| Author |
|
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 695
|
| Posted: 05 May 2025 at 7:30pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Michael Penn wrote: I'm not aware of any record showing that anybody from Stratford named Will Shaksper as even an author.
SB replied: In 1616, William Shakespeare dies in Stratford-Upon-Avon. In his will, he leaves small bequests to (among others) John Heminges and Henry Condell, who were also named alongside him in the royal charter of 1603 that created The King's Men.
In 1623, the First Folio is published. Heminges and Condell explain they've arranged to be published to commemorate the memory of the man they'd known.
That's as clear a line as can be drawn.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 695
|
| Posted: 05 May 2025 at 7:39pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Scott Gray wrote: De Vere was very well known in theatrical circles as well, right? If he had been secretly writing all of the plays, how would he have been able to keep it quiet? Did he never show his face at any rehearsals, never discuss them with the actors, never do any directing himself? He just handed his manuscripts over to someone at the Globe and ran off into the night? Does that seem feasible?
SB replied: Well, quite! It's also generally accepted that the plays that bore Shakespeare's name would have been written in collaboration with other writers - Kyd, Nash, Middleton, Beaumont, Fletcher - and yet none of them ever found it odd that the plays they'd written with De Vere were being falsely attributed to the Warwickshire lad.
Alternative Authorship theorists sometimes argue that not only was Will of Stratford not the author, but he wasn't even literate, which obviously make no sense if he managed to successfully pose as a writer for decades. When The Lord Chamberlain's Men, then The King's Men, were going through dress rehearsals, did no-one find it odd that Will of Stratford couldn't read the plays that he claimed he'd written?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6857
|
| Posted: 05 May 2025 at 8:12pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
SG: This is what I don't understand: De Vere was very well known in theatrical circles as well, right? If he had been secretly writing all of the plays, how would he have been able to keep it quiet? Did he never show his face at any rehearsals, never discuss them with the actors, never do any directing himself? He just handed his manuscripts over to someone at the Globe and ran off into the night? Does that seem feasible?
**
There is no evidence that De Vere did any writing in secret. He was deeply involved in the development of English theater in his lifetime and was widely known and praised for it. Writers flocked to him for patronage and got it easily.
You may be under the illusion that the plays were widely knows as being "by Shakespeare". There is no evidence of that.
No plays were attributed to Shakespeare until a 1597-- which, depending on how you date the references, is 10 to 15 years after they started appearing.
This is also when the many allusions and claims that Shakespeare is a pen name grew thickest. And there is absolutely no evidence of anyone pushing back on these claims or saying that the author is really someone from Stratford.
So the narrative we find on the record at the time is that the plays were publicly "anonymous" with no discussion of the author
-- Then a bunch of accusations that the author of "Venus & Adonis" uses a pen name came out.
-- Then, that same pen-name started appearing on plays.
If the hidden author-- whether it was Oxford or anyone else-- the record seems to confirm that everyone knew Shakespeare was a pen name, but no one felt bold enough to identify the hidden poet in a blatant way.
Shakespeare himself wrote in the Sonnets that his reputation was branded by a vulgar scandal and that his name will be buried where his body lay. This provides testimony from the author that a reason exists for why the poet would remain hidden.
It makes no sense at all if that poet is William Shaksper from Stratford.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6857
|
| Posted: 05 May 2025 at 8:21pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
SG: I thought that wasn't in doubt? Wasn't Shakespeare a member of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a part-owner of the Globe, and credited as appearing in several London plays?
**
No. There is no record of him performing in any London plays with the Lord Chamberlain's men or with any other company -- except, as noted, in Ben Jonson's 1616 Folio which, as noted, gives us one double-talking, uncorroborated source made 10 years after the alleged acting would have taken place, after the alleged actor in question is dead.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6857
|
| Posted: 05 May 2025 at 8:31pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
SG: (quoting SB): This neatly overlooks not only that there is no evidence
that Oxford used a pseudonym...
**
This blatant lie a perfect example why SB is on "ignore."
The number of works attributed to Oxford that appeared under the
pseudonyms "Ignoto" "EO" and others is high. His most famous poem, "My
Mind To Me a Kingdom Is" was published under the name "William Byrd"
and the manuscript was signed "Ball".
The 1589 work "Arte of English Poesie" bemoans the courtier-poets who
suffer their work ‘to be publisht without their owne names to it’ -- and lists
Oxford as such a courtier-poet.
EDIT: The question is not whether or not it was ok for Oxford to be known or
praised for having written well, but whether he should publish his works
using his lofty name. An honest contemplation about the idea of the top earl
in the land publishing politically charged plays and poems can see the
challenges that it might raise. Whether or not the true author is Oxford, the
plays were full of political ideas. When aristocrats go to print with their
political ideas, at the time, they would use pseudonyms. So, there is no
problem, imagining why Oxford would not use his real name if he was the
author. The reason is obvious: he would never publish using his real name
because it would cause trouble and we see the evidence for this in the
other works put to print by other earls who used pseudonyms.
I have sworn off engaging with SB because everything he posts is of this
quality-- misleading and disingenuous.
Edited by Mark Haslett on 06 May 2025 at 12:41am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 695
|
| Posted: 05 May 2025 at 8:51pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: His most famous poem, "My Mind To Me a Kingdom Is" was published under the name "William Byrd" and the manuscript was signed "Ball".
SB replied: "My Mind To Me a Kingdom Is" is generally attributed to Edward Dyer. As far as I know, that's still the general consensus.
Mark Haslett wrote: The 1589 work "Arte of English Poesie" bemoans the courtier-poets who suffer their work ‘to be publisht without their owne names to it’ -- and lists Oxford as such a courtier-poet.
SB replied: Circulating poems anonymously isn't the same as publishing plays under a pseudonym. And virtually all the poets listed in "The Art Of English Poesie" had been published under their own name by the time "The Art Of English Poesie" appeared - including, of course, Oxford himself.
Oxford was known, and praised, as both poet and playwright. He suffered no ill-consequences for this, and the argument that he would have had to conceal his writing, or use some sort of "front" for it, is not true.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Houston Mitchell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: 06 May 2025 at 2:21am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
I really enjoy these debates whenever they pop up.
I'd like to ask what may be a dumb question: Assuming that, as I believe after reading all of these debates that the a man named Shakespeare did not write them, is there any belief that there will ever be definitive proof of who wrote the plays? A Holy Grail people are seeking as proof, so to speak?
Second, can someone please recommend a book or two that covers the authorship debate?
Thanks.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Cory Vandernet
Byrne Robotics Member
Henchman
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 859
|
| Posted: 06 May 2025 at 4:18am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
I believe a good book to start with would be SHAKESPEARE'S UNORTHODOX BIOGRAPHY by Diana Price
Also there are 3 documentaries on the subject available on TUBI
1) LAST WILL. & TESTAMENT, a PBS companion piece to ANONYMOUS, it's far better than the movie to my mind although it gets a little overwrought towards the end. Diana Price appears in this. Worthwhile.
2) NOTHING IS TRUER THAN TRUTH, a bio of Edward De Vere
3) SHAKESPEARE: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NAME, Cheesy but interesting
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
