where Homer’s spright did tremble all for grief,

                 And cursed the access of that celestial thief.

             17. It’s almost like having Baldric here with us, isn’t it?

                 Alas my plate, who first taught my mouth to love? A turnip.
                 And from my trencher all my carrots shove? A turnip.
                 Who filled my belly with acid’s yellow smart? A turnip.
                 Marrying grief to pleasure in my burning heart? A very big boiled turnip.

             18. Nat Whilk wrote:
                 > Mr. Crowley, now that you’ve pretended that you’ve always recognized this ghastly sonnet as a mockery,

                 Where do you get THAT from? I realised it was ‘mockery’ a year or two ago. (Btw, once upon a time I was a Strat, and thereby immunised from almost all possibility of poetic appreciation.)

                 Nat Whilk also wrote:
                 > Mr. Crowley: “Raleigh’s poetry was poor, even if (obviously) not this poor. He favoured monosyllables, and strongly emphasised ‘woe’ and other complaints.”

                 Add Sir Walter Ralegh to your very long list of the unread. As a poet, he could scrub floors with Neddy Hedingham. It’s far likelier that this dreadful sonnet was Ralegh mocking Oxford

                 Try to exercise some intelligence. Read the poem. It’s from one courtier to another. (A) Is it more likely to come from one who, is a relative newcomer to court? Or from one who has long been established there?
                 (B) Is it more likely addressed to one who is currently enjoying success (and all the associated rewards, such as wealth) or to one who is in headlong decline? (C ) Is it more likely written from a social inferior to someone of much higher rank, of the other way around? (D) Which courtier was known to paint his face? (E) Which courtier was more likely to ‘thou’ the other? (F) Which courtier was more likely to feel aggrieved at the actions of the other (whether justifiably or not) ? (G) Which courtier was more likely to be seen to ‘strive’? (H) Which poet went on at some length about ‘sighing’, ‘woe’, ‘complaint’, ‘tears’, ‘grief’?

                 I could go on (and on). This is the point where you try to answer my questions OR point out their mistaken nature. Then (in theory) you’d go on to pose some of your own. But we all know your ‘mind’ does not work like that. You simply immediately reach into your deep bag of prejudices. It’s so much easier that way.

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                 Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                 Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                 Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                 Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                 Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                 Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                 Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                 In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                 To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                 With patient mind each passion to endure?
                 In one desire to settle to the end?
                 Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                 As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

                 Nat Whilk also wrote:
                 > But Marlowe was at least worth answering. As a target, Oxford is unworthy.

                 Agreed. Some sense at last. That would, at least, have been Raleigh’s stance. As soon as he started to rise, Oxford began to fall. Raleigh would simply have had no reason to waste his time sending missives to someone in such a pathetic and rapid decline.

                 > And Ralegh’s sonnets move like poetry:

                 Maybe — maybe — Raleigh improved with time, practice, and the assistance of others. Although he never became a serious poet. However, here we are talking about his initial efforts at courtly poetry-writing. This is typical

                 Fortune hath taken thee away, my love,
                 My life’s soul and my soul’s heaven above;
                 Fortune hath taken thee away, my princess;
                 My only light and my true fancy’s mistress.

                 Fortune hath taken all away from me,
                 Fortune hath taken all by taking thee.
                 Dead to all joy, I only live to woe,
                 So fortune now becomes my mortal foe.

                 In vain you eyes, you eyes do waste your tears,
                 In vain you sighs do smoke forth my despairs,
                 In vain you search the earth and heaven above,
                 In vain you search, for fortune rules in love.

                 And another — The Ocean To Cynthia
                 But stay, my thoughts, make end, give fortune way ;
                 Harsh is the voice of woe and sorrow’s sound ;
                 Complaints cure not, and tears do but allay
                 Griefs for a time, which after more abound.

             19. Mr. Crowley: “I could go on (and on).”

                 Oh, you do. You do. If you want to find “meaning” in this string of platitudes, go right ahead.

                 Just tell me: why (in your fantasy world) would Oxford be writing a love lyric to Ralegh? Were they an item?

             20. Nat Whilk wrote:
                 > Mr. Crowley: “I could go on (and on).”
                 Oh, you do. You do.

                 First I want to thank you for your detailed answers to my questions. Your responses were exactly in line with my expectations.

                 Here’s a little trick: one that will not have occurred to you before. Pretend (to yourself) that this is a historical document — one from the Elizabethan court that has recently been found. See what historical information you can extract from it. Who wrote it to whom? When? And why? The range of possible characters is not large. Only a few of the courtiers wrote poetry or, at least, poems that reached print. Very few of them ever had the kind of relationship that would have enabled or allowed the writing of this sonnet.

                 > If you want to find “meaning” in this string of platitudes, go right ahead.

                 Which courtiers would have liked to receive this ‘string of platitudes’? Which would like to have their names attached to it — either as recipients or as authors?

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                 Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                 Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                 Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                 Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                 Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                 Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                 Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                 In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                 To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                 With patient mind each passion to endure?
                 In one desire to settle to the end?
                 Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                 As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

                 > Just tell me: why (in your fantasy world) would Oxford be writing a love lyric to Ralegh? Were they an item?

                 I appreciate that you have a staggering capacity to misread, but this is so far beyond the conceivable, that I am quite flummoxed as to how to respond.

                 They had been close friends (or, at least, that’s what Oxford had believed). But now they were anything but. One thing this poem ain’t, is ‘a love lyric’.

                 The court was thoroughly imbued with the topos of the ‘love lyric’ — centered, of course, on the Queen. And this poem plays on that. But it is, essentially, little more than a dig at Raleigh, at his new-found ‘celebrity’ status, at his ‘love’ for the Queen, and at his appalling poetry (at least in the opinion of the author — and, btw, your own views on the respective merits of each poet have no bearing whatsoever; you weren’t there to express them).

             21. You go ahead and pretend whatever you like. I think you’re safe enough with those crayons.

             22. Nat Whilk wrote:
                 You go ahead and pretend whatever you like. I think you’re safe enough with those crayons.

                 And so Ms Whilk chickens out! She’s not up to making sense of a historical document.

                 But I have not yet got around to saying why this poem is ‘Shakespearean’.

                 Is any other Strat willing to take up the cudgels? OK, I know it’s easier to pick on some Oxfordian newbie — but seriously, guys, you don’t have any credibility if you run away every time an experienced contestant appears on the scene.

                 The historical questions that need answering are:
                 Is this poem by Oxford?
                 Is it exceedingly bad?
                 Is it deliberately bad?
                 Was it written in the voice of Oxford’s rival, Walter Raleigh?
                 If not him, then which other courtier?

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                 Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                 Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                 Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                 Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                 Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                 Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                 Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                 In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                 To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                 With patient mind each passion to endure?
                 In one desire to settle to the end?
                 Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                 As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

             23. Your original premise, that the poem is one written from one courtier to another, is not factual [for that matter, it isn’t even justified by the text], and so your conclusions are mere speculative fantasies. Is this some of your “evidence of a TOTALLY different nature”?

                 Is this poem by Oxford? It appears to be his.

                 Is it exceedingly bad? It is pretty darn bad. It is not worse than some of his other known poetry. He was a decent to middling mid-century versifier among courtier poets, but he couldn’t hold a candle to the commoner poets who came along later, after his time had passed.

                 Is it deliberately bad? Probably not, but there is no way, in this instance, to discern the intention of a person who has been dead for four hundred years. Your belief that you can commune with the dead is just one of the things that make you our own holiday fruitcake.

                 Was it written in the voice of Oxford’s rival, Walter Raleigh? There isn’t anything to indicate that this is so. A parody usually carries in it enough clues to identify its target. This poem contains no such clues to identify it with Raleigh.

                 If not him, then which other courtier? There isn’t any indication that it was meant to parody any courtier at all.

             24. MDHJohnson wrote:
                 > Your original premise, that the poem is one written from one courtier to another, is not factual [for that matter, it isn’t even justified by the text],

                 You accept it was written by a courtier; and he is ‘addressing’ (in some non-standard tone) another person, whom he asks:

                 . . . Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?

                 How can the addressee NOT be a courtier? The answer to the ’question’ in the poem here, as throughout its body, is “the Queen”. She was (in effect) the sole distributor of ‘grace’, and here the poet is also alluding to Raleigh’s occupation of Durham Place, the ancient palace of the Bishops of Durham, “next door“ to the palace of Whitehall, and to estates she had obtained from All Souls College, which she passed on to him.

                 If you can suggest someone else in the kingdom who received ‘grace’ from a person ‘above the rest in court’, please do.

                 That the Queen is intended is obvious from the first line:

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?

                 All courtiers pretended to be in love with the Queen (it was virtually compulsory), but here the poet is merely teasing Raleigh.

                 > and so your conclusions are mere speculative fantasies.

                 If so, you should be able to propose other equally plausible readings that fit both the text and that known facts of history. Please state ONE.

                 > He was a decent to middling mid-century versifier among courtier poets

                 There were (and still are) a fairly small number of basic rules for composing verse (and other texts) that every courtier would have known. One of them is to avoid repeating a word (especially with a different meaning) within a short space. Here the poem goes “ . . sleeps of quiet rest? / Above the rest in court . . “

                 > Is it deliberately bad? Probably not, but there is no way, in this instance, to discern the intention of a person who has been dead for four hundred years.

                 This is one of those strange statements that Strats regularly produce. What else do you think historians do? Pick up any history book, open it at random, and you will find statements (or speculation) about the intentions of the people of the day. Did homo.naledi intend to bury their dead in that cave chamber? Did Bush/Blair expect to find biological weapons in Iraq? There may, or may not, be explicit statements. You may, or may not, believe them. How can you discuss human affairs (in any context) without considering intention?

                 > Your belief that you can commune with the dead is just one of the things that make you our own holiday fruitcake.

                 Weird. Are you not ‘in commune with’ the dead when you attend a Shake-speare play? Or when you read a novel by Tolstoy, Hardy, Mark Twain, Orwell, Waugh . . . etc., etc.?

                 > Was it written in the voice of Oxford’s rival, Walter Raleigh? The re isn’t anything to indicate that this is so. A parody usually carries in it enough clues to identify its target. This poem contains no such clues to identify it with Raleigh.

                 I’ve listed some of the clues. You ignore them. Who else was likely to be the butt of Oxford’s pen? Who else had given him better reason? Who else was of much lower social status? Which other courtier-poet hammered (with monosyllables) the themes of ‘woe’, ‘grief’, ‘complaint’, ‘tears’, ‘sighs’ ?

                 > If not him, then which other courtier? There isn’t any indication that it was meant to parody any courtier at all.

                 Firstly, you are seeking to dodge the question. Secondly, you are implicitly suggesting that extremely bad poetry — that broke every basic rule — was commonly circulated around the Elizabethan court.

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                 Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                 Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                 Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                 Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                 Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                 Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                 Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                 In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                 To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                 With patient mind each passion to endure?
                 In one desire to settle to the end?
                 Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                 As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

             25. >> PC: You accept it was written by a courtier; and he is ‘addressing’ (in some non-standard tone) another person, whom he asks: . . . Above the rest in court who gave thee grace? How can the addressee NOT be a courtier?

                 MJ: You do realize there were women at court, right? And that poems were quite often written to them, right? This particular poem is pretty standard for love poetry of Oxenforde’s time.

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?

                 >> PC: The answer to the ’question’ in the poem here, as throughout its body, is “the Queen”. She was (in effect) the sole distributor of ‘grace’, and here the poet is also alluding to Raleigh’s occupation of Durham Place, the ancient palace of the Bishops of Durham, “next door“ to the palace of Whitehall, and to estates she had obtained from All Souls College, which she passed on to him.

                 MJ: Sorry, but that isn’t THE answer. You ought to hie yourself to the online Lexicons of Early Modern English site where you could attempt to learn all of the then contemporary meanings of the word “grace”. Your insistence that “grace” here refers to a particular dwelling is not suggested by the text itself; it is only through your own insistence that the poem must have been written at a certain time, and that it must have had to do with Raleigh — all extra-textual notions — that you arrive at this moronic conclusion.

                 Again, there is nothing in the poem’s text to suggest that it is directed to Raleigh and that the answer to the questions posed is that the Queen first taught Raleigh [in particular] to sigh, or that she “filled his eyes with tears of bitter smart”, or any of the other things you imagine.

                 >> PC: If you can suggest someone else in the kingdom who received ‘grace’ from a person ‘above the rest in court’, please do.

                 MJ: You don’t read very well. The person doling out the grace is not “above the rest in court”. The person doling out grace is giving it to the addressee more than anyone else in the court.

                 >> PC: If so, you should be able to propose other equally plausible readings that fit both the text and that known facts of history. Please state ONE.

                 MJ: I have already proposed an equally plausible reading that fits the text. This is a love poem from a courtier to an unidentified woman…perhaps Vavasour. [The Vavasour echo poem may be a response]. As for me having to show that the poem fits certain “facts of history” you are showing your lack of understanding as to history. Poems are not necessarily records of historical events. That you believe that they must be such is one of the queer and irrational things about your “appreciation” of poetry.

                 >> PC: This is one of those strange statements that Strats regularly produce. What else do you think historians do? Pick up any history book, open it at random, and you will find statements (or speculation) about the intentions of the people of the day. Did homo.naledi intend to bury their dead in that cave chamber? Did Bush/Blair expect to find biological weapons in Iraq? There may, or may not, be explicit statements. You may, or may not, believe them. How can you discuss human affairs (in any context) without considering intention?

                 MJ: I agree with part of this. Where you go wrong is that you treat your speculations as if we must accept them as facts. You and I can both speculate as to the intentions of people who have been dead for hundreds of years. But that will [in nearly all cases] remain speculation. You don’t seem to accept that fact. There are no explicit statements of intention in this poem, contrary to your assertion.

                 >>> MJ: Was it written in the voice of Oxford’s rival, Walter Raleigh? There isn’t anything to indicate that this is so. A parody usually carries in it enough clues to identify its target. This poem contains no such clues to identify it with Raleigh.

                 >> PC: I’ve listed some of the clues. You ignore them. Who else was likely to be the butt of Oxford’s pen? Who else had given him better reason? Who else was of much lower social status? Which other courtier-poet hammered (with monosyllables) the themes of ‘woe’, ‘grief’, ‘complaint’, ‘tears’, ‘sighs’ ?

                 MJ: Oxford did. As for your other clues, none of them are located within the text and you have completely ignored my point that parodies contain within themselves the clues as to their intended target. You are the only one dodging here. And, of course, your question depends upon your initial premise being a statement of fact. It is not.

             26. MDHJohnson wrote:
                 >> PC: You accept it was written by a courtier; and he is ‘addressing’ (in some non-standard tone) another person, whom he asks: . . . Above the rest in court who gave thee grace? How can the addressee NOT be a courtier?
                 > MJ: You do realize there were women at court, right? And that poems were quite often written to them, right? This particular poem is pretty standard for love poetry of Oxenforde’s time.

                 It is most certainly not standard. It is packed with transparently bad ’poetry’. That needs an explanation. You are trying to dodge that obvious issue.

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?

                 >> PC: The answer to the ’question’ in the poem here, as throughout its body, is “the Queen”. She was (in effect) the sole distributor of ‘grace’, and here the poet is also alluding to Raleigh’s occupation of Durham Place, the ancient palace of the Bishops of Durham, “next door“ to the palace of Whitehall, and to estates she had obtained from All Souls College, which she passed on to him.
                 > MJ: Sorry, but that isn’t THE answer.

                 I did NOT say it was THE answer. If you look, you’ll see an ‘also’ in my text.

                 > You ought to hie yourself to the online Lexicons of Early Modern English site where you could attempt to learn all of the then contemporary meanings of the word “grace”.

                 Read your words again. You are saying nothing (other than “let me dodge, dodge, and dodge again “). WHAT other sense of ‘grace’ might be applicable?

                 > Your insistence that “grace” here refers to a particular dwelling is not suggested by the text itself;

                 I make no such insistence. (Your claim, that I do, is just a dodge.) This is poetry (at least, after a fashion) and multiple meanings lie everywhere.

                 > it is only through your own insistence that the poem must have been written at a certain time, and that it must have had to do with Raleigh — all extra-textual notions –

                 You might have a point — IF you could suggest some other reading. But since you can’t, you don’t have anything to say.

                 > – that you arrive at this moronic conclusion.

                 All I’m saying is that it fits. You are, as ever, saying nothing — and merely dodging.

                 > Again, there is nothing in the poem’s text to suggest that it is directed to Raleigh

                 You have not begun to deal with my arguments. Who else could it possibly be? (Your only suggestion so far has been ‘maybe some woman about the court’).

                 > and that the answer to the questions posed is that the Queen first taught Raleigh [in particular] to sigh, or that she “filled his eyes with tears of bitter smart”, or any of the other things you imagine.

                 Since this is what Raleigh says in his own verse, about his love for his Queen, we can take it at face value (it does not have to be literally true). But the relevant question is: “Who else in the Elizabethan court also qualified — so that Oxford would sarcastically comment on the matter?” Note how you dodge the question.

                 >> PC: If you can suggest someone else in the kingdom who received ‘grace’ from a person ‘above the rest in court’, please do.

                 MJ: You don’t read very well. The person doling out the grace is not “above the rest in court”. The person doling out grace is giving it to the addressee more than anyone else in the court.

                 You’re right on this. It was sloppy interpretation on my part. However, your much better reading makes the question here even more pertinent. Who can the possible addressee be — who got more than anyone else in court — to the annoyance of Oxford? (Note how you dodge the question.)

                 >> PC: If so, you should be able to propose other equally plausible readings that fit both the text and that known facts of history. Please state ONE.
                 > MJ: I have already proposed an equally plausible reading that fits the text. This is a love poem from a courtier to an unidentified woman…perhaps Vavasour. [The Vavasour echo poem may be a response].

                 It’s an absurd notion, if the sonnet was to be taken by a female at court as directed at her. No such woman would admit to ‘sighing’, nor to issuing “woeful words of plaint”. Nor would she “strive in honour to be best”. You might instead say that it was Anne Vavasour who taught Raleigh (or some other courtier) “ . . first to sigh . . etc.”. That would be much better, but still leave basic problems unresolved. There are no poems from Raleigh (nor from any other Elizabethan courtier) complaining how some other woman taught him to sigh, etc., etc. No other woman had the power to make a courtier ‘scorn the world’. And, in fact, Elizabeth is known to have done exactly that with Raleigh.

                 Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
                 Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
                 Who filled your eyes with tears of bitter smart?
                 Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
                 Who first did paint with colors pale thy face?
                 Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
                 Above the rest in court who gave thee grace?
                 Who made thee strive, in honor to be best?
                 In constant truth to bide so firm and sure?
                 To scorn the world, regarding but thy friends?
                 With patient mind each passion to endure?
                 In one desire to settle to the end?
                 Love then thy choice, wherein such choice thou bind
                 As nought but death may ever change thy mind.

                 > As for me having to show that the poem fits certain “facts of history” you are showing your lack of understanding as to history.

                 You misunderstand. You could, of course, claim that this poem was essentially private, and addressed (by Edward De Vere) to ‘some woman about the court’ or some such . . . but then you still have to answer the questions I put above. Btw — a fact you don’t seem to have noticed — this is a historical document, and needs to be treated as such.

                 > Poems are not necessarily records of historical events.

                 A strawman. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

                 > That you believe that they must be such is one of the queer and irrational things about your “appreciation” of poetry.

                 A lie. (And part of your dodging.) Oxford may have written a lot of ‘sweet nothingness’ poems. But they would not have got into print. Even if they had, I would not be discussing them, because there would be nothing to say.

                 As it happens, Oxford was a major participant in the Elizabethan court during its full glory, when most poems of the day were ‘public’ in the sense that we know the characters involved, their relations, actions, traits, misdemeanours, etc. So it’s not hard to ‘de-code’ their meaning. (But you are determined not to face up to any question.)

                 > You and I can both speculate as to the intentions of people who have been dead for hundreds of years. But that will [in nearly all cases] remain speculation. You don’t seem to accept that fact.

                 This ‘criticism’ can be directed at any historical work. In fact, something close can be directed at any lawyer presenting any case in any court. There is ALWAYS room for doubt. Sometimes not much; sometimes a lot. You can’t dodge the need to make decisions by this kind of childish sophistry. But you will — when you don’t like the way the argument is going. “Dodge, dodge, and dodge again” is your motto.

                 > There are no explicit statements of intention in this poem, contrary to your assertion.

                 When have I ever asserted such? It’s poetry. Here, it’s exceedingly bad poetry. You can ignore that fact, or you can try to deal with it. (But you will, as always, dodge.)

                 >>> MJ: Was it written in the voice of Oxford’s rival, Walter Raleigh? There isn’t anything to indicate that this is so. A parody usually carries in it enough clues to identify its target. This poem contains no such clues to identify it with Raleigh.

                 >> PC: I’ve listed some of the clues. You ignore them. Who else was likely to be the butt of Oxford’s pen? Who else had given him better reason? Who else was of much lower social status? Which other courtier-poet hammered (with monosyllables) the themes of ‘woe’, ‘grief’, ‘complaint’, ‘tears’, ‘sighs’ ?

                 > MJ: Oxford did.

                 Firstly, this is simply not true. (There is nothing on such themes that you can quote from the tiny amount of verse reliably attributed to him.) Secondly, even if there were, how could it be relevant? No one suggests that Oxford is addressing this sonnet to himself. (Dodge, dodge, and dodge again.)

                 > As for your other clues, none of them are located within the text

                 So what? Are we required to ignore all history when discussing the meaning of an historical document? Dodge, dodge, and dodge again.

                 > and you have completely ignored my point that parodies contain within themselves the clues as to their intended target.

                 Above, you dodged the internal clues I outlined — giving a nonsense answer. To repeat: Which other courtier-poet hammered (with monosyllables) the themes of ‘woe’, ‘grief’, ‘complaint’, ‘tears’, ‘sighs’ ? (Dodge, dodge, and dodge again.)

                 > You are the only one dodging here. And, of course, your question depends upon your initial premise being a statement of fact. It is not.

                 It was the setting out of an hypothesis. Any excuse not to answer. Dodge, dodge, and dodge again

             27. Crowley’s “appreciation” of poetry can best be evidenced by his claim that the “darling buds of May” refers to the breasts of Mary Queen of Scots, blowing in the wind as she rode her horse. And the poor sot sincerely believes that his interpretation is factual.

                 His “appreciation” for poetry can also be reviewed in full at HLAS in a thread entitled ‘The Story of the Ray Mignot Sonnet’…

                 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/-UbyRG5XXMM/EB80qSW47TEJ

             28. Mr. Crowley, now that you’ve pretended that you’ve always recognized this ghastly sonnet as a mockery, how do you square that with your repeated assertions?

                 “But one poem I would definitely ascribe to Oxford is below. In fact,
                 I’d say that there was no one else who could have written it. … This poem has some highly specific ‘Shakespearean qualities’.”

             29. I was going to turn this back on Paul with one of the sonnets with a series of rhetorical questions which build into a conceit and see if he could spot the difference. Now you’ve gone and ruined it.

             30. Apologies. He wouldn’t understand what you were driving at; he won’t understand I’ve just said either.

             31. I do like ‘extruded sonnet product’ though. “Certified free of figurative language and heightened forms of expression”.

       2. Thanks Mr. Hackman, for your comments. Actually just to clarify: I’m not saying the events of the Elizabethan era are not knowable to us: only that in this case, the comparatively small and private act of authorship is far less “documentable” than larger historical events, which are themselves also controversial. I’m not arguing from ignorance, or from a view of historical relativity such that nothing can be proven, only that we must be aware of the contingency of the available evidence and the provisional basis of our claims. The direct evidence for the Shakespeare of tradition is thin and posthumous, and for the better part of 200 years has failed to convince many people; those doubts are never going to go away unless something new is discovered, so that’s a problem that your side is going to need to come to terms with. The problem for my side is that the evidence for Oxford is circumstantial and must struggle against 400 years of tradition. History has not done either of our “Shakespeares” any favours.

          Also, you’re right, my feelings are not evidence, and are besides the point to anyone but myself — I only offered that as explanation for my preference for the Oxfordian view.

          Best,
          Michael

          1. > The direct evidence for the Shakespeare of tradition is . . . posthumous

             You keep saying that as if it were true, when you have been shown that it is not the case at all. Once again, what do you make of those contemporary literary references to “Master” (Mr) William Shakespeare in the
             Stationers Registry entries and poem titles most certainly refer to the
             armiguous gentleman from Stratford, as confirmed by records of the
             College of Arms? The identifying title was included in many contemporary
             literary references to Shakespeare. What is your explanation for those?

             1. Perhaps this might be the explanation:

                “”That all the evidence for your candidate (excluding title pages) is non-literary and posthumous should, I think, be seen as a problem. If your side could produce actual literary-related records (recording payment for writing plays, correspondence, testimony from his lifetime linking him to playwriting) THEN THERE WOULDN’T BE AN AUTHORSHIP PROBLEM.” — Michael Dudley {emphasis supplied}

             2. But as I pointed out, all the evidence is NOT non-literary or posthumous. Perhaps he just has trouble dealing with concrete reality. Or perhaps he’s just refusing to answer me out of some Oxfordian principle. In any case, he has quit the field. I doubt he’ll be back after the holidays. If I were him I wouldn’t come back. Oxfordians can’t handle real debate.

