Did Shaksper write the Sonnets? [edited title]

[APB]

@septimus

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.

Yes, such letters are nonexistent for Marlowe. There are no letters by him. Nor are there any letters to him. Nor are there any personal letters about him written to relatives or neighbours. And there is only a single example of his signature. There may however be a single page of a play in his handwriting. But then the same may be true for Shakespeare.

What do survive are a few contemporary documents about him. It is true that some of those are unusual, such as the accusations of atheism or the inquest into his death. Those don’t actually mention that he wrote plays! There are also a few other everyday documents, just as there are for Shakespeare. And then there are some literary comments and allusions. Again, just as there are for Shakespeare.

@septimus

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?)

At last, some details to clarify your opaque comments about provenance and the preface.

Nothing is known about how the Sonnets got into print. Just as with the vast majority of other books published in England in this period. You seem to expect evidence that was never going to exist anyway.

I can see why some have thought that ‘ovr.everliving.poet’ might imply that the author was dead. But that is certainly not the only possible reading. Nor is it even the most likely. The upshot of such ambiguity is that it is useless as evidence as to whether the author was alive or dead. Citing it one way or the other is meaningless.

Similarly, an infinity of speculations can be - and have been - produced regarding the identity of ‘Mr. W.H.’. None of them prove anything and they never will.

[bup]

@septimus

(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?)

But we don’t know that he did. And what other commoners in the period had daughters who could read? Moreover, Shakespeare was an absentee dad. I’ve heard similar arguments about his wife - she couldn’t read (we assume, because she was a commoner woman and nobody knows that she could), so how likely is it that the greatest writer of English literature would marry an illiterate woman (ignoring that it was a shotgun wedding, of course). Circular.

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.

Here go.

[Enterprise]

@septimus

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. )

Septimus, I appreciate your coming back to this. Let’s start from the beginning, shall we?

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?)

We don’t know how the sonnets came to be published. We don’t know if Shakespeare had a hand in it or not. We don’t even know if those are all the sonnets. But a few things can be deduced, and again, it would be helpful in this case if you read McCrae, who deals with this question explicitly. Here’s a quick rundown: if you compare the dedication to other dedications of the sort, it becomes clear that the formulation “the one and only begetter,” or similar phrases in other dedications, always refers to the poet. Since the number of misspelled dedications is apparently quite high, the easiest explanation is to suggest that the typesetter was meant to put “W.S.” there, but didn’t.

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.)

Then there’s an apparent difference in our understanding of the word provenance. No big deal, I suppose.

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?

I should probably take back the suggestion that they will all be unrefutable – it doesn’t touch the point I’m making. No, I’m not fully cognizant of all Oxfordian claims, and neither are you, or anyone else, simply because the claims are too many – especially when different mutations of the idea require different claims.
The point of the question was that it doesn’t matter that Shakespeare has not mentioned any book in his will – it is no evidence for anything, except itself.

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.

Fair enough. Again, quite frankly, I don’t see the mystery: there’s no evidence anyone but the publisher (“never” a writer) wrote this preface, and McCrae does a fairly job in parsing the content – I’m not sure which line of argument your following here. If there was a mystery beyond the usual mysterious Jacobian prose, I’m sure it would raise the chance of a hoax.

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.)

But the difference between these two positions, which are not equal, is that to take Shakespeare as the author is to follow the entirety of our hard evidence, while to take Oxford is to have to dismiss much of that evidence and re-interpret, often quite arduously, everything else; and to take Oxford and a collaborator is to have to a) find a collaborator and b) still reinterpret the evidence.

“If Shakespeare lost interest in astronomy, by coincidence at about the time of Oxford’s death, that does not preclude Stratfordian authorship!”

You will note that this paraphrase, while correct, still simply assumes that a (so far) unfounded statement about Shakespeare’s astronomical usages is true; and yes, it would be a coincidence – and a coincidence that Oxfordians would have to explain, because they say Shakespeare kept releasing Oxford’s plays after his death.

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.

