Earlier I posted a Google link to a book by McCrea, and asked for comments. My question wasn’t rhetorical. If people check the book and don’t understand or agree with what I meant about it using the same circular reasoning it condemns, then I’ll know not to waste time publishing my own summary of an Oxford case. And my own summary wouldn’t be particularly interesting anyway: what little I’ve gleaned just came from webpages.
And let me repeat myself again. I’m agnostic about the Authorship. There are strong arguments against Oxford, but also (I think) strong arguments against Stratford. The thread title arose because, if for some silly reason I were “making a betting book” on the Authorship, while I might even make Stratford the “favorite” I’d be reluctant to make him the “odds-on favorite.”
I’m suspicious of many claims I see on Oxfordian webpages, and would love to hear experts provide simple answers to simple questions, for example
[ul][li] Are John Hall’s collected letters (or a summary) available on-line?[/li][li] Is there a paper detailing astronomical references in Shakespeare’s works?[/li][li] What are the ten earliest mentions of one or more of Shakespeare’s plays? (It’s easy to find the first one or two mentions, but what about 3rd or 4th?)[/li][/ul]
It may sound like I’m cynical about how this thread is progressing, but I expect no answers to these questions, but instead complaints that the questions themselves are “wrong”! :dubious:
Out of curiosity did you notice that I specifically indicated at least twice that I do not intend to make such a connection?
I’ve admitted already that there are strong arguments against the Oxford case. As to the dating of plays, I’m not qualified to comment but will note that some consider them controversial.
Look: Rightly or wrongly some people believe “William Shake-speare” was a sort of pseudonym. Because of this, references to “Shakespeare” become misleading or ambiguous. In this thread I’ve been ridiculed for the terms “Shaksper”, “Stratfordian”, and “Man-from-Stratford”, all intended to eliminate ambiguity rather than to be “cute.”
In now appears that any language choice which follows from the assumption that “Shake-speare” might be a pseudonym will be rejected (or called “cute” or “precious”). No matter how strongly you may believe that the pseudonym hypothesis is false, can you not agree that rejecting any English phrase required by that hypothesis serves to stifle debate?
It seems to me that to require me to read McCrea’s book for the instances in which you see circular reasoning that McCrea does not address is rather unfair: you have a claim that you suggest can be supported by looking at a book. Point me to a specific instance or two were McCrea is guilty of circular reasoning. That’s a first step towards taking those who you are discussing with seriously.
I hear you, but I don’t believe you. Being agnostic about Shakespearian authorship is a bit like being agnostic about Evolution.
But even taking you statement of your position at face value, it seems to me that you then poisoned the discussion-well by suggesting that “Shakespeare probably did not write the sonnets”. It would seem, then, that you are saying you would bet on the guy who probably would not win you the bet. Why would you do that? If he’s going to lose, why not bet on someone who’s going to win? If he’s going to win, then isn’t he the guy who “probably” wrote the Sonnets?
Out of curiosity, why would you want to know such things?
Septimus, I think it’s time we started putting this discussion on an honest footing. You wrote:
Another intriguing mystery is who kidnapped the Lindberg baby, though it really doesn’t prove anything about Shakespeare’s authorship – which is why nobody has brought it up yet. Your bringing up this supposed mystery and then disclaiming its relevance for the discussions is profoundly dishonest – wasteful of the time of those people who share this thread with you. Why did you bring it up? What’s interesting about it?
Some consider lots of things something. There is no, absolutely no, reputable scholar who does not, for example, think that William Shakespeare (or at the very, very least, the same guy who wrote the plays up to 1604) is the primary author of, just for example, Antony and Cleopatra (1607), Coriolanus (1608), or The Tempest (1610) – as the notes, for example, to those plays’ New Cambridge Shakespeare editions amply document.
What you are doing, in fact, is being exactly that: merely “cute”. If you were trying to avoid ridicule and to use terminology that leaves you in a position from which you can argue your point, you could have said something as simple as “the author of the Sonnets.” I suppose you do not doubt the existence of a (fairly well-documented) player and Stratfordian named William Shakespeare; you content that he did not author the Sonnets, in which case “the author of the Sonnets” is not William; which seems to offer exactly as much (and more, perhaps) distinction than your cutesy “Stratford,” “Shaksper” (which, as has been noted, offers no distinction at all, because spelling was in rough ways back in the day…)
What truly stifles this debate is that you’re not offering any – you’re not putting any argument on the table, or even those points which to you indicate the possibility that William Shakespeare did not write the sonnets (apart from your OP’s note that experienced nothing of what he wrote about, which is no argument at all), so we have nothing to give you explanations for, arguments against, or admissions of.