             3. My point was that admitting that “all the evidence is NOT non-literary or posthumous” would, in turn, mean admitting that there actually isn’t an authorship problem. I don’t think that Oxfordians are capable of making that admission. That said, I give Mr. Dudley more credit than the rest of that bunch for sticking around as long as he has, even if he isn’t answering the most significant questions posed to him.

             4. What non-posthumous evidence do you think exists? The ones you mentioned above are certainly not evidence for the man from Stratford, they are mainly references to Shake-speare the author, possible a pseudonym or possibly any other William Shake-speare around at the time…

             5. They are contemporary references to “Mr. William Shakespeare, Gent.”, which could only be one William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, or do you know of another William Shakespeare of that time and place who was entitled to be addressed with that honorific and was accorded the status of a gentleman, as a consequence of the grant of a coat of arms to his father. The honorific and status specifically and uniquely identify William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author and the references are not posthumous [although, even if they were, that would mean absolutely zero as to their qualification as evidence supporting the attribution of the works to Shakespeare of Stratford]. I realize that Oxenfordxians don’t like the facts, but trying to summarily dismiss them, as you do here, only serves to show the denialism at the heart of your argument.

             6. Let’s narrow this down. How many of these references with the word ‘gent’ also refer to him as a playwright? Shakespeare, the author, usually styled himself simply ‘William Shake-speare.’

                Oxford was also a gentleman, and I see no reason why he should not be referred to as such on one or two occasions along with his pseudonym, but usually this was not the case.

                Remember Richard Brome referred to Shake-speare as an ‘earl.’ What do you make of that, since you are so keen on titles? Shakspere certainly wasn’t an earl. Oxford, on the other hand, was both an earl and a gentleman.

             7. cc: “How many of these references with the word ‘gent’ also refer to him as a playwright?”

                Either “Mr” or “gent” refers to Shakespeare’s status as a gentleman. There are quite a few title-pages on which the author is “Mr.”; as well as manuscript copies of William Basse’s elegy, some of which add other biographical infomration: “On Mr Willm. Shakespeare who dyed in April 1616 ” or “bury’d att Stratford vpon Avon, his Town of Nativity.”

                cc: “Shakespeare, the author, usually styled himself simply ‘William Shake-speare.'”

                Balderdash. Far and away the most common form of the name, in both literary and non-literary contexts is “Shakespeare.”

                http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html

                cc: “Oxford was also a gentleman…”

                Oxford was no gentleman.

                cc: “…along with his pseudonym.”

                Allonym. One of the stupidest of all Oxfordian ideas. If Oxford had wanted to write plays without disclosing his identity, all he had to do was give them to one of his companies to act, and not sign them. Using someone else’s name—above all, using the name of an actor who performed these plays on the common stage—would have been idiotic. If you’re afraid of being arrested for political satire, you don’t call yourself “Stephen Colbert.”

                cc: “Remember Richard Brome referred to Shake-speare as an ‘earl.'”

                He did not. In the Antipodes, Letoy speaks of “that English Earl / That loved a Play and Player so well.” He is clearly alluding to a consumer of plays, not a creator: a patron, Most editors identify him as the Earl of Leceister.

             8. 1/ Ok… if you seriously think this reference was not referring to Shakespeare as an earl you are really deluding yourself. It says ‘that earl’ clearly referring to Shakespeare in the previous line. Why would he say ‘that’ if it was some other earl.

                Here is the quote:

                ‘I tell thee,These lads can act the emperor’s lives all over
                And Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;
                And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                I would not be outvied in my delights.’

                2/ Gentleman was also a general term for noble or anyone who had distinguished themselves, such as Shakespeare the author. Also please can you inform me of when ‘Mr’ became common for everyone. I cannot find that information, but you also haven’t provided it although it is key to your argument.

             9. > I tell thee,These lads can act the emperor’s lives all over
                And Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;

                “My players can act the emperor’s lives (such as Marlowe’s *Tamburlaine*) and Shakespeare’s histories as well.”

                > And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                I would not be outvied in my delights.’

                And even if Caesar were alive or if that English earl who loved plays and players were still alive, I would not be outdone by them.

             10. So who on earth in your opinion is ‘that’ Caesar and ‘that’ english earl???? The ‘that’ s clearly show that he is referring to someone he has mentioned before. The emperor is Caesar and Shakespeare is the English earl… If not, what the hell is he talking about!?

             11. Letoy, himself a patron of players who can perform Shakespeare, is comparing himself to great patrons of long ago, to that Caesar that loved a play or that English earl that loved a play. If either that Caesar or that earl were alive, Letoy would not be outdone by them.

             12. Clearly we are not going to agree on the interpretation of this passage. To me it is pretty clear that the use of ‘that’ in the third line, as well as the semicolon connecting the sentence to the previous one, links the ’emperor’ to ‘Caesar,’ which obviously makes perfect sense, and then ‘Shakespeare’ to the ‘English earl who loved a play and a player.’

                 Anyway, I will leave this particular anecdote as another piece of evidence. I agree, no proof yet. But the evidence is mounting.

             13. Avon Lady, if you want to tow the Stratfordian line on this one, read how Hackman explains the Brome passage above. Classic!

             14. > So who on earth in your opinion is ‘that’ Caesar and ‘that’ english earl????

                 The ones who loved a play and players.

                 > The ‘that’ s clearly show that he is referring to someone he has mentioned before.

                 You need to study English grammar. You have only a vague notion of it, and it is wrong.

                 > The emperor is Caesar and Shakespeare is the English earl…

                 No, the emperor is most likely Tamburlaine, though I suppose it could conceivably be Octavius, though Antony and Cleopatra certainly is not an “emperors’ lives” play. Titus is fiction, and Julius Caesar wasn’t an emperor, and I’m not aware of any Elizabethan play about Caesar Augustus, do you?

                 > If not, what the hell is he talking about!?

                 I’ve already explained it once, and others have tried to explain it to you, but apparently your comprehension is deficient.

             15. I know the earl loved a play and a player but WHO IS THE EARL? That is my question. It is my opinion that the earl is Shakespeare. Who are you saying the earl is?

             16. It really makes no difference who the earl is, since the sentence construction does not support your idea that Shakespeare and the earl are one.

                 You seem to have some basic cognitive difficulties. I suggest that you enroll in a few courses on logic and English

                 grammar at your local community college.

             17. Do you have to be repeatedly mean to me? Stop being a bully! I don’t have ‘cognitive difficulties,’ that’s just insulting and totally ignoring the actual argument. I am actually a human being behind this computer screen, and I am trying to express the research I have done and the interesting findings I have come up with. I am excited about this topic and enjoying a lively debate. Calling me names is really unnecessary and above all it reveals that your argument is weak.

                 We have interpreted the passage differently. I see that it makes perfect sense for the ’emperor’ and ‘that Caesar’ to be referring to each other, and ditto then for the earl and Shakespeare. You somehow think that ‘that Caesar’ and the ‘that earl’ actually refer to nothing that came before and are completely out of the blue, in spite of the use of ‘that,’ leaving the reader to guess what on earth is going on.

                 This is one minor point. I have made a load of other points you choose to ignore because you have no response. Your tactic is clearly to bully and pick on one argument which you perceive to be the weakest, totally ignoring the whole picture.

             18. You’ve given us all some good laughs, in turn I gave you some good advice. You are out of your league, and you would benefit from some basic education. Call that what you will, your distorted “interpretations” are nonsensical to any but convinced anti-Stratfordians. If that is who you choose to lie down with, don’t be surprised at how people react to your nonsense.

             19. I really badly don’t want to resort to your level of arguing. You are just using ad hominems and not addressing any of my points except the minor ones you perceive to be the weakest, and even then you have to resort to ad hominems by the end of it. It does make me quite upset and angry if I’m honest. This is a fascinating unanswered debate not a children’s playground. I am also a person. You are being rude to me. You are picking on me. You don’t even know me. You have no idea how educated I am, and it has nothing to do with the argument.

                 The simple fact of the matter is: There is little evidence for the Stratford man. The evidence you provided on this page has been refuted (the acting argument and the titles argument). There is more for Oxford.

             20. > I really badly don’t want to resort to your level of arguing.

                 Don’t worry, you never will. My “level of arguing” utilizes actual evidence and logic.

                 > You have no idea how educated I am,

                 Oh, I’ve got a pretty good idea.

             21. I have explained to you that your ‘level of arguing’ uses ad hominems, straw men and a whole host of other logical fallacies.

                 And please, do tell me how you think you know about my education?

             22. I have an idea how polite you are, Tom. I consider you to be unbearable. I wish you’d find another pursuit.

             23. Your rudeness is quite boring, Tom.

             24. Boring is your repeated refrain here about rudeness, but thanks, Miss Manners. fwiw, I’ve seen some rather rude comments from you before in other threads. Double standard?

             25. What does gender have to do with this? I swear, this topic is poisoned by people such as Tom Reedy, who actually has some worthwhile points to consider.

             26. Nothing that I know of.

                 We should all swear off rude comments.

             27. Poor cc whines, “Do you have to be repeatedly mean to me? Stop being a bully! I don’t have ‘cognitive difficulties,’ that’s just insulting and totally ignoring the actual argument.”

                 I’m sorry, but you simply have no clue what Brome meant. And your efforts are, indeed, laughable.

                 But I know why. You are trying desperately to turn this brief passage in evidence for Oxford, because like any good little Oxie, if there’s a mention of Shakespeare, then there must be a hidden meaning, a clue for Oxford, or a snark against Shakespeare. Like Pavlov’s dog, you’ve become conditioned to do this.

                 Now if you’d just stop trying to force an Oxfordian reading on the lines, and simply take them for what they say, you would not come off nearly as stupid as you appear.

                 And notice, I said “appear.” You are NOT stupid. You would not be here writing up a storm like this if you weren’t a pretty smart lad (or lass).

                 And as I complemented Mr Dudley earlier, you’re showing more than a little courage, continuing to hang in here when your outnumbered (and embarrassingly wrong).

                 So, stop drinking the Oxie Kool Aid and start thinking for yourself.

                 You can do it!

             28. Thank you for sticking up for me here, although it was a rather backhanded compliment.

                 Please tell me who you think that Caesar and that earl are then? It seems obvious to me that they are referring to the previous ’emperor’ and ‘Shakespeare.’ If you think they are not, it would be better to offer an alternative solution, rather than just tell me mine is wrong.

             29. cc,

                 You’re welcome. Sorta. =O)

                 There isn’t a hidden meaning here. “that Caesar” and “that earl” are precisely what the poem says they are, functioning as courtly comparisons for Letoy to measure his troupe against..

                 First you have to understand what the poem means, what the character Letoy is saying, and the context in which he is speaking. (The play is available on line. Read Act I, it’s goes very quickly.)

                 Letoy is simply bragging to another character about his household troupe.

                 1- My guys can act anything.

                 2- Even if Caesar, or one of the more recent earls, were “that” they still be alive today, they would get no more enjoyment from their actors than I get from mine.

                 That’s it. There’s nothing fancy going on here. The “that’s are NOT pronouns that require antecedents. At risk of getting too far down in the gramactical weeds, the “that’s are used to introduce a conditional statement, something that is contrary to fact, a hypothetical, in this case, that Caesar, or those bygone earls from Elizabethan era, were still alive, when, of course, they aren’t.

                 Like this construct, “Oh that I were a millionaire.” No antecedent. No way you can force “that Earl” to be Shakespeare.

                 As I said before, you’re bringing a ton of Oxie baggage to your reading. As an Oxfordian, when you see “Shakespeare,” something clicks in your brain, and you go into clue mode. You ignore the rules of grammar and syntax, you ignore context, and above all plain meaning must be tossed as stuff for Average Joes who are aren’t sharp enough to grasp the great truth of the grand conspiracy that drove Oxford into forced anonymity.

                 Bottom Line: Read the book. Understand the context. Don’t go looking for hidden meanings. Resist the temptation.

                 Now try this as you re-read Jonson’s elegy. Don’t regurgitate the Oxfordian line. Listen to MDF Johnson, he knows his business.

                 You might even want to try this site. They give a clean explanation of a tough poem. Jonson is demanding, precise, intent on rendering to Shakespeare only just praise. Jonson absolutely does not want to be seen as overdoing it, which is why he takes 16 line to carefully qualify the high praise that is offered in the rest of the poem.

                 http://www.shmoop.com/to-the-memory-of-my-beloved/lines-1-10-summary.html

                 Be open-minded. Put down the baggage for few minutes.

             30. It’s not a poem. Your analysis is crass.

             31. I’m not suggesting any ‘hidden meaning.’ I’m suggesting that the meaning is very obvious.

                 You for some reason don’t see it and want to separate the first part about the ’emperor’ and ‘Shakespeare’ completely from the rest of the sentence about ‘Caesar’ and the ‘earl.’ In order to do this you have to ignore the fact that this is one long sentence, turn the semicolon into a full-stop, somehow forget about the ‘and’ which again connects the two parts of the sentence, imagine that the word ‘that’ is a) plural, according to you, and b) an introduction to some conditional clause (which for some reason inexplicably has to occur twice in one line, both times before a noun), when the word ‘that’ is clearly acting as a simple demonstrable adjective in this case. You also have to imagine that ‘that Caesar’ and ‘that earl’ are not actually specific people but as you call them ‘courtly comparisons.’ You turn ‘that earl’ into ‘one of the more recent earls’ when paraphrasing the sentence in an attempt to ignore the blatant fact that the sentence is referring to a specific earl.

                 This is all very far-fetched. The sentence is extremely simple. Stop overcomplicating it, remember that you are an English speaker who understands the English language. Look at it one more time, breathe deeply, and try to understand the sentence without muddling it all up.

             32. “You also have to imagine that ‘that Caesar’ and ‘that earl’ are not
                 actually specific people but as you call them ‘courtly comparisons’.”

                 Not so.

                 You misread even what I wrote.

                 Both “that Caesar” and “that earl” (though the latter not specified by name) are very real people, people who were powerful/prominent/wealthy enough to maintain actors. And even if they were alive today, Letoy says he would derive far more enjoyment from his troupe than they from theirs.

                 You should also note that a semi-colon generally separates independent clauses, as is the case here. The first two lines express one thought and can stand alone as a sentence. The next three line express a different thought, and can also stand alone as a sentence.

                 Granted, the conceits are related, since both are part of Letoy’s plug for his household actors. But the plugs are very different, the first, my guys can act anything, then second, nobody has ever enjoyed their personal actors more than me.

                 But I promised to cease and desist, so I will.

                 So we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

                 Cheers!

             33. Hackman said:’ At risk of getting too far down in the gramactical weeds, the “that”s are used to introduce a conditional statement, something that is contrary to fact, a hypothetical’ – this is so blatantly wrong it’s quite embarrassing.

                 Are you still going to try to pretend that ‘that’ is introducing a hypothetical clause? Can you not now see that both the ‘that’s’ are acting as demonstrative adjectives? The other points I have added are just extra clues that this is the case. However,, you shouldn’t really need that. it is obvious enough as it is.

             34. Oh dear, Hackers, you really have tied yourself in nots this time! Game set and match to cc!

             35. “Oh dear, Hackers, you really have tied yourself in nots this time!” Good proofreading, there, Al. What a twit.

             36. Are you the proofreading police?

                 Do you have any opinions on Hackman’s blatant errors above and on this fascinating debate, or are you only interested in typos?

             37. Mr. Waugh is a noted pedant, who elsewhere in this thread devoted several posts to attacking another poster’s typographical error. I was certain he would appreciate having his own failures pointed out.

             38. Alright, now that you’ve enjoyed using a ‘tu quoque’ argument, do you care to offer any opinions on Hackman’s bizarre interpretation of the word ‘that’?

             39. You continue to have cognitive difficulties, I’m afraid. I am not commenting on your discussion with Mr. Hackman. I’m commenting on Waugh. Your attempts to dispute Mr. Hackman are of no interest to me.

             40. Ok, good. I thought you didn’t have any way to stick up for him. He has made a terrible fool of himself.

                 This ‘cognitive difficulties’ thing keeps coming back every time one of your team is on the back foot. It’s doesn’t do anything to advance your arguments. I wouldn’t bother with it any more if I were you.

             41. “He has made a terrible fool of himself.”

                 ad hominem. . .

             42. I was just describing what happened in the thread above. Hackman completely misinterpreted the word ‘that’ in a very simple sentence.

             43. In your cups early today, Alexander?

             44. cc,

                 Perhaps the Earl of Leicester, who formed a troupe from members of his household (like Letoy’s), which thus became one of the earliest organized Elizabethan companies (1572). The company was a favorite of the QE and was even granted a royal patent. Burbage got his start here. Merged with Lord Strange’s Men upon Leicester’s death in 1588.

                 Or Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, later 5th Earl of Derby, who likewise organized a troupe from retainers in his household. (Actually a continuation of company formed by his father in early 1570s.)

                 Or Lord Howard, 1st Earl of Nottingham. His troupe formed in1576, becoming Admiral’s Men in 1585. Edward Alleyn got his start here.

                 Or even Oxford.

                 Doesn’t really matter which one.

             45. Good! Now if you read the sentence carefully and stop pretending that ‘that’ is plural and semi-colons are full-stops, you can understand that the sentence is telling us that one of the earls you have just listed (or another Earl who loved plays) is ‘Shakespeare’ – which one do you think is most likely? Oxford?

                 Also, are you telling me that the ’emperor’ and ‘that Caesar’ have nothing to do with each other, even though they mean almost exactly the same thing and appear in the same sentence?

             46. cc,

                 You say, “Stop pretending that ‘that’ is plural and semi-colons are full-stops.”

                 You’re wrong. “That” is singular, “Those” is plural. All day. Every day. Everywhere. Even in Oxfordia.

                 Which means “that Caesar” is singular. And “that English earl” is singular.

                 [passage inserted for easy reference]

                 “I tell thee, These lads can act the emperor’s lives all over
                 And Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;
                 And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                 That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                 I would not be outvied in my delights.”

                 Now I’ll agree that a semi-colon is not a “full stop,” but it does generally separate independent clauses, as is case here where Letoy has praised his troupe two ways:

                 1- they can act anything, from ancient emperors to English kings, and

                 2- they give me more pleasure than any other troupe, from antiquity to the present, has brought their master.

                 So ideas are related, but not the same, as much as you demand that they are linked equivalents, just so you can claim that “emperor’s lives” and “Shakespeare’s chronicled histories” are antecedents to “that Caesar” and “that English Earl.”

                 Two obvious problems, among others:

                 First, your proposed antecedents are plural (“emperor’s lives” and “Shakespeare’s chronicled histories”), while “that Caesar” and “that English earl” are singular.

                 Antecedents must agree in number. A basic rule of grammar that poets, grounded in Latin, would never violate. Not even to transmit clues. =O)

                 Second, the antecedents are a syntactical mismatch. The “emperor’s lives” and “Shakespeare’s chronicled histories” are two types of plays, or groupings of plays, and thus can’t serve as antecedents to individual persons. Is Caesar a type of play? Is an English earl a type of history play?

                 Grammar. Syntax. They can’t be ignored just so you can extract an Oxfordian clue from Brome’s play

             47. Excellent! You admit that ‘that’ is singular and that a semi-colon is not a full stop! You are slowly learning the basic rules of grammar. However the rest of your post is not much better than the last one where you tried to pretend that ‘that’ was introducing a ‘hypothetical’ clause.

                 You’ve already made a great fool out of yourself but now you are actually trying to continue!

                 You say: “First, your proposed antecedents are plural (“emperor’s lives” and “Shakespeare’s chronicled histories”), while “that Caesar” and “that English earl” are singular.”

                 The ’emperor’ and ‘Shakespeare’ are both SINGULAR, they are my proposed antecedents. The fact that ‘histories’ and ‘lives’ are plural is totally irrelevant.

                 ‘that Caesar’ whoever he was, was an emperor. He was both a Caesar and an emperor. That is the point I am making. It is therefore totally logical that the two words are related in the sentence.

                 You are really overcomplicating this. Just read the sentence! It is very clear what it means. Stop trying to separate the two parts of the sentence by reinventing the rules of grammar. No-one is going to fall for that.

             48. cc,

                 They were hypotheticals, i.e., conditional, contrary to fact, as “that Caesar” and “that English earl are NOT alive.

                 And ’emperor’ and ‘Shakespeare’ are possessives, you conveniently dropped the ‘s. They function as modifiers describing the types of plays acted by Letoy’s troupe.

                 As I said earlier, we just need to agree to disagree and disengage.

                 Toodles!

             49. It’s very amusing that Stratfordians are now resorting to re-inventing the rules of English grammar to try to argue their point.

                 The ‘thats’ were not introducing the hypothetical clause as you claimed. Yes there was a hypothetical clause introduced by ‘were,’ but the ‘thats’ were acting as demonstrative adjectives.

                 There is no such rule which suggests that a possessive noun cannot be referred to again in the second half of a sentence. First you claim that Shakespeare is plural, now you are inventing grammar rules, which do not exist.

                 Here is an example of a similar sentence: ‘My mum’s pastry is delicious; that woman cooks very well.’ Who do you think ‘that woman’ refers to in this sentence?

                 I’m really sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about on this subject. I am being very patient with you, but grammar is clearly not your strong point.

             50. cc,

                 The “that”s do introduce hypotheticals. That’s all I said. I never indicated what part of speech they were, though you are correct, they function as demonstrative adjectives. IIRC, I called them “pointers,” which is the same thing in non-grammatical parlance.

                 Now you’re example is very clever, but the two clauses are tied together very tightly, since the second refers specifically to mum’s pastry in the first.

                 That’s not the case with Letoy. 1st clause, two groups of plays. 2nd clause, two nobleman (a Caesar and an Earl) who had players. Not same.

                 So, again, let’s just agree to disagree.

             51. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to ‘agree to disagree’ on something that is blatantly wrong!

                 The ‘thats’ most certainly do not introduce a hypothetical ‘statement’, as you put it above. That is not at all their function. Their function is demonstrative. It is the ‘were’ that introduces the hypothetical clause.

                 You have even misunderstood my simple sentence, no wonder you cannot understand the play in question! The second half does not ‘specifically refer to mum’s PASTRY’ as you put it… it specifically refers to MUM, not her pastry!! This is the same with the sentence in question, the second half is NOT referring to the ‘histories’ or ‘lives’ since these are PLURAL words. The second half is referring to the ’emperor’ and ‘Shakespeare’, which like ‘mum’ in the sentence I created are SINGULAR possessive nouns.

                 I will elongate the sentence for you if you like and make it more similar to the one in question:

                 “The boys love Sarah’s homemade brownies and her chocolate cakes; that woman certainly cooks better than any other woman in England.”

                 Do you think ‘that woman’ in my sentence refers to:

                 a) Sarah
                 b) Homemade brownies
                 c) Any other woman but Sarah
                 d) A large group of women
                 e) A ‘courtly comparison’

                 I would you to answer simply with the letter that you believe to be the correct answer.

             52. f) Your inability to understand grammar amounts to a neurological impairment.

             53. Actually, the answer is a) as Hackman has agreed. Perhaps you think he has a ‘neurological impairment’ as well?

             54. cc,

                 Seems that even when we agree, you still take issue.

                 We agree the “that”s are demonstrative, as you put it. Much earlier in our discussion I labeled them “pointers.”

                 And they begin a conditional statement, which we also agree on, where the cue is “were,” using past tense to indicate present conditional.

                 And I agree that the ’emperor’ and ‘Shakespeare’ are both SINGULAR [albeit possessives].

                 And in the example with mum’s pastries, you’re right, in the second clause, “that woman” refers to “mum,” not her pastries. Which makes the answer to your little quiz “a.”

                 But while your example with mum’s pastries does show that a possessive could be an antecedent, it actually doesn’t mimic the structure of the lines from Brome very well. Rather, you’ve set up a very clever, but false, equivalency, by ensuring an absolute, and obvious, linkage between “mum’s ——” and “that women, “ between the first clause and the second.

                 Instead, let’s try this example:

                 I tell you what, these lads who are the Nationals’ right fielder
                 And the Dodgers’ center fielder, are the best in baseball today;
                 And were that Babe Ruth, or that Willie Mays,
                 That caught every ball hit his way, now living,
                 I would not be outvied in my delights.

                 This construct is a much better match for Detoy’s lines, right down to the twin possessives in the first clause and the two “that”s in the second clause.

                 It’s impossible to interpret the sentence to mean that the historic greats of baseball are actually the Nationals’ right fielder or Dodgers’ center fielder of today, much less Bryce Harper or Mike Trout, respectively.

                 Our disagreement seems to hinge on what the dreaded “that”s point to. We agree they function as “demonstrative
                 adjectives.” But not what they demonstrate.

                 I think they point forward to the conditional that was established by the immediately preceding “were.” In other
                 words, they point to Caesar and the English earl in THIS clause, NOT back to the previous clause, which seems to be where see them pointing.

                 Thus, IMHO, the “that”s point to the conditional, “were that Caesar, or that English earl . . . now living.” But they aren’t, which is why the conditional was used.