I’m saying that I’m in no mood to go through all of Shakespeare’s plays after 1604 to refute a claim which, again, by Oxfordian claims would not even be refuted then, because Shakespeare published Oxford’s plays after Oxford’s death.

(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.)

1610, sorry. That’s what I get for writing from memory…

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’m not sure why, though, but then I’m a literary scholar, not a mathematician.

[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]

But what about the case for Shakespeare??

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).

I’m not sure how familiar you are with the plays, so let me take a few of the thigs in that essay you provided and tell you why no-one with a background in Shakespeare should take them seriously.

First up, this gem:

Shakespeare’s plays display such an intimate knowledge of the Continent that some Stratfordians have thought that the Stratford man must have traveled on the Continent. The Merchant of Venice, for example, displays an intimate knowledge of the topography of Venice; scholars wondered how the Stratford man could have acquired such an intimate knowledge without going to Venice. There’s no evidence that the Stratford man went to Venice, or anywhere else on the Continent. Oxford, on the other hand, spent more than a year on the Continent, and lived in Venice for a time.

Have you read Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, or The Two Gentlemen of Verona? There is literally nothing in those books that anyone with a travel guide could not have known, and we know there were such guides. On the other hand, there is no Grand Canal, no Arsenal in The Merchant of Venice (or Othello); no walls around Verona; The Tempest’s Milan has a seashore, apparently; so, for that matter, does Padua in The Taming of the Shrew. Florence in All’s Well That Ends Well has no characteristics at all; and Italian politics, especially Venetian politics, are ridiculously off-base.

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?)

Of course the link will be derided! Just listen to its “argument”:

In 1622, Henry Peacham published a book in which he listed those who, during Elizabeth’s reign, “honored poesie with their pens and practice…Edward Earl of Oxford, the Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget, our phoenix, the noble Sir Philip Sidney, M. Edward Dyer, M. Edmund Spenser, Master Samuel Daniel, with sundry others whom (together with those admirable wits yet living and so well known) not out of envy, but to avoid tediousness, I overpass.” Why was Shakespeare not mentioned? The Stratford man, having died in 1616, wasn’t one of those poets “yet living”. “It can only be”, says Ogburn, “that his name was subsumed in another’s.”[34]

There’s an entire category “sundry others” in which Shakespeare could fall, in a listing which is obviously not structured by merit but by social rank (or did Peacham know that Oxford was Shakespeare? But only he knew it? And didn’t ever explicitly say so?).

Or this:

When Oxford was forty-nine, an English composer, John Farmer, dedicated a book of songs to him. “Without flattery be it spoke,” wrote Farmer in his dedication, “those that know your Lordship know this, that using this science as a recreation, your Lordship have overgone most of them that make it a profession.”[25] Ogburn mentions two musical pieces that may have been composed by Oxford. Oxford’s fondness for music is evident in Shakespeare’s plays.

What kind of an argument is that? Oxford liked music; the Author liked music; ergo, Oxford must be the author!

Or this:

In the same year in which he received this annuity, Oxford served on the tribunal that was sitting in judgment on Mary Queen of Scots. Portia’s speech on mercy in The Merchant of Venice seems to have been designed to dissuade Elizabeth from executing Mary. Portia says that mercy is

....mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown....
Earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.[22] 

Ogburn asks, “Could the speech be any more explicitly an admonishment to a monarch?”[23]

Neither the Oxfordian nor the Shakespeare chronology place Mary’s execution anywhere near the writing date for The Merchant of Venice. And could the speech be any more explicit an admonishment? Yes of course it could! And what interest would Oxford have in Mary’s survival? And why would he put his admonishment in a play?

The oddest pro-Oxfordian coincidence? This:

The leading advocates of the Oxford theory, Looney and Ogburn, weren’t specialists or English professors. Shakespeare specialists may be the last people to see the truth about Shakespeare.

Really: none of these coincidences are odder than many of the “coincidences” that aren’t mentioned, wisely, by the essay.

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.)

And strikingly, none of the poetry Oxford wrote and which was published under his own name bears much of a resemblance to the poetry of Shakespeare, on the contrary.

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.)

Why?

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?)

