I agree with both posts. Shakespeare had enough literary predecessors and contemporaries to borrow from. Numerous pre-Shakespeare Plays had already been written about noblemen and Kings. All he had to do was to read these Plays. It’s not as if he was the only Playwright to be writing about Kings, Queens and the Court. Perhaps he did so with more passion, intrigue and human emotion, perhaps not. I rather doubt he wrote with more accuracy on the subject than his contemporaries.
A small example as regards to picking up information from nobles’ servants; one main query anti Stratfordians bring up is of Shakespeare’s knowledge of Falconry. Falconry was strictly forbidden to commoners, except those falconers employed by noblemen themselves(this small detail is left out by anti-Stratfordians). What may be telling is that in Court expenditures the sub division for the cost of “revels” include both Falconers and Players. Both were in roughly the same social and court status.
The reply to this ^ post that Enterprise wrote is excellent. I’ll add: I posted five of the dozens of parallels detailed on Kathman’s site. Why not post your choice of five of Anderson’s claimed parallels—instead of merely asserting that they exist.
As a general remark (not aimed at you in particular): the annoyingly common pattern of anti-Stratfordian writing is to claim that evidence exists–and then specify none of it. For example, the last few posts in this thread discuss the ‘knowledge of the nobility’ supposedly expressed in Shakespeare’s works but (again, supposedly) inaccessible to a middle-class man from Stratford.
How about actually listing some of these? Quote them right from the plays! Then we can look at the evidence: are these bits of knowledge that only a nobleman could have, or not? Broad generalities such as ‘falconry is discussed in the plays in a way no commoner could have understood’ are useless. (Again, Trinopus, I’m not speaking specifically to you, but generally to all who take the anti-Stratfordian position.)
I did read what you posted, but I’m stuck, because I didn’t find Anderson to be obfuscatory, and I don’t have the data to tell whether or not he is misleading. I read his book and was struck by how clearly he labels his suppositions and assumptions.
Total agreement so far.
This is what I have missed in all of the books I’ve read on the subject. The responses to Sobran never supplied any of that evidence: they just sneered him down. Can you point to a book on the topic that actually summarizes this actual data?
I want to know the truth, but so far, I’m really not getting satisfactory evidence-based arguments.
Imagine me in the position of a newcomer to the evolution/creation debate, naively thinking it is an honest and fair debate. It isn’t convincing for me to be told, “It isn’t a fair debate; the creationists are a pack of liars.” Yes, I know that’s the case, but a newcomer to the affair doesn’t know that. It doesn’t carry any weight to hear that: it just sounds cheap and snide and ad hominem. It requires a clear writer who can explain the facts, with the full context, and make the entire farrago clear, on the basis of the evidence. (Stephen Jay Gould was one such hero.)
Where is the Shakespearean Gould? Again, all the rebuttals to Sobran that I could find went no deeper than saying, “Sobran is full of shit.” Okay: maybe he is. But can you point me in the direction of a good resource that will say why?
I know I’m out of my depth, and I am not equipped to enter into debate, even at that level.
(However, just to indulge, one of the points Anderson raised that I thought was persuasive was that “Venus and Adonis” has details that aren’t in Ovid, but are in a painting by Titian, whose studio de Vere could have visited, but Stratford certainly couldn’t have. I found that, and a hundred more just like it, incredibly suggestive. Sure, it’s a coincidence. But…so many coincidences?)
I’m naïve. No denying it. I don’t have access to the original documents. I’m completely at the mercy of others…and I don’t have any way to know if they are being dishonest. Enterprise says that Anderson is dishonest: what the hell do I do now?
The evidence points to Shakespeare having more time to do something while the theaters were closed.
Well, you have to know by now that relying on people that writes pretty does not mean much if they are not convincing the historians and scholars that they are right in a proper setting like in a historical journal or academia. As in many other conspiracies, what I see here is an example of a guy that has a lot of knowledge alright, but one that already knows that his ideas will not pass muster where it counts, so it is then that guys like him write books so as to make their case to the people that are at the mercy of others indeed.
As historians of art do point out, the evidence of the painting is not as clear as Oxfordians would want to:
I do more than that: I give you clear pointers to Anderson’s dishonesty, beginning with his (willful?) misreading of the Davies poem (in nearly every respect, from the Terence reference to the question of whether or not the poet’s subject is dead) and going into his claims about Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit. You don’t need “original documents”: Google my claims and see if they hold up. If they do, you know Anderson misrepresented those issues. It’s not a “he said, she said” kind of situation: it’s a situation where one side (the Oxfordians) make claims that are easily disproven, as I (and many others here) have done.