                 I also see that way back, Nat Wilk posted this:

                 “That English earl that loved a play and player” is the same construction as “that man that is not passion’s slave.”
                 “That” here does not refer to someone who’s just been named, but to someone about to be defined. What man? That man that is not passions’s slave. What earl? That earl that loved a play. To be technical, this =that= is the OED’s usage 3a.”

                 This seems to be precisely what’s happening here. The “that”s point forward Caesar and the English Earl, NOT back to antecedents in the first clause, as you propose.

                 You can have the last word now. Really. And we don’t even have to agree to disagree. We can just disagree.

                 But I’d be happy to keep continue on with the Southampton dedication, or Basse, or Jonson’s FF poem, or Parnassus, or even revisit the “Mr” Shakespeare business that I haven’t read through yet.

                 Back to you. For the last word. Promise.

                 Cheers!

             55. BCH: “The ‘that’s point forward [to] Caesar and the English Earl, NOT back to antecedents in the first clause, as you propose.”

                 Yes. Your “pointing forward” translates the OED’s more formal “serving for introduction or anticipation of the relative clause, which completes the description.” A solid hit.

             56. Hi Avon lady!

                 What is to stop the earl referring both to Shakespeare and also to ‘that loved a play and a player’?

                 I still find it very odd that you are adamant that ‘that Caesar’ and the emperor have nothing at all to do with each other, when though they mean almost exactly the same thing and appear in the same sentence.

             57. Your sentence is much less apt than mine, for the simple reason that ‘Babe Ruth’ and ‘Willie Mays’ are actual people, so there is no confusion as to who they might be, and also because there is no singular noun in the first part of the sentence to which they might refer.

                 On the other hand, if Caesar does not refer to the emperor in Brome’s example, it would be very odd, and we would be left asking: Who is this Caesar and Italian earl.

                 The ‘thats’ can refer both forward and backwards/ Personally I think that ‘that Caesar’ only refers back, and ‘that earl’ refers to both. I don’t expect the Caesar also loved a play and players. He was the subject of the play in the first part.

             58. The ineducable cc perseverates in his belief that he knows grammar.

                 He does not. He thinks that Brome’s “that” is a simple demonstrative (OED B.1.a). It is not. It’s OED B.3.a., “definitive rather than demonstrative, serving for introduction or anticipation of the relative clause, which completes the description”: the relative clause here being “That loved a play and players so well.”

                 “My mum’s pastry is delicious; that woman cooks very well” is =nothing= like Brome’s sentence. A parallel use of his “that” would be:

                 My cook makes good pastry; that person that loves pies would envy me.

                 Please note that “that person that loves pies” is not himself a slice of pastry. Letoy is boasting of his wonderful servants: not even the greatest of patrons had better players at his beck and call. “That English earl” is not Shakespeare, but someone who enjoyed (and could command) players like Shakespeaew.

                 Let’s try a longer example.

                 My dressmaker can copy Chanel’s designs; and were that princess that loved fashion so well now living, I would not be outdressed.

                 “That princess” might be Grace Kelly, but she’s clearly not Chanel: she wore her designs. “That English earl” is clearly not Shakespeare: he loved hearing his plays.

                 These lads can act the emperor’s lives all over
                 And Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;
                 And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                 That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                 I would not be outvied in my delights.

                 I am being supernaturally patient with you, cc, but you are absolutely and abysmally ignorant of grammar.

             59. It is perfectly possible for ‘that English earl’ to refer to both ‘Shakespeare’ and ‘that loved a play and a player’ AT THE SAME TIME. There is no rule which states that that it cannot refer to both.

                 You still have not explained why, according to you, ‘that Caesar’ and ‘that English earl’ are suddenly thrown into the sentence with no explanation as to which English earl and which Caesar are being spoken about. This makes no sense in the context. It makes simple sense to understand that they are referring to the ’emperor’ and playwright of the sentence. This does not mean that the ‘earl’ does not also ‘love a play and a player,’ as we know Shakespeare did.

                 As to your convoluted example: either 1/ The princess is the dressmaker (a charming fairytale) or 2/ the princess is Chanel (Chanel can wear her own designs) or 3/ you’ve simply introduced a completely random princess with no sense or explanation, leading naturally to the question: Who is the princess?

                 If the answer is 3/ a random princess, then your sentence is nonsensical. Similarly, if the ‘earl’ and ‘Caesar’ refer to absolutely nothing else in the sentence, that too is nonsensical. We are left asking: who on earth is this earl? and why is Caesar suddenly being mentioned? Two questions which you so far have failed to answer.

                 The simple truth is too painful for your Stratfordian sensibilities.

             60. Wow! cc you thoroughly turned Dinner-Jacket Man over that time!

             61. Classic rudeness~~~ very predictable.

             62. another rude posting by Tom Reedy, how unique.

             63. Brave man, Dimmy, but are you sure you want to compete with cc on logic and English? – not your strongest suits!

             64. cc,

                 Tom’s reading of“Antipodes” is, as always, spot on.

                 Letoy, an eccentric nobleman, is speaking proudly about his household troupe of amateur actors. He boasts even if they were alive now, Caesar (Julius or others) or an English Earl who loved plays and maintained players (many did besides Oxford), LeToy would not be “outvied in my delights,” i.e., none of them would get more enjoyment than Letoy receives from his troupe.

                 That’s all there is to it. Letoy is simply drawing a comparison, first to the courts of antiquity, then to the courts of more recent times, and that none of them would better his.

                 Rather straightforward actually, so long as you don’t get all tangled up in knots trying to twist the text to mean something that supports Oxfordian theory.

                 As far as the ”that”s that vex you so, they are not pronouns with antecedents, as you apparently think. Rather, they function as rhetorical pointers, as in “Do you know who that is over there?” Or “That’s a fine kettle of fish.” No antecedents needed.

                 More to the point, the first two lines you cited (Act I,ii) express one idea. Letoy says my household players can act the lives of emperors (e.g.,Tamburlaine, as Tom pointed out), as well as Shakespeare’s history plays.

                 Then Letoy moves on to a second idea, how much he enjoys his amateur thespians. This is a new train of thought, so the “that”s can’t refer back to Caesar or Shakespeare, given the structure/syntax of the
                 conversation.

                 ‘I tell thee, These lads can act the emperor’s lives all over
                 And Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;

                 And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                 That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                 I would not be outvied in my delights.’

                 Idea 1 (lines 1-2): My guys can act anything, from the stories of great emperors to Shakespeare’s histories.

                 Idea 2 (lines 3-5): My guys bring me more enjoyment than actors employed in antiquity (Caesar’s
                 courts) or modernity (an Earl’s court, pick one, and it could be Oxford), were that they “now living.”

                 You can’t smash the two ideas together, demanding antecedents that aren’t there, just so you can claim “The emperor is Caesar and Shakespeare is the English earl.”

                 You’re convinced there’s a clue here about the SAQ, and you’re gonna find it—no matter how contrived, wrong-headed, and just plain silly the resulting interpretation.

                 Thus I’d also have to agree with Tom: ” OK, you’ve established that you can’t comprehend the written word.”

             65. Rules of grammar and sentence construction mean absolutely nothing to a Shakespeare denialist intent on mangling text to provide some alleged clue for the Lord.

             66. He very specifically says ‘that’ Caesar and ‘that’ English earl. You seem to think he is referring to all Caesars and all English earls…. that is not a viable opinion considering the very clear singular ‘that’ on both occasions.

                 Who is that Caesar? And who is that English earl? Please answer this simple question. I have given you my interpretation. You reject it, but cannot provide your own.

             67. “That English earl that loved a play and player” is the same construction as “that man that is not passion’s slave.” “That” here does not refer to someone who’s just been named, but to someone about to be defined. What man? That man that is not passions’s slave. What earl? That earl that loved a play. What fool? That fool that thinks Shakespeare was a tin-witted earl.

                 To be technical, this =that= is the OED’s usage 3a.

                 In concord with a n. which is the antecedent to a relative (expressed or understood)

                 Usually definitive rather than demonstrative, serving for introduction or anticipation of the relative clause, which completes the description; thus often interchangeable with =the=, but more emphatic.

             68. You still have not told me who you think earl is. I know he loved a play and a player – because he was Shakespeare, who obviously loved a play and a player. Now tell me who you think this earl is?

                 Are you denying that the ’emperor’ and ‘that Caesar’ are in any way related in this sentence? Who do you think the emperor is and who do you think Caesar is, and why do they have nothing to do with each other in spite of the fact that they mean almost the same thing and appear in the same sentence?

                 At least you’re not trying to pretend that the ‘that’s’ are introductions to ‘hypothetical’ clauses like Hackman did – that didn’t go very well for him.

             69. When Stratfrauds appeal to sub-definitions of the word ‘that’ to wriggle out of the bleeding obvious we know they are on the wrack!

             70. > Remember Richard Brome referred to Shake-speare as an ‘earl.’ What do
                 you make of that, since you are so keen on titles?

                 Except that he didn’t. If he did, give us a cite.

                 > A lot of the ‘evidence’ you provide is just the name on the plays.

                 Yes, that’s some of it, but certainly not all. It’s a lot more than you have.

             71. I especially enjoyed cc’s recitation of “coincidences” for Oxenforde, the kind that cc appears to believe are stronger than the evidence for WS of Stratford:

                 >> “Coincidences include: Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl. His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome
                 referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible etc etc….”

                 It is all some of the most risible Oxenfordian bull…which proves my earlier point that any discussion with cc is a waste of time. I don’t think that cc has even read the entire thread or s/he would know that I had posted two lists of evidence, one as to WS being an actor and one as to the honorific argument. I’m not going to be drawn into a discussion with someone like cc who isn’t even informed as to the facts involved in the debate.

             72. 1/ Shakspere being an actor does not mean he was a playwright. Please take this off your list of ‘evidence’

                 2/ The ‘gentleman’ argument is rubbish. I have already shown you that ‘gentleman’ was often used in a much more general way to show someone being generally distinguished. If ‘Mr’ meant the same as ‘gentleman’ in those days then the same argument applies to that. I am not sure, however, when ‘Mr’ became used more generally. Do yo know when it became common use for every man?

             73. I’m going to bother with you one last time, although you obviously don’t have the intelligence or the knowledge to participate in this discussion. There are references to the actor and the author as being one and the same man, so the pieces of evidence showing that Shakespeare of Stratford was the actor WS in the LCM /KM goes in to making the case for his authorship of the works. Even if all we had was coincidence — that Shakespeare was the actor in the company putting on the plays, and was a shareholder/householder in the theaters where those plays were performed, we would still have more than you have shown for your Lord. That you don’t appear to understand this simple fact, much less the case that has been made for Shakespeare built on actual evidence, indicates that you are merely a troll, repeating Oxenfodian boilerplate without even understanding that nonsense.

                 You have now shown, quite conclusively, that you don’t know how to rebut that case for WS, or to make a case for any other candidate. You haven’t done anything to refute the argument as to his status as a gentleman. Now, at this point, I am finished with your trolling. Aloha.

             74. There are not references to the actor and author being one and the same man. There are references suggesting that the author was an actor. That does not mean that he was the man from Stratford. Oxford was also involved in the theatre and I believe he acted as well. Just because two men are both actors does not mean they are the same person. Your argument goes like this: Person X is a playwright and has experienced acting. Person Y is an actor and wool broker. Therefore person X = person Y. This is not an argument. Hugh Grant is an actor that doesn’t mean he wrote Woody Allen’s films just because they are both actors.

                 I have very well refuted the gentleman theory. I have explained that gentleman was also a more general term like noble. I have also explained that Mr was short for master which described an artisan i.e a playwright.

                 Merry Christmas.

             75. In the Antipodes:

                 ‘I tell thee,These lads can act the emperor’s lives all over
                 And Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;
                 And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                 That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                 I would not be outvied in my delights.’

             76. OK, you’ve established that you can’t comprehend the written word. Nowhere in there does he say or imply that Shakespeare is “that English earl”. This is the kind of ignorant prattle that passes for evidence in Oxfordia. Good luck with your attempts to usher in the new paradigm.

             77. Do you think ‘the emperor’s lives’ refers to ‘Caesar’ in my quote I have provided?

             78. Can you comprehend basic rudeness, as evidenced by your constant condescending comments?

             79. +1 Both Munday and Jonson refered to Oxford as “Caesar”.

             80. cc,

                 Who is the Mr Shakespeare of the Parnassus plays? Bear in mind that Oxford is mentioned in the play, when Southampton is skewered wrt his expensive break up with Oxford’s oldest daughter, Elizabeth.

                 And more telling, it’s impossible for Ox and Shakes to be same person when they are very separate characters, just like with Meres.

             81. Ok… .so maybe Shakespeare is another earl then? Why is he referred to as an earl? You have not answered the basic question.

                 Also Mr Shakespeare was clearly the author as it refers to his histories.

    4. Many people would say, with equal passion and sincerity, “The works of nature make much more sense to me, and are much more rich and real to me, understanding them to come from the mind of God.” This is a matter of faith, not reason, and like creationism, it has no place in teaching, or on tour with the First Folio.

       1. Hi Nat —
          Not sure I follow your reasoning; are you saying that from a traditional perspective, the ‘natural genius’ of Shakespeare is best understood as coming from nature/God? If so, this would be analogous to creationism. I don’t see how reading an author’s work in terms of his likely biography constitutes an act of faith, or equivalent in any way to religiosity.

          Cheers
          Michael

          1. Michael,

             No, I’m saying that your feeling that Shakespeare’s works “are much more rich and real to me” when read through Oxfordian spectacles has no more place in scholarship than faith in God has in interpreting the fossil record. Your evident faith in Oxford, like C. S. Lewis’s in Christianity, is your source of light: “by it I see everything else.”

             To a rational observer, Oxford’s biography–his birth and death dates, his class, his slender education; his expenditure of energy on projects like tin-mining; his lack of involvement in the public theatres (save as a minor patron), and above all in company with Shakespeare’s friends and fellows–all this absolutely excludes him from consideration as the playwright. Add to that his lack of rhetorical incompetence, displayed in 50,000 words of prose and poetry, and you’ve got unlikelihood raised to the nth power.

             Cheers,

             Nat

             1. To emphasise the point, (because Nat’s example of God really could lead to a different understanding of the works) suppose I felt that Shakespeare’s works were written by a mischievous fairy. I see midsummer’s night dream as autobiographical by the king of the fairies; I find references in the works to things I believe only a fairy would know; when I imagine that the works were written by a fairy, I feel more connected to them. As I read, I think, “ah! That is undoubtedly the words of a fairy King, not a mere human.”

                And to be clear– this is not because I have any particular religious faith; I just believe that fairies exist and in the sixteenth century, wrote for the popular stage. And I found connections between an imagined biography of the fairy King and isolated passages of the works. If you stare at the words long enough, you can come up with an interpretation you like.

13. Hi folks — I see there are still more responses coming in; thank you again for your interest and comments! I’ve tried to keep up the last few days but I’m afraid I’m going to have to beg off for the time being. Not out of disrespect, but holidays and time with family come first. I’ll respond to recent comments after the holidays.

    Best wishes for the season,
    Michael

14. Michael Douglas wrote:
    >>> we must be much more cautious about claiming a monopoly on truth.

    Sicinius replied:
    >> Describing Will Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author of the plays is one such certainty. [Snip restored]

    > Right on cue, in come the Oxfordian claims to have a monopoly on truth.

    Leadbetter is blind to the doctrinaire nature of his own beliefs. To him, the assertion that the Stratman was the Great Bard is as unquestionable an everyday fact as the ‘truth’ that the sun goes around the earth every day was to every pope before 1700 A. D.

    And then there’s a change of subject:

    > Further down the thread, there’s an instance of a famous Oxfordian technique—”I must be right because this famous person agrees with me”—appeal to authority. The subject of Leslie Howard crops up.

    Appeals to ‘authority’ such as this are no more than refutations of the standard Stratfordian assertion: “Anyone who denies the authorship of the Stratford man is necessarily insane”. Quote ONE Strat who does not ‘argue’ along those lines.

    In fact, it is the ONLY Stratfordian ‘argument’ — and its resemblance to the ‘arguments’ against Copernicanism or against Darwin or Einstein, etc., etc., should worry you. Anti-Strat arguments may often be weak, or mistaken, but they are NOT insane. And that’s the end of the case FOR the Stratford man.

    Someone who did not believe in the authorship of (say) Milton or Dryden or Pope or Hardy or Tennyson or Hemingway (or name almost any author) could (and, nearly always, should) be regarded as insane. The Stratford ‘case’ is that their man is in the same category. But he’s not. The long, long list of sensible people who have doubted his authorship demonstrates that. But when did you EVER see a well-reasoned sensible defence of his authorship? The answer is “never”. Your ‘case’ relies on unquestioned belief — i.e. FAITH. It’s superstition and nothing else.

    1. So, did you know there were surveys on the the strongest items of Oxfordian belief, carried out biennially at Oxfordian conferences?

       Did you know that the 10 strongest Oxfordian beliefs, as measured by the latest poll, are all entirely faith-based—not a single scrap of evidence to share between them? http://oxfraud.com/100-reason

       Meanwhile, time is about to be called on your Bluff-the-Unwary claims about the lack of evidence for Shakespeare.

       In the new year it will all be resplendent in its new online library, sponsored by our friends at The Folger. http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/

       The end is nigher, my friend. You can start looking for a new hobby today.

15. Paul Crowley just posted this:

    “Anti-Strat arguments may often be weak, or mistaken, but they are NOT
    insane. And that’s the end of the case FOR the Stratford man.”

    And there you have it.

    Oxford wins because Oxfordians are not insane. =O)

16. “The issue at stake in this debate is that Stratfordians and Oxfordians
    have different notions (and standards) of what constitutes evidence.” — Michael Dudly

    That sums it up in a nutshell.

    1. I agree totally with this! Oxfordians have understood evidence much better. Maybe that’s why three supreme court justices are Oxfordians and a forth admits that there is a strong likelihood that Shakspere was not the author.

       1. > Oxfordians have understood evidence much better.

          No doubt that’s why Oxfordism is such a widespread movement that in sheer number overwhelms Stratfordians.

          Oh, wait a minute . . . .

          1. How sad is it that the Oxenfordians have all run away and left poor cc here to man the fort. The “A” and “B” teams have long since fled and we’re left with the “C” team.

          2. Well I suppose most people haven’t researched it properly and simply believe what they are told by their parents. It’s similar to religion really, no evidence, just tradition. There are very few Stratfordians who have actually researched the matter properly.

    2. I’m feeling the Christmas spirit and wish to be generous.

       The argument has been made below that the coincidences cited by Oxenfordians as being evidence for their Lord don’t even qualify as actual circumstantial evidence. That argument is relatively simple and even a layman without any legal experience, and with a bare minimum of understanding of logic, ought to be able to address it. To this piont in time, not one single Oxenfordian has launched the first attempt to do so. The most anyone has done so far is to make an argument by appeal to apparent authority by citing some nebulous opinions of some Supreme Court Justices, but we can have no idea s to what they may have reviewed in arriving at their opinions or the rationale for those opinions [not to mention that SCOTUS Justices do not act as triers of fact]. That’s it so far. The post containing the argument has been up for more than a week, maybe even two weeks by now [I’m not going to check at the moment].

       If any Oxenfordian, even those who are obviously ill-equipped to handle the task, would like to attempt to prove that just one of their cited coincidences is factually true and show how it qualifies as circumstantial evidence tending to prove the ultimate conclusion [That EO wrote WS] I will be more than happy to participate in that discussion, and I promise to be on my very best behavior in doing so.

       So step right up…show your evidence and show the logical process whereby it qualifies as circumstantial evidence for your ultimate proposition. I’ll check back after some more Christmas spirits are consumed.

       1. Well…I just checked back and it appears that the same country which piped up earlier was heard from once again, but still offers nothing new. This time all s/he had to offer was empty argument by assertion [“We only need the c team to refute your ridiculous understanding of evidence.”}

          This individual could make the attempt to refute the argument, and show how my understanding of evidence is incorrect, and all s/he would have to do is to proceed to the post in this thread which utterly destroys the Oxenfordian understanding of circumstantial evidence and reveals it for the illogical sham it is. Formulate a refutation. Take the challenge to show how your coincidences logically lead toyour conclusion. But, no…perhaps that task is beyond the ability of the last Oxenfordian here. As to the Oxie “A” team, they already took a stab at it and whiffed quite badly, eventually arguing against a straw man argument of their own creation — one that had nothing to do with the core of the argument that the Stratfordians have made — or simply running away, as has happened here.

          As I’ve stated, it should be quite simple for any Oxenfordian to locate the post in this thread [it is a response to Mr. psi2u2] and attempt to refute the argument that has been made. If none of them ever choose to do so, I would hope that an impartial reader of this thread would take that into consideration in weighing the relative merits of the positions taken here.

          1. And now the “C” team has squeaked again.

             “Loads” [plural] is correct in a way, but only because the poor Ox has posted the same load of cr…..crusty garbage twice. It has only served to double the stench. The “C” teamer hasn’t even bothered to check the factual accuracy of his supposed coincidences.

             What the Oxie will not do, or simply can not do, is to take a stab at the argument that has been made below. In fact, I doubt that cc has even read the argument, as cc continues to cite coincidences as actual evidence. If cc did read the post I have referenced here, it is apparent that cc did not understand it. I will wait until someone comes along who has what it takes to make the attempt to refute it…of course, I could be waiting a very long time.

             1. What makes a load a “load”….?

                From the website of Oxfordian Nina Greene:

                MYTH: Oxford used the modern Bolebec crest of a lion rampant shaking a broken spear.

                The Bolebec crest of the lion rampant shaking a broken spear does not date from Oxford’s lifetime.

                References:
                (1) E-mail message of 15 February 1999 from John Rollett.
                (2) Papers of Canon Gerald Rendall, Liverpool University archives.
                (3) Article by Christopher Paul.

                If one wishes to avoid dropping loads, it certainly helps if your premises are factually correct.

                http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Oxmyths/OxmythsOxford.pdf

                Page 26

                Oops. And, by the way, there are four total sections of “myths” at her site. It would help discussion greatly if Oxenfordians would familiarize themselves with the partisan talking points which have previously been shown to be bogus.

       2. Hey.. I gave loads of evidence below. Stop going to the top of the page to try to push my points down.

          Let me copy and paste:

          I explained that there was barely any evidence for Shakspere except the first folio, which is posthumous, cryptic and all from the word of one man – Ben Jonson.

          You tried to give evidence by using titles to suggest that only Shakspere of Stratford could be called ‘gentleman’ or Mr. I refuted this simply:

          “I have explained that ‘gentleman’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright.”

          You tried to argue that because the author had been referred to as an actor and Shakspere was an actor they must be the same man. I refuted this simply:

          Just because Shakspere was an actor does not mean he was a playwright.

          ” There are not any references that show that the actor and author are one and the same man. There are references suggesting that the author was an actor. That does not mean that he was the man from Stratford. Oxford was also involved in the theatre and I believe he acted as well. Just because two men are both actors does not mean they are the same person. Your argument goes like this: Person X is a playwright and has experienced acting. Person Y is an actor and wool broker. Therefore person X = person Y. This is not an argument. Hugh Grant is an actor that doesn’t mean he wrote Woody Allen’s films just because they are both actors.”

          I said that, whilst there is no proof that Oxford wrote the works, there are an awful lot of coincidences that would be very strange if he had nothing to do with the plays at all.

          You said this was not true.

          I gave you several examples:

          “Coincidences include: Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl. His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible, similarities between his life and Hamlet, and many similarities between his life and the sonnets etc etc….”

          You then picked on one of my examples and we had a long squabble. As usual, you were looking at one small part of a whole.

          The whole is simple. There is no proof either way, but there is much more evidence for Oxford.

          I would say this: I am 99.9999999 % sure it was not Shakspere (as sure as you can ever be) and I think that there are a lot of strong arguments for Oxford and that he is the only credible candidate we have at the moment.

       3. Hey.. I gave loads of evidence below. Stop going to the top of the page to try to push my points down.

          Let me copy and paste:

          I explained that there was barely any evidence for Shakspere except the first folio, which is posthumous, cryptic and all from the word of one man – Ben Jonson.

          You tried to give evidence by using titles to suggest that only Shakspere of Stratford could be called ‘gentleman’ or Mr. I refuted this simply:

          “I have explained that ‘gentleman’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright.”

          You tried to argue that because the author had been referred to as an actor and Shakspere was an actor they must be the same man. I refuted this simply:

          Just because Shakspere was an actor does not mean he was a playwright.

          ” There are not any references that show that the actor and author are one and the same man. There are references suggesting that the author was an actor. That does not mean that he was the man from Stratford. Oxford was also involved in the theatre and I believe he acted as well. Just because two men are both actors does not mean they are the same person. Your argument goes like this: Person X is a playwright and has experienced acting. Person Y is an actor and wool broker. Therefore person X = person Y. This is not an argument. Hugh Grant is an actor that doesn’t mean he wrote Woody Allen’s films just because they are both actors.”

          I said that, whilst there is no proof that Oxford wrote the works, there are an awful lot of coincidences that would be very strange if he had nothing to do with the plays at all.

