Depends. People are still vigorously rejecting evolution.
That’s true.
If I keep rejecting your premise, maybe it’s a sucky premise.
Hey septimus. I hope you remember me from previous threads as someone who was not dismissive or rude, but who believes Shakespeare was Shakespeare.
I have a few questions.
What evidence is there that closets and attics were scoured for any letters or manuscripts?
[quote]
[li] Books owned by, or manuscripts attributed to, Shakespeare: ZERO[/li][/quote]
What books owned by, or manuscripts attributed to, Jonson, Marlowe, Fletcher do we know of?
[quote]
[li] A minor government official prepared “who’s who” and yearbooks for Stratford. Mentions of the playwright: ZERO[/li][/quote]
As in court, I need a continuance to look into this claim I’ve never heard. Who’s the official, or where can I read about this book?
[quote]
[li] Shakespeare had a literate son-in-law with many letters preserved who commented on the talents for poetry of other Stratfordians. Mentions of his father-in-law’s poetry: ZERO[/li][/quote]
John Hall, I guess. What letters? I’ve never heard this claim. More info, please.
[quote]
[li] Positive evidence that Shakespeare even went to school: ZERO[/li][/quote]
As is the case with many other playwrights of the period.
[quote]
[li] The Earl of Southampton is assumed to be Shakespeare’s patron; a rumor even developed that he had given the poet £1000 very early in his career, a very large sum. Evidence from Southampton or his family or retainers that they had any relationshop with Shakespeare: ZERO. (Oddly, De Vere received an annual allowance of £1000, itself very unusual, from Queen Elizabeth.)[/li][/quote]
Evidence that he was Shakespeare’s patron is the dedications in Venus and Adonis and Tarquin and Lucrece.The rumor that he got 1000 pounds is also a rumor that he got 5000 pounds and several other sums. He didn’t get anywhere near either of those.
[quote]
[li] The London and Stratford personae differ. At the time Shakespeare-the-author was allegedly writing King Lear and being praised for generosity, the William Shakespeare of Stratford who operated a butcher shop was being accused of grain hoarding, and sueing a customer to recover a two-shilling debt.[/li][/quote]
Lear was written in 1604. What praise for generosity are you talking about? He was accused of grain hoarding in 1598. What evidence is there that Shakespeare operated a butcher shop? The closest I can find about two shilling lawsuit is a 35 shilling lawsuit, of which two shillings was a direct loan, and the rest was the guy’s account for bushels of malt and barley and stuff. It’s hard to estimate what that’s worth today, but it’s 1.75 pounds, which was worth more than half a pound of silver.
At some point in the 1620’s, Stratford townspeople were interviewed for reminiscences about the playwright. Only one turned up, who recalled young William play-acting, perhaps in his father’s butcher shop. Sorry I don’t remember where I read this.
I don’t have a date for the beginning of thorough scouring for letters, etc. written by Stratford. I do not claim to be expert on such matters. I’d like to myself be on the question side of expert dialog.
Where was this interview documented?
Well, no matter where you read this it is completely wrong. At no point in the 1620’s were Stratford townspeople interviewed for reminiscences of Shakespeare. At least there is absolute no evidence for this. If you, or any other anti-Stratfordian, have any evidence that shows otherwise please do post it. The very earliest we have of a fleeting interest in Shakespeare biographical material in Stratford is from around the 1660’s. This is almost 50 years after his death. A time when people who had direct knowledge of the man Shakespeare were becoming thin on the ground.
The scouring for Shakespeare letters and artifacts started around the time when Shakespeare become the literary idol of the Romantics. This was around the 1770’s onwards. As I said above, some attempt had been made 50 years after his death for vague details of biographical information. There was no scouring for Shakespeare artifacts until long, long after this.
Again: It’s obvious you haven’t read Anderson’s book or investigated the case objectively.