One (of several) reasons this thread has gone off-track is that I didn’t start with any synopsis of a case for Oxford or against Shaksper, perhaps thinking readers were already familiar with the arguments. I’ll mention a few, below. I hope others will post what they consider to be among the strongest arguments for Oxfordian and anti-Stratfordian positions. (It’s possible you’ll consider even the strongest such arguments to be very weak, but to claim that it’s a null set would terminate discussion.)
My claim about McCrea’s book is that he condemns Oxfordians for writing “Well, it could have been like this … and it could have been this …” but reasons exactly the same when he makes the Stratfordian case. I detect that I have a different mind set than others posting here; asking whether you understood my object to McCrea’s argument was to help me.
Now that’s a telling sound clip! (And perhaps related to an earlier post comparing Oxfordianism with a 9/11 conspiracy theory?) I tend to be iconoclastic, but for a claim of being agnostic about the authorship to be unbelievable … Well, it reinforces the idea there’s more heat than light in authorship discussions.
Didn’t I already say Shakespeare might be a favorite but I don’t consider him an odds-on favorite? If that phrase is also “cutesy” jargon, it means I might guess a 30% chance but not a 60% chance. As for my offering more quantitative probability estimates I’ve also already stated that that depends on much Oxfordian “evidence” about which I have my doubts, and which I’d like to see confirmed or debunked.
Septimus asked such specific questions, closing with “It may sound like I’m cynical about how this thread is progressing, but I expect no answers to these questions, but instead complaints that the questions themselves are wrong!”
At least I’m guessing the thread direction correctly. (To answer your question, though now repeating myself, it is to help me assess certain Oxfordian claims.)
No matter how stupid or wrong it may be there is speculation that Edward de Vere wrote plays and poetry and attributed them to Shakespeare, partly due to the insistence of the English Monarchs. It seems an interesting question why King James apparently acted quickly to destroy Oxford’s papers upon Oxford’s death. It seems like a very interesting question for English political history scholars, regardless of any theatre connections. And, for any authorship hoax conjecture, the King’s act is consistent and therefore increases a computed probability (though whether from 0.001% to 0.003% or from 2% to 5% I can’t judge).
Reasons for doubt about an Oxfordian authorship: chronology, computer word analyses, and the difficulty of maintaining a hoax with no leaks.
One Stratfordian argument I dismiss is that even an initial hoax is far-fetched; I find that much quite believable.
Reasons for doubt about Stratfordian authorship include:
[ul][li] His adult children may have been illiterate.[/li][li] He possessed no books, manuscripts or letters, nor London business interests or property upon his death.[/li][li] The provenance and preface of the Sonnets seem incompatible with a living author.[/li][/ul]
I’m not sure what mindset you’re detecting, but if you haven’t read the rest (non-Googleable) portion of McCrea’s book, you will really not get the idea behind his argument. In fact, McCrea is making a very persuasive argument precisely out of looking at the evidence given by those people who deny Shakespeare’s authorship. Or more precisely, he gives you the evidence to make up your own mind, such as pointing out that neither Ben Jonson nor any of the players Shakespeare had worked with for his entire adult life have left any doubt as to Shakespeare’s being the actual author of the plays published under his name. I still would like to give me an instance (not a paraphrase) of your complaint about McCrea, so I can understand what it is that you’re complaining about, and I’m reinforced in this opinion by the fact that your complaint now indicates that you’ve misunderstood McCrea’s point. He is not saying “it could have been like this, or this,” he says that “it could all be a conspiracy, but for it to be a conspiracy, all of these things would have to be included.”
On the level of evidence compared to the necessity to wrangle the available evidence to fit a pre-conceived notion of what just can’t be (whether it’s “uneducated rural hack-player writes best play ever” or “all of nature’s diversity comes into being without someone making it”), we’re on about the same level here.
Let’s have at it again: what certain Oxfordian claims do you suppose you need these questions to assess correctly? While you pad yourself on the back, maybe we can tell you something about the Oxfordian claims without needing to dig through vast sheaves of papers for possibly unanswerable questions.
That is an interesting question. If it has no bearing on authorship, I suppose we should skip it, though, and look at other questions first – such as the evidence that until 1850 or so, nobody believed that Shakespeare did not write the plays.