          You said this was not true.

          I gave you several examples:

          “Coincidences include: Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl. His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible, similarities between his life and Hamlet, and many similarities between his life and the sonnets etc etc….”

          You then picked on one of my examples and we had a long squabble. As usual, you were looking at one small part of a whole.

          The whole is simple. There is no proof either way, but there is much more evidence for Oxford.

          1. cc said that, “whilst there is no proof that Oxford wrote the works, there
             are an awful lot of coincidences that would be very strange if he had
             nothing to do with the plays at all.”

             And there you have it. A frank and honest admission that there is no proof for Oxford.

             Thank you. Thank you very much.

             Oxford has left the building. =O)

             1. Unlike you lot I am very honest. I look at both sides and weigh up the evidence. There is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence for Oxford, but sadly no direct evidence. However, there is hardly anything for Shakspere at all… I’m afraid it’s Shakspere that is out of the equation. Oxford is a very interesting proposition which needs further examination.

             2. No, actually, there isn’t any circumstantial evidence for Oxenford. In fact, that is the crux of the argument I have made in the post below — the argument I have challenged you, and all other Oxenfordians, to refute, and the same one that you and the other Oxenfordians continue to ignore. You continue to show that you simply don’t understand the concept of circumstantial evidence and what is entailed in making a case based upon such evidence. I am not trying to be cruel here but you haven’t shown that you even understand the basic facts at issue in this debate.

                As for weighing both sides, most of what you do is to spout Oxenfordian boilerplate, almost all of it factually incorrect, without any explanation as to how it fits logically into a case tending to prove your ultimate conclusion. At the same time, you summarily dismiss or deny actual evidence on specious grounds. You say you “look at both sides and weigh the evidence,” but your comments reveal that you have swallowed Oxenfordian dogma without reviewing the evidence for WS of Stratford [which is what permits you to contend that the FF is the only evidence]. What books, if any, have you read which put forward the case for WS? It is quite obvious that you are wearing Oxenfordian goggles in your arguments. You aren’t even being honest with yourself.

             3. I do weigh both sides of the debate.

                I read Stanley Wells book ‘Shakespeare beyond doubt’ and I have read ‘contested Will’ by Shapiro. Neither of these have provided any evidence other than the FF. None of your blogs do either.

                I have shown that your ‘gentleman’ and ‘actor’ arguments cannot count as evidence. I have shown that the Shakspere argument rests on the first folio and accompanying monument. I have explained why these sources alone do not amount to a strong argument: posthumous evidence, double meanings being ignored, one source – Ben Jonson etc.

                As for Oxford: Circumstantial evidence includes:

                “Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl. His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible, similarities between his life and Hamlet, and many similarities between his life and the sonnets etc etc….”

                If anything I have said is ‘factually incorrect’ as you put it, please, pick me up on it specifically. Since you have not done this, and I have done my research properly, I am inclined to believe that your statement that almost everything I say is ‘factually incorrect’ is sheer propaganda.

             4. >> “I read Stanley Wells book ‘Shakespeare beyond doubt’ and I have read ‘contested Will’ by Shapiro. Neither of these have provided any evidence other than the FF. None of your blogs do either.”

                I can only surmise that you don’t know how to read, or that you don’t know what qualifies as evidence — or both.

                >> Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen.

                Are you unable to read. I have dealt with this already and Ben pointed you to an article that you claimed to have read.

                >> His nickname as the Italian Earl.

                This is not evidence that Oxenford was Shakespeare. Do you really know nothing of early modern England. If you did, you would know that all things Italian were the rage for a long period of time. Knowledge of Italy was not confined to Lord Oxenford.

                >> His nickname as the spear shaker.

                There was no such nickname.

                >> His closeness to the earl of Southampton,

                There isn’t a shred of evidence that they ever even met. Southampton just about chewed his arm off at the elbow coyote -style to avoid marrying Oxenford’s daughter.

                >> Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’

                Your misunderstanding of Englkish grammar does not make your interpretation of Brome evidence. You continue to reveal your ignorance as to what qualifies as evidence.

                >> ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare,

                Are you Waughbling this tune?

                >> his annotated bible,

                Already covered above. The Bible isn’t evidence of any kind that Oxenford was Shakespeare. If anything, it is evidence that the author Shakespeare and whoever it was who marked up the book had totally different biblical interests.

                “similarities between his life and Hamlet,”

                Such as…?

                and many similarities between his life and the sonnets

                Such as…?

             5. Hooray! You seem to have gone away and read a book on how to actually argue! Well done! You are finally addressing the points I have made rather than just firing off insults. Excellent!

                First, I will just point out that I am an anti-stratfordian who is leaning towards Oxford as the real author for several reasons. I can see that the Stratfordians cannot argue their own candidate, so they resort to disproving Oxford, thinking somehow that this means that Shakspere was the true author. Actually this is a false dichotomy. It could very well be that neither are the author.

                My main point is that Shakspere has very little evidence supporting him. The first folio and the monument are both cryptic and posthumous.

                However I will address some of your problems above.

                1/ The coat of arms is circumstantial evidence for Oxford. It indicates a pseudonym of spear shaker. I don’t remember this article, but I will gladly read it. I don’t suppose it will manage to disprove that this is circumstantial evidence. It seems clear to me. But I will check it out.

                2/ No, this is not direct evidence it is circumstantial. It just shows that Oxford is much more likely to be the author than Shakspere, who probably never visited Italy although many of the plays were based there. Read Roe’s book – it shows that many of the places in the books really existed in Italy and were places where Oxford had been.

                3/ I did read this somewhere. It is definitely true that Gabriel Harvey wrote that Oxford’s countenance ‘shakes spears’ And his coat of arms suggests he associated himself with these words.

                4/ Oxford wanted to persuade Southampton to marry his daughter. If you read Venus and Adonis carefully, which is dedicated to Southampton, it seems that these sonnets are also trying to persuade the young man to marry.

                5/ I’ve given you the ‘earl’ quote:
                “These lads can act the emperor’s lives all overAnd Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;
                And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                I would not be outvied in my delights.”

                Take it or leave it… it is another piece of circumstantial evidence.

                6/ Yes I am Waughbling this tune… for good reason.

                7/ The bible has many key passages noted which were in Shakespeare’s plays. Again, this isn’t proof, but the evidence is mounting…

                8/ Being captured by pirates, the similarities between Burghley and Polonius, the tennis squabble etc…

                9/ Being of high birth, a lame, disgraced outcast who wants to hide his identity and forever bury his name. Asking Southampton to have children… etc.

                But these are only a few examples… the list does go on. It is the amount of evidence for him that makes his case really interesting.

             6. >> “First, I will just point out that I am an anti-stratfordian who is leaning towards Oxford as the real author for several reasons. I can see that the Stratfordians cannot argue their own candidate, so they resort to disproving Oxford, thinking somehow that this means that Shakspere was the true author. Actually this is a false dichotomy. It could very well be that neither are the author.”

                First, there is evidence in the historic record which establishes a prima facie case ofr WS of Stratford as the author. That is a legal term and so I realize you don’t know what it means, but the fact is that there is a rebuttable presumption that you need to overcome in order to refute the case for WS. This you cannot do, nor can any other anti-Stratfordian. Even Roger Stritmatter has admitted the existence of the prima facie case built on actual evidence. You are even more of a denialist than he is, which is really saying something.You don’t even have the mental ability to challenge the argument which has been made as to the lack of circumstantial evidence for Oxenford, although you have been challenged to do so on multiple occasions now.

                What Stratfordians have done is to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that WS of Stratford wrote the works. They have also demonstrated that there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that Oxenford wrote Shakespeare.

                >> “My main point is that Shakspere has very little evidence supporting him. The first folio and the monument are both cryptic and posthumous.”

                Your main point exhibits your seeliest ignorance. You apparently don’t understand the evidence for Shakespeare. Prima facie case. As for your continued insistence that all of the evidence is “posthumous” please explain exactly what you mean in using that term and explain what effect you believe that has on the evidence.

                As for your claim that the FF is cryptic, that is an opinion, and a subjective and idiosyncratic one at that. Your opinion does not qualify as evidence [surely you understand this basic point, I hope]. The FF continues to qualify as direct evidence supporting the attribution of the works to WS of Stratford, no matter what opinion you offer.

                >>” 1/ The coat of arms is circumstantial evidence for Oxford. It indicates a pseudonym of spear shaker. I don’t remember this article, but I will gladly read it.”

                The crest with the lion holding a spear had nothing to do with Oxenford and did not come into use until long after he was dead. It isn’t any evidence at all, circumstantial or otherwise, for Oxenford.

                >> “2/ No, this is not direct evidence it is circumstantial. It just shows that Oxford is much more likely to be the author than Shakspere, who probably never visited Italy although many of the plays were based there. Read Roe’s book – it shows that many of the places in the books really existed in Italy and were places where Oxford had been.”

                Good Lord. You keep providing such silly answers that I have to consider that I am wasting my time. Please show the logical, inferential process whereby you get from your premise [some people derisively referred to Oxenforde as the “Italian Earl”] to the conclusion that he wrote Shakespeare. Did he also write Jonson’s plays that were set in Italy…other playwrights of the period as well?

                >> 3/ I did read this somewhere. It is definitely true that Gabriel Harvey wrote that Oxford’s countenance ‘shakes spears’ And his coat of arms suggests he associated himself with these words.

                No, it isn’t actually true. And, no, his coat of arms had nothing to do with shaking spears.

                >> “4/ Oxford wanted to persuade Southampton to marry his daughter. If you read Venus and Adonis carefully, which is dedicated to Southampton, it seems that these sonnets are also trying to persuade the young man to marry.”

                This may be the worst answer so far. Your premise is that Oxenford wrote the Sonnets because they were meant to persuade Southampton to marry his daughter. Your ultimate conclusion is that Oxenforde wrote the sonnets of Shakespeare. And your proof that Oxenfgorde wrote the sonnets of Shakespeare is that Oxenforde wrote the sonnets. And the wheels on the bus go round and round…what time does that bus come by to pick you up for school? Show how what you have written here is not a classic example of circular reasoning.

                >> 5/ I’ve given you the ‘earl’ quote:
                “These lads can act the emperor’s lives all overAnd Shakespeare’s chronicled histories to boot;
                And were that Caesar, or that English earl,
                That loved a play and players so well, now living,
                I would not be outvied in my delights.”

                Take it or leave it… it is another piece of circumstantial evidence.”

                It gets worse and worse. You do believe that your subjective interpretations should qualify as evidence. Your irrationality, and you misunderstanding of historical evidence, is alarming.

                >> “6/ Yes I am Waughbling this tune… for good reason.”

                Do you see monkey faces in pillars too?

                >> “7/ The bible has many key passages noted which were in Shakespeare’s plays. Again, this isn’t proof, but the evidence is mounting…”

                It does nothing of the kind. Now you are simply making things up. I think I’m just about done with you.

                >> “8/ Being captured by pirates, the similarities between Burghley and Polonius, the tennis squabble etc…”

                He wasn’t captured by pirates, as Hamlet was. He was assaulted by pirates and left ashore. Do you know what Hamlet’s experience was with the pirates in the play. There are no similarities between what happened to him and what happened to Oxenfgord other than….aaaaarrrrrhhhhhh, pirates. Of course, that is enough for blinkered Shakespeare denialists such as yourself.

                What similarities between Burghley and Polonius? You are merely spouting off generalities and revealing that you don’t have a clue as to what you are arguing.

                >> “9/ Being of high birth, a lame, disgraced outcast who wants to hide his identity and forever bury his name. Asking Southampton to have children… etc.”

                The poet of the sonnets specifically says he was not of noble birth. Neither Oxenforde or the poet were lame. And, Southampton…there you go again, round and round.

                >> “But these are only a few examples… the list does go on. It is the amount of evidence for him that makes his case really interesting.”

                Exactly. It is interesting that anti-Stratfordians continue this nonsense when they have ZERO evidence to support it.

             7. My point is very very clear. There is more evidence for Oxford than for Shakspere. I am not actually a confirmed Oxfordian so for me this is a huge and very boring straw man. I am almost 100% certain that Shakspere was not the author. I came here to refute your ‘gentleman’ rubbish and your ‘actor’ nonsense. Now I have got into a long debate about the intricacies of the Oxfordian argument.

                As for Oxford, there are lots of good pieces of evidence. The sheer volume of evidence means that you quibbling with one or two of those points does not make a dent in the argument at all.
                I don’t want to look up all the evidence just to tell you, I have a life. But look it up and you will find Oxford was lame and disgraced, like the author of the sonnets. Look up the similarities between Burghley and Polonius, etc. etc.

                I do not know if Oxford wrote it. I am very very sure that Shakspere didn’t. The Oxfordian argument is level 2. You have yet to get past level 1, which is accepting that the man from Stratford is highly unlikely to be the author.

                Let’s take this one step at a time…

                Will you admit that the evidence for Shakspere is weak?

                Once we have done that, we can move on to other possible candidates, Oxford being one of the most interesting.

             8. Your point is very very wrong. There is no evidence of any kind for Oxenforde. There is direct and circumstantial evidence for WS of Stratford.

                If you came here to refute the “honorific” argument and the actor/author argument you have failed miserably.

                >> “As for Oxford, there are lots of good pieces of evidence. The sheer volume of evidence means that you quibbling with one or two of those points does not make a dent in the argument at all”

                No, actually, there aren’t any good points of evidence…we are always told about the mountain of evidence for Oxenford, but when we ask to see it we are always pointed to an empty crater instead. In fact, the Oxenfordians are not even able to challenge the argument that what they claim to be circumstantial evidence for their Lord doesn’t actually qualify as circumstantial evidence. You’ve had your chance at that challenge and you’ve ducked it just like the rest.

                The evidence for Shakespeare is not weak. As I have pointed out, the extant evidence establishes a prima facie case for the attribution of the works to WS of Stratford. As I also pointed out, this creates a rebuttable presumption in his favor, and it is incumbent upon you to refute that prima facie case with actual evidence. If you knew the first thing about evidence, and about methodologies which employ evidence to establish the truth in questions of fact, you would understand that the burden of going forward with evidence is all yours. But you don’t know anything about evidence or about how to mount a case built on evidence. All you can do is to repeat Oxenfordian boilerplate, most of it factually wrong, that you don’t even understand.

                The Oxenfordian argument is level 0.

             9. cc,

                Your own words betray you yet again on three counts.

                First you say, “There is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence for Oxford, but sadly no direct evidence.” You nailed it, except for part about circumstantial evidence. There is no circumstantial evidence for Oxford, either. Coincidence, yes. But unless you can show a causal relationship, i.e., connect the dots, coincidence remains just that.

                For example, the fundamental Oxfordian belief–you just recited it yourself–that Oxford’s trip to Italy is evidence that he wrote the canon’s Italian plays. But what are the intermediate steps required to explain the causal relationship?

                Your predicate seems to be that only writers who spent time in Italy could write plays set in Italy, which is actually a subset of the larger misapprehension that writers can only write plays set in places they had visited.

                So did Marlowe visit Paris, Malta, Wittenberg, Carthage, Samarkand? Or Jonson Venice (Volpone) or Rome (Sejanus, Cataline)? Or Dekker Spain (Lust’s Dominion) or Turkey (Virgin Martyr)? Or Middleton Spain (The
                Changeling)?

                Second, you continue to dismiss any of the direct evidence for Shakespeare, instead claiming, “There is hardly anything for Shakspere at all. I’m afraid it’s Shakspere that is out of the equation.”

                But why then do Oxfordians spend so much time trying to discredit the direct evidence for Shakespeare, evidence that they claim it doesn’t exist? If it doesn’t exist, why bother with it? Yet they‘re at it all the time, trying to knock down Shakespeare. For example, your Mister/Master tap dance.

                Third, you appeal to emotion with this: “Oxford is a very interesting proposition which needs further examination.”
                Indeed, Oxfordians, alone, are fascinated by the so-called mystery that they see. As Sir Derek Jacobi wrote in the
                Foreword to Mark Anderson’s canonical (for Oxfordoxy, that is) tome, “’Shakespeare by Another Name’ is one of the very best whodunits you will ever read. The game’s afoot.”

                How sad that Oxfordians reduce Shakespeare to a hunt for authorial clues, so the plays are studied for what they tell us about Oxford instead of what they tell us about us. For Oxfordians, the play is not the thing, Oxford is.

                I’m reminded of one of the more vapid examples of Oxford-centric reading that appeared in an Amazon review of “Shakespeare Beyond Doubt” (the one without the ?). The deeply affected Oxfordian wrote, “When I saw King
                Lear a few weeks ago, truly cried… knowing that the Earl of Oxford also had three daughters.”

                Such is the precision of Oxfordian exegesis.

                And BTW, Oxford had four daughters. Furthermore, Oxford effectively abandoned his three surviving daughters, leaving them to the care of Grandpa Burghley. Quite the reverse of what happens in the play. And no Oxfordian has yet been able to explain how Elizabeth, Bridget, and Susan parallel Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, much less how Elizabeth and Bridget treated their father so terribly that he had to write a play letting the world know of their wickedness, while the youngest daughter, Susan, died of a broken heart.

                Such is the precision of Oxfordian exegesis.

             10. Read Roe’s book about Shakespeare and Italy…. It shows that he was very accurate about places in Italy etc. as I say, this is only one of the many pieces of circumstantial evidence.

                 Oxfordians and general anti-Stratfordians argue with the Stratfordian myth because they care about truth and examining evidence not just relying on tradition. They want to see the fraudulent Shakespeare Birthplace Trust stop conning people into handing over money to see places may well not be his ‘birthplace’ his ‘school’ his ‘mother’s house’ etc. And the whole thing is even more of a farce since Shakspere most likely didn’t even write the plays. That’s why we keep arguing the point. But also it’s fun. We enjoy examining evidence.

                 If you think you know Oxford wrote the works a lot of the plays make much more sense. That is another reason we keep trying to explain the debate. The sonnets in particular match Oxford very well. He is an older, lame outcast who wants to bury his name. He is addressing the Earl of Southampton, whom Oxford had an intimate relationship with, etc.

                 Obviously the plays are works of fiction, they are not going to exactly map the life of the author. But usually there are similarities between the author’s experiences and their written work. This is missing if we think Shakspere is the author. But for Oxford, there are a lot of similarities.

             11. Have you actually read Roe….if so, what are the major points of accuracy about specific places in Italy?

                 >> “We enjoy examining evidence.”

                 I only wish you did.

                 >> “The sonnets in particular match Oxford very well. He is an older, lame outcast who wants to bury his name. He is addressing the Earl of Southampton, whom Oxford had an intimate relationship with, etc.”

                 Please provide all of the evidence for your claims that
                 1. Oxford was lame;
                 2. An outcast;
                 3. Had an intimate relationship with Southampton.

             12. cc,

                 Roe is wrong on a lot of things, because he went looking for Oxford So it’s no surprise that he found what he claims to have found.

                 For an example of how wrong, let’s take his chapter on The Tempest.

                 Here’s a piece on it that I wrote. Let me know if you think. And BTW,we have a pretty good account of Oxford’s travels in Italy, and there’s no indication he visited Vulcano.

                 http://oxfraud.com/100-novulcano

    3. I agree totally with this! Oxfordians have understood evidence much better. Maybe that’s why three supreme court justices are Oxfordians and a forth admits that there is a strong likelihood that Shakspere was not the author.

       1. cc,

          You seem quite convinced of “his [Oxford’s] closeness to the earl of Southampton to whom Shakespeare dedicated his sonnets.”

          You do realize the implications, don’t you, since the sonnets were written about the time of the protracted negotiations for marriage between Southampton and Elizabeth de Vere, Oxford’s oldest daughter. And it gets especially ugly if you’re into
          PT1 or PT2.

          It would go something like this:

          Oxford is telling Southampton (possibly his son), to get on with tupping his daughter Elizabeth (and possibly Southampton’s half-sister), because Oxford wants a mini-me, and no wonder, since it would be a “50%” grandchild.

          But Ox suspects young Southampton is also a wanker, and in S4, discourages him from “unthrifty loveliness” that he doth
          “spend upon thyself.”

          Of course, later we learn that Ox has being doing the nasty with young Southampton, and thus a reminder of that old adage, incest begins at home.

          But then Ox cheapens the relationship, and likely breaks poor Southie’s heart, by letting on that he is having an affair on the side with a dark lady.

          Poor Southie. He must have felt so cheap. So dirty. And so confused, given the mixed messages he was getting from his lover-dad and wannabe father-in-law.

          Thus Southie didn’t know whether to stop doing the naughty with Ox, or tup Liz Jr, or just stop diddling himself.

          And not knowing what to do, he finally said “Enough!” And paid the £5,000 fine, no doubt thinking to himself, “To hell with these loonies.”

          And can you imagine how embarrassed Elizabeth would have been, since we know from Meres that “Shakespeare” circulated his sugared sonnets among his friends. Oh the shame!

          Now do you realize the logical consequence of a truly autobiographical reading of the Sonnets that Oxies demand.

          1. It’s a well known fact that Oxford knew Southampton and that Southampton was engaged to Oxford’s daughter.

             Shakspere did not know Southampton and there was no reason why they should have met.

             Which one of these two men is more likely to have dedicated a poem to Southampton? Oxford?

             1. The one who was in a position to seek patronage.

             2. By the way, cc, I’m looking forward to you proving your claim that “Shakspere did not know Southampton.”

             3. I’m looking forward to you offering any evidence that he did… I’m not holding my breath though.

             4. Please provide some evidence that Shakspere knew Southampton… I’m sure you cannot, but that would really help your case.

             5. Nope, the burden is on you to show that Shakespeare did not know Southampton. You are the one who made the claim, so provide your evidence and argument.

                Of course, the dedications to the long poems are evidence that Shakespeare sought patronage from Southampton, with the dedication to *Lucrece* being evidence that he had succeeded. I have some other, textual evidence that appears to confirm that scenario but I’m holding on to that at the moment

             6. So you don’t have any evidence that Shakspere knew Southampton then? … I thought not.

                You, as usual, are talking about Shakespeare, the author, knowing Southampton. But I am saying that Shakespeare the author was not the man from Stratford.

                You cannot offer any evidence that the Stratford man knew Southampton.

             7. Are you just pretending to be stupid?

             8. No, he’s not pretending. =o/

             9. cc,

                Why would the Earl of Oxford seek patronage from a lesser Earl?

                And have you read the dedications lately? Would Oxford humble himself before Southampton? Would Oxford really suck up to Southampton that way, twice?

                BTW, what did you think of the consequences of reading The Sonnets as life of Ox? Did I get it about right?

             10. Southampton was the dedicatee of Venus and Adonis. No-where does Shakespeare say that Southampton was his patron.

                 Could you offer some evidence as to why you think Southampton was Shakespeare’s patron? – I don’t expect so.

             11. The ineducable cc bleats: “No-where does Shakespeare say that Southampton was his patron.”

                 In the dedication of Venus and Adonis, he is clearly asking for Southampton’s patronage. Read the letter. It’s a graceful supplication, but he’s kneeling: “I know not how I shall offend … onelye if your Honour seeme but pleased … Your Honors in all dutie.” He hopes for the Earl’s support, with himself in the dependent role of a burden to be upheld and his work as a child to be sponsored: “so strong a proppe to support so weak a burthen … so noble a god-father.” He speaks of himself a humble laborer–indeed a ploughman–in the Earl’s service: “some graver labour … never after eare so barren a land, for feare it yeeld me still so bad a harvest.”

                 Can you tell us why Oxford would call himself a ploughman to a lesser earl, a mere boy? Why he would grovel to Southampton?

             12. Hi Avon lady! I’m afraid that is simply your interpretation. There is no hard evidence that Southampton was Shakespeare’s patron.

                 P.s – Avon was another word for Hampton Court.

             13. Avon, you do not seem to understand this letter at all. If you think the writer of the dedication of Venus and Adonis was ‘calling himself a ploughman’ you have lost your pretty little marbles.

             14. cc,

                 The prima facie evidence shows that Shakespeare dedicated the two poems to Southampton.

                 The prima facie tone of the dedications is consistent with a commoner addressing a nobleman.

                 I have nothing to explain (though I could enlist other evidence, such as the many attributions of V&A and RoL to Shakespeare’s pen, but we don’t need to go there now).

                 But you do. You have to explain why the evidence means other than what it does.

                 Starting with how the Earl of Oxford would come to write such a fawning dedication a lesser Earl?

             15. Correct. Shakespeare dedicated the poems to Southampton. You take the fact that Shakespeare was being humble and showing his love and praise to Southampton to mean that Southampton was his patron. This is a logical leap. Actually you have no evidence for this, i.e letters, receipts, payments etc.

                 I’m not sure why you are still here Hackman. Haven’t you made enough of a fool of yourself over English grammar elsewhere on this thread?

             16. cc,

                 I never said Southampton was Shakespeare’s patron.

                 The only thing I said re patronage was this: “Why would the Earl of Oxford seek patronage from a lesser Earl?

                 Key word: “seek”

                 So looks like you’ve built another strawman and set it on fire. Nothing more. Nothing less.

                 Toodles!

