# Any Shakespeare deniers on this board? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 13, 2014, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197 "2014-10-13T12:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/221 "2014-12-10T01:52:56Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > First principle: nothing said by Oxfordians is likely to be true. . . . Good night, everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/222 "2014-12-10T03:32:13Z")
General principle: nothing said by a conspiracy theorist is true. That holds for moon hoaxers and creationists and truthers and birthers. That is equally true for those who want to say that entire disciplines are too stupid to understand their own subjects, like the people who have their own relativity or insist that 0.99999~ /=1. There are not two sides to these arguments. There is reality and craziness. We’ve said this a thousand times in other threads, because they are all really the same thread. I’m sorry if this offends you but we are forced to repeat this because you refuse to acknowledge that the problem is not with individual facts but bad thinking. When scientists write books on evolution they do not take a chapter to specifically refute Duane Gish. Why not? Because they have an entire discipline with thousands of people in hundreds of different fields all adding to a body of consensus knowledge built over centuries. When professors write books on Shakespeare they do not take a chapter to specifically refute Alexander. Why not? Because they have an entire discipline with thousands of people in hundreds of different fields all adding to a body of consensus knowledge built over centuries. There is no other side. I’m sorry you can’t see this, but your skepticism is far more insulting to Shakespeare than our dismissal is insulting to you. People have expended a great deal of time and energy to show that the specifics of arguments are false and that the pattern of thinking is false yet none of it penetrates. If you don’t like being told you are no better than a birther, stop thinking like one. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/223 "2014-12-10T05:37:09Z")
**Exapno Mapcase** : The trouble with this kind of outright dismissal is that anyone can use it. The creationist can say, “We need pay no attention to the lies told by the Evolutionist conspiracy; no evidence can possibly serve to change their mind, and so, obviously, their made-up theories are beyond scientific falsification.” When you dismiss someone, a priori, you cut off any chance of communication. You can’t say, “You don’t have a right to your opinion” and, at the same time, have any chance of teaching me anything. “Shut up, you liar” isn’t compatible with “Here’s why.” To me, you sound exactly like the creationists you decry. “I don’t have to reason with you.” Okay, great. You refuse to reason with me. What am I supposed to do next? I was planning on dropping out of this thread anyway, as I don’t have anything to offer. I’m out of my depth and I know it. I want to thank **Enterprise** for having engaged with me in a teaching mode. He didn’t just slam the door in my face. I will definitely read the links he provided, and try to learn from them. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/224 "2014-12-10T05:40:44Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’d like Richard Bachmann to say something on that topic. You mean the pseudonym used by the most popular author of his day, which lasted less than ten years before being uncovered by a clerk in a bookstore? That’s a very instructive example, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/225 "2014-12-10T06:36:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You mean the pseudonym used by the most popular author of his day, which lasted less than ten years before being uncovered by a clerk in a bookstore? > > That’s a very instructive example, indeed. “Aslan is a metaphor for Jesus.” “You mean Jesus had four legs and paws instead of hands? That’s a very instructive metaphor, indeed.” ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/226 "2014-12-10T10:34:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But I’m thinking back to when Jeremiah Clarke’s “Trumpet Voluntary” was thought to have been written by Handel… It was Purcell, not Handel, to which it was famously misattributed. And it’s possibly not the best anti-Stratfordian parallel anyway. The misattribution to Purcell was not made until a couple of centuries later and has been rejected because it has since been realised that the tune was first published under Clarke’s name. In other words, the reason why it is now attributed to Clarke is exactly the same one as to why Shakespeare’s plays are attributed to Shakespeare. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/227 "2014-12-10T15:39:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > When you dismiss someone, a priori, you cut off any chance of communication. You can’t say, “You don’t have a right to your opinion” and, at the same time, have any chance of teaching me anything. This would be awful if true. However, as I specifically said, people here have not cut you off. They - and I - have provided information and explanation, not just in this thread but also in the previous threads. Every single “fact” you and other Oxfordians bring up has been refuted. The lack of proper scholarship has been amply demonstrated. None of it makes any impact. How long must this charade continue before the onus turns onto you? Why don’t you ever concede that you are being intellectually disingenuous? Why do you keep insisting that we must respect a position of utter idiocy while you have no need to respect the millions of hours of real scholarship that are being dismissed by suppositions, coincidences, and outright falsehoods? When, to put it bluntly, do you say “I have been taken in by charlatans and I am embarrassed.”? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/228 "2014-12-10T16:02:10Z")
Yeah, what I don’t understand is why Anderson’s musings are being given equal weight to actual facts. ---
**Author:** ![Bassano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Bassano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bassano)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/229 "2015-05-23T00:43:45Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Except for the 1609 wreck of the Sea Venture that most non-Oxfordians consider one of the inspirations for “The Tempest.” > If you believe “It can be trivially debunked” is gonna stop a conspiracy theory, then clearly you’ve never followed a GD debate with 9/11 truthers. Or Apollo hoax believers. Or Holocaust deniers. Or birthers. Or… I notice that this conversation is going on in a kind of virtual reality somewhat disconnected from the rest of the real world of scholarship and publishing. The mention of the claim that “most non-Oxfordians consider…the 1609 wreck of the Sea Venture one of the inspirations for the Tempest” is a perfect case in point. Whatever establishment Stratfordians think of the matter – a point that is less relevant than what is actually credible, since that group believes all sorts of fantastic things with the zealous faith of the participants in a literary tent revival – the wreck of Sea Venture cannot have been an inspiration for the Tempest, since that play was written at least by 1603/4. This is the still un-refuted conclusion of the most recent book-length study (2013) of this question: > **[On the Date, Sources and Design of Shakespeare's The Tempest: Roger A...](https://www.amazon.com/Date-Sources-Design-Shakespeares-Tempest/dp/0786471042)** > > On the Date, Sources and Design of Shakespeare's The Tempest \[Roger A Stritmatter, Lynne Kositsky\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. On the Date, Sources and Design of Shakespeare's The Tempest Full disclosure: I am a co-author of this book. I am therefore here to answer questions anyone might have after reading this book. Continuing to use phrases like “GD debate with 9/11 truthers. Or Apollo hoax believers. Or Holocaust deniers. Or birthers” will not make the problem go away. It will just make you look stupider and stupider. So let’s debate. But let’s start by knowing what we’re talking about by doing some homework. I don’t want to debate a bunch idiots who have to make their points with sleaze. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/230 "2015-05-23T01:27:00Z")
> [@Bassano](#): > > the wreck of Sea Venture cannot have been an inspiration for the Tempest, since that play was written at least by 1603/4. Googling to find places to mention your book, huh? Your claim is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words, it’s on you to tell us why _The Tempest_ must have been written by 1603/4. And I, for one, am not going to buy your book to find out - tell us right here. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/231 "2015-05-23T01:30:00Z")
> [@Bassano](#): > > Continuing to use phrases like “GD debate with 9/11 truthers. Or Apollo hoax believers. Or Holocaust deniers. Or birthers” will not make the problem go away. It will just make you look stupider and stupider. > > So let’s debate. But let’s start by knowing what we’re talking about by doing some homework. I don’t want to debate a bunch idiots who have to make their points with sleaze. Just a small note, using insulting words or names is against the rules here, other than in the BBQ Pit. So stay way from doing it. Idle Thoughts Cafe Society Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/232 "2015-05-23T02:07:14Z")
Why are you trying to convince us? How many of your academic colleagues have you convinced? And if the answer is “few” or “none,” why? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2025, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197/233 "2025-11-07T14:31:30Z")
Bumped. > [@septimus](#): > > The most-often mentioned alternative authorship candidate is Edward de Vere… > **[Word Around School by Lars Kenseth](https://condenaststore.com/featured/word-around-school-lars-kenseth.html?srsltid=AfmBOoqFTDZ-uHFd699LPcSWz_b4zj0RQnLgYpaeU21m1fDClR4PJok2)** > > Word Around School by Lars Kenseth [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-shakespeare-deniers-on-this-board/701197.md?page=11)