Can you let us know what books you read that sneered at Sobran? This website is a good starting point (and, frankly, quite easily found on Google): Shakespeare Authorship. It doesn’t “sneer” at Sobran, it simply dismantles key points of Sobran’s one by one. Does that suffice to discredit him to you?
Yes, if you let us know what you’ve read–it’s rather pointless to point you to James Shapiro’s Contested Will if you’ve read it and thought it was not deep enough–because then I’m not sure what will convince you. Any analysis of Shakespearian authorship must include the point that Oxfordian interpretations are “full of shit” because, to be frank, they’ve not proven to be otherwise so far. However, if you’re looking for a watertight argument for Shakespeare in a few short words—you’re not going to get it. Literary history doesn’t work that way: you need to understand the interrelatedness of multiple levels of evidence, connections that are not easily summarized, and which will be highly complex if they are going to be proof against the pokings of Oxfordians, and it requires an understanding of what constitutes evidence in literary history. It’s easy in biology because you can make predictive claims—and if they work out, your theory is good. It doesn’t work that way in literary history. Simply put, if you don’t understand why parallels between names in de Vere’s life and Shakespeare’s plays does not constitute any kind of evidence, but Ben Jonson’s knowledge of Shakespeare, readiness to identify Shakespeare as an author, and willingness to print a book that pays homage to the Shakespeare Jonson knew as an author constitutes solid evidence, it becomes difficult to think of ways to convince you.
That’s commendably specific (and interesting; thanks). Of course the anti-Statfordians are in the unenviable position of having to prove several negatives, should they want to rely on this as evidence for their views.
If we grant that the details in the Titian painting are indeed present in the poem and absent from Ovid, the task becomes:
[ul]
[li]To prove that the details in Titian’s painting were available in no other painting AND in no written or verbal descriptions of Titian’s painting (and thus genuinely and inarguably inaccessible to someone who never visited Titian’s studio), and[/li]
[li]To prove that the details in question are so unique and distinctive that they could have appeared in the poem ONLY by means of imitation (that is, that it’s impossible–or at least improbable–that the poem’s author could have thought of the details himself).[/li][/ul]
In both instances it’s a negative proposition that must be proven. And that is a notoriously difficult task to accomplish. My guess is that Anderson doesn’t undertake the task at all, but instead baldly asserts that the details could have appeared in the poem only by means of a visit to Titian’s studio…is that the case?
(I’m not trying to challenge you, much less criticize you, Trinopus; I admire your willingness to present and argue your views, here. All these questions I pose are addressed to anyone inclining to the anti-Stratfordian position.)
I read that one, but it seemed to be more of a survey of past disputes and debates, and not so much a solid argument of its own. It was a very good history of the issue, but it didn’t really seem to be making a solid case.
Not quite…but very close to it. He fills in with enough “could have beens” and “this might be the cases” to preserve (in my opinion) integrity and honesty.
I definitely agree that proving a negative is tough. But I’m thinking back to when Jeremiah Clarke’s “Trumpet Voluntary” was thought to have been written by Handel, and when Leopold Mozart’s “Toy Symphony” was thought to have been written by Haydn. History has examples of such corrections.
In my own defense, I don’t actually have a view on the major topic. I’m a poor naïve twit who has fallen between two grindstones, and I’m simply damned if I can figure out which one is the heavier!
I do want to try to defend my opinion that the anti-Stratford view can be honest. It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theory, immune from reason. It may well be such a thing, but it doesn’t have to be such a thing.
(Of course, I have actually seen some honest creationist writing too…)
(Okay, his coverage of the anti-Stratfordians in any of his editions of Shakespeare’s Lives is a bit snotty, but he was explicitly occupying the high ground in all his books. The high ground of “explain the facts”, give “the full context” and, if only along the way, “make the entire farrago clear, on the basis of the evidence.” Anyone with an interest in the subject ought to be reading him.)
Cute, but it leaves one to wonder how serious you are about having your ignorance fought. As I pointed out above, even Oxfordians are agreed that William Shakespeare isn’t a pseudonym, it’s a front, and Elizabethan pseudonyms were really identifiable as such (by alliteration and topicality). Are you serious about having your ignorance fought? Because otherwise I can spent my time elsewhere.
You say you read James Shapiro’s Contested Will; I’m a bit puzzled, because pp. 223-259 deliver Shapiro’s very well done, measured, and entirely anti-Oxford-free outline of his case for Shakespeare. Why did that not convince you? Do you see the difference at least between Shapiro’s argument and that put forth by Anderson et al.?
