OK, septimus, and anybody else. Here is a thread where we can discuss the merits of the proposition that somebody other than Shakespeare wrote the 37 plays and the sonnets attributed to him.
For my part, I believe the default hypothesis (Shakespeare wrote the things that were published with his name), and think it’s incumbent upon people who reject that hypothesis to present evidence for their case.
PLEASE - no rolleyes, content-less dismissals, or making jokes at anyone’s expense. PLEASE grant basic respect to all participants.
Mods, if this isn’t the best forum, I don’t care. Put it where you will.
I like a good literary trainwreck so if this thread is a response to another thread, I would dearly love a link to that one.
I’m with you bup. There’s no reason to believe Shakespeare didn’t write his stuff and no reason to justify any one of the antistratfordian candidates over another.
So far, none of the antistratfordians have ever produced any evidence* to back their claims; merely speculation and supposition. Since Occam’s Razor strongly indicates Shakespeare wrote the plays, it’s incumbent on those who think otherwise to produce evidence. I’ve yet to see any.
*Definition of evidence: accounts by people who were in a position to know Shakespeare (or any of the other names) that stated outright that someone else was the author.
**septimus **(I think) referred to that thread when saying pro-Stratfordians were dismissive. So in *this *thread, we won’t use words like ‘bilge,’ ‘horse shit,’ and so forth, I (and anybody else) will stay specific and use non-derisive terms.
We had a recent and thorough discussion in the thread Marley cited. What point could be made from rehashing that?
Let me summarize, if that’s needed:
There is no controversy, any more than there is controversy over the moon landing or Obama’s birth certificate. The entire professional scholarly community - mostly English professors, but also history, linguistics, and other specialized professors - agrees that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. This unity is rare; most subjects work by younger scholars overturning beliefs of the elder. Here the discussion is about understanding of Shakespeare, not who wrote it. If you check, you’ll find that virtually every non-Stratfordian book is written by an outsider. You would not accept that in physics. It is also one of the major complaints about climate deniers.
The evidence for Shakespeare is positive evidence, ranging from contemporary references to Shakespeare as a known writer to modern computer analyses of word choices. There is a technical literature about Shakespeare that the conspiracists do not touch, and it has existed in many forms for decades. Alternative candidates must be supported by hints, clues, suppositions, logic chains, and wishful thinking, all negative evidence.
Our knowledge of England and English drama grows yearly. Older texts have been superseded by modern evidence. One interesting outcome is that Shakespeare is now thought to have collaborated much more widely with other writers than previously thought. This works against any possible narrative of a hidden writer parceling out complete works of genius and swearing the entire city of London to secrecy.
A knowledge of the popular debunking literature should be mandatory. One excellent place to start is with James Shapiro’s Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?, which demolishes the alternate claimants. Reading only conspiracist literature is like reading only truther sites; you might find yourself believing a single side of an argument but that belief must vanish when both sides are known.
The only interesting reason to redo this discussion is to see how similar conspiracist methods, reasoning, and “evidence” is among all forms of conspiracies. I personally find the parallels to be astonishing. You may find that dismissive, but there is it. There is no merit to the proposition. It is bunk, and has been completely debunked.
No, I referred to this thread. It started with a long group of Sonnets which are difficult to understand if written by Stratford; I wanted help understanding them. But instead I got zero (0) responses related to the Sonnets’ contents.
Here are some excerpts from that thread:
Marley isn’t sure whether the Sonnets, if written by Stratford, are bizarre in content or not; but he is sure that whatever septimus believes must be wrong.
I posted (#38 in that thread) an account of King James’ actions the day Oxford died, mentioned that it had to be considered an interesting mystery despite the lack of any proven connection to the authorship; the only response that post got was to repeat the obvious – that I hadn’t proven any connection to the authorship. :smack:
At about that time I gave up on the thread.
If I see evidence that this thread will be better spirited and objective, I may participate.
Yes, this thread needs a summary of an Oxfordian theory. There are plenty such on the Internet. I’d hope that those debating here would know the basics of a hoax theory. I think I eventually, despite being discouraged, made some effort to synopsize an Oxfordian case in the other thread, but was only ridiculed, rebuked and ignored. In the unlikely event this thread appears like it will be more respectful, I’ll make another effort.
