A Discussion About Whether Shakespeare is Shakespeare without Dismissiveness

[bup]

hey septimus. This could take a while, huh?

Looking at your other thread:

Sonnet 26 seems to be to be an unctuous suck-up to his patron, Wriothsley.

Sonnet 32 reads to me like an insecure young writer saying to his lover, “hey look, if you outlive me and re-read my stuff and it sucks, at least remember the love behind it.” Anne? Dark Lady? Wriothsley? Some bugger buddy? I don’t know.

Sonnet 36 is basically saying “our love is one, but my faults are mine alone. I feel guilty about something, so let me keep it from besmirching you.” I get why Oxfordians would like that sonnet, but it seems to me it could apply to anybody with a guilty secret. Maybe Shakespeare had a lover who was minor royalty? Maybe Shakespeare and Wriothsley did some experimenting?

Sonnet 39 seems to speak more specifically of (to back-use a modern label) gay love, the love that dare not speak its name. More unctuous stuff for Henry Wriothsley.

Sonnet 55 - your memory will live forever, so long as lovers read these words. OK. Shakespeare certainly had passion.

Sonnet 62 does seem strange if written in the early 1590’s, when many or most of the sonnets are assumed to have been written. However, not all of them were, and the dating of all the sonnets (except the couple that were printed in 1599) is unknown.

Sonnet 71 - a lot like 32. Mortality was a constant threat in Elizabethan England.

Sonnet 72 - more emo. When I die, I’ll be forgotten like yesterday’s garbage.

I have to take a break now. I haven’t read the essay you link that argues for Oxford, but right now I’m not seeing it.

[eschereal]

Often, I hear the argument that Shakespeare lacked the breeding and/or education to be even able to write what he wrote. Ultimately, that is a rather offensive assertion to make, given that history shows that talent is broadly distributed amongst divers persons, and some dedicated individuals are capable of or driven to expanding the base of their formal schooling.

Such points against Shakespeare’s authorship are blatantly elitist, not founded in reality, and come from the same place wherein is rooted racism.

[septimus]

There were secrets in Elizabethan England.

It is very widely accepted that Henry Carey was the natural son of King Henry VIII but there has never been a “smoking gun” until recently when a quotation showed up:

@http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=70719 quoting a pre-execution confession

Morever, Mr. Skydmore dyd show to me yongge Master Care, saying that he was our suffren Lord the Kynge’s son by our suffren Lady the Qwyen’s sister, whom the Qwyen’s grace might not suffer to be yn the Cowrte.

But even now I see Wikipedia still calls his royal paternity a “speculation.”

Some Dopers may be unaware that in Oxfordian hoax theory, the Oxford authorship was kept secret by royal command. Seem farfetched? Perhaps; we can discuss it should the thread remain civil. But in any event, if you argue against the hoax theory please take the trouble to understand what you argue against!

@RealityChuck

*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.

Early on, Stratford’s putative authorship was ridiculed but his detractors changed their tunes.

The very very first reference to Shakespeare as a literary figure occurs in this famous excerpt from Greene’s 1592 Groats-worth.

@Robert Greene

… for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and beeing an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey.

Greene accuses the upstart Crow (“Shake-scene”), almost in so many words, of putting his name on others’ plays. This is exactly what is claimed by hoax theorists. Shortly after the (posthumous) publication of Groats-worth, the publisher issued a retraction. Ben Jonson also started by ridiculing Shakespeare, but soon turned into one of his biggest fans.

Especially interesting is that there is essentially zero evidence from Stratford town that their favorite son was a writer. No eulogies, no books or manuscripts by him, no mentions in letters (despite that William Shakespeare’s son-in-law was an avid letter writer who commented on other poets of Stratford). No memories by his children or grandchildren – indeed both of Shakespeare’s adult children seemed to be illiterate.

[Inner_Stickler]

@septimus

Some Dopers may be unaware that in Oxfordian hoax theory, the Oxford authorship was kept secret by royal command.

What evidence is there that there was a royal secret about this authorship?

Especially interesting is that there is essentially zero evidence from Stratford town that their favorite son was a writer. No eulogies, no books or manuscripts by him, no mentions in letters (despite that William Shakespeare’s son-in-law was an avid letter writer who commented on other poets of Stratford). No memories by his children or grandchildren – indeed both of Shakespeare’s adult children seemed to be illiterate.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Miller]

@septimus

The very very first reference to Shakespeare as a literary figure occurs in this famous excerpt from Greene’s 1592 Groats-worth.

@Robert Green

… for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and beeing an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey.

Greene accuses the upstart Crow (“Shake-scene”), almost in so many words, of putting his name on others’ plays.

Really? Where? I don’t see anything in that quote that could reasonably interpreted as an accusation of false authorship.