I’m not sure Dopers understand why certain anti-Oxfordian arguments can be rejected as “circular.” Pretend that we’re dealing with another topic of which we’re all ignorant, and the links are just steps in a logic diagram. Do you then understand why conclusions derived by dismissing the hoax hypthesis, cannot be used to dismiss the hoax hypothesis? Even if you regard the hoax hypothesis as so far-fetched as to assign it zero probability?
The dating of the plays is uncertain.
The first recorded performance of Macbeth was in 1611. The second known performance was in 1664. Is it likely the play was never performed during the 53-year gap? If not, is it possible other plays were performed, or at least written, before their first known performance?
A play called Hamlet was performed by 1589. A play called King Leir was performed in the early 1590’s. I think it’s deduced that their plot lines were closely related to those of the plays we know today. It’s assumed Shakespeare did not write these early plays, but that assumption is made to fit a chronology.
Anyway, I’ve already stated that I do not fully accept Oxfordian views, and will stipulate that, if Oxford was the primary author, he likely had collaborator(s) who outlived him.
At some point, my fascination with the controversy devolves into fascination with the non sequiturs trotted out to refute it.
William Camden praises the London author Shakespeare in one book, but overlooks him in both his “1616 Annals [of Stratford]” and in “Stratford Worthies of 1605”.
Is it really unclear why this is the type of argument I called “circular”?
Do people think that Oxfordians imagine that Oxford tried to write “Edward de Vere” when he submitted Venus and Adonis to publisher but, in a drunken state, his scrawled signature happened to look like “William Shake-speare”? :smack: 
:eek: :smack:
I’m not trying to be snarky, but PLEASE grasp why evidence consistent with a hoax cannot be used to refute a hoax.
In the hoax hypothesis – which may not be true at all – Oxford pretended to be a commoner named Shake-speare when he submitted that poem, and wrote a deliberately obsequious dedication as a commoner might.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Anyway, I lack the patience, knowledge, and temperament to pursue this. I’ve read, by now, hundreds of webpages arguing both sides. You’re all welcome to do your own Googling. If and when someone returns and says “I’ve now read Mark Anderson’s book” send me a PM and I’ll be happy to rejoin a discussion.
I think if you’re going to place random restrictions on how people are allowed to interact with you in this thread, then it would probably be best for you to bow out.
I’ve read far too much and kept too few bookmarks to track this down. The closest I came with Google just now is
Since Aubrey was born after Shakespeare died, he’s not the original source. I did see a reference implying that this anecdote was the only anecdote (with the original teller’s name attached IIRC) of Shakespeare as actor or writer that turned up among his Stratford contemporaries. I’m not going to Google for it further; you may if you wish.
I know you’re not participating anymore, but for others interested, we don’t have to wonder about Leir; the play is not lost. Same basic story, wholly different script.
By the same token, the hoax hypothesis allows Oxfordians to dismiss any evidence as part of the hoax. They’re the ones* making it circular*.
“Bow out” is what I stated I would do. But first: Did you make any substantive contribution at all? I must have missed it.
I (hope!) this is my last post in the thread, BUT Do you really not understand why a mention by the Wriothesley family would be confirmation of their patronage in a way that a dedicaton by the alleged hoaxster is not?
So, you’re asking why the lack of some alleged but non-existent mention in some hypothetical document is being treated differently than the actual dedication in the existing play?
This is the problem with all the anti-Stratfordians’ arguments. It only hangs together if you assume a priori that it’s all a hoax. There’s no actual evidence for a hoax, but it becomes the worldview by which all evidence (real or imagined) is measured. Anything becomes evidence for a hoax if you have nothing concrete.
I do want to point out there is some doubt, even among Shakespearian supporters.
Some works may have been co-authored, but with only Shakespeare’s name on them. Other works, like The Two Noble Kinsmen may have had little actual penning by The Bard.
That would seem to indicate that 5 years after his death, people believed that the man who had died 5 years previous was the writer of the Shakespearian plays.
How much material do we have on other authors of the same time period?