What an odd benchmark–you can hold any view “honestly” if by that you mean you can really, really believe it. The question is not whether the view can be honestly held, the question is whether it can be honestly argued to be convincing, indeed more convincing than the view that Shakespeare wrote his plays. The evidence, so far, is quite clear that to hold that Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays requires a conspiracy, because nobody has yet made the case without one. Can you make the case without one?
Trinopus, while I have so far shared Sherrerd’s appreciation of your willingness to listen, I’m not sure how much you’re listening. What do you say to the many, many things which Anderson manifestly gets wrong? Why do you persist in equalizing Anderson’s obfuscations with scholarly work? There are no two grindstones to be caught between: there’s a grindstone and there’s thin air.
I read through Anderson’s chapter on de Vere’s stay in Italy. It’s very instructive of his method (more on that anon), and includes the argument about the Titian. I’m quoting:
"One painting alone–depicting a myth from Ovid’s Metamorphoses–would fire the Shake-spearian imagination years later. Shake-speare’s epic poem Venus and Adonis boldly revises the Ovidian myth in the same way that Titian does.
Whereas all classical sources of the Venus and Adonis fable depict the couple’s affair as mutually passionate, Titian’s Venus and Adonis portrays the former as a desperate vixen, and the latter as a disinterested boy. On Titian’s canvas, a grasping goddess of love clings to a willful youth who appears bothered by the temptress embracing him. Titian’s Venus nearly falls over herself to restrain Adonis from leaving. Similarly, Shake-speare’s VENUS tries to hold the heedless boy numerous times, when finally, ‘On his neck her yoking arms she throws; she sinketh down, still hanging on his neck. He on her belly falls, she on her back.’ In the words of art historian Erwin Panofsky, ‘Shakespeare’s words…sound like a poetic paraphrase of Titian’s composition.’
There were at least four replicas fo Titian’s Venus and Adonis elsewhere on the Continent by 1575–most notably, in the collection of the king of Spain. But the copy remaining in Titian’s studio was distinctive. In Titian’s copy and in Titian’s copy only, Adonis wears a stylized form of a man’s hat know as a bonnet. The other copies of the painting feature a bareheaded Adonis. Shake-speare’s Adonis wears ‘a bonnet [that] hides his angry brow.’"
Let me start by pointing out Anderson’s honesties and obfuscations: first, he’s clear that Titian’s painting hung elsewhere, in “at least” four copies, meaning that (he doesn’t spell that out) the more “damning” issue of the way Venus and Adonis are generally depicted is alleviated. But he says 1575 for some reason–Venus and Adonis was not published until 1593, and how many copies of the painting existed by that time, and where, he doesn’t say.
But apart from that, the passage is built on two things: first, his reading of the painting, which is possible, but prejudicial. Venus is a “vixen,” a “temptress,” Adonis “disinterested” and “a boy”. Adonis is a boy in Ovid, as a matter of fact; and the scene which Titian is depicting is his departure for the hunt of the boar (note the spear and the dogs), which has little to do with Venus’s “tempting,” but rather with saving Adonis (rightly, as the boy does die in the end). Yes, Shakespeare offered thematic innovation on Ovid’s original in making Venus , but the entire analysis which Anderson offers depends on a prejudicial reading of Titian’s painting which is not necessary, while ignoring that the basal points of the painting, of Ovid, and of Shakespeare are the same: “Titian’s Venus nearly falls over herself to restrain Adonis from leaving” exactly as Ovid’s Venus (through tale, not physical action) tries to restrain Adonis (but tale-telling isn’t great painting…). Secondly, Anderson makes much of the bonnet that Adonis is wearing in Titian’s own version, and which is included in Shakespeare’s text. I’ll take his word for it that that cap is a bonnet, and I really have nothing to disagree with: the picture has a hat, and the poem has a hat. Touché, Mr. Anderson.
'The boar!' quoth she; whereat a sudden pale,
Like lawn being spread upon the blushing rose,
Usurps her cheeks, she trembles at his tale,
And on his neck her yoking arms she throws: 592
She sinketh down, still hanging by his neck,
He on her belly falls, she on her back.
This is the scene Anderson claims is the smoking gun: but it’s quite clear that Venus is essentially meant to be fainting here. Does Venus faint on Titian’s painting? It seems to me like she’s actually sitting down.
I said it’s instructive of Anderson’s method: pick two lines from a thousand-line poem (much of which is also innovating on the much, much shorter Ovidian version) and compare it something de Vere may have come in contact with; suggest that the parallels are so obvious that therefore it must have been a connection. And I’m saying this because it belies Trinopus’s claim of Anderson’s honesty: he does end by saying “Not only would Titian’s Venus and Adonis inform de Vere’s version of the Ovidian myth…”. Anderson is not saying “it is suggestive and possible that”. Titian’s painting, which Oxford may or may not have seen (Anderson does not provide evidence), WILL BECOME the source for the hat in the poem.