Can you elaborate on the question of an initial hoax, and why you find it believable? Also note that the Oxfordian argument is not for a “hoax,” but for a conspiracy.
Why does that preclude Shakespeare’s authorship? As far as we know, he may not have seen his children as much as once in a year, until his retirement.
Would you mind explaining why you think that precludes Shakespeare’s authorship?
Huh? Did you read what I wrote about the preface and provenance earlier? Did you read McCrea on it?
As a mathematician, you should be familiar with the difference between journal articles on math and popular books on math.
A similar distinction exists within literary scholarship. Do you have any intention of reading any of the technical literature on the authorship of Shakespeare?
Or they may not have been. Either way, so? His only *son *died at age 10.
[quote]
[li] He possessed no books, manuscripts or letters, nor London business interests or property upon his death.[/li][/quote]
No books? Are you just basing that on there being no mention of books in his will? discussion of Shakespeare’s will
[quote]
[li] The provenance and preface of the Sonnets seem incompatible with a living author.[/li][/quote]
I don’t understand what ‘the provenance …of the sonnets seem[s] incompatible with a living author’ means. Isn’t the provenance of the sonnets what you’re out to determine?
I’m fairly sure that there are no John Hall ‘collected letters’, in print, online or in manuscript. What does survive is one of his books of case notes. That was the basis for the posthumous Select Observations on English Bodies (1657), the various editions of which are available online. But only to subscribers via EEBO. There is a modern reprint in Harriet Joseph’s Shakespeare’s Son-in-Law. But that doesn’t appear to be online.
Samuel Schoenbaum’s William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, whether in the full version or the compact one, prints all the known early references. Of which there are more than you might suppose.
Wrong. His daughter, Susanna, was able to sign her name. Which, for a woman, was not the norm. Also, one must remember that significantly more people in early-modern England could read than could sign their name (reading being taught before writing), so her signature is good evidence that she could read.
Wrong. His will specifically bequeaths ‘All that Messuage or tenemente with thappurtenances wherein one John Robinson dwelleth, scituat, lyeing and being in the blackfriers in London nere the Wardrobe…’.
But your statement is more than merely wrong. That building was literally just along the street from the Blackfriars Theatre, in which Shakespeare the actor had been one of the shareholders. This is therefore very powerful evidence for the Stratford Shakespeare as the playwright.
Thank you for this, APB. BTW, her signature looks rather similar to that of her father, no? Many Oxfordian claims turn out to be misleading. Comparing Susanna’s signature to an ill-formed illiterate’s signature seems quite wrong because: even if true (and I’ve no handwriting expertise) it would apply to her father’s, so Susanna’s signature would add no information. (If there’s too many negatives in this sentence to parse, I’m making a pro-Stratfordian claim.)
(BTW, apparently Judith signed her name ‘X’, and there’s other grounds to support Susanna’s inability to read. I’ve no idea if there’s any merit in those claims, but to answer “daughter’s illiteracy does not preclude Shakespeare’s authorship” is to miss the point about different mindset. How likely is it the world’s best-ever wordsmith would allow his daughter(s) to grow up unable to read?)
Contrary to what someone upthread assumed, I really am agnostic on the matter. The big doubt, I think, is the absence of any Stratford relative or neighbor ever writing about “my uncle, the poet”. Stratfordians answer that fire and flood have destroyed so much, that such letters would be rare. A demonstration that such letters are similarly rare (or nonexistent) for Marlowe, etc., would go a long way toward removing the doubt.
Since it would be asking Stratfordians to prove a negative, the burden of proof would fall on the anti- camp: Show that the paucity of evidence is specific to Shaksper and not general for early 17th century writers.
I may have posed such a question in another forum but heat seems more common than light on this topic. Even here, I asked a simple question about Shakespeare’s astronomical references and get only, in effect, “Why would you want to know? Scholars already know the answer. Yadda yadda.” And comparing those doubtful about the authorship with creationists seems wrong: the group includes Shakespearean PhD’s, Supreme Court justices, etc. As to why I would want to know about the astronomical references, it’s fair to assume those interested in the topic have reviewed Oxfordian “evidence”, no? To rely solely on the rebuttals in “Why Oxfordians are stupid” books is to miss out on the hardest-to-refute Oxfordian claims, no?
Stratfordians often respond to queries used to test a hoax/consiracy hypothesis with evidence consistent with a hoax. When this is pointed out, they answer “But hoax hypothesis is false” and don’t understand the circularity.