As I believe that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed it him, I bear the benefit of assumption. You are the one making a claim that the authorship is other than stated by contemporaneous accounts and the works themselves. It is your responsibility to provide strong evidence that a hoax exists. You have not done so, yet. Yours is the contribution that needs to be substantive and yours is the contribution that has so far failed.
Here’s Mark Alexander’s own page summarizing the case for de Vere.
I can’t find it in a quick Internet search - the terms aren’t specific enough - but I do remember reading that at some point in the 16th century somebody set down lists of the best writers, poets, and playwrights of the day. Both Shakespeare’s and de Vere’s names are on it.
Can someone find the reference I’m thinking of? That’s the kind of positive evidence that I consider vastly more important than negative evidence.
Remember that the debate is not about Shakespeare vs. De Vere as the two options. It is about Shakespeare vs. 50 candidates for whom negative evidence can be manufactured. As soon as you limit the discussion to de Vere you admit that there is a worthy subject to be debated. In that specific way it does become exactly like a birther demanding proof that Obama wasn’t born in Kenya.
Instead of wasting your time googling I’ll tell you of where our 17th century sources on Shakespeare come from. This is not an exhaustive account.
No-one was interested in Shakespeare biographical details whilst he lived. The earliest interest comes from around the early 1660’s. This was a clergyman who was about to be re-located to Stratford. In his diary he mentions an interest in Shakespeare. He even writes that he wishes to meet Shakespeare’s ageing daughter. For what reason we dont know. To gather information on Shakespeare seems plausible. Anyway, Shakespeare’s daughter died before he could meet her. What biographical detail this clergyman leaves us with(and he leaves us some) then is of dubious accuracy. Some of it may be correct, some not.
We also have Aubrey’s Brief Lives as you mention. We dont have a specific date for when the Shakespeare details were written. Fifty years or more after his death seems a reasonable guess.
The actor William Betterton. Betterton was an actor during the Restoration period. He gave a lot of biographical information on Shakespeare to the writer Nicholas Rowe. Rowes biographic essay on Shakespeare being the first serious attempt at Shakespeare bigraphy. This was 90 years after Shakespeare’s death. Betterton’s information likely being from the 1680’s or so.
What is missing from the above? Any townspeople of Stratford being asked for reminiscences on Shakespeare during the 1620’s, or, indeed the 1630’s,1640’s or 1650’s.
Thanks for posting this link. I didn’t realise the earlier King Leir play was still in existence.
That would be Meres’s Palladis Tamia. Here’s an image of [url=The first rave review :: Life and Times :: Internet Shakespeare Editions]his list of Shakespeare’s works](Oxford and Shakespeare), and here’s the list in which he mentions both Shakespeare and Oxford:
None of Oxford’s comedies are extant, but there’s no reason to think he couldn’t have written some, probably for a private, court performance, under his own name. He certainly wrote poetry under his own name, as did many other noblemen and noblewomen. If he’d written Venus and Adonis or Lucrece, there’s no reason why he couldn’t have owned it.
This is true (although Shakespeare probably wrote about half of TNK, and the title page makes no attempt to hide that it is a collaborative work). The difference between legitimate scholarship about authorship and conspiracy theories is that legitimate scholarship takes into account what we know about how early modern theater worked. It was highly collaborative, yes. Plays were often written by two or three playwrights working together; plays that were originally single-authored could also be retouched by other playwrights for a later revival (and we think that Shakespeare was both original author and retoucher in different cases). Plays were also often published anonymously, and occasionally attributed to someone who didn’t actually write them. Lots of real scholarship is devoted to untangling these issues – to figuring out, for example, whether a given scene from TNK is by Shakespeare or Fletcher, or whether the additions to Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy are by Shakespeare, Jonson, or somebody else.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, posit that Shakespeare’s whole body of work was written by an amateur, solo author working outside of the theatrical community and without any experience of professional theater, and published not anonymously but under a pseudonym that was also the name of a real person. We don’t have any evidence of anything remotely like this ever happening, and it defies most of what we do know about how early modern drama was composed.