             17. Ok, and what is your proof that he was ‘seeking patronage’ then? … Er, nothing.

             18. cc,

                 You’re right. Shakespeare dedicated the poems to Southampton from grins. And thought it would be a neat entry on his CV.

                 More to the point, as you were asked below, can you tell us why Oxford would call himself a ploughman to a lesser earl, a mere boy? Why he would grovel to Southampton?

             19. Hackman, I am still awaiting your reply to my grammatical quiz elsewhere on this thread. I have managed to teach you the difference between full stops and semi-colons, and the fact that the word ‘that’ is singular. So I hope that you might do quite well on this one. Try not to invent any grammatical rules while you’re at it.

                 I can see that you have provided no evidence that Shakespeare was seeking patronage from Southampton.

                 Shakespeare did not ‘call himself a ploughman’ in the dedication. That is invention.

             20. The ineducable cc: “Shakespeare did not ‘call himself a ploughman’ in the dedication.”

                 Do you know what “eare” means?

             21. ‘Eare’ means ‘to sow.’ In the dedication, Shakespeare did not call himself a ‘sower’ and neither did he call himself a ‘ploughman.’ Are you under the impression that he did?

    4. …

    5. I agree! The Oxfordians have a much better understanding of evidence. Maybe that’s why there supreme court justices are Oxfordian, and another admits that it is very likely that Shakspere is not the author.

    6. I agree! The Oxfordians understand evidence much better! Maybe that’s why three supreme court justices are Oxfordian, and a forth admits that Shakspere may well not be the real author.

       1. Are you so ignorant that you think repetition confers truth?

          1. No, but somehow my comments keep being deleted so I rewrote one. Maybe it is just my computer…

             1. Perhaps so…you have double, triple and even quadruple posts here. It is quite annoying.

             2. Oh, I do apologise… It is simply my computer not showing the previous posts I have written.

17. Oxford’s “annotated bible” [“annotated”???] has been thrown up as a piece of evidence that the Earl wrote Shakespeare — without any explanation whatsoever as to why it might possibly qualify as such. If any readers of this thread are interested in seeing a complete analysis of this Bible and the marks therein, and an argument which reveals its actual probative value {zero}, might I suggest the following site:

    http://oxfraud.com/folger-bible-home

    We are still waiting for an Oxenfordian, any Oxenbfordian, to appear at that page and attempt to deal with the argument that is made there. That also may be a very long wait.

    1. Did you delete our whole discussion from earlier? It seems to have disappeared.

    2. This person is obviously Crowley’s love child. I think s/he has made it clear to the world how Oxfordians argue. That is really all we do when we respond to their idiocy.

       1. Right. I had determined not to respond any more to cc, but when I saw how well s/he was representing typical Oxenfordian methodology, and his/her inability to grasp simple concepts involving evidence, I reconsidered and decided to keep it going. In addition, it was laugh-out-loud funny.

18. Three supreme court justices are Oxfordian and a forth has said that it is very likely that Shakspere was not the author. Here is why:

    The Stratfordian case is based solely on the first folio, which is cryptic, posthumous and comes from one source – Ben Jonson. The first folio is full of double meanings and never actually states that Shakspere was the author, but Stratfordians have taken certain hints from this book as evidence for their candidate. Unfortunately this is not enough. If Shakspere were the real author you would expect much more evidence to show this. Diana Price has shown that Shakespeare is the only Elizabethan writer who is a complete mystery as there is no proof of who wrote his works.

    Stratfordians below have tried to offer more evidence for their candidate. They posited that ‘Mr’ and ‘gentleman’ could only refer to the man from Stratford. This can be easily refuted:

    ‘gentleman’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright. Both these titles would be suitable for the name or pseudonym of a distinguished playwright, and do not show that this playwright was the man from Stratford.’

    Stratfordians below then argued that because the playwright had experience in the theatre and acting and Shakspere was an actor they must be the same man. Again, this cannot count as evidence and can easily be refuted:

    “There are no references which show that the actor and author are one and the same man. There are references suggesting that the author had experience in the theatre and in acting. That does not mean that he was the actor from Stratford. Oxford was also very involved in the theatre and I believe he acted as well. Just because two men are both actors does not mean they are the same person. Hugh Grant is an actor that doesn’t mean he wrote Woody Allen’s films just because they are both actors.”

    There is also no proof that it was Oxford, but he is a much better candidate. If he had nothing to do with the works there would be a large number of coincidences to explain away.

    Coincidences include: Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl (man of Shakespeare’s plays were set in Italy). His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible, similarities between his life and Hamlet, and many similarities between his life and the sonnets, his knowledge of Italy, the law, foreign languages (we know Shake-speare spoke French) etc etc….

    This debate has not been proven either way, but there is a lot more evidence for Oxford that there is for Shakspere.

    However, this is a false dichotomy. Just because Shakspere didn’t write the plays doesn’t mean Oxford did, although there is a lot of evidence for Oxford

    1. Diana Price has gerrymandered her conditions deliberately to exclude William Shakespeare of Stratford. Her book is disingenuous.

       Ben Jonson, contrariwise, is unambiguous.

       1. ” For seeliest Ignorance on these may light,Which, when it sounds at best, but eccho’s right;
          Or blinde Affection, which doth ne’re advance
          The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance ”

          Ben Jonson – preface to the first folio.

          1. Yes, and….?

             1. He’s telling people to read the FF carefully and not take it at face value with ‘blind affection’.

             2. That’s a rather strange interpretation, since the text of the FF isn’t mentioned anywhere in those lines.

                What Jonson is actually doing is to continue to outline what his intention is in praising Shakespeare, which he started doing in the first six lines. He’s not trying to engender any ill will toward Shakespeare [draw envy on his name], which praising him too much could do; and, even though, in fact, the highest praise of Shakespeare is not too much [“neither Man nor Muse can praise too much”], he also doesn’t wish to join in that particular praise [But these ways Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise]. Even ignorant people can get that praise right, even though they may not have any notion as to why what they are saying is correct; they can accidentally “light” on the correct words of praise, and “echo right” without understanding why what they say is true. Jonson wants to do more than echo that type of praise. And he isn’t at all interested in “blind affection” — and Jonson wasn’t, as his commentary here, and elsewhere indicates his acknowledgment of what he perceived to be Shakespeare’s literary shortcomings.

                He continues in line 11; he could be motivated by malice. He could be hiding a secret meaning in the poem, so that where he appears to seek to “raise” Shakespeare he actually means to ruin him. But there is no need of that, or of any of the other intentions spelled out earlier in the poem, because Shakespeare’s worth as an artist if “proof” against them all.

                But thou art proof against them, and, indeed,
                Above the ill fortune of them, or the need.

                I therefore will begin: Soul of the age!
                The applause ! delight ! the wonder of our stage!

                Now it’s your turn. Let’s see some textual analysis and some consideration of the context from which you’ve ripped the lines, all tending to support your interpretation of the poem. While you’re at it, please demonstarte where my reading is incorrect. Specifics on both counts, please. And don’t just regurgitate some Waughrrrrgabl.

             3. Ok…

                Note first that in the very first line of this poem Jonson puts Shakespeare in brackets

                ‘to draw no envy (Shakespeare) on thy name’ – He is showing that Shakespeare’s name is not important, it is his works that matter. Why is his name so insignificant as to be put in brackets? Maybe because it’s a pseudonym and actually we only have his works. Compare this to what Shaksepeare said in his sonnets ‘my name be buried where my body is’ ‘every word doth almost tell my name’ – he then says ‘my name is Will’ – this is him adopting a new name, a cover name. But really his name has died. This name is not important, because it is a pseudonym, and only his works will live on.

                Jonson he goes on to say that Shakespeare’s writing cannot be praised too much as you say: “While I confesse thy writings to be such,As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much.” As you see, the ‘writings’ here are in contrast with the ‘name.’ The ‘writings’ are excellent, but the ‘name’ should not be idolised. Again, as in the first poem next to the Droeshout portrait, Jonson is drawing the readers’ attention away from the man and his name, and towards his works. Why? Again go back to Shakespeare’s sonnets. His name must be buried.

                Then comes the passage I quoted:

                “For seeliest Ignorance on these may light,
                Which, when it sounds at best, but eccho’s right;
                Or blinde Affection, which doth ne’re advance
                The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance”

                Ignorant people might read this and think that they understand it. People might not ‘advance the truth’ – i.e get to the bottom of what he is really saying and what is true, because of ‘blinde affection’ for this man Shakespeare.

                As he is saying affection for the man is useless. We must just concentrate on the works.

             4. >> “Note first that in the very first line of this poem Jonson puts Shakespeare in brackets ‘to draw no envy (Shakespeare) on thy name’ – He is showing that Shakespeare’s name is not important, it is his works that matter.”

                Sorry, but that interpretation isn’t really justified by the text. In fact, the entire poem is about the man Shakespeare and what and how he wrote. Putting the name in brackets could just as easily be interpreted to be a way of highlighting the name, all while sticking to the restrictive confines of the meter of the verse. It is interesting, and illustrative of Oxenfordian methodology, that your very first comment upon the poem, seems motivated by an a priori motivation to make the poem mean something other than what it says on its face.

                >> “Why is his name so insignificant as to be put in brackets? Maybe because it’s a pseudonym and actually we only have his works.”

                And the a priori bias rears its ugly head. And “MAYBE the brackets don’t mean anything like what you claim. In fact, you are introducing a concept from outside the text, from your own personal predisposition, and which is not even hinted at in the rest of the poem. You, like most Shakespeare denialists, do not do context well at all. Your attempt to drag in the sonnets is ridiculous — have you read any of the other poets of the time, or any of the classical poets they imitated? Do you know if similar themes a those presented by Shakespeare were treated by those other authors?

                >> ” As you see, the ‘writings’ here are in contrast with the ‘name.'”

                No, sorry, I don’t see that at all from what you have written here.

             5. I introduced this concept by comparing the text to Shakespeare’s own sonnets about his ‘name.’ Shakespeare keeps banging on and on about his name being buried and lost in the sonnets but his works living on… Jonson is making the same point here.

                Jonson doesn’t want to focus on the name, but on the plays. That really is the key point of this passage, which is backed up by 1/ Shakespeare’s sonnets and 2/ Jonson’s other poem next to the engraving of Shakespeare telling the readers not to look at the engraving i.e the man, but at the book, i.e the works.

             6. Your silence is an admission. You simply can’t use the text itself to support your argument, and so you must go to extra-textual matters [like the Sonnets and another Jonson poem which does not necessarily have anything to do with the meaning of this poem] to try to make your point.

                That being said, and your inability to present a textual argument being suitably displayed, even if I were to accept what you write here as to Jonson advising potential readers to focus on the works rather than on the author, there is absolutely nothing in that to justify bringing in some extra-textual notion that Jonson is telling the reader that there is some secret as to the authorship of the works. That is your own extraneous notion forced upon a text which will not support it. A typical practice employed by Shakespeare denialists like you.

                At this point, I may have to consider bringing this discussion with you to a conclusion. I believe I am wasting my time on you. You have made up your mind and your claim that you weigh the evidence equally is a joke.

             7. Just read the text. It’s very obvious Jonson is refusing to praise Shaksespeare’s ‘name,’ but he is praising his works. This comes directly from the text. No extras needed.

                The fact that this idea can also be seen in Shakespeare’s sonnets and in Jonson’s previous poem in the first folio is just an added bonus.

             8. I have read the text and I’ve provided a textual analysis that adheres to the text itself.

                It’s very obvious that you can’t show how my analysis is incorrect.

                And again, even if I accept your current statements, it is very obvious that such a claim does absolutely nothing to show that Jonson is “probably” hinting that there was a pseudonym being used.

             9. cc,

                See Spenser’s Amoretti Sonnett LXXV for example of poet achieving immortaltiy though his verse.

                See Shakespeare’s LV, for same idea, expressed much more compactly.

                See Horace,Ode 3.30, More Lasting than Bronze, ior a classical antecedent of theme that by Renaissance was as old and common as the hills, except in the hands of Shakespeare.

                S72, the Oxie favorite “buried be,” stands the trope on ts head: Don’t remember me or my poetry (“that which I bring forth”), deny it. But his poetry would only have to be denied because it had lived on after him. Think about it.

                Trust me, The Sonnets are not the life of Oxford. Only folks with no imagination, who need a very large crutch to take them on, think Ox had anything to do with the them..

             10. Why does Jonson refuse to praise Shakespeare’s name?

                 He praised Drayton’s name. Why is Shakespeare any different?

             11. Might I suggest that you read p. 129 et seq. in the following to see what Jonson may be doing:

                 https://books.google.com/books?id=JuOjHnBDt2IC&q=beloved#v=snippet&q=beloved&f=false

             12. The reason why Jonson refused specifically to praise Shakespeare’s NAME and not his works was probably because the name was a pseudonym.

                 See Shakespeare’s sonnets: ‘my name be buried where my body is’

                 On the other hand, here is Jonson on Drayton:

                 Do Pious Marble Let thy readers knowe

                 What they and what their children owe

                 To Drayton’s name…

                 And when thy Ruines shall disclame

                 To be the Treasurer of his NAME;

                 His name, that cannot fade, shall be

                 An everlasting MONUMENT to thee.’

             13. >> “The reason why Jonson refused specifically to praise Shakespeare’s NAME and not his works was probably because the name was a pseudonym.”

                 A moniment to Oxenfordian thought.

             14. “pseudonym”

                 Dong.

             15. cc,

                 You ask, “Why does Jonson refuse to praise Shakespeare’s name?”

                 Oh but he does.

                 After calling him “Soule of the Age,” Jonson continues on line 18:

                 My Shakespeare rise! I will not lodge thee by
                 Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
                 A little further, to make thee a room :
                 Thou art a monument without a tomb,
                 And art alive still while thy book doth live
                 And we have wits to read, and praise to give.

                 This is DIRECT praise for the NAME Shakespeare. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

                 As mentioned earlier in this thread, Jonson is responding to William Basse’s poem that proposed moving Shakespeare’s body to Poet’s Corner in Westminster Abbey.

                 The title of the poem is “On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616.” Which means Basse was very clearly referring to the Stratford Shakespeare.

                 Renowned Spenser, lie a thought more nigh
                 To learned Chaucer, and rare Beaumont lie
                 A little nearer Spenser to make room
                 For Shakespeare in your threefold, fourfold tomb.
                 To lodge all four in one bed make a shift
                 Until Doomsday, for hardly will a fifth
                 Betwixt this day and that by fate be slain
                 For whom your curtains may be drawn again.
                 If your precedency in death doth bar
                 A fourth place in your sacred sepulcher,
                 Under this carved marble of thine own
                 Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,
                 Thy unmolested peace, unshared cave,
                 Possess as lord not tenant of thy grave,
                 That unto us and others it may be
                 Honor hereafter to be laid by thee.

                 Jonson suggests that disturbing Shakespeare’s bones is unnecessary, since Shakespeare’s book transcends any
                 tomb, no matter where it might be, thereby deftly outdoing Basse’s encomium.

                 Here’s a link to transcriptions of two of the 30+ manuscript versions of the poem that have survived, along with a useful background discussion.

                 https://books.google.com/books?id=Sq84AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA113&lpg

                 The poem was written sometime after 1616 (Beaumont’s death) and before the First Folio in 1623, since
                 Jonson is responding to it. And with 30+ manuscript copies surviving, it was a very popular poem, widely circulated among the reading public, and thus Jonson could be sure that his allusion to it would understand his readers.

                 So Jonson refers to Shakespeare as the “Sweet Swan of Avon” in a poem commenting on Basse’s poem about a poet also named Shakespeare, who died in 1616, a poet of such renown that he deserved a place in Poet’s Corners, to which Jonson offered even higher praise.

                 So, cc, do you also find even this this evidence fails to tie the great playwright to the Stratford man?

             16. I do believe otherwise.

                 He is not talking about Shakespeare’s NAME here. He is talking about the works – “And art alive still while thy book doth live And we have wits to read, and praise to give.” He is saying that Shakespeare lives on in the works, not as a name or a person, but as the art he has created.

                 I find it more likely that Basse is responding to Jonson, as Basse’s poem does not appear in the first folio and is a much later addition.

                 You have just listed pretty much all the evidence there is for your case. Shakspere is clearly linked to the first folio, but only with a few very subtle hints. There are also many hints and tricks and double meanings which show us not to take that at face value and that the author could well have written using a pseudonym.

                 Also ‘Sweet Swan of Avon’ is ambiguous – it could refer to Hampton court, any river Avon and not necessarily Stratford.

             17. cc – don’t bother to discourse with Mark Johnson, he is a dishonourable American lawyer.

             18. I am not dishonorable. I am an American who is also a lawyer. You simply don’t have the mental ability to discourse with me and so you resort to ad hominem argument.

                 If you think that you do have what it takes to counter my arguments, please feel free to accept the challenge that no other Oxenfordian has attempted so far. Below in this very thread, in a response to Roger Stritmatter, I have set out the argument which demonstrates that what Oxenfordians call circumstantial evidence doesn’t even qualify as such. I look forward to your rebuttal of that argument.

             19. Johnson says: “You simply don’t have the mental ability to discourse with me and so you resort to ad hominem argument.”

                 You’ve used an ad hominem to counter an ad hominem. How does that help you?

             20. You really need to learn the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument.

             21. Since Mr Waugh is a well established Oxfordian, saying that he doesn’t have the ‘mental ability’ to discourse, is clearly a cheap trick trying to discredit his Oxfordian and anti-stratfordian arguments by insulting him as a person – I would call that an ad hominem.

             22. I don’t really care what you would call it, especially since what you call it is wrapped in an appeal to authority.

             23. An appeal to authority is saying that someone is right because they are an authority. I did not do that.

             24. Mr. Waugh’s limited mental capacity is supported by ample evidence. His instinctive resort to ad hominems is similarly documented. It really has nothing to do with attacking the person rather than the argument itself, because Waugh really isn’t making any substantive argument — he’s just saying not to discuss anything with Mr. Johnson.

             25. and I can see why…

             26. “not to discuss anything with Mr. Johnson” – He is dishonourable.

             27. In your opinion. But in your opinion, Shakespeare’s monument was depicted with monkey faces instead of acanthus leaves. So I think we can discount your views to nill.

             28. Why thank you, Mr. Headlight. It seems I have my own somewhat shy stalker in Mr. Wilfy Waugh. It is getting pretty comical how many pots he has made here commenting upon me and my posts [though he rarely, if ever, deals with the substance of those posts]. He spends all of that time following me around and yet he can’t rise to the challenge I’ve given him to discuss the actual evidence in the historic record or to discuss the fact that the Oxenfordians don’t even have any circumstantial evidence for their Lord — shoot, they don’t even understand the term. I think I’m going to have to lock my trouser drawer before I find him rummaging around in there. I’ve heard he may have done something similar in the past.

                 I am glad we all live on a planet where we are not forced to wear goggles which make us see monkeys where there are none.

             29. Alexander has made the most egregious error of judgement in the history of critical thought. Mistaking the unremittingly mediocre Oxford for the genius Shakespeare.

                 Now we know how Oxfordians work. They believe quantity is the answer to everything and can trump quality when it comes to evidence.

                 So what Alexander believes he can do is:

                 1. Build a mountain of scholarly errors as high as his own
                 2. Distract attention from the mountain of Oxfordian errors which is already the dominant feature of the Authorship landscape
                 3. Make himself seem right once he can point to enough of other people’s errors

                 That’s also why he and cc are here driving everyone nuts with their quibbling. There are three arguments comprehensively lost
                 further down the thread.

                 The quantity of their bilious posts here are merely an attempt to cover their disgrace with a mountain of landfill junk.

             30. And “in your opinion. But in your opinion” Shakespeare was not ‘Poet-Ape’, Dugdale’s drawing of the Shakspere-monument and Hollar’s engraving only appear to have ape-like bodies because Dugdale could not draw properly and Hollar could not rectify, and it has nothing to do with apes and nothing to do Jonson’s imposture playwright ‘Poet-Ape’ and the acanthus leaves on the columns of Dugdale’s drawing only seem to resemble ape-faces but that’s only a coincidence and its only a coincidence that those ‘only seeming’ monkey’s heads are in perfect proportion to the monkey torso, and it was only because Dugdale was incompetent that he left out the quill pen and forgot the paper and inserted a wool-pack instead. So I think we can discount your views to minus 10.

             31. I read your paper and it seemed like you lost your way when you started talking about ape-like bodies and faces in what are clearly just decorated, fluted columns. Are you prone to hallucinations? I understand people with delirium tremens sometimes see things like pink elephants — were these apes you are seeing any particular color?

             32. Mark Johnson is dishonourable; he tells terrible lies and edits his posts each time he is caught out talking balls so that it looks as though he never wrote what he actually wrote and then tries to make out that his adversaries are being stupid for not reading his posts properly. I once caught him out doing precisely this will not discourse with him ever again. Your last post was a super squash – but I would ignore him in future.

             33. You are confused or a liar — or both.

          2. cc, Like MDH Johnson asks, what do these lines mean to you? A precise explication, please.

             1. They mean whatever Humpty Waugh tells him they mean…

          3. Jonson provides excellent testimony that ‘Shakespeare’ was a pseudonym. He refuses to praise his name and spends 16 lines explaining why. It looks to me as though ‘Whilk’, Hackman and their cohorts are suffering from ‘silliest ignorance’, ‘blind affection’ and ‘crafty malice’.

             1. No, Alexander.

                Jonson spent 16 lines carefully gauging his commentary, lest it seem excessive, or dishonest, or disingenuous. He wanted to be very precise about his methods and objective, before finally getting down to business and calling Shakespeare “Soul of the Age.” And I’ll continue by repeating a post further down that I just made below a few minutes ago to cc:

                After calling him “Soule of the Age,” Jonson continues on line 18:

                My Shakespeare rise! I will not lodge thee by
                Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
                A little further, to make thee a room :
                Thou art a monument without a tomb,
                And art alive still while thy book doth live
                And we have wits to read, and praise to give.

                This is DIRECT praise for the NAME Shakespeare. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

                As mentioned earlier in this thread, Jonson is responding to William Basse’s poem that proposed moving Shakespeare’s body to Poet’s Corner in Westminster Abbey.

                The title of the poem is “On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616.” Which means Basse was very clearly
                referring to the Stratford Shakespeare.

                Renowned Spenser, lie a thought more nigh
                To learned Chaucer, and rare Beaumont lie
                A little nearer Spenser to make room
                For Shakespeare in your threefold, fourfold tomb.
                To lodge all four in one bed make a shift
                Until Doomsday, for hardly will a fifth
                Betwixt this day and that by fate be slain
                For whom your curtains may be drawn again.
                If your precedency in death doth bar
                A fourth place in your sacred sepulcher,
                Under this carved marble of thine own
                Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,
                Thy unmolested peace, unshared cave,
                Possess as lord not tenant of thy grave,
                That unto us and others it may be
                Honor hereafter to be laid by thee.

                Jonson suggests that disturbing Shakespeare’s bones is unnecessary, since Shakespeare’s book transcends any
                tomb, no matter where it might be.

                Here’s a link to transcriptions of two of the 30+ manuscript versions of the poem that have survived, along with a useful background discussion.

                https://books.google.com/books…

                The poem was written sometime after 1616 (Beaumont’s death) and before the First Folio in 1623, since
                Jonson is responding to it. And with 30+ manuscript copies surviving, it was a very popular poem, widely circulated among the reading public, and thus Jonson could be sure that his allusion to it would be understood by his readers.

                So Jonson refers to Shakespeare as the “Sweet Swan of Avon” in a poem commenting on Basse’s poem about a poet also named Shakespeare, who died in 1616, a poet of such renown that he deserved a place in Poet’s Corners, to which Jonson offered even higher praise.

                So, Alexander (vice cc), do you also find that even this evidence fails to tie the great playwright to the Stratford man?

             2. I’ve answered this already… and showed you that this quote has nothing to do with Shakespeare’s NAME – it is about his works living on, as you cleverly quoted: ‘And art alive still while thy book doth live’

             3. cc,

                You are hopeless. Good bye.

                cc from his post as lookout on the bow of the Titanic: “No captain that’s not an iceberg, it’s a low cloud, or perhaps a whale. But definitely not an iceberg.”

                Cheers!

             4. Ben…how could a poem headed, “On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616,” possibly be about the man, Mr. Shakespeare, who did die in April of 1616? It must be about the Shakespeare works and about how they died in April, 1616.

                I am waiting for some Oxenfordian to pop up and relate how it is a fact that Basse was at one time an employee of Norris, who was married to Oxenford’s daughter, Bridget, and so ….something along the lines of, “Coincidence…I think not.”

             5. Nope, it was about a cloud, or maybe a whale . .

             6. The folios were providing a front man for the author, that front man was clearly Shakspere. However. they were also showing us not to take everything at face value.

                The Basse poem was written way after Shakspere died to keep up the myth and hide the author’s real identity. It was not included in the first folio, but added afterwards, almost as though no-one believed it was Shakspere after the first folio, so they decided to add another little clue into the next folio to keep people of ‘seeliest ignorance’ happy.