One hope I had in the earlier thread was to fight my own ignorance, so I could judge Oxfordian claims. For example I posed these questions:
If you wanted to ask about the interpretation of the sonnets, you should have asked that. But phrasing the question as “The sonnets don’t make sense; maybe they were written by some other guy” is roughly equivalent (in form if not in degree) to saying “the platypus doesn’t make sense; maybe it was introduced by aliens experimenting on Earth life”. If you post an absurdity that’s universally rejected by everyone in the field, that’s naturally going to be what everyone focuses on in their replies.
The same references to Shakespeare would exist, were it an established pen-name.
The comment about computer analysis of word choices is singularly bizarre. What do you use as Stratford’s corpus for a comparison with Shakespeare? The poem generally attributed to him from his gravestone?
It is true that computer analyses do not point to any particular candidate. To me, this makes it highly likely that a collaboration was involved.
If Oxford were the principal author, he probably had collaborator(s). John Lyly is a logical candidate. The lack of any clear reference to collaboration until ca 1610 argues against Stratford, actually.
If your only contribution is to make meta-comments about my failures in a thread from years ago, please take it to the Pit. Let’s see if this thread can be un-hijacked.
Don’t link to things if you don’t want them talked about, then.
Elucidate, please.
Well, for one thing, you can run analyses of Shakespeare’s plays and analyses of the writings of de Vere, Bacon and Queen Elizabeth. If you get a match, there’s your smoking gun.
The best evidence is that some guy named William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. There is a lot of evidence to ignore to come to another conclusion supported by no evidence at all.
But in the spirit of fun, I think that the real author was Elizabeth I, who as the Virgin Queen would not have been allowed to write such bawdy fun nonsense. Check out some of her writing some time. She was an excellent writer.
Hey, it’s less preposterous than De Vere who died about the same time. I’m going to go with she had them written, finished and delivered to her beard, but the company was already putting on other plays.
But seriously, Shakespeare wrote the plays.
You’ve got to go with the weight of the evidence. And the weight of the evidence is that they were composed by someone a lot of people knew who was named William Shakespeare. The best argument we have against, in my opinion, is that Will had shitty handwriting. But even if he could not write himself, that doesn’t mean he couldn’t dictate. Milton dictated Paradise Lost. Homer was not known to write.
I think it’s much more likely than not that Shakespeare wrote most of the stuff accredited to him. However, that doesn’t mean he wrote all of it or every word of the stuff he did write. I am sure much of it was collaborative, perhaps with Nashe. Indeed, it is known that his last ten plays did have a co-author, such as John Fletcher.
If it turns out that Shakespeare wasn’t the real Shakespeare, is it possible that real Shakespeare was actually the co-author of some of the fake Shakespeare’s work?
There is clearly evidence for it, as it can draw on all of the evidence for either side of the debate.
[1] Daniel Wright and Michael Delahoyde are two Professors of Literature who do not believe Stratford wrote the plays and sonnets. This refutes Expno’s “The entire professional scholarly community …”
[2] Answered in the post you quote. (Skimming is a tell! )
[3] If Shakespeare had an early collaborator why was he never acknowledged?
You can also compare the plays against each other, and see if any stand out from the rest as unusual. If there were multiple autors for the plays, that should be discernible in the results of the testing, with each anonymous author’s plays resembling each other more than the plays by the other authors. At the very least, we should be able to detect where de Vere died and his successor took over the pen name.
I also feel compelled to note that, in the older thread linked to by Marley, septimus raised exactly the same question, in almost identical terms, and got exactly the same explanation.
Facile answer. Outliers exist in any data set. What you have not done is explain why these two should be considered more reliable than the opinion of the community as a whole nor have you offered what their opinions are.
Your previous post did not address prose comparisons across authors which is what I was talking about. What question in my post did you feel was already answered?
If Bacon collaborated with Lyly, why was it never mentioned contemporarily?
)