Which lists? I’ve not seen any, but that might be an oversight.

As a nobleman, it was taboo for Edward to publish poetry or to write plays for public performance.

And yet, it is clear that poetry under his name was published.

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.

Why would he need that? Why would he want to be published? Why would he choose William Shakespeare, and not someone he knew?

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.

Here’s the crux, then: if that seems plausible to you, but that a player with a vested interest in putting plays on his own stage should have written plays does not, I’m not sure what we can be doing here.

Oxford was a homosexual,

Nonsense. De Vere was married and had children, not to mention the fact that “homosexuality” is a perfectly meaningless term applied to the 16th century.

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!

I wonder how aware you are of the arguments against the case, because either you dismiss them (which seems a bit sad), or you actually don’t know them. McCrae answers each and every one of those points – while providing you with a similar rundown of the problems that the Oxfordian idea has.

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.

No, but question is, is it needful to address it? Does anyone, in return, address the question “Why is equivocation such a big deal in MacBeth, when the big case about equivocation did not come in until 1606?”

The big question, the one that I would much appreciate having answered, is “Why should we even start looking for an author other than Shakespeare?” What is the reason to doubt Shakespeare’s authorship? Is it simply “a weak case can be arduously construed for someone else”?

[The_Man_In_Black]

@Smeghead

Do we really need spoiler tags for Shakespearean sonnets?

Hamlet dies!

What! NOOOO!!!

[bonzer]

The recommendation isn’t quite independent of APB’s, but chalk me up as another impressed by Shapiro’s Contested Will.

@septimus

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] Is there a paper detailing astronomical references in Shakespeare’s works?[/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:

@septimus

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.

Given the extent of the literature on Shakespeare, including all sorts of articles by people with particular obsessions that they think can shed light on the plays, it really wouldn’t surprise me if there is such a paper. Equally, it wouldn’t surprise me if such a paper was obscurely published and has been completely forgotten. That there isn’t a famous such reference seems of no significance one way or the other.
Meanwhile, it’s hardly comprehensive and terribly dated in all sorts of ways, but Tillyard’s prominant old The Elizabethan World Picture did touch on the most obvious ones.

Since you haven’t actually explained the context whereby this might somehow be of Oxfordian significance, that appeared less a question than an arbitrary demand.

[septimus]

@Enterprise

We don’t know how the sonnets came to be published. We don’t know if Shakespeare had a hand in it or not.

Since it was one of his greatest works it seems odd that this already-renowned poet was not asked to provide a dedication.

When readers implied they’d refuted all the Oxfordian claims I assumed they were familiar with them, and thus abbreviated the discussion of Shakespeare’s astronomy. The claim is that the plays refer to astronomical events (eclipses, etc.), inventions and discoveries, but none that occurred after 1604. If true, it lends at least slight support to the idea the playwright died in 1604. If false, it lends support to the idea that Oxfordians mislead and fabricate. Hence my curiosity on the matter. Surely papers have been written enumerating Shakespeare’s mentions of astronomical events, discoveries, etc.

You will note that this paraphrase, while correct, still simply assumes that a (so far) unfounded statement about Shakespeare’s astronomical usages is true; and yes, it would be a coincidence – and a coincidence that Oxfordians would have to explain, because they say Shakespeare kept releasing Oxford’s plays after his death.

In the Oxfordian allegation, whoever was doing post-Oxford edits on the posthumously produced plays added few if any allusions to post-1604 astronomical events.

Nonsense. De Vere was married and had children, not to mention the fact that “homosexuality” is a perfectly meaningless term applied to the 16th century.

I should have written “bisexual”. Oxford was credibly charged with taking a boy lover during his year in Italy.

Hammond: In 1622, Henry Peacham published a book in which he listed those who, during Elizabeth’s reign, “honored poesie with their pens and practice…Edward Earl of Oxford, the Lord Buckhurst, Henry Lord Paget, our phoenix, the noble Sir Philip Sidney, M. Edward Dyer, M. Edmund Spenser, Master Samuel Daniel, with sundry others whom (together with those admirable wits yet living and so well known) not out of envy, but to avoid tediousness, I overpass.” Why was Shakespeare not mentioned? The Stratford man, having died in 1616, wasn’t one of those poets “yet living”.