             7. Don’t go Dinner-jacket Man, you must explain to Jonson that the title to Basse’s poem appeared for the first time in print on its third publication. That was in 1640. As soon as a Strat has to start fishing in waters that late to prop up his mouldering case we know he is in trouble. Basse is connected to Oxford through his daughter Bridget and son in law, Norris of Rycote. What connections are there between Basse and Stratford-Shakspere?

             8. Looks like you didn’t get the memo…..

                http://oxfraud.com/SL-Basse

             9. “It is about his works living on.”

                And just who is “his”?

                And another petard is fired by cc.

             10. you haven’t got the basic distinction here: Shakespeare’s NAME must be forgotten. He lives on in his works.

             11. No, you miss the point. Entirely.

                 The trope is that the poet’s name will NOT be forgotten. That his NAME is everlasting because it lives on through his works.

                 Most our us, once we’re dead and buried, nobody remembers us.

                 But a great poet, when he’s dead and buried, lives on eternally. So much so with Shakespeare that his name and the canon are one.

                 So his name is NOT forgotten.

                 cc, you really got this bassackward. You’re trying so hard to impose an Oxfordian reading on Jonson that you end up making dreadfully stupid statements like this.

                 Here’s Barnfield’s 1598 poem, “A Remembrance of Some English Poets”–and a nice piece of evidence for Shakespeare–that is based entirely on this conceit, i.e., why these poets will NOT be forgotten.

                 Read it and weep:

                 Live Spenser ever, in thy Fairy Queene:
                 Whose like (for deepe Conceit) was never seene.
                 Crownd mayst thou bee, unto thy more renowne,
                 (As King of Poets) with a Lawrell Crowne.

                 And Daniell, praised for thy sweet-chast Verse:
                 Whose Fame is grav’d on Rosamonds blacke Herse.
                 Still mayst thou live: and still be honored,
                 For that rare Worke, The White Rose and the Red.

                 And Drayton, whose wel-written Tragedies,
                 And sweete Epistles, soare thy fame to skies.
                 Thy learned Name, is aequall with the rest;
                 Whose stately Numbers are so well addrest.

                 And Shakespeare thou, whose hony-flowing Vaine,
                 (Pleasing the World) thy Praises doth obtaine.
                 Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece (sweete, and chaste)
                 Thy Name in fames immortall Booke have plac’t.
                 Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever:
                 Well may the Bodye dye, but Fame dies never.

             12. ” To draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name,
                 Am I thus ample to thy book and fame;
                 While I confess thy writings to be such
                 As neither man nor muse can praise too much;”

                 He is saying that the name should not be envied, but the works are praiseworthy and should be admired. It’s extremely simple.

                 He says this to preface your quote “My Shakespeare rise” for a reason. He has warned those of ‘seeliest ignorance’ not to praise him in the wrong way, i.e by praising his name not his works. He says that these were “not the paths I meant unto thy praise” – instead he is praising the works.

                 ” Thou art a monument without a tomb,
                 And art alive still while thy book doth live” – Again this is emphasising that it is the works that will live on. He has previously emphasised that the ‘name’ is not to be envied.

                 This is very simple stuff.

                 Ok… so Barnfield praises Shakespeare’s name. So what? 1) That does not mean that Jonson was also praising his name when it is quite clear he wasn’t: ‘to draw no envy Shakespeare on thy name’ and 2/ It doesn’t mean that the name is not a pseudonym.

                 It is not even an Oxfordian reading!! It’s a normal reading! It makes perfect sense. Even Stratfordians have no reason not to see that. I am just going the extra step and explaining why Jonson is so adamant not to praise the name.

             13. Ever come across the word ‘infame’? Look it up. You cannot hope to understand Elizabethan poetry unless you engage those poets skilful art of double meaning. Stratfordians are, quite rightly, terrified of the double meanings in the poems that allude Shakespeare, because they all suggest that Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Your loss, dear boy.

             14. Alexander,

                 Well said. Oxfordians can only prove their case by resorting to double meanings.

                 A frank an honest admission.

                 Thank you very much.

                 And BTW, have you seen any more monkeys lately?

             15. Did I say that? Really? If you cannot understand a simple three line blog it is no wonder that you are making a complete mess of Richard Brome. cc is making you look very frantic and silly at moment on that one.

             16. Alexander,

                 Yes, you did say that.

                 I believe it went like this: “That these monkeys’ heads were intentionally drawn, and not some freak accident, is further supported by the fact that each is designed with obvious care to detail”

                 http://www.deveresociety.co.uk/articles/AW-2014Oct-Monument.pdf

             17. Benjamin, you are doing a bit of twisting here. When I wrote ‘Did I say that?” I was not, as you well know, referring to the quotation which you have now bring up. As to that quotation I stand by it absolutely. Thank you for posting the link to my article, which also shows that Stratford monument, if properly interpreted shows that Shakespeare (whoever he was) is buried at Westminster Abbey. I hope many will read and enjoy it.

             18. Can you really not distinguish between the NAME Shakespeare and the WORKS by Shakespeare?

             19. That’s obvious for the Oxenfordian, Ben….”his” refers to Mr. Works.

             20. I don’t think you have understood this poem very well. Jonson spends 16 lines explaining why he will not praise Shakespeare’s name. On line 17 he says ‘Now I shall begin’ (Vere was 17th Earl of Oxford) – ‘My Shakespeare rise’ and then he continues to praise ‘The Author’. Look at the title and yourself why he makes the word ‘Author’ twice the size of ‘Mr William Shakespeare’. You see? He thinks the ‘name’ is less important than the author, and this is confirmed in the very first line of his poem: ‘To draw no envy (Shakespeare) on thy name)”. And then you have to ask yourself why he makes ‘Shakespeare’s’ peers Lyly, Kyd and Marlowe whose careers were all finished by the mid-1590s. So much for your Jacobean Bard! Jonson, who called Stratfordians those of ‘silliest ignorance’ and ‘sluggish gaping auditors’, is the sole source of the Stratfordian myth, but from the beginning he always handed the sharpest weapons to the intelligentsia.

             21. The theory that Oxford or Jonson used the number seventeen as a subtle reference to the “17th Earl of Oxford” falls apart when one examines the evidence. Earls were not referred to by their ordinal number during Oxford’s lifetime. Mr. Waugh cannot produce a single contemporary reference to Oxford as the 17th Earl — that designation did not occur for many years later. Indeed, the state of the genealogical record during Oxford’s lifetime would not lead one to count him as the seventeenth earl anyway — a contemporaneous genealogy in the possession of the Folger Shakespeare Library is good evidence of this.

                 “he always handed the sharpest weapons to the intelligentsia.” You should be careful, Al — don’t cut yourself.

             22. Headlight – It is absolute nonsense to say that ‘earls were not referred to by their ordinal number during Oxford’s lifetime” Have you read Holinshed? Have you read Stow? Have you read anything? Take a look at Oxford’s signature. I am amazed that you did not know that Oxford was associated by his contemporaries with the number 17 as there is an extremely offensive contemporary allusion to him by that number and usually you love it when Oxford is denigrated, so how come you haven’t found that yet? When you do, I look forward to hearing your croaky gloat being the sound your throat makes with your pleasure of the insult to Oxford combined with the embarrassment of your being wrong – yet again. You will find Markham and Ralph Brooke among Oxford’s contemporaries calling him 17th Earl.

             23. Holinshed used ordinals by first name, not as they are currently used for earls. So rather than the seventeenth earl of Oxford, he’d be “Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the first of that name,” had anyone bothered to refer to him that way. But nobody did.

                 Markham’s references were twenty years after the death of Oxford, and there’s no reason to believe that anyone grasped at that number (certainly not Jonson) as a shorthand reference to Oxford.

                 There’s a very good article that will answer all of your questions: http://www.oxfraud.com/100-Count

                 I’m not comfortable with your imagining the sounds my throat makes in any context, but I suppose that you imagine many disgusting things when you’re alone in front of your computer.

             24. What you wrote, if you remember, was that ‘earls were not referred to by their ordinal number during Oxford’s lifetime.’ I told you this was nonsense and referred you to Holinshed. Did you really fail to find a single earl there referred to by ordinal number? Come on – try a little harder. Do you understand how English titles work? Do you know the difference between ‘the Earl of Oxford’ and ‘The 17th Earl of Oxford’? I don’t think you understand it at all. Dinner-Jacket Hackman thought that Shakespeare’s grand-daughter was called ‘Lady Elizabeth Barnard’ because she married a knight. Dimmy Reedy pitched in: ‘no, actually she should be styled ‘Elizabeth, Lady Barnard.’ Both of them were wrong of course and Headlight comes to the party saying that Oxford was not known as ’17th Earl of Oxford’ until after his death! What planet are you fellas on?

             25. Alexander,

                 Please show us a usage of 17th during Oxford’s lifetime.

             26. Dear Benjamin, last time we blogged one another about English titles you made a fool of yourself coming out in support of buffoons (Edmondson and Wells) and their erroneous assertion that Shakespeare’s grand-daughter was styled ‘Lady Elizabeth Barnard’ because she had married a knight. By joining in with Headlight’s latest absurdity you are in danger of slipping up on English titles once again. An earl, when he is alive is known as ‘The Earl of -” e.g.. The Earl of Oxford, The Earl of Bedford, The Earl of Sussex etc etc. He will inevitably be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 17th whatever Earl thereof, but as the CURRENT earl he is not introduced by his number, and when writing about a living earl (unless specifically to avoid ambiguity) you would simply write ‘The Earl of…’ leaving out number. Headlight’s ludicrous assumption, drawn from this simple fact, is that in those days ‘earls were not considered by their numbers’ or some such rot. But he, like you, does not understand the first thing about English titles.

                 When the 8th Earl of x dies, his son becomes the 9th Earl of x. The 9th earl’s deceased father will usually be referred to as ‘8th Earl of X” to distinguish him from earl’s 1-7 of x and from the CURRENT ‘The Earl of x” (who is 9th) but as the current titular head is simply styled ‘The Earl of X.’ That is why 17th Earl of Oxford is not commonly referred to by his number DURING HIS LIFETIME. You will find this is the same with all other English earldoms throughout history. To suggest that Oxford was not recognised as the 17th Earl of Oxford until after his death is pure piffle. As I told Headlite Oxford signed his name with a signature-monogram signifying that he was 17th Earl of Oxford. 17 was the highest number of any earl in the land at that time and he was clearly proud of it.

             27. Alexander,

                 Would you explain how the 17 was signified in Oxford’s signature?

             28. headlight: The first to write of “Edward Vere, the 17. earl of Oxforde” wasn’t Markham but the gentleman amateur Thomas Milles, in 1610. But rival and retrograde conventions went on appearing through the 17th century: John Aubrey, for example, calls the 5th Earl of Pembroke, “Philip (2nd).” As one might expect, the nobility themselves were the last to adopt the new style of ordinals. In 1625, there were proceedings in the House of Lords, with the rights of the de Veres to the earldom and the office of Great Chamberlain at stake. There could scarcely be a weightier occasion. The court spoke only of “the now earl of Oxford” and of “late” earls, dead in several reigns. Any numbering was still in the archaic kingly style: “John the Fourth, Earl of Oxford, who had Issue, John the Fifth …” In modern style, they’d be the 14th and the 15th Earls.

             29. I refer you to the message I sent to Hackman on this a few moments ago. You are, I am sorry to say, making a fool of yourself on this one.

19. Three supreme court justices are Oxfordian and a forth has said that it is very likely that Shakspere was not the author. Here is why:

    The Stratfordian case is based solely on the first folio, which is cryptic, posthumous and comes from one source – Ben Jonson. The first folio is full of double meanings and never actually states that Shakspere was the author, but Stratfordians have taken certain hints from this book as evidence for their candidate. Unfortunately this is not enough. If Shakspere were the real author you would expect much more evidence to show this. Diana Price has shown that Shakespeare is the only Elizabethan writer who is a complete mystery as there is no proof of who wrote his works.

    Stratfordians below have tried to offer more evidence for their candidate. They posited that ‘Mr’ and ‘gentleman’ could only refer to the man from Stratford. This can be easily refuted:

    ‘gentleman’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright. Both these titles would be suitable for the name or pseudonym of a distinguished playwright, and do not show that this playwright was the man from Stratford.’

    Stratfordians below then argued that because the playwright had experience in the theatre and acting and Shakspere was an actor they must be the same man. Again, this cannot count as evidence and can easily be refuted:

    “There are no references which show that the actor and author are one and the same man. There are references suggesting that the author had experience in the theatre and in acting. That does not mean that he was the actor from Stratford. Oxford was also very involved in the theatre and I believe he acted as well. Just because two men are both actors does not mean they are the same person. Hugh Grant is an actor that doesn’t mean he wrote Woody Allen’s films just because they are both actors.”

    There is also no proof that it was Oxford, but he is a much better candidate. If he had nothing to do with the works there would be a large number of coincidences to explain away.

    Coincidences include: Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl (man of Shakespeare’s plays were set in Italy). His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible, similarities between his life and Hamlet, and many similarities between his life and the sonnets, his knowledge of Italy, the law, foreign languages (we know Shake-speare spoke French) etc etc….

    This debate has not been proven either way, but there is a lot more evidence for Oxford that there is for Shakspere.

    However, this is a false dichotomy. Just because Shakspere didn’t write the plays doesn’t mean Oxford did, although there is a lot of evidence for Oxford.

20. Three supreme court justices are Oxfordian and a forth has said that it is very likely that Shakspere was not the author. Here is why:

    The Stratfordian case is based solely on the first folio, which is cryptic, posthumous and comes from one source – Ben Jonson. The first folio is full of double meanings and never actually states that Shakspere was the author, but Stratfordians have taken certain hints from this book as evidence for their candidate. Unfortunately this is not enough. If Shakspere were the real author you would expect much more evidence to show this. Diana Price has shown that Shakespeare is the only Elizabethan writer who is a complete mystery as there is no proof of who wrote his works.

    Stratfordians below have tried to offer more evidence for their candidate. They posited that ‘Mr’ and ‘gentleman’ could only refer to the man from Stratford. This can be easily refuted:

    ‘gentleman’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright. Both these titles would be suitable for the name or pseudonym of a distinguished playwright, and do not show that this playwright was the man from Stratford.’

    Stratfordians below then argued that because the playwright had experience in the theatre and acting and Shakspere was an actor they must be the same man. Again, this cannot count as evidence and can easily be refuted:

    “There are no references which show that the actor and author are one and the same man. There are references suggesting that the author had experience in the theatre and in acting. That does not mean that he was the actor from Stratford. Oxford was also very involved in the theatre and I believe he acted as well. Just because two men are both actors does not mean they are the same person. Hugh Grant is an actor that doesn’t mean he wrote Woody Allen’s films just because they are both actors.”

    There is also no proof that it was Oxford, but he is a much better candidate. If he had nothing to do with the works there would be a large number of coincidences to explain away.

    Coincidences include: Oxford’s coat of arms with a lion shaking a spear which turns into a pen. His nickname as the Italian Earl (man of Shakespeare’s plays were set in Italy). His nickname as the spear shaker. His closeness to the earl of Southampton, Brome referring to Shakespeare as an ‘earl,’ ‘our-de-vere’ found as an anagram (in the same order) describing Shakespeare, his annotated bible, similarities between his life and Hamlet, and many similarities between his life and the sonnets, his knowledge of Italy, the law, foreign languages (we know Shake-speare spoke French) etc etc….

    This debate has not been proven either way, but there is a lot more evidence for Oxford that there is for Shakspere.

    However, this is a false dichotomy. Just because Shakspere didn’t write the plays doesn’t mean Oxford did, although there is a lot of evidence for Oxford.

21. Great article!

22. cc, It was an Oxfordain who scratched the Bulbec crest from the “evidence” list. You gotta keep up.

    http://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SOSNL_2006_3.pdf

    1. cc’s coincidences are not even facts. Oxenford’s alleged “close” relationship to Southampton ?….fantasy. cc is a typical Oxenfordian. Just make stuff up and throw it against the wall. In cc’s case, the stuff is thrown over and over again, as if repeating it will make it true.

       1. What is your evidence for Shakspere then? Remember you are creating a false dichotomy here. If it’s not Oxford that does not mean it’s Shakspere. Where is your evidence for the orthodox candidate, apart from the cryptic FF and monument?

          I was simply pointing out that the case for Oxford is far stronger than the case for Shakspere

          1. It isn’t “my” evidence for Shakespeare. It is objective evidence in the historic record, the kind which historians have relied on for four hundred years. I’ve already proposed a book you could read to get the whole case spelled out so that even you might understand….’Shakespeare, In Fact’, by Irvin Matus.

             As I said earlier, the burden of going forward with evidence is on you. But let’s start with just one piece for now.

             23 August 1600: “Entred for their copies vnder the handes of the
             wardens. Twoo bookes. the one called: Muche a Doo about nothinge.
             Thother the second parte of the history of kinge henry the iiijth
             with the humors of Sr John ffalstaff: Wrytten by mr Shakespere. xijd”.

             Please explain why you think this should not be considered as evidence for Mr. Shakespeare of Stratford.

             1. How does this evidence show that Shakespeare is not a pseudonym? – it doesn’t. The register could very well have recorded the pseudonym.

                How does this evidence show that the man who wrote the plays was from Stratford, or born in 1564 or died in 1616? – it doesn’t.

                Please try again.

23. If any reader is interested in reviewing what the Stratfordian case is actually based on, might I suggest reading a book entitled Shakespeare, In Fact, by Irvin Matus. cc is so good at making straw men that s/he should buy a farm.

    1. You created all the straw men by drawing me into textual analysis.

       Actually my main point to begin with was about the lack of evidence for the Stratford man. You tried to provide evidence about him being a ‘gentleman’ and an ‘actor’ none of which showed that he was a playwright.

       Where is your evidence that Shakspere wrote the plays? (Excluding the cryptic first folio and monument.)

       1. You wish for me to write a book here…others have already done so.

          The FF and Monument are not cryptic as to the authorship of the works. They are more than sufficient evidence in and of themselves but there is more. You, on the other hand, have zero evidence for Lord Oxenforde.

          1. Stop creating a false dichotomy. I will remind you that you are still on level 1: understanding that there is not enough evidence for Shakspere to support the orthodox position. Once you have passed level one we can get onto level 2: other candidates.

             So what ‘more’ is there then? Give me one.

             1. You don’t appear to understand that the burden of moving forward with evidence is on you. And there is no false dichotomy here.

                Step up or step off.

             2. I do ‘undwerstand’ that the burden of proof is on you.

                You are arguing from a position of ‘certainty’ and I am arguing from a position of ‘doubt.’ It is therefore up to you to prove your assertion.

                I may as well say: ‘I believe in flying unicorns, and it’s up to you to prove me wrong.’ We both know it doesn’t work like that. You believe in Shakspere of Stratford. Now you need to show me why.

             3. He originally wrote ‘undwerstand’. I’m pleased to note that he has corrected it under your patient tutelage. Not long now…

             4. As is usual you are wrong. I corrected it within seconds of posting the original post and long before cc responded. This is the same thing you got wrong about me before.

             5. No, actually, once a prima facie case has been made [which is not a position of certainty], the burden shifts. Once again, you know nothing about evidence.

             6. If by ‘prima facie’ you mean ‘first come first served,’ I should remind you that the ‘prima facie’ evidence between 1593 and 1616 shows that Shakespeare was a pseudonym. So according to your legal argument, the burden of proof is now on you to disprove that.

                Furthermore, your ‘prima facie’ case, as you put it, has been rebutted. The first folio and the monument are posthumous and ambiguous and suggest the use of a pseudonym.

                This is why I am asking for more evidence if you wish to maintain that you have the right to a ‘prima facie’ case.

             7. No, that’s not at all what “prima facie case” means. Keep trying.

                >> I should remind you that the ‘prima facie’ evidence between 1593 and 1616 shows that Shakespeare was a pseudonym.

                Really…when was this judgment rendered and what evidence was involved?

                >> Furthermore, your ‘prima facie’ case, as you put it, has been rebutted.

                No, actually, it hasn’t, since it can only be rebutted with actual evidence. The Shakespeare denialists don’t have any such evidence and so it is impossible for them to rebut the prima facie case. If you disagree with me, pleas man up and answer the argument which demonstrates quite conclusively that what the denialists claim to be circumstantial evidence is not circumstantial evidence at all.

                >> The first folio and the monument are posthumous and ambiguous and suggest the use of a pseudonym.

                You keep repeating this but you never actually explain what you mean. I have asked you before and you dodged answering. What do you mean when you claim that the evidence is posthumous and what effect do you contend that being posthumous has on the evidence. If you fail and refuse to answer this question I am done trying to educate you.

                Your opinion that the FF and Monument are ambiguous is not evidence. You do realize this fact, right? Again, if you fail to answer I am done wasting time on you. Your opinion also does absolutely nothing to deprive the FF and the Monument of their nature as direct evidence supporting the orthodox attribution.

                Your clkaim that the FF and Monument suggest the use of a pseudonym is unsupported. Now is the time for you to mount an actual argument in support of that claim.

                No one has a right to a prima facie case. Please stop showing your ignorance.

             8. I am just happy that you have admitted that you are not arguing from a ‘position of certainty.’ This means that you know your ‘evidence’ is not conclusive. You are aware that the debate is ongoing and that your candidate has not been proven.

                We both know that the only evidence you have is the FF and the monument. The FF is a clear riddle as William Ray has said above. It is obviously pointing to a pseudonym. The portrait is bizarre, with many purposeful oddities, such as the apparent mask he is wearing and the fact that his right arm is actually the back of his left arm. The fact that Jonson says it is ‘well hit’ can only be seen as obvious sarcasm, it is clearly not a lifelike portrait. No man looks like that. Shakspere’s dates and coat of arms are not given. Jonson adamantly refuses to praise Shakspere’s name and only wants to focus on his works. The whole thing is clearly one big joke that only those of ‘seeliest ignorance’ could possibly fall for.

                Why do you think Shakspere’s coat of arms and dates are not given? Why do you think the portrait is so odd and obviously inaccurate yet described as ‘well hit?’ Why do you think Jonson never explicitly states anything about Shakspere’s life and wants to draw attention away from the man and his name when he was happy to praise Drayton’s name? Why do you think Jonson never explicitly states that Shakspere was the author and only gives one or two ambiguous hints?

             9. >> “I am just happy that you have admitted that you are not arguing from a ‘position of certainty.’ This means that you know your ‘evidence’ is not conclusive. You are aware that the debate is ongoing and that your candidate has not been proven.”

                You know a lot of things that are not right. As I’ve stated before, a prima facie case establishes a rebuttable presumption, one that may be overcome by the introduction of evidence. If evidence is not produced to overcome the presumption, the case stands as proven fact. Since the Oxenfordians have not produced a shred of actual evidence to overcome that case it is conclusive. Are you aware of the fact that even a judgment of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not considered to be 100 % certainty. In this debate, in its current status, the proposition that WS of Stratford wrote the works has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

                Unlike you, I know that there is evidence other than the Monument and the FF. For instance, there is *Timber*. William Ray’s idiosyncratic notions about the FF are not evidence. His doubts about the Droeshout, and your repeated speculations about what it “Obviously” must mean, are also not evidence. You appear to believe otherwise, which only serves to show that you really don’t understand the concept of evidence.

                Since you continue to fail and refuse to answer the questions I have asked you, which is a sign that you are not interested in any open-minded discussion, I am through bothering with you.

             10. I have refused to answer your questions because they are harping back to Oxford. We are on Shakspere here and I will focus on the evidence for him.

                 You know as well as I do that the FF and the monument is all you have. ‘Timber’ is ben Jonson praising the author Shakespeare, he does not mention Stratford or offer any reason to believe that Shakespeare is not a pseudonym.

                 I have very well shown you why the FF and the Monument are not good enough evidence. If you want, there is also a ton of evidence which suggests that Shakespeare was a pseudonym.

                 Have a look at this:

                 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezk1B-airWI

             11. My questions had nothing to do with Oxenford:
                 ==============================
                 >> The first folio and the monument are posthumous and ambiguous and suggest the use of a pseudonym.

                 You keep repeating this but you never actually explain what you mean. I have asked you before and you dodged answering. What do you mean when you claim that the evidence is posthumous and what effect do you contend that being posthumous has on the evidence. If you fail and refuse to answer this question I am done trying to educate you.

                 Your opinion that the FF and Monument are ambiguous is not evidence. You do realize this fact, right? Again, if you fail to answer I am done wasting time on you. Your opinion also does absolutely nothing to deprive the FF and the Monument of their nature as direct evidence supporting the orthodox attribution.
                 ==================================
                 Goodbye. Enjoy your blissful life.

             12. My problem with posthumous evidence is that there is no evidence from Shakspere’s lifetime that he wrote the plays. This is extremely odd. You would expect letters, books, people talking about him, receipts, details of payment or anything! But there is nothing. This weakens the Stratford case enormously.

                 It is my opinion that the first folio is a big joke and I can use the text to show you why I think that. It is your opinion that Jonson was being deadly serious and actually thought that the ridiculous portrait of Shakespeare was ‘well hit.’ I think the picture itself speaks volumes as to whose ‘opinion’ is the correct one.

             13. “My problem with posthumous evidence is that there is no evidence from Shakspere’s lifetime that he wrote the plays. This is extremely odd.”

