| Author |
|
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6097
|
| Posted: 31 July 2023 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Scott, you clearly have no idea how the evidence for Shakespeare being the man from Stratford actually stands.
I would love to see you parse out your own analogy: the works are the "dead body" and the "trail of blood" is the evidence leading to the writer who has so much evidence to prove he did it that it's like he has "a blood-stained knife" and confesses in his own words: "I did it."
There is nothing remotely like this in the case of Shakespeare and the authorship question. No document, no testimony, no witness from his life ever testified "Shakespeare from Stratford wrote the plays and poems attributed to him." Not his children, not his neighbors, not his associates. Only long after his death did anyone ever go to Stratford looking for him. When they did, no one in Stratford had any idea that Will Shaksper had been a poet and play write. There's no evidence the man could even write. His will is the only document we have that is undoubtedly in the Stratford man's words-- and it is an artless, mean document that is nothing like the wills we have from contemporary writers -- and it shows the man owned nothing connected to the works. No manuscripts, no rights, no books, no Bible, no paper, no musical instruments, no items from the theater. No "trail of blood."
Your saying this shows how far you are from actually having a grip on the evidence or openness to what it means.
Every Supreme Court Justice who has looked at it came away doubting Shaksper was the author. The founders of the Folger Shakespeare Library in D.C. doubted Shaksper was the author. Mark Twain wrote a book about it. The list of great minds who have looked at the evidence and been convinced is quite extensive.
The list of great minds who have actually looked at the evidence and come away with your opinion is none-people long-- because the evidence is nothing like what you say here.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 31 July 2023 at 5:27pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: No document, no testimony, no witness from his life ever testified "Shakespeare from Stratford wrote the plays and poems attributed to him."
SB replied: The First Folio does precisely this. Heminges and Condell say that's why they created it, or arranged for it to be created - to commemorate the memory of the man they'd known for decades. The man who, in his will which states "In the name of God Amen. I William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon in the county of Warwickshire gent" had been named themselves, and given some small bequests.
Jonson calls Shakespeare the "Sweet Swan Of Avon" in his commendatory poem that opens the Folio. In later years, he would oscillate between harsher criticism and begrudging praise of Shakespeare's writing, but would never once state that he wasn't the author.
Francis Mere's Palladis Tamia praised Shakespeare as the author of a a dozen plays in 1598.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: 31 July 2023 at 5:30pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
Mark, you seem to be arguing that there isn't a big enough blood-trail leading to Shakespeare - and ignoring the fact that there isn't any trail *at all* leading to Edward de Vere.
That's correct, isn't it? Not a single letter from him to one of his daughters, complaining about how hard Macbeth was to finish. No invoice to the Globe for Much Ado About Nothing. No royalty receipts from other theatres. No death-bed confession. Nothing at all.
There is, however, documented evidence that Shakespere was real and the author of the plays - just not enough to satisfy you. But absence of evidence isn't proof that the evidence never existed.
This is what RSC director Trevor Nunn had to say on the authorship question:
“Who is Ben Jonson?” challenges Nunn. “He is Shakespeare’s great rival and a real talent. Garrulous, argumentative, jealous, proud, and deeply committed to exposing hypocrisy and corruption. Not a man to kowtow to nobility or privilege. What does he do? It’s Jonson who coins “the Swan of Avon” (ie the declaration that the author of the First Folio is from Stratford), and it’s Jonson who declares that he is “for all time” and then claims him as “MY Shakespeare”.
“Why on earth,” Nunn continues, “would Jonson, who owes nothing to anyone, and who had competed with Shakespeare throughout his professional life, take part in a cover-up to help the Earl of Oxford from admitting that he had anything to do with the theatre?” This, says Nunn, is “game, set and match to Shakespeare”. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: 31 July 2023 at 5:41pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Here's the link to the article with the Trevor Nunn quote:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/mar/14/who-wrote-sh akespeare-james-shapiro
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6097
|
| Posted: 31 July 2023 at 10:58pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Mark, you seem to be arguing that there isn't a big enough blood-trail leading to Shakespeare - and ignoring the fact that there isn't any trail *at all* leading to Edward de Vere.
**
What is the connection between these two points?
Nothing about De Vere is relevant to your claim. Even if De Vere couldn't write at all, it would do nothing to support a claim that the Stratford man could.
You made the extraordinary claim that the proof that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works is like a trail of blood leading to a man holding a knife and saying "I did it." Extraordinary claims require at least some evidence, no?
The supremely erudite works of Shakespeare have led to hundreds of books exploring the extreme knowledge contained in them. This includes books on Shakespeare's advanced knowledge and understanding of Latin sources, Greek sources, law, medicine, astronomy, philosophy, French literature and court history, Italian geography, Italian Commedia dell'Arte, paintings and art available only in Italy, sailing, soldiering, falconry, Thomas North's unpublished travel journals, access to the only known copy of Beowulf in England at the time, access to Lord Burghley's unpublished precepts, insider gossip of Queen Elizabeth's court. And more.
For Shaxper to be the author, he would have had to master all of this. More than that, he'd have to do it in his free time --while teaching himself to write poems and plays --and how to speak several foreign languages--all at night, by candle-light, and working by day to learn acting and theater-craft while ALSO holding some other, better-paying job to support his struggling family in Stratford -- by the age of 28.
He would have had to pull off all this self-improvement without leaving a single shred of documentary evidence to explain how he did it. Actually, without leaving any evidence that he did it at all.