A valid objection to such a hoax/conspiracy hypothesis is that it resorts to “special pleading.” Obviously it will. One seeks to enumerate the special pleadings and see if they “defy probability.” One such pleading that Oxfordians insist on is that Ben Jonson, who underwent a stark change from sarcastic references to Shakespeare to excessive praise, was one of the conspirators. And yet Stratfordians blithely produce him as their chief or only witness on many matters.
And BTW, the hoax/conspiracy, it seems to me, was both “hoax” and “conspiracy”. At the risk of sounding annoyed by pedantry, I hope it doesn’t sound too “precious” or “cutesy” to refer to the hoax/conspiracy as a hoax.
It’s pretty obvious to me that you have no interest in what I offer, especially in actually answering questions. So congrats, Septimus: you’ve wasted a lot of my time. You have absolutely no clue as to what the evidence is, but you presume to tell me I don’t – fair enough. Anything I’d like to tell you further would need the Pit…
Let me give you one thing more for the way: it’s clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but that’s why you’re here, to learn. But there are no hard-to-refute Oxfordian claims out there – as you amply showed by not offering any. Your intellectual dishonesty in this matter is, quite frankly, astounding.
You wrote absolutely zero in this thread on the subject of the Sonnet’s preface or provenance. I wonder if you’ve conflated this thread with another.
I apologize for wasting your time, though I’m not sure who’s not answering whose questions here. The Oxfordian claim about astronomical mentions is either hard to refute or else it is not, but it looks like I won’t find out which in this thread. If your contributions mostly fit the pattern “Illiteracy of Shakespeare’s daughters does not preclude his authorship” then, Yes, I agree. I can’t learn from you.
Surprisingly, you did not argue this in a later message. Unsurprisingly, neither the dedication nor the “provenance” (whatever you mean by that) argue against Shakespeare’s authorship – as you would know, if you had, for example, read McCrea’s book (182-185). And again, as someone whom you ignored has pointed out, you’re setting out to find out the provenance, so it’s a bit circular to argue that the provenance argues against Shakespeare. As I have written above, if provenance = tracing the history of publication, we have a history of publication. Not only that, we have a history of people who indicate quite clearly that they believed Shakespeare wrote them and that writing them fit with what they knew him to be. They had no doubt that Shakespeare was capable of writing those poems (and the plays). Why should anyone after three hundred years?
Friend septimus, you deny that you’re in a conspiracy theory, and yet you persist in making all their moves. I can’t answer your question on astronomical mentions. As far as I can tell, the only play that’s really deeply into astronomy is Hamlet, which seems not really an amazing set of pre- and after-death comparatives (there’s only one play, MacBeth, which is deeply tied to equivocation – and incidentally, the only plausible real-world connection there is a 1606 case of treason – which seems to indicate that Shakespeare liked to pick issues only once). Let’s grant it’s impossible to refute (it’s not in Crea, or in Shapiro as far as I can tell, and a search on the internet hasn’t really turned up a summary of the question, or an answer – apart from this, which isn’t helpful. But is it the kind of statement that you’d like answered? If so, I can help out.).
Does this mean anything for the discussion? If true, it means that plays after 1604 contain no more astronomical references. Which might be puzzling anyway, considering that one of the standard suggestions by Oxfordians is that Shakespeare released plays after Oxford’s death, which might yet contain such material. On the other hand, we have fairly unambiguous references to a particular 1607 source for The Tempest.
Why do you not want to answer the question as to what your questions mean for the authorship? Why is the literacy of his daughters important, we’re not arguing they wrote the plays? Why is it important if he held London property (did de Vere?)? Why is mention of books in his will important (did de Vere mention them?)? These are primarily questions to evaluate your position in your own mind – because the questions mean nothing, and certainly they mean nothing compared to the one central question: what’s the underlying rationale for even looking for a different author than Shakespeare?
You won’t find out what you need in this thread as long as you persist in not offering up anything but the typical array of “alright, but what about THIS” kind of never-ending chain of questions without offering up anything in return.
No, they don’t (read McCrea or Shapiro). Ben Jonson’s been shown to have done the same with other authors, and he is not the only, sometimes not even the chief source, on the identification of the plays’ author with Shakespeare.
What do you think was the “hoax” in the whole deal, and when did it become a conspiracy (note that I’m leaving out the really tough question, “why and how”)?
Some of the letter forms are similar. But this, in itself, isn’t surprising. And would be even less so if her father had taught her how to write.
Who’d have thought it?
Your self-confessed ignorance has swallowed you up in a morass of nonsense.