                 This statement makes no sense. There IS evidence from Shakespeare’s lifetime that he wrote the plays — as will be shown in the “Shakespeare, documented” site the Folger library will open soon (http://shakespearedocumented.org/). You never tell us what your problem with posthumous evidence is, but it’s a distinction that to my knowledge no historian has ever made. This methodological fallacy is at the heart of the Oxfordian theory.

                 “It is my opinion that the first folio is a big joke and I can . . .”

                 It’s really not important to quote anything more — your opinion really doesn’t have any bearing on the question or interest to me or anyone else.

             14. There isn’t such evidence. If you think there is, please provide it here.

             15. I think Reedy and Kathman’s page is the best succinct prima facie case for Shakespeare’s authorship. http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html

                 I would argue the following:

                 1. Shakespeare’s name was on the title pages of many quartos of his plays and the dedication of his narrative poems.
                 2. The spelling of his name in these printed texts were generally consistent with spellings that were used to refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, particularly the spelling in the Mountjoy v. Belotte case.
                 3. The man from Stratford was a player with the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and the King’s Men.
                 4. The plays of Shakespeare were exclusively performed by these two companies.
                 5. The account of the Master of Revels for yuletide 1604/5 attributes plays performed before the court with titles that are acknowledged as referring to plays later included in the First Folio and attributed to William Shakespeare. The account attributed the plays to “Shaxberd,” a homonym for Shakespeare in the early modern pronunciation.

             16. 1/ The name on the plays could be a pseudonym. You have failed to prove otherwise.

                 2/ Your use of spelling as an argument is hopeless and wrong. The Stratford man was overwhelmingly ‘Shakspere/ Shaxpere’ the author was overwhelmingly ‘Shakespeare’ or Shake-speare’

                 3/ and 4/ Again, for the last time. Being an actor does NOT make someone a playwright.

                 5/ The author was generally Shakespeare, the Stratford man was generally Shakspere. ‘Shaxberd’ is different to both of these names and in no way indicates that it was the man from Stratford.

             17. 1. There is no evidence that it was a pseudonym. The evidence is that the author’s name was Shakespeare. Descartes showed that it’s possible for one to doubt anything (except one’s own existence) if one assumes a great deceiver; but it is not possible to prove the negative that the name on the various documents were not a pseudonym. It is, rather, your responsibility to provide some evidence that this doubtful notion was the case. In virtually all cases, the name on the title page of a published work is considered to be the name of the author unless there is evidence to the contrary. To have a series of such publications each with the same name over an entire career of works is virtually unprecedented.
                 2. “Overwhelmingly” is not “always.” If the Oxfordians had a single instance of Oxford being referred to as “Shakespeare” by any spelling, it would be their best evidence. Shakespeare’s name was spelled with an e in most London writings (though not all). It was spelled without an e in many other contexts; but early modern spellings were highly variable, including the spelling of the name of Oxenford.
                 3 & 4. These points were actually not for the purpose of claiming that an actor is a writer; they are to show that the man William Shakespeare of Stratford was associated with the acting company that produced plays written by William Shakespeare and published under that name during his lifetime. This evidence supports the first point — that the name of Shakespeare was associated with the man from Stratford.
                 5. Shaxberd is clearly a homonym for Shakespeare and Shakspere. Unless you’re claiming that in fact several plays that were performed by the company that included Shakespeare as a member and that are agreed to be the same as those attributed to Shakespeare in the First Folio were written by someone named Shaxberd, you’re stuck with the fact that Shakespeare was credited with writing the plays. Are you asserting that some other person named Shaxberd existed and wrote the works? Or are you prevaricating?

             18. 1/ There is plenty of evidence it was a pseudonym, watch the video below.

                 2/ I was only refuting your point about the spelling being proof for Shakspere. That point was clearly wrong. Stop focussing on Oxford, you are meant to be trying to prove Stratford.

                 3/ and 4/ Again, acting in a play does not mean you wrote it.

                 5/ A homonym is a word that is said or spelled the same as another word, but has a different meaning. Shaxberd and Shakespeare are clearly not homonyms.

                 I will accept, if you want, that they are SYNONYMS of each other. But I keep telling you that Shakespeare was a pseudonym. How does this show that Shakespeare was the man from Stratford? – it doesn’t.

                 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezk1B-airWI

             19. The video is ridiculous, but I can’t provide a point by point rebuttal at this point. Her assertions are really not backed up by evidence.

                 I appreciate your correction regarding my use of homonym. They are, in fact, homophones – words that sound alike though spelled differently – feather than words with different meanings. They are each different spellings, pronounced the same, with the same meaning.

             20. headlight; “Overwhelmingly” is not “always.”

                 “Overwhelmingly” isn’t even close.

                 According to David Kathman’s meticulous count, there exist 180 references to the Stratford man, in which his name is spelled “Shakspere” just 8 times and “Shaxpere” only once. By far the most common spellings of his name are “Shakespeare” (71 times); “Shakespere” (27 times); and “Shakespear” (16 times). Then comes

                 “Shakspeare” (13 times). In all, his name is spelled with a with first “e” 128 times (71%) and without 52 times (29%).

                 The poet/playwright was “Shakespeare” 119 times of 171 (70%); “Shake-speare”–never in handwritten references, only in print–21 times (12%). The third most common spelling is “Shakspeare,” and he is also “Shaxberd” (to the court, no less), “Shak-speare, Shakspear, Shakspere, Shaksper, Schaksp., Shakspe …”

                 http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html

             21. I would be very interested to know how he classifies his ‘non-literary’ references.

             22. David Kathman’s spelling statistics, which you quote, have been entirely demolished by Richard Whalen in the current edition of ‘Brief Chronicles’ but since you are too conceited to read any Oxfordian essays unless they are thrust under your nose online, you wouldn’t know that. Those who have read Whalen and and your post pushing Kathman’s statistics are chuckling merrily.

             23. Not for the benefit of cc, who is being willfully obtuse in his or her responses, but just in case anybody besides the handful of people participating here are paying attention:

                 Basic reading and logic skills (obviously beyond cc’s paltry abilities) are used to make the claim that the use of the honorific “Master” (“Mr.” or “M.”) refers to William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, gentleman. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, because the argument is based upon if A=B, and B=C, then B=C, simple logic that appears to beyond the grasp of the simplest Oxfordian (cc) as well as the most visible (Waugh). This is much less of a leap than the idea that Apis lapis = Oxford because of this that, or the other. For one thing, all the necessary evidence for Shakespeare is on one documented page; there is no need to go thumbing through books of Greek history or Latin textbooks to make the connection; all one has to keep in mind is what “Master” or “Mr.” means.

                 This type of evidence—using an honorific to identify a specific individual—has been criticized by anti-Stratfordians as trivial, yet IT IS THE TYPE SPECIFICALLY DEMANDED BY OXFORDIANS, i.e. it identifies William Shakespeare as the man from Stratford upon Avon. TO DEMAND THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF AUTHORSHIP AND THEN TO SPURN IT WHEN IT IS PRODUCED IS THE QUINTESSENCE OF DOUBLE-STANDARD ARGUMENT.

                 You can say that it is all confusion on the part of the publishers and printers, you can say it is all lies from paid-off accomplices, you can say it is all forgeries done by agents of an incredibly secret and resourceful band of conspirators, but WHAT YOU CANNOT SAY IS THAT IT DOESN’T EXIST! To do so it to exhibit either dishonesty or lack of basic reading comprehension.

                 All that being said, I seriously doubt that any Oxfordian will change his opinion that no evidence exists to tie Shakespeare of Stratford to the plays and poems. Ironically, they also can’t understand when they are called dishonest or stupid and when academics refuse to engage with them. It’s a mystery, that one!

                 Here is a plethora—not merely “one single bit”—of evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, gentleman, was considered a writer by his contemporaries:

                 Stationers entry of 23 August 1600: “Twoo bookes. the one called: Muche a Doo about nothinge. Thother the second parte of the history of kinge henry the iiijth with the humors of Sr John Falstaff: *Wrytten* by *mr* Shakespere.” Wrytten + Mr + Shakespeare = William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, gentleman, writer.

                 In 1610, John Davies of Hereford published a poem, To our English Terence, *Mr.* Will. Shake-speare. Oxford
                 died in 1604. (This is usually the cue for Oxfordins to chime in their ignorant misunderstanding that Terence was a front for an aristocratic writer, and that every time an Elizabethan referred to him he was hinting at the SAQ.)

                 In 1612 playwright John Webster writes that he admires “the right happy and copious industry of *Master* Shakespeare, Master Dekker, and Master Heywood,” all playwrights. Oxford died in 1604.

                 Thomas Freeman in his Runne and A Great Caste (1614): “To *Master* W: Shakespeare”, in which he talks
                 about Shakespeare’s Lucrece and his Venus and Adonis. Master + Shakespeare + Lucrece + Venus and Adonis = William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, gentleman, poet.

                 In 1615 Edmund Howes published a list of “Our moderne, and present excellent Poets” and included
                 *M.* Willi. Shakespeare *gentleman.* Oxford died in 1604.

                 The First Folio of 1623 clearly attributes the plays to William Shakespeare of Stratford in the title *Mr.* William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies.

                 Heminges and Condell’s dedication calls him their *Fellow* (actor). Since Augustine Phillips’ will of 1605 also names Shakespeare and Condell as his *Fellows.* In addition, Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon left a bequest “to my *Fellowes* John Hemynge Richard Burbage & Henry Cundell.” Once more, if A=B and B=C, then A=C, so Heminges and Condell name “Fellow” Shakespeare as the writer.

                 In the same volume appears a poem by Ben Jonson, “To the memory of my beloved, The *Author* *Mr.* William Shakespeare,” in which he calls Shakespeare “Sweet Swan of *Avon!* Author + William Shakespeare + Mr. + Avon = William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, gentleman, writer.

                 Also in the Folio, Leonard Digges wrote an elegy “To the Memorie of the deceased *Authour* *Maister* W. Shakespeare,” in which he refers to “thy *Stratford* Moniment.” Once again, Authour + Maister + W. Shakespeare + *Stratford* = William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, gentleman, writer. Digges knew what was going on, being the step-son of Thaoms Russell, who witnessed Shakespeare’s will and who lived about four
                 miles south-east of Stratford, dealt regularly with Stratford residents, and lived within 200 yards of Shakespeare
                 in London.

                 In 1643 Sir Richard Baker, a contemporary of Shakespeare and a friend of John Donne, published *Chronicle of the Kings of England*, in which he wrote, “… it might be thought ridiculous to speak of Stage-players; but seeing excellency in the meanest things deserves remembering . . . For writers of Playes, and such as had been Players themselves, William Shakespear and Benjamin Johnson, have specially left their Names recommended to Posterity.”

             24. ‘Gentleman’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright. Both these titles would be suitable for the name or pseudonym of a distinguished playwright, and do not show that this playwright was the man from Stratford.’

                 Also if this post is not for my ‘benefit,’ why did you post it to me?

             25. Mr. Headlight….you are wasting your time on cc. You point out that the title pages of quartos and the dedications to the narrative poems qualify as evidenc3e tending to show that WS of Stratford wrote the works.

                 cc’s reply is: “The name on the plays could be a pseudonym. You have failed to prove otherwise.”

                 He simply doesn’t understand that his notion as to pseudonyms does absolutely nothing to affect the fact that the documents qualify as evidence. He also doesn’t understand that once you have produced the evidence it becomes his burden to go forward with evidence tending to prove his theory that it could be a pseudonym. He can’t just say it “COULD” be a pseudonym and then walk away as if he has rebutted the evidence. Speculation doesn’t trump actual evidence.

             26. Actually, not only could the name be a pseudonym, it could also refer to any of the other William Shakespeare’s alive at the time. Certainly no proof for the Stratford man, I’m afraid.

             27. You don’t see to have provided the evidence yet headlight… Maybe because it doesn’t exist?

             28. Note the sarcasm in Johnson’s last words: “Goodbye. Enjoy your blissful life” for which read: “Damn you and get lost. I hate you for making such a public arse of me.” You see the Strats do understand double-meanings when it suits them!

             29. As a matter of fact, Al Baby, you’ve just exhibited your own inability to understand double-meanings. Of course, that’s part and parcel of being an Oxenfordian. When I told cc to enjoy his blissful life, the actual meaning was that if ignorance is bliss poor cc will lead quite the blissful life. Much like you. I do hope he never gets to the point where he is seeing imaginary monkeys in the scenery. As for public arses you are showing yourself to be the biggest one here.

             30. Some time ago I recorded the following gem, which I believe was originally posted on the Skeptics forum.

                 ” The portrait of ‘Shakespeare’ is anything but as would be expected. It’s a caricature with unnaturalistic features lacking the usual tokens of a literary author. ”

                 Seriously? I was completely unaware that there are actual visual tokens of the natural features of a literary author.

                 Unfortunately, many Orthodox writers play the portrait game just as often as the non Orthodox – looking for signs of genius or hints of secret messages, in poorly crafted, early modern “art work”. It doesn’t matter who does it – it is totally bogus, totally non scientific. Not one aspect of a persons intellect, personality or character can be discerned from a portrait. And, there are no secret messages in the Droushout.

                 CC may be on to something, however, because I am sure that Ben Jonson was astute enough to understand that the Droushout engraving was an imperfect rendering at best. I am also sure Jonson was faced with the age old dilemma men face when the wife asks, “Does this make me look fat?” I doubt if Jonson gave a second thought to the “accuracy” of the Droushout. Of course the historic truth is that nearly every rendering and every engraving of the period is grossly flawed, the artists subjects barely recognizable. Dont believe me? Just assemble a collection of images of Queen Elizabeth mixed with other, similarly styled ladies of the period, creating a poster with no overt visual clues to identity (such as an elaborate headpiece) – then walk around your local college campus and ask “well informed” people to identify the images. You can ask them to identify which images are Elizabeth, or which images are of the same person and the results will be pretty much be the same. You can point out an example of Elizabeth and again the results will be the same.

                 This whole business of interpreting the Droushout as a secret message is just the same old “treasure hunting” mentality which permeates the authorship landscape. There is no logic to it and certainly no science. It is the literary equivalent of astrology – the old Babylonian religion. At the end of the day it is simply intellectual laziness, a shortcut to the “pot of gold” which awaits the discoverer.

                 For whatever reason – most likely simply a tight budget – the producers of the First Folio did not make the frontispiece a priority, and, as a result, the Droushout is an unappealing image. That does not make it the focal point of a great conspiracy.

                 ——

                 I have before me an article from a reputable internet website from Feb 12, 2014, with the engaging title, “Two New Portraits of Shakespeare Found”. Normally, I wouldn’t pay much attention to a web article in which some authority authenticates a painting of Shakespeare based on a black and white photograph – but this one stood out specifically because it also included a medical diagnosis. Shakespeare, it turns out, suffered from Mikulicz’s syndrome.

                 “The tests for authenticity on the new portraits brought to light a series of facial marks and idiosyncrasies that correspond to those found on ‘all the other Shakespeare likenesses’. (emphasis mine) In particular, the two newly found pictures show a growth on the upper left eyelid and swellings in the nasal corner of the left eye, which seem to represent different stages of a disease…”

                 “ ‘Renaissance painters faithfully reproduced not only the features of their subjects, but also any signs of disease,’ Hammerschmidt-Hummel said.”

                 “A team of doctors analyzed both paintings and concluded that, in the Boaden portrait, the Mikulicz’s syndrome and the additional swelling on the upper left eyelid, interpreted as lymphoma by the ophthalmologist Walter Lerche in 1995, had grown considerably.”

                 Well, there you have it – a team of doctors say it, so it must be true. As it is, my interest is not so much on the provenance of a particular painting – that is actually not relevant. It is the idea that a 400 year old painting or etching could say anything about the physical appearance, health, personality or character of its subject. Arguably, there were a few artists of the period (Vermeer, for one, using Camera Obscura, as demonstrated in the documentary film, “Tim’s Vermeer” ) who were capable of rendering more accurate images, although, then as now wealthy patrons were not paying to have their carbuncles featured in family portraiture.

                 Insight into the health of Shakespeare, however, was not the worst of the conclusions reached by Hammerschmidt-Hummel:

                 “Showing amazing self-confidence, the man appears to cast his spell over the viewer with a touch of a triumphant smile,”

                 A painting simply cannot give evidence about how much amazing self-confidence a person has or how much charisma he or she possesses. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of similar attempts to see a wholly formed person in some poorly crafted portrait. More then a few Stratfordian scholars have attempted to see more in the Droeshout engraving:

                 “if the portrait lacks the ‘sparkle’ of a witty poet, it suggests the inwardness of a writer of great intelligence, an independent man who is not insensitive to the pain of others.” (Park Honan)

                 Seriously?

             31. Dear Herbie,

                 You say there are ‘no secret messages’ in the Droeshout and it is ‘totally non-scientific’ to suggest otherwise. I assume that you accept that many Jacobethan images do contain secret messages, but just not this one.

                 Scientist, John Rollett, subjected the Droeshout doublet to a scientific, computer-based examination which supported the observation of a tailor in 1911 (who, by the way, was not anti-Stratfordian), which proved that the portrait had only one arm (Shakespeare’s left, shown from the front and from the back on his right hand side).

                 You say that this scientifically proven fact, bears no secret message. But I suspect Jonson, who was well acquainted with Artimedorus’s ‘Interpretation of Dreams’ would have contested otherwise. In the popular 1606 translation we learn that ‘to write with the left hand is to make some secret circumvention, to connycatch, deceive, or defame anyone.’ The doublet is hatched sable (i.e. black), Artimedorus says that black clothes are ‘bad except to them that would do secret things.’ In the poem ‘To the Reader’ in which Jonson urges us to ‘look Not on his picture’ the portrait is described as a ‘Figure’ (OED 11b: ‘an imaginary form, a phantasm’). Jonson talks of the ‘Graver’; Artimedorus says that Gravers are ‘deceivers…because their arts show other effects than the true.’ Jonson writes of Artimedorus’s ‘Interpretation of Dreams’ in in his play ‘Epicene’ so he knew all about it. A tiny walk-on part in the First Folio calling himself ‘Artimedorus’ urges Caesar to ‘Read the suit.’ Now you, naturally, will reject all of this, because (if true) it leads in a direction that is distasteful to you and that, to my mind, is what is ‘totally non-scientific’ – an investigator’s refusal to explore an avenue of enquiry if the likely outcome might prove repugnant to him.

             32. Johnson is scared of having to present his ‘prima facie’ case for Pimping Billy and will do anything to get the subject onto Oxford where he feels he is on safer ground and can scoff and roll his eyes from the sidelines saying: ‘that does not mean what you think it means, you must be a moron.’ Try asking him what his best evidence for Pimping Billy is – he won’t give it you.

             33. I have already presented evidence in this very thread.

                 The best evidence is all of the documentary evidence in the historical record, especially, in my opinion, those pieces which specifically and uniquely identify the author as Mr. William Shakespeare, Gent. [and variations thereof]. I will be more than happy to discuss any and all of that evidence here or wherever else you should wish.

                 What actual evidence do you have for your Lord? Oxenfordians have admitted that there is no direct evidence for Oxenford as the author. They claim to have mountains of circumstantial evidence, but, as I’ve shown here and elsewhere, what they claim to be circumstantial evidence for their position doesn’t even qualify as circumstantial evidence. Oxfordians avoid that argument like the plague.

                 If you think you can mount a response to the argument on circumstantial evidence please give it your best shot.

                 Here it is again, as presented at the long Newsweek thread from a year ago….

                 The other TR [the Oxfordian one] still doesn’t understand. He states: “An attempt has been made in this
                 discussion to suggest that the abundant circumstantial evidence pointing to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
                 as the true author of Shakespeare’s plays is not actually circumstantial evidence, but merely coincidence. It is claimed that there is no logical connection between certain facts…and the possibility that Oxford was
                 Shakespeare”

                 Well, no, that isn’t the argument that we have been making at all, and to say that it is still shows a fundamental
                 misunderstanding of what circumstantial evidence is. The argument is that the statements of fact cited, whether taken alone or considered cumulatively, do not logically and reasonably yield an inference that Oxford was Shakespeare. I note that TR {Ox} has yet to show the logical, inferential process whereby he gets from a premise such as Oxford was related to Golding and Golding is credited with translating Ovid, to an ultimate conclusion that Oxford was Shakespeare.

                 Circumstantial evidence involves evidence of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence of a
                 fact in issue may reasonably and logically be INFERRED; it is a process of decision by which the trier of fact may
                 engage in a process of reasoning from circumstances known or proved , to establish by INFERENCE the
                 principal fact. The principal fact sought to be proved by TR {Ox} is that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. He
                 can continue to pile up coincidences as long as he likes, and they may all be factually accurate statements
                 of fact, but unless and until he provides a logical, step-by-step description of the inferential process which takes him from his premises to his ultimate conclusion [his principal fact] , then his coincidences are not circumstantial
                 evidence and he hasn’t offered up proof of even a possibility that Oxford was Shakespeare. I’m not sure why this appears so difficult to understand.

                 What we have so far is something like the following [obviously simplified]:

                 Premise: Oxford was related to Golding.
                 Premise: Golding is credited with translating Ovid.
                 Premise: Oxford was living in the same house as Golding during some period in which Golding was writing the translation.
                 Premise: Oxford was kidnapped by pirates. Premise: Hamlet was kidnapped by pirates. [Of course, you
                 must ignore the dissimilarities between the two situations if you are an Oxfordian].
                 Premise: Oxford had three daughters
                 Premise: Lear had three daughters.
                 Premise: Contemporary writers named Oxford as the foremost noblemen of his time who had written well but could not allow his writings to be published under his name. [I don’t believe this one is even factually correct].
                 Premise: Oxford had the education and the books that would explain Shakespeare’s vast knowledge
                 [Again, I don’t believe this is even a correct statement of fact].
                 Premise: Oxford’s travels, especially in Italy, coincide in many ways with the locales of Shakespeare’s plays. [Another suspect claim].
                 Conclusion: Therefore, Oxford was Shakespeare.

                 Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which “requires some reasoning to prove a fact.” Show the reasoning and how, specifically, it tends to prove the ultimate fact. If you can’t do so, you don’t have circumstantial evidence.

                 I would also disagree with the claim that all of these statements are “relevant” evidence, using the definition provided by TR {Ox} [“Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
                 without the evidence. (Federal Rule of Evidence 401)’].
                 The basic test as to the “relevancy” of evidence is whether or not “reasonable inferences” can be drawn
                 therefrom tending to prove or disprove the issue in controversy., or a contested matter connected to that
                 ultimate issue. Evidence is “relevant” when it tends to prove or disprove a precise fact in issue, or when it
                 tends to establish facts from which the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue can be directly and
                 logically inferred. The statements offered up by TR {Ox} don’t even qualify as circumstantial evidence,
                 so they necessarily don’t qualify as relevant evidence.
                 —————————————–
                 There was much more explanation as to the Oxenfordian failure to understand evidence and proof, from me and from others who joined in the discussion, but the above should suffice for now. Will you run away as all other Oxenfordians have done so far?

             34. Crickets… As I said previously, poor Waugh doesn’t have the intellectual tools to deal with the argument. The only way he can think of to avoid answering is to throw smoke about me personally.

                 What a sad performance. When Waugh’s apple fell from the family tree it was picked up by a fox and then dropped miles away when the fox was startled by a gun shot. At that point a bird flew by, and picked up the apple, carrying it even further miles away to a garbage dump where the bird was wont to perch. The bird pulled the many worms from the apple and dropped it into a pile of refuse where it turned even more bitter and eventually dried up and withered away to nothing.

             35. Doesn’t “fermented” come into that sequence?

             36. It appears so…and quite often, at least based on the evidence presented here.

             37. Poor Michael Dudley. He so wanted to present his crank belief as a legitimate field of study, to be published by the ALA as if they sanctioned it—and in comes that disreputable crew, the monstrous regiment of monkey facers.

             38. Your ‘gent’ nonsense it not proof. How many times do I have to explain the following to you? :

                 ‘Gentleman’ or ‘gent’ had two meanings, a more formal meaning and also a general meaning for anyone who had distinguished themselves in any way i.e a playwright. Also ‘Mr’ was short for ‘master’ at the time, which could be any artisan, i.e potentially a playwright. Both these titles would be suitable for the name or pseudonym of a distinguished playwright, and do not show that this playwright was the man from Stratford.’

             39. cc-

                 You raise some interesting points… but I think some of us may need further explanation.
                 Could you provide a few examples where you believe that “gent” or “gentleman” is used in a “formal” meaning and then a few more examples where it is being used for “general” meaning and point out how we can tell the difference. I am a bit confused as to how you differentiate and would be particularly interested in how you understand citations in the form “name, gent” or “name, gentleman”. Could you locate an example or examples where either of these forms was used but the individual was not actually a “gentlemen”.