I’m saying this is method, because it is. Yes, Anderson initially always insists on various maybes and perhaps: “Visiting dinitaries to Mantua, such as an English earl, would have been put up as a guest of the local duke, Gugliolmo Gonzaga” [I’ll let you think up your own parallels in WS’s plays here]; “Upon arriving in Siena, de Vere would likely have met the man who stood at the center of the Sienese theatrical world in 1576.”; "Had de Vere actually [been in Milan], he would likely have skipped over the houses of the ‘duke’ and the archbishop for logings in another Milanese household that would readily have opened its doors to a visiting patron of the arts’; “The door of Count Roussillion’s estates would have been open to the comte d’Oxford…”. Of course, in all of these places, Oxford would have met, seen, or otherwise come close to, persons and artifacts that he would then squeeze into his plays and poems. But in none of these cases does Anderson offer a single shred of actual evidence that Oxford ever really met with any of the people, saw any of the items, or knew any of the artwork, that then “would have” inspired him later on.
This from Ben Jonson’s private papers found after Jonson’s death. The most complete contemporary account we have of Shakespeare the man.
“I remember, the Players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing, (whatsoever he penn’d) hee never blotted out line. My answer hath beene, would he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance, who choose that circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most faulted. And to justifie mine owne candor, (for I lov’d the man, and doe honour his memory (on this side Idolatry) as much as any.) Hee was (indeed) honest, and of an open, and free nature: had an excellent Phantsie; brave notions, and gentle expressions: wherein hee flow’d with that facility, that sometime it was necessary he should be stop’d: Sufflaminandus erat; as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his owne power; would the rule of it had beene so too. Many times hee fell into those things, could not escape laughter: As when hee said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him; Cæsar thou dost me wrong. Hee replyed: Cæsar did never wrong, but with just cause: and such like; which were ridiculous. But hee redeemed his vices, with his vertues. There was ever more in him to be praysed, then to be pardoned.”
This account was not written by just anyone. It was written by one of the greatest English authors in history, a friend and rival of Shakespeare. Here is Jonson doing what he does best; being catty, snidey yet complimentary, not just to Shakespeare the poet but also to Shakespeare the man. What makes Jonson such an excellent witness is that although an admirer of Shakespeare he was by no means a sychophant. When he thought Shakespeare deserved criticism he gave it. Also, from certain private conversations of Jonson’s we can piece together at no time is it reported anything other than Jonson believing Shakespeare as the author. To me this evidence trumps a hundred supposed coincidences or literary allusions dreamt up by authors two centuries afterwards.
And, of course, Ben Jonson lived until 1637, long after Oxford and Shakespeare had died. If it were an open secret that Oxford had written those plays why oh why oh why didn’t Jonson talk about that after they were safely dead?
Life is not a classic whodunit, where everybody is a chess piece that does only the exact actions that authors need for the clues to be set into place. Life is people, and people are free and independent actors who are always talking, often at exactly the wrong moment.
People of the day, friends, enemies, rivals, admirers, strangers, talked about Shakespeare the playwright and actor. You cannot invent a plausible scenario in which every one of them, for decades during his life and after his death, kept to the same made up-story. Anyone who wants us to believe otherwise must concentrate on that reality. Everything else is a side story.
Enterprise, many thanks for your detailed description of Anderson’s presentation of his Titian/Venus-and-Adonis claim. Unsurprisingly, he fails to support it well, and omits to mention the many possible avenues by which Shakespeare of Stratford could have managed to put a hat on his Adonis. (The hat, apparently, being the crux of Anderson’s argument.)
I don’t think this has been discussed yet (but apologies if I’m mistaken)–can Oxfordians point to any documented cases of British nobility making use of common-born fronts for their writing? In, say, a period of roughly a hundred years before William Shakespeare’s birth and a hundred after his death?
The entire Oxfordian case seems to be: one, Oxford could not publish the plays or poetry under his own name because it was considered déclassé to be a professional writer and/or it would have angered the Queen; and two, the plays and poetry contain content that could only have been written by someone raised as an English aristocrat.
In support of the first proposition, wouldn’t it be useful to be able to point to additional examples of noble writers employing commoner fronts?
First principle: nothing said by Oxfordians is likely to be true.
Second principle: all the objections have already been answered in this thread.
Third principle: There is no debate here. There are not two sides. It is equal to a conspiracy theory because the “thinking” fails in exactly the same ways.