While the fact that someone could sign their name does tell us that they almost certainly could read, the style in which they did so tells even expert paleographers very little about how well the signatory could read. Just as today, a messy signature does not mean that someone has difficulty reading. Experienced paleographers also know that allowances have to be made about the circumstances in which signatures were made. Signatures on seal tags are never neat. And those made by testators on their deathbed rarely are either. Given all this, there is nothing about any of these signatures inconsistent with them being made by highly skilled readers.
But there is a more fundamental problem; to the untrained eye, almost all early-modern handwriting looks ‘ill-formed’. This really is a case where the opinion of anyone without expert knowledge is absolutely worthless.
You have missed the crucial point I previously explained. Although I realised it is one which, to anyone who has gone through most modern education systems, does seem deeply counterintuitive.
In early-modern England reading was taught before writing. Because of that, there were significant numbers of people (albeit still a minority of the population) who could read fluently but who had never progressed to the next stage of learning to write. This was especially true among women. This is why Susanna’s ability to write her name is strong evidence that she could read, whereas Judith’s apparent inability to do so is not evidence that she could not.
Why on earth not? Plenty of men, possibly even a majority of them, who were fully literate in this period thought it irrelevant that their daughters should be so. You’re the one who is missing the point about completely different mindsets.
I missed this, sorry. You’ve answered at least this bit (not the “why no books” and “why no London property” parts though).
Wait, you think no-one saying “My pal ole Will, the poet” is any kind of evidence? And presumably the absence of anyone saying “My pal ole Edward, the playwright” is merely evidence of the brillant execution of the deception? And yet you wonder I’m comparing you to an evolution doubter?
The fact of the matter, again, is that we have writings by people who explicitly connect William Shakespeare, the player, with the author of the plays and the sonnets.
We have no writings by people who doubt Shakespeare’s authorship, including writings by people who knew him well [Jonson] who may sometimes complain about Shakespeare’s talent, but never suggest that he did not write the plays or sonnets.
There is less biographical data for Shakespeare’s contemporaries Marlowe, Thomas Kyd, John Fletcher, and others [cf. McCrea 51].
I’m not sure you’re really getting the problem. Anyone can make unrefutable claims on Shakespeare’s life or knowledge, because we don’t know that much about it. We cannot with certainty say which sources Shakespeare might have had, because some may have been lost, for example. But here’s the point again:No-one can make any better claims for the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or anyone else.
Friend Enterprise, let me address your questions. First let me apologize for my tone which has obviously annoyed several participants here. It certainly was not my intention to annoy. Frankly, I found some of the early responses almost insulting, and this discouraged me. (Many responses took the form “Most Shakespeare scholars think anti-Stratfordians are crackpots.” Perhaps I should have emphasized at the outset that I had done enough reading to know that much. )
By provenance of the Sonnets I mean how that book came to be published. By preface I mean the dedication to “Mr. W.H.” and lack of any mention of the author unless he’s “Our ever-living poet.” The widower of Southampton’s mother, and W.S. misspelled are two of the leading candidates, I guess, for “Mr. W.H.” but in any case the book does not resemble Shakespeare poem books published during Oxford’s lifetime. (Another post-Oxford Shakespeare book features the tantalizing “from a never writer to an ever reader”; what does that mean?)
Despite that you’ve “taken me by the hand”, I still see zero mention of the preface nor, as I define it, the “provenance.” (Apparently it was assumed that I was using the term “provenenace” in a stupid circular way. I apologize for my apparent stupidity.)
Oxfordians claim that no will was discovered upon de Vere’s death. Is this another “refutable Oxfordian claim”? Would it be rude to suggest that you seem not to be fully cognizant of all Oxfordian claims: do you still argue that all are refutable?
And I do accept that these strange-seeming hints do not preclude Shaksper as author! The strange words about the “never writer” would seem an interesting mystery even for those 100% certain of Stratfordian authorship. Moreover they definitely increase the chance of a hoax theory! That chance may just go up from 0.00001% to 0.00005%, but it does go up.
I do realize there are very strong arguments against an Oxford authorship. (Many of those arguments diminish if we allow a Oxford+X collaboration. I realize such a collaboration may be very unlikely, but some think a Stratford authorship is also very unlikely.)
“If Shakespeare lost interest in astronomy, by coincidence at about the time of Oxford’s death, that does not preclude Stratfordian authorship!”