                 As for specific references where Shakespeare is apparently identified as a gentlemen I would point to several theatrical documents which refer to properties including the Globe. On an Oct 7, 1601 Globe deed transfer we have the following list of interested parties to the transaction, many with appropriately descriptive titles. “… now or late in the several tenures or occupations of Francis Carter, tanner, John Oldfield, tanner, Hugh Tucker, waterman, John Kone, dyer, Henry Draper, beer-brewer, Avery Butcher, waterman, Hendrick Sturman, armourer, Nicholas Zetchwell, baker, John Treherne, gentleman, George Archer, porter, Laurence Bush, draper, John Johnson, tailor, John Knolles, Abraham Campion, beer-brewer, Richard Burbadge and William Shackspeare, gentlemen, John Bingham, saddler, and Robert Bromfield, gentleman…” It seems fairly clear that in this reference “gentleman” is formal (if I understand how you are using that.)

                 An updated deed issued on October 10th reads “Richard Burbage and William Shakspeare, gentlemen…” So here we have different spellings for Shakespeare, both followed by gentleman and obviously both references to the same person. Then, again in a 1608 deed transferring the Globe and other properties from John Collett to Sir Thomas Bodley we have another specific reference to “Richard Burbadge & William Shakespeare, gent” (All three docs can be located on Oxfordian Nina Greens web page) .

                 Speaking of “gentlemen”, what do you make of the association of “John Hemynge of London gentleman” with “William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon in the Countie of Warwick gentleman” so named in the Blackfriars purchase documents? General or formal?

                 Along similar lines, I would be interested in how you understand the reference in the Bellot-Mountjoy deposition, where we specifically and unambiguously find the Stratford Shakespeare in the neighborhood of the misogynist playwright and possible Pericles, co-author, George Wilkens: “Willim Shakespeare of Stratford vpon Avon in the Countye of Warwicke, gen”

                 Moving ahead to the 1614, edition of John Stow’s Annales, by Edmund Howes we have “M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman”. This is found among a long listing of distinguished poets and literary figures of note – all either knights, esquires or gentlemen, including Shakespeare. It specifically addresses cc’s point about “Mr”. You can find this on page 221 in volume 2 of Chambers and I would refer anyone interested to that source. Howes listing distinguishes “Knight’s” (as in “Sir Phillip Sydney, Knight”) from “Esquires” (as in “Edmond Spencer, Esquire”). Then we have some of our familiar playwrights, (“Master John Lillie gentleman” and “Maister George Chapmen gentlemen”). Of particular note we have the interesting address of “Michael Draiton Esquire, of the bath”

                 Now I suppose you could argue we haven’t absolutely “proven” that these are references to the Stratford Shakespeare, however, the case seems fairly solid and I do believe a select number of Oxfordian’s accept that this is the Stratford man – including Nina Green. Regardless of what we can absolutely prove – one thing we can be certain of: these are not references to a pseudonymous person and certainly not references to someone who died in 1604. This is a real person, who is nearly always associated with Burbage – and on 12 other surviving documents is also associated with John Heminges and Henry Condell. Two of those documents are Wills (Shakespeare’s and Augustine Phillips). A will is that most personal of documents were you remember your family and your closest friends.

                 To my mind these documents collectively demonstrate the extremely close association between Burbage, Heminges, Condell and Shakespeare – and greatly enhance the credibility of their First Folio testimony to Shakespeare and his role as their author.

             40. Thanks for addressing my point! I have repeated it so many times, but everyone else just ignores me or insult me!

                 I agree with you that some examples would be good. I am guessing that you are happy with my definition of ‘Mr’ as ‘Master’ and the fact that that simply meant an artisan and could be used for the pseudonym of a poet? ‘Mr’ seems to be the main argument posted as Shakespeare the author is referred to as ‘Mr’ many many more times than he is referred to as gentleman.

                 As for ‘gentleman’: In ‘Titles of Honour, 1614’ John Selden talks of ‘our English use’ of the word gentleman simply referring to it as ‘convertible with nobilis’ and being an ambiguous term for someone who is elevated by rank or personal qualities.

                 I will endeavour to find some examples for you for later, but I do not have the time right now.

                 Thanks for your post!

             41. 1615
                 (From continuation to 1614 in ed. 5 of John Stow’s Annales,
                 by Edmund Howes): “M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman”

                 Our moderne, and present excellent poets which worthely florish in their owne workes, and all of them in my owne knowledge lived together in this Queenes raigne, according to their priorities as neere as I could, I have orderly set downe (viz) George Gascoigne Esquire, Thomas Churchyard Esquire, Sir Edward Dyer Knight, Edmund Spencer Esquire, Sir Philip Sidney Knight, Sir John Harrington Knight, Sir Thomas Challoner Knight, Sir Francis Bacon Knight, & Sir John Davie Knight, Master John Lillie gentleman, Master George Chapman gentleman, M.W. Warner gentleman, M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman, Samuel Daniel Esquire, Michael Drayton Esquire, of the bath, M. Christopher Marlo gen., M. Benjamin Johnson gentleman, John Marston Esquire, M. Abraham Francis gen., master Frauncis Meers gentle., master Josua Silvester gentle., master Thomas Decker gentleman, M. John Flecher gentl., M. John Webster gentleman, M. Thomas Heywood
                 gentleman, M. Thomas Middleton gentleman, M. George Withers.

                 The compiler of this list states explicitly that he is attempting to identify the authors by their social rank — ” according to their priorities” — he may not get them all correct, as he acknowledges [” as neere as I could”] but his intention is clear. The fact that he may make some mistakes does absolutely nothing to detract from the fact that this qualifies as evidence during M. Willi. Shakespeare of Stratford’s lifetime that he was the author of the plays. The best that all of the quibbling, and special pleading, about formal or general references, etc. might serve as an argument as to the weight to be given to the evidence, but it does not affect the allusion’s nature as evidence.

             42. “Some Oxfordians did not know that”

                 No Oxfordians, no matter how many times you tell them, know that what they propose is not a ‘pen name’ or a pseudonym but an allonyrm, unheard of in theatre.

                 Because plays are not poems. In the early professional theatre there was no place for a front-rank aristocrat to hide.

                 There is hardly a single accurate statement and certainly no instances of logical in this presentation.

                 This person is a teller of fairy tales. A vendor of gee-gaws to the credulous.

             43. Many members of the US Supreme Court disagree with you:

             44. That and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Scalia’s not very bright, frankly, and like Oxfordians, he decides his answer first and makes up his rationale later.

             45. And the other three anti-stratfordian Supreme court justices? Also ‘not very bright’ ?

             46. I’m saddened by their foolishness. Stevens and Blackmun were both good on the court, though honestly not as good as Brennan.

                 It’s really a rather ridiculous talking point for the Oxfordians, though. For every Oxfordian celebrity, there are a dozen who are as knowledgeable on the other side, and for every Oxfordian scholar, there are a hundred or a thousand who are better qualified who don’t think there even IS a SAQ.

             47. So…?

                 I haven’t agreed with a lot of their decisions and still don’t. I am willing to bet that I have more knowledge as to the Shakespeare authorship issue than all of those justices combined.

                 Nice argument by appeal to authority by the way.

             48. That one really sent lawyer Johnson for a burton! Well done cc. I don’t suppose he be able to attract any more personal injury clients once this gets out!

             49. >> “I don’t suppose he be able to attract…”

                 What a man of letters you are…you run the gamut from A to B.

             50. ‘cc’ for your information: Mark Johnston is a dishonourable, two-bit rogue US lawyer. A few years ago he was blogging in the Stratfordian interest under the name ‘Dominic Hughes’. I pointed out to him that a man called Baker was ignorant in referring to the Ancient Roman actor, Roscius, by the name of ‘Boscius’. Two-bit responded: “It seems that Baker, even in his old age and in debtor’s prison, knew better than you. As for ‘Boscius’ you might want to do a bit of research on that for ‘Boscius’ and ‘Roscius’ were used interchangeably. This goes all the way back to Cicero…Certain editions of Shakespeare’s play also use ‘Boscius’ in a couple of references.’ Like Hell! So I told Two-Bit he was talking balls, and instead of saying ‘Oops’ like any semi-decent half-man, he fires back: ‘I wish you would reply to what I actually wrote, perhaps you could read it again above.’ Referring me back to his EDITED text. So you see Johnson is a dishonourable lie-bag – never to be trusted. That is why I encourage you and every honest, enquiring mind not to discourse with him on this or any other authorship blog.

             51. As I’ve told you before, on multiple occasions, the problem for you is that in that one instance I had edited my remarks within minutes of posting them, and that you did not respond to my comments until hours thereafter. I did not edit the text after your response, so, no, I did not lie, and , yes, you are incorrect. I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone who sees monkey faces where none exist.

                 Now, I’ve challenged you on two occasions in this thread to address the argument that Oxenfordians don’t even have any circumstantial evidence to support their claims. Is this rant your way of avoiding having to deal with the argument. Are you trying to justify the fact that you are running away? If you’re scared say you are.

       2. >> You created all the straw men by drawing me into textual analysis.

          Take responsibility for your own illogical arguments, and don’t blame me because you are inept at textual analysis.

24. cc,

    Oxford was called the Italian Earl because he visited Italy, and returned with enough Italian affectations that Gabriel Harvey wrote a rather nasty poem, “Speculum Tuscanismi,” mocking the crap out of Oxford.

    Instead, you see a causal relationship: Oxford visited Italy, several plays were set in Italy, therefore Ox wrote Shakespeare.

    Other Elizabethan playwrights set plays in locales they had never been to. Should we question whether they write those plays?

    So why don’t you explain the causal effect between Oxford visiting Italy and how that becomes evidence he wrote Shakespeare. Don’t just throw the coincidence on the wall and pretend that it sticks, instead, explain the causal link.

    Hint: You need to prove the predicate, i.e., the major premise that you are reasoning from.

    1. If you read the plays of Shakespeare and a good life of Oxford, you will find your ‘causal link’.

       1. Caution is advised with this approach. There is anecdotal evidence that people who follow this subjective methodology sometimes begin to see monkey faces where none exist.

          1. Ad hominem… the past actions or opinions of Mr Waugh are not relevant to the point he has made above.

             1. Lighten up, Francis. It was just a joke. Grow up.

             2. Now the dishonourable dude is recommending that you ‘lighten up’ to his feeble jokes and that you ‘grow up’ too. Mark Johnson is not a man of honour – a two bit Jesuitical porky-pie telling lawyer from South Carolina. I would carry on just as you are.

       2. What would you recommend as a good life of Oxford?

          1. A minute ago you pontificating that Nelson’s was the “only decent bio of Oxford’. now you are asking for recommendations. Does that mean you have not ready any, even Nelsons?

             1. Alexander, I asked that last night. Yes,I have Nelson, and have read. So my question stands. What would you recommend as a “decent” bio?

             2. I too would recommend Nelson (although he gets many of his facts wrong) and set off from the start with biased agenda with regard to Shakespearean authorship, but that doesn’t particularly matter. He has a lot of source material in there. Ward and Anderson are also very good.

             3. Alexander,

                Thank you. I also have Anderson’s SBAN and managed to read almost all of it.

       3. I’d recommend reading a good book on historiography, and reviewing the extant historical and documentary evidence, but your suggestion is about the extent of Oxfordian “reasoning,” I suppose.

          The best life of Oxford was written by Professor Alan Nelson, and it showed pretty clearly that Oxford had nothing to do with Shakespeare’s works.

          It’s interesting that such a facile argument still convinces the tiny group of remaining Oxfordians (about 3300 worldwide, as signers of the DoRD).

          1. Waugh’s in a pickle, since there is no decent bio of Oxford except Nelson’s. I think all they have is the old paean by Monty (Three-Card) Ward.

             1. Dinner Jacket – when you say there is “no decent bio of Oxford except Nelson’s” what you mean is that Nelson’s is the only one you will accept because Nelson, like you, is a Stratfordian. His book is the ONLY biography of Oxford that follows this blinkered path, so how could you possibly find any of the others ‘decent’?

             2. So, Alexander, what “decent” bio of Ox do you recommend?

          2. Don’t pretend that you have read ANY life of Oxford, let alone Nelson’s.

             1. I’m not pretending, Al. And you haven’t suggested any other biography by anyone. Oxford was a nasty character of no historical consequence; the kind of forgettable upperclass twit that should remain forgotten. You have a lot in common with him.

25. Very astute article by Michael Dudley – congratulations! A smoke stick to the hornets who have come buzzing out of their nests to make great fools of themselves yet again.

26. First, I am impressed by the knowledge and self-command of the article’s author, Michael Dudley. For reasons related to ingrained hero-worship on a paucity of evidence, this is not an easy controversy to converse about objectively.

    Second, to quote the official Folger Library policy about “another” author than the doctrinal choice of the Stratford figure: “If the current consensus on the authorship of the plays and poems is
    ever overturned, it will be because new and extraordinary evidence is
    discovered. The Folger Shakespeare Library is the most likely place for
    such an unlikely discovery.” That extraordinary evidence is of course ordinary and visible evidence at the title-page of the First Folio. All sensible minds know that the Droeshout portrait is an intentional caricature, a make-believe depiction. It is primarily a puzzle for the educated viewer. The head is four inches in diameter, crown to chin. The ruff is a four inch circle, if extended to completion. The fourth button down is the center-point of another four inch circle. Why these four inch dimensions? Four in Dutch and German is ‘vier’, homonymic to Vere, the Renaissance man of his time, known as the best poet and playwright of his peers. The four pattern occurs also in the two spears on one side of the collar and four on the other, denoting deux-vier, or de Vere. This device is repeated in the length and widith dimensions of the head and in the linear dimensions of the lower typography. He had robbed de Vere of the playbooks for his profit and will be seen as a knave for all future time.

    The truth of the matter is that the established elite studying Shakspeare likes the unlettered, rags to riches fable just fine and would not deign to examine why such a ruse as the First Folio front matter will tell all, when one opens his eyes to discern it. The same examination can be made regarding the rest of the front matter and many another aspect of the study of de Vere and his political dilemma of knowing too much truth about his class and government. But Shakspere of Stratford is depicted in the Droeshout, never fear. In a good copy, one can see a weasel, crow, and uptturned shield, denoting a predatory type, a scavenger, and a “gentleman” of no honor.

    @font-face {
    font-family: “Times New Roman”;
    }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

    http://issuu.com/williamray32/docs/droeshout_geometry_color

    1. Tee hee.

       1. Out of your kennel again? You and the others have lost all credibility with the quality of your thought. But someone or perhaps many will read my post and take out a ruler and measure a life-size copy of the Droeshout (cf Schoenbaum’s ‘Shakespeare A Documentary Life) and prove to themselves the image is a hoax as portraiture but evocative as a message system leading to the vier/Vere author. If a life-size copy is not available, a reduced version will measure just as evenly on the lesser scale. The creators never guessed the editions would change size or clarity. Hence the optical illusions that are clear in the Yale edition are less distinct in other facsimiles of the First Folio. Now, it is best that you return to hostile silence. You have played a losing, disgraceful hand and will live long enough to know it.

          1. William,

             I’ve asked before, over on Amazon, why is the center of the first circle is just inside the lower left eyelid?

             How did you come to locate the center there, a seemingly inconsequential point? Why not the right eye? Or the left nostril?

             And why didn’t you at least place the circle with the center in the center of the eye, in the pupil?

             Unless you can rationalize your choice, it is random, selected arbitrarily by you to make it fit a theory, much like how all of Oxfordoxy operates: inventing “evidence” and forcing it to fit a daft theory for which there is still not a jot of proof.

             And why a 3” circle. Your theory is all about deux and vier, 2 and 4. Shouldn’t the circles be 2″ and 4″ for a uniform theory?

             Else this is all nothing but so much unanchored geometry, with a huge dollop of apophenia.

             1. Serious questions at last. Why is the center of the upper four-inch circle, circumscribing the figure’s head, centered at the inside left eye? That is determined by the requirements of the embedded Vere-like pentagram. The circles were drawn first, the surface figure after. The width of the frame is 6.50, The golden mean distance of that is 4″,measuring 4″ from the right. That is the center of the left eye. One inch from it is the center of the left eye. The vertical margins are not parallel, and a required 3″ distance as part of the Vere pentagram has to run from (our) right margin to what became the inside left eye location. The Vere pentagram was made up of 3″ bases to match the 3″ distance from the figure’s left margin to the left inside eye. That nexus point at the white sclera served two purposes, 1) beginning point of the figure’s upper right triangle with an 3″ base reaching to the left collar-tip and two 3-1/3″ legs, and 2) center of a 4″ circle precisely touching the predetermined crown and chin.These measurements were not choice on my part, but measurement of an non-explicit set of geometric shapes, predetermined cardinal point to point, over which the covering image had to be non-human and unreal, since geometry does not achieve human physiognomy Of course the 3″ and 4″ distances were metaphorically significant, the four to signify vier/Vere and the three’s to recall the Aristotelian adage, all good things come in threes, in other words special knowledge known to a few. This also explains the 3″ smaller circle that itself touches four circles: the eyeball, the nostril, an embroidery moon shape, and a displaced round button on the tunic. In reply to your other question: “Shouldn’t the circles be 2″ and 4″ for a uniform theory?” Perhaps that is how you would wish it, but the creators had a more complex unified scheme to achieve. The optical tricks were on the surface figure. The geometric figures were underlying identifying devices, intrinsically attached to the four (vier=Vere) circles, the Vere-like pentagram in their family arms, and an older Vere lineage six-point star that I can’t discuss here at length. But all three were predicated on golden mean measurements, which were considered in the Renaissance as close to Gpds physical Truth as human description could achieve. Your closing snark: “BTW, you penchant for self-promotion is rapidly approaching Waugaman’s.” When you have discovered important information, it bears communicating. I take no credit except respect for the truth. Dr. Waugaman feels the same and is a much better scholar.

             2. And just like that, we segue from the slyly deceptive, to the willfully ignorant, to the sophomoric, to the silly, to the barking mad. One could not ask for a finer public display of the jewels in the crown of Oxfordism.

             3. Written like your profession, spin doctor. Such a poor sad spectacle is the derisive soul. As an example of its futility, your last vituperation was that there is no record of de Vere being in Mantua. Earlier this year an Oxfordian scholar found documentation of de Vere’s visit to the Palazzo Ducale in Mantua: de Vere’s application for and the authorities’ permit to visit among other art the Romano frescoes of the Trojan War––later exactly described in Lucrece. (lines 1366-1526) They were in the Sala de Troia, a wing of the palace. Ponder that one, brother. Every bully is a coward within.

    2. Since headlight is berated for mistaking homophones and homonyms further down the thread, we might as well point out your own confusion.

       And the fact that ‘vier’ is pronounced ‘fear’ in German—not ‘vere’. As for Dutch, only the Dutch know. But it won’t sound like anything from Essex.

       As always, you are trying to make a picture that suits your argument from the pieces of 15 different jigsaws, hammered together till they fit.

27. Ad hominem

28. Mark the twain, shake the spear,
    ’twas not the Stratford lad but Edward de Vere:

29. In remembrance of Master William Shakespeare.

    ODE by William Davenant:

    I.

    Beware, delighted poets, when you sing

    To welcome nature in the early spring,

    Your num‘rous feet not tread

    The banks of Avon; for each flower

    (As it ne’er knew a sun or shower)

    Hangs there the pensive head.

    2.

    Each tree, whose thick and spreading growth hath made

    Rather a night beneath the boughs than shade,

    Unwilling now to grow,

    Looks like the plume a captive wears,

    Whose rifled falls are steeped i‘th’ tears

    Which from his last rage flow.

    3.

    The piteous river wept itself away

    Long since, alas, to such a swift decay

    That, reach the map and look

    If you a river there can spy,

    And for a river your mocked eye

    Will find a shallow brook.

    Or, in other words, those who go to Stratford seeking the great author are being laughed at.

    1. Another illogical Oxenfordian who thinks that his subjective interpretation of a poem trumps actual evidence.

30. To our English Terence Mr. Will: Shake-speare.

    SOME say good Will (which I, in sport, do sing)
    Had’st thou not plaid some Kingly parts in sport,
    Thou hadst bin a companion for a King ;
    And, beene a King among the meaner sort.
    Some others raile ; but raile as they thinke fit,
    Thou hast no rayling, but, a raigning Wit :
    And honesty thou sow’st, which they do reape ;
    So, to increase their Stocke which they do keepe.

    “Terence” was referred to numerous times in Elizabethan literature as a front for Roman aristocratic writers, while the hyphen seems to suggest the use of a pseudonym.

    I’m not a Professor of English but I’m pretty sure “Thou hadst been a companion for a King” could mean “You had been a companion for a King” – which Oxford certainly was. One of the first acts of King James was to renew Oxford’s one thousand pound a year pension.

    1. >> “Terence” was referred to numerous times in Elizabethan literature as a front for Roman aristocratic writers…”

       No, actually, he wasn’t. There is one reference in Ascham, and there is a very brief reference in Montaigne. You might want to check EEBO and you will find a couple of thousand references to Terence in which he is referenced as a playwright in his own right, without any connotation of him being a front for anybody at all. There is nothing in Davies’ poem to indicate that the prevalent meaning is not intended.

       >> “while the hyphen seems to suggest the use of a pseudonym.”

       It doesn’t do any such thing.

       You might also want to read the two other poems by Davies which pair William Shakespeare with Richard Burbage, and the poem he wrote for Robert Armin as well [in which there are more references to Kings, indicating a probable allusion to the King’s Men acting company].

       1. “I’m not a Professor of English . . .”

          And how.

       2. Dear, dear, dear:

          From Microcosmos, by John Davies of Hereford. Published 1603.

          Players, I love ye, and your Quality
          As ye are men that pass-time not abused,
          And some I love for painting, poesie,
          And say fell Fortune cannot be excused,
          That hath for better uses you refused
          …..
          And though the stage doth stain pure gentle blood
          Yet generous ye are in mind and mood.

          Bate in “The Genius of Shakespeare” omits the final two lines, probably because the primary definition of “gentle” in the Elizabethan era was “aristocratic”, while the secondary definition was “placid”. And the Stratford man was anything but placid. As William Leahy has stated – and you may want to get out a box of tissues before you read this Mark – “As far as the documentary record shows us, and as hard as this is for many people to take, William Shakspere was a criminal”.

          The author of the Sonnets states:

          “Alas, ‘tis true, I have gone here and there
          And made myself a motley to the view,
          Gor’d mine own thoughts, sold cheap what is
          most dear”. (110)

          And are you trying to tell me this doesn’t look like a thespian?

          1. Yes, That’s one of the poems, but you left out the fact that the initials WS and RB were placed in the margin of the book next to lines in the poem. Burbage was known for his painting, Shakespeare for his poetry.

             And some I love for painting, poesie, RB WS

             As for “gentle”, I just checked in the OED, and here is what I find under the first usage:

             1. Of persons; Well-born, belonging to a family of position; originally used synonymously with anoble, but afterwards distinguished from it, either as a wider term, or as designating a lower degree of rank. Also, in heraldic use: Having the rank or status of ‘gentleman’…

             1581 PETTIE Guazzo’s Civ. Conv., ii (1586) 90 b, Gentle of base are those who, extracted from low parentage, raise themselves to Gentrie by their vertue.

             Dear, dear, dear….

    2. > “Terence” was referred to numerous times in Elizabethan literature as a front for Roman aristocratic writers

       1. >> “Terence” was referred to numerous times in Elizabethan literature as a front for Roman aristocratic writers

          > Really? List five examples.

          Matt simply made them up out of thin air. But, like a good little Oxenfordian, he isn’t even embarrassed to be caught out in such a falsehood.

31. Wise words indeed:

    1. “Wise words indeed:”

       The wisest of any oxfordian words yet. Silence.

    2. Brilliant! And the poems you have given below are excellent examples which show that people at the time knew Shakespeare was not the man from Stratford.

       1. Thanks! The still was taken from this video:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHFHEZWs4cQ

          1. F. Murray Abraham: “It’s an elitist grudge. That a man who came from absolutely nowhere, with no credentials, ranks as the greatest genius ever—they just can’t accept that kind of thing. And in fact it’s unfair. There’ve been too many geniuses who have come out of nowhere, and he’s one of them.”

    3. And Arthur Conan Doyle believed that fairies were real. So….?

       And when is that solid evidence ever going to turn up? Roper knew you didn’t have any evidence then and you still don’t. Yawn.

    4. Matt Hutchinson – I’m always amused when Oxfordians like you start quoting Sir Hugh Trevor Roper. I suggest you Google Sir Hugh and Hitler’s Diary. You’ll discover Sir Hugh made a fool of himself and his reputation never recovered.

       1. Another attribution issue he totally screwed up.

          He said the best evidence was the sheer volume of writing. Oxfordians (and seaside gift shops) model their tactics on this flawed approach.

          ‘Never mind the quality, feel the width’.

       2. Hugh Trevor Roper was an immensely distinguished learned, erudite and literary historian. He was conned into authenticating the ‘Hitler Diaries’, admitted his error and rued the day. Sicinius and A. R. Lyon (who he?) were conned by misreadings of Ben Jonson into supposing that a fellow from an illiterate Midlands family was the greatest writer in history. The difference between Trevor Roper and the Stratfrauds, is that he was big enough to admit that he had been duped. They are not.

32. I see Truth continues to be the first casualty of Waugh.

    1. vero nihil verius

Comments are closed.