As to Trevor Nunn, he is obviously not a Ben Jonson or Edward De Vere scholar. Real Ben Jonson scholars would tell Nunn that Jonson's main obsession was the practice and study of secrecy. Jonson was "The Prince of Numbers", a master of putting two or more meanings to every line he wrote. Would it interest him to help his patrons keep a secret about "the soul of the age" from everyone except for those in the know? That is exactly the kind of thing Ben Jonson lived for. Indeed, he wrote to those very patrons in the year before the folio was written to make sure they knew that creating cypher was exactly the kind of thing he could do for them.
However -- nothing Jonson ever did or is even suspected of doing has anything to do with covering up the Earl of Oxford's involvement in theater. Oxford was proudly a supporter of the theater. It was his role as "The Author" that he (and other noblemen of his time) were keen to keep secret (although, and this is important to understand-- it was rather an open secret).
In his younger days, when De Vere returned from Italy, he announced that he would help England create a national theater. He soon became the single greatest patron and supporter of playwrites of the Elizabethan age.
Everyone connected to Shakepeare's works (Lily, Marlowe, Greene, Nashe, Jonson, etc.) all worked for and praised De Vere. Indeed, one theory of the case is that this "studio of artists" may have contributed to the Shakespeare-project together, all working together under the pen name "Shakespeare."
Anyway, Nunn's embarrassing "game set and match" quote is apparently based on a complete misunderstanding of the actual record.
Edited by Mark Haslett on 01 August 2023 at 2:33am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: 01 August 2023 at 4:38pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: The supremely erudite works of Shakespeare have led to hundreds of books exploring the extreme knowledge contained in them.
SB replied: Shakespeare was ridiculed (or teased) in his lifetime for his lack of learning. Pretty much every modern edition of a Shakespeare play has footnotes or endnotes explaining where he gets details wrong.
Mark Haslett wrote: For Shaxper to be the author,
SB replied: Who is this "Shaxper"?
Mark Haslett wrote: Real Ben Jonson scholars would tell Nunn that Jonson's main obsession was the practice and study of secrecy. Jonson was "The Prince of Numbers", a master of putting two or more meanings to every line he wrote.
SB replied: Ben Jonson is virtually always described as a proud, quarrelsome and belligerent man, not the kind of man who'd keep this, or any, secret.
Mark Haslett: Oxford was proudly a supporter of the theater. It was his role as "The Author" that he (and other noblemen of his time) were keen to keep secret (although, and this is important to understand-- it was rather an open secret).
SB replied: So it was important to produce a Folio laden with hidden meaning to hint at a secret already widely known?
Mark Haslett wrote: Indeed, one theory of the case is that this "studio of artists" may have contributed to the Shakespeare-project together, all working together under the pen name "Shakespeare."
SB replied: I don't doubt that Shakespeare worked with a series of collaborators over the years. Which also makes it impossible, or very difficult, to understand why none of them realised, or revealed, that Oxford was the true author all along.
.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Gray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2012
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: 02 August 2023 at 4:32pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: What is the connection between these two points?
SG replies: I'm trying to point out that you completely change your investigative criteria when you turn from William Shakespeare to Edward de Vere. You say...
a) I believe Shakespeare can't be the true author because there's very little documented evidence supporting this.
b) I believe Edward de Vere is probably the true author even though there is no documented evidence supporting this.
I'm sorry, Mark, but that's an illogical thought process.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6097
|
| Posted: 02 August 2023 at 6:50pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Scott: I'm sorry, Mark, but that's an illogical thought process.
**
Scott, that is not in anyway a reflection of my thought processes. I believe Shakespeare is not the true author because the evidence SHOWS that he did not have the necessary access to resources, travel, connections, education, or opportunities needed to create the works. The evidence SHOWS that, furthermore, he never claimed to be a writer and no one in the record of his life ever mentioned that he was a writer. It's not just a question of "very little documented evidence to support" Shaksper as a writer-- it's that we KNOW A HELL OF A LOT about Shaksper and it all proves that he had nothing like the life of the author reflected in the works. It SHOWS that he never met or had any contact at all with his alleged "patron" the Earl of Southampton. It SHOWS that he was busy making business deals in Stratford during the busy London theater seasons where he was supposed to be writing plays. It SHOWS that the creator of the works never taught his daughters how to write, owned no Bible, owned no books, owned no manuscripts or copyrights. The things we don't know may add to the picture, but Shaksper is disqualified mostly by what we DO know.
I believe De Vere is probably the author because, on the contrary to your claim, the documented evidence supports this greatly. First, of course, he did have access to all the neccessary resources-- even the most arcane and hard to find ones that help disqualify Shaksper. He is widely heralded as a great writer of plays and poems; he is identified in his lifetime as a "hidden play write", specifically celebrated for works that have not come down to us with his name on them. Multiple times during his life, he is alluded to as the true creator behind the works of Shakespeare. In Shakespeare studies, the writers acknowledged to be Shakespeare's influences and collaborators are people who worked for De Vere, yet have no connection whatsoever to the man from Stratford. De Vere was the greatest patron of play writes and poets of his day. De Vere's life provides the actual incidents that are the basis for many situations, premises and characters in the works.
And that is just a brief dip into the vast amount of evidence that supports the case for Oxford as Shakespeare.If you want to discuss the evidence, let's discuss it. Don't get caught on "logic problems" that don't exist.
Edited by Mark Haslett on 02 August 2023 at 6:57pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