By now, do you see that “does not preclude” does not conform to the probabilistic methods I choose to adopt? You stated that there are no irrefutable Oxfordian claims, but now suggest that the astronomical claim might be true, though the associated inference false. No one seems to believe it, but I really am agnostic and really am curious whether that particular Oxfordian claim is true or not! Surely some undergrad has tabulated Shakespeare’s mentions of astronomical events! If it’s false it would add to my growing list of Oxfordian lies. If true it will add to a growing list of Stratfordian special pleadings.
(By the way, I’m not aware offhand of the unambiguously referenced 1607 Tempest source, but so as to not waste your time, I’ll try to Google for it.)
I already responded to this:
How likely is it the world’s best-ever wordsmith would allow his daughter(s) to grow up unable to read?
You’ve already responded: “does not preclude”. By now I’m sure you realize that, rightly or wrongly, that phrase does not fully resolve evidence’s probative value for me.
I will now, but I hadn’t summarized an Oxford hoax theory earlier in this thread for several reasons:
[ul][li] There are already plenty to be found on the Internet[/li][li] I have no special “improvement” to offer[/li][li] There are serious flaws in any such theory[/li][li] The “evidence” involves a long list of coincidences, any one of which can be ignored, but which together might build a probabilistic case[/li][/ul]
Facile arguments based on “does not preclude” may mean there is little or no reason to enumerate coincidences. Tom Bethel’s article was good summary (no longer online, but I’ll e-mail a copy to anyone who wants it). Here’a another article listing pro-Oxfordian coincidences. (I’m sure that link will be met with derision; would it be fair to ask anyone who clicks and then derides to also locate the oddest most pro-Oxfordian coincidence on the page?)
Edward de Vere was a very precocious young man, nephew of Ovid’s translater, intimate with Queen Elizabeth who appointed her chief adviser to be Edward’s guardian. Thus the Queen’s Lord Chamberlain and the 18th hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain of England lived under the same roof.
Edward excelled at law studies, dueling, jousting, tennis, falconry, and writing poetry. He traveled abroad, was closely involved with Italy’s theatre, served as a ship captain for the Queen, judge of Mary of Scots, businessman, and patron of the arts. Many plays were dedicated to him. (None of Shakespeare’s were so dedicated, they were dedicated to Oxford’s sons-in-law and initimate Southampton.)
After this eventful early life, which included his boyhood poetry, Oxford retired to “pursue writing in the country.” (No writings surfaced upon his death; upthread the possibility was hinted that Oxford’s papers (including his will and any play manuscripts) were destroyed on order of King James.)
Edward de Vere was a noted playwright and was spoken of in superlative terms. Nevertheless none of his plays (not even a title) has survived. Some lists of Elizabethan playwrights include Oxford’s name, but not Shakespeare’s. Other lists include Shakespeare’s name but not Oxford’s. (There is one list with both names: can anyone guess why I don’t consider it to be strong evidence?)
As a nobleman, it was taboo for Edward to publish poetry or to write plays for public performance. It is known that he intervened to remove his initials “E.O.” from poems in an early unauthorized book. Had he wished to write poems and plays, he would eventually need, not just a pseudonym, but a credible (“breathing”) pseudonym and, rightly or wrongly, some people believe he chose William Shakespeare for that role.
There is speculation that Shake-speare was a particularly apropos pseudonym for Oxford; indeed that the tribute “thy countenance shakes spears” had been earlier directed to him at the Royal court.
Because of the taboo, Oxford’s actions, and that some of the plays may have served the Queen’s political purposes, it seems plausible to me that the Queen dictated strict secrecy about the authorship. The relationship between Oxford and the Queen is ambiguous and mysterious but it is known that she gave him 1000 pounds per year (more than anyone else) and called him “Great Oxford”, despite that he did nothing great … unless it was writing plays and sonnets.
Oxford was a homosexual, had offended the Queen in various ways and, if this pseudonym conspiracy should be correct, would have doubts about his posthumous reputation and perhaps feel ambiguity about his relationship to his stand-in, Shakespeare. There are many sonnets consistent with these ideas, or almost autobiographical if Oxford were the author. The sonnets do not relate to anything known of Shaksper.
I could go on and on, but there are webpages and books giving this case better than I could. I am also aware of strong arguments against the case, but wonder if there’s an interesting mystery to be solved whether Oxford was the author or not!
It would seem nice to put the case to rest. Is it a “fact” that astronomical references in the plays cease on Oxford’s death? I don’t know, but “who cares? we can’t be bothered with Oxfordian poppycock” doesn’t address it.
)