[Marley23]

@septimus

Greene accuses the upstart Crow (“Shake-scene”), almost in so many words, of putting his name on others’ plays.

He’s saying Shakespeare is arrogant, ambitious, and a mere actor who has the gall to believe he could write as well as Greene and other university-educated playwrights. He doesn’t say Shakespeare took credit for others’ work “in so many words.” He doesn’t say it at all.

indeed both of Shakespeare’s adult children seemed to be illiterate.

Women were less likely to learn to read back then, and we know Susanna could write her name. So she may not have been illiterate, but this is very circumstantial anyway.

[Inner_Stickler]

Upstart crow beautified with our feathers = new kid stealing the best pieces of our stuff to make himself look good

an absolute Johannes factotum = Less obvious. Johannes factotum basically means jack of all trades and a standard interpretation would probably be that Greene’s accusing Shakespeare of breadth but not depth. However, a factotum is also a term for a personal assistant so it’s possible that he’s saying Shakespeare was an assistant to another playwright and has stolen his master’s works for his own ends. I have not found anything however, that supports this second interpretation of johannes factotum as meaning plagiarist.

[septimus]

@Inner_Stickler

[1] Facile answer. Outliers exist in any data set.

[2] 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?

[3] If Bacon collaborated with Lyly, why was it never mentioned contemporarily?

[1] Exapno wrote “entire”; I produced counterexamples. Unless you have some specific requirement, e.g. a specific count of PhD’s, this train of “debate” is pointless. Am I nitpicking to assume “entire” didn’t mean “many”? I don’t think so – let’s do please write precisely.

[2] I wrote “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.”

[3] Oxford? The premise is that they kept their writing secret.

None of these rejoinders seem abstruse. Would it be rude to ask you how long you studied this sub-debate before clicking Reply?

[Marley23]

@septimus

Would it be rude to ask you how long you studied this sub-debate before clicking Reply?

What does “without dismissiveness” mean to you?

[Miller]

@Marley23

He’s saying Shakespeare is arrogant, ambitious, and a mere actor who has the gall to believe he could write as well as Greene and other university-educated playwrights. He doesn’t say Shakespeare took credit for others’ work “in so many words.” He doesn’t say it at all.

On review, it appears that septimus is claiming that Green’s reversal on Shakespeare’s talent is evidence that he later learned who really wrote Shakespeare, while simultaneously claiming that Green revealed the entire hoax in his initial critique.

[Inner_Stickler]

@septimus

[1] Exapno wrote “entire”; I produced counterexamples. Unless you have some specific requirement, e.g. a specific count of PhD’s, this train of “debate” is pointless. Am I nitpicking to assume “entire” didn’t mean “many”? I don’t think so – let’s do please write precisely.

It is extremely clear what Exapno meant by entire and this line of argumentation is doing you no favors.

[2] I wrote “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.”

Speculation.

[3] Oxford? The premise is that they kept their writing secret.

Speculation.

Would it be rude to ask you how long you studied this sub-debate before clicking Reply?

Yes.

[Malthus]

Shakespeare would just not be the same without dismissiveness. The proof:

http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/

[Miller]

@septimus

[1] Exapno wrote “entire”; I produced counterexamples. Unless you have some specific requirement, e.g. a specific count of PhD’s, this train of “debate” is pointless. Am I nitpicking to assume “entire” didn’t mean “many”?

Yes. Yes, you are.

[2] I wrote “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.”

There is no logical connection here between your premise and your conclusion. Ow does the fact that Shakespeare didn’t write like any of the supposed real authors amount to proof that he was written by all of them?

(FTR, I used “all” there for rhetorical purposes, and not as a literal description of your position.)

[Roderick_Femm]

@Inner_Stickler

Upstart crow beautified with our feathers = new kid stealing the best pieces of our stuff to make himself look good

an absolute Johannes factotum = Less obvious. Johannes factotum basically means jack of all trades and a standard interpretation would probably be that Greene’s accusing Shakespeare of breadth but not depth. However, a factotum is also a term for a personal assistant so it’s possible that he’s saying Shakespeare was an assistant to another playwright and has stolen his master’s works for his own ends. I have not found anything however, that supports this second interpretation of johannes factotum as meaning plagiarist.

Stealing the best parts of our stuff (even if this is a genuine charge and not just sour grapes) is different from putting one’s name on work that was completely done by someone else. There was lots of borrowing of bits among the popular playwrights of the time, and that makes the most sense here. “Upstart crow beautified with our feathers” = his work is pedestrian at best, except where he stole the better bits from other people.

The end of your second paragraph is a stretch at best. “He might have meant” something different from what seems perfectly obvious - this isn’t much of an argument or much in the way of evidence. Jack of all trades makes perfect sense - charging him with being adequate as an actor and mediocre as a playwright, but not particularly good as either.
Roddy

[septimus]

The dedication in Shakespeare’s Sonnets seems odd if the author is still living. Why no mention? (I wonder if W.H. is William Herbert, also dedicatee of First Folio.)

Another Shakespeare publication about the same time has an odd inscription:

“A Never writer, to an Ever reader. News” was the headline for a preface/epistle that appeared in one of the two quartos of Troilus and Cressida that appeared in 1609.

(IIRC, scholars treat this as a now-indecipherable joke.)

[Miller]

@Roderick_Femm

Stealing the best parts of our stuff (even if this is a genuine charge and not just sour grapes) is different from putting one’s name on work that was completely done by someone else. There was lots of borrowing of bits among the popular playwrights of the time, and that makes the most sense here. “Upstart crow beautified with our feathers” = his work is pedestrian at best, except where he stole the better bits from other people.

It also doesn’t make any sense as evidence that Green knew about the conspiracy. Green talks about “our” feathers - if Green were talking about a conspiracy to hide the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, he wouldn’t talk about “our” feathers, unless he was one of the people writing plays under Shakespeare’s name - in which case, why would he not only be revealing it in public, but complaining about it?

[septimus]

@Miller

Ow does the fact that Shakespeare didn’t write like any of the supposed real authors amount to proof that he was written by all of them?

I never suggested it was such “proof”, nor can I guess how you thought I did.

“the fact that Shakespeare didn’t write like any of the supposed real authors leaves open the possibility that it was written by one or more of them in collaboration with other(s).”

Now, maybe this claim, derived by editing your strawman claim, is also stupid. But, as I indicated in yesterday’s thread, at this point I’m less fascinated by the authorship mystery than the mystery of how debaters like you can misconstrue statements on this topic as dramatically as you did in the quote above.

ETA: OK, I see “To me, this makes it highly likely that a collaboration was involved.” confused. There was an implicit If Stratford weren’t the author there. You thought it was part of a “proof.” Sorry.

[bup]

@septimus

Early on, Stratford’s putative authorship was ridiculed but his detractors changed their tunes.

The very very first reference to Shakespeare as a literary figure occurs in this famous excerpt from Greene’s 1592 Groats-worth.

Greene accuses the upstart Crow (“Shake-scene”), almost in so many words, of putting his name on others’ plays. This is exactly what is claimed by hoax theorists. Shortly after the (posthumous) publication of Groats-worth, the publisher issued a retraction.

I disagree. That’s not how that reads to me.

Ben Jonson also started by ridiculing Shakespeare, but soon turned into one of his biggest fans.

What’s your citation here?

Especially interesting is that there is essentially zero evidence from Stratford town that their favorite son was a writer. No eulogies, no books or manuscripts by him, no mentions in letters (despite that William Shakespeare’s son-in-law was an avid letter writer who commented on other poets of Stratford).

Here’s a better discussion of the eulogies than I could make.
What’s your cite that John Hall was an avid letter writer who mentioned other poets?

What books did Christopher Marlowe or Ben Jonson or John Webster leave?

No memories by his children or grandchildren – indeed both of Shakespeare’s adult children seemed to be illiterate.

They were both women, and Susannah *could *sign her name, at least. There’s no evidence they were illiterate, it’s just likely because of the time and place. But that reasoning is circular for determining their illiteracy as a mark against Shakespeare. Besides, Shakespeare wasn’t a scholar. It’s like having expectations of Steven Spielberg’s kids.

[septimus]

My last ETA reminds me of something frustrating in these discussions. The case, if any, is complicated, and based on coincidences, circumstances, and there are a variety of objections available.

When one pursues a line of argument related to an objection, one is trying to rebut that objection. Upon success of that rebuttal it is disconcerting to hear “But how does that prove Stratford wasn’t the author?” Addressing a subsidiary objection is not the same as a proof of a main proposition.

[Miller]

@septimus

ETA: OK, I see “To me, this makes it highly likely that a collaboration was involved.” confused. There was an implicit If Stratford weren’t the author there. You thought it was part of a “proof.” Sorry.

Ah, I see what you were saying. Fair enough. Although your conclusion still doesn’t follow - if there were conclusive evidence that Shakespeare was not the author of his plays, the fact that his plays don’t match up to any of the conventional alternatives doesn’t suggest that they were written by several of them, it suggests that the real author is some other party, wholly unknown to us.

Which is another problem I have with this theory as a whole. It treats history like some sort of drawing room murder mystery, where the culprit has to be one of the people who are already on stage. There were around three million people in England at the time. If someone else wrote Hamlet besides Shakespeare, what are the odds that it would happen to be someone else we already know about?