“It can only be”, says Ogburn, “that his name was subsumed in another’s.”

Enterprise: There’s an entire category “sundry others” in which Shakespeare could fall, in a listing which is obviously not structured by merit but by social rank (or did Peacham know that Oxford was Shakespeare? But only he knew it? And didn’t ever explicitly say so?).

Spenser and Daniel were “only” gentlemen, just like Shakespeare. Why would Peacham include them explicitly but cast with “sundry” the gentleman already considered the greatest English writer? (Stratfordian pleading requires near-immortal status in 1609; you can’t then argue Shakespeare was not preeminently famous in 1622!) Peacham was, IIRC, known to be very familiar with Shakespeare’s work, presumably “in” on any hoax; that he avoided explicit mention was due to the strict pain-of-punishment secrecy imposed by the English monarch. The Oxfordian model may seem farfetched, but if you’re going to argue against it, argue against it, not some half-baked imitation in which players whimsically ignore or not ignore the Royal imposition of secrecy. King James was no figurehead, but a dictator one would not want to defy. (Why James continued the hoax may be unclear but his panic upon Oxford’s death might confirm the King’s position.)

[pepperlandgirl]

@septimus

I should have written “bisexual”. Oxford was credibly charged with taking a boy lover during his year in Italy.

FWIW, during that era, having sex with a boy wasn’t really the same thing as what we understand homosexuality and bisexuality to be in the 21st century.

On a different note, as has been alluded to several times in this thread, Shakespeare scholarship is an actual industry. The people who dedicate their lives to Shakespeare can reach almost a fanatical devoutness when it comes to the Bard, and in the publish-or-perish world of academia, their research is ongoing. My point is that if there were any credible evidence that another person, like Oxford (or Bacon or Marlowe) wrote Shakespeare’s plays or sonnets, we would know about it. Not only would we know about it, but there would be many, many credible books and peer-reviewed articles about it. There’s no great conspiracy to keep up the status quo when it comes to Shakespeare–too many people are struggling for a toe-hold in the “industry”. This sort of information could literally make somebody’s career. It would absolutely be controversial, but academia thrives on controversy. And if there is any credible evidence out there in the world, it hasn’t been produced in this thread (and hasn’t been discovered yet).

[BrainGlutton]

Do we ever know whether Wm Shaksper of Stratford (whose house I’ve visited) was the same person as Shakespeare the playwright? I’ve heard there is some doubt on that point.

[Acsenray]

@septimus

The claim is that the plays refer to astronomical events (eclipses, etc.), inventions and discoveries, but none that occurred after 1604. If true, it lends at least slight support to the idea the playwright died in 1604.

If this were the only thing we know about Shakespeare, then perhaps this kind of weighing of the evidence might make some sense. Your “agnosticism” about this question seems to be to start with the position that we have no solid evidence.

I, too, would like to see a response to this:

@Enterprise

The big question, the one that I would much appreciate having answered, is “Why should we even start looking for an author other than Shakespeare?” What is the reason to doubt Shakespeare’s authorship? Is it simply “a weak case can be arduously construed for someone else”?

[Marley23]

@septimus

Why would Peacham include them explicitly but cast with “sundry” the gentleman already considered the greatest English writer? (Stratfordian pleading requires near-immortal status in 1609; you can’t then argue Shakespeare was not preeminently famous in 1622!)

Shakespeare was not considered “the greatest English writer” during his lifetime or immediately after his death. He was popular in his time and his colleagues thought highly of him but he wasn’t given that kind of status until much later.

The Oxfordian model may seem farfetched

It’s not farfetched, it’s ludicrous.

@BrainGlutton

Do we ever know whether Wm Shaksper of Stratford (whose house I’ve visited) was the same person as Shakespeare the playwright? I’ve heard there is some doubt on that point.

If you read the posts by Exapno Mapcase, Enterprise and APB, you’ll see some answers.

[Enterprise]

@septimus

Since it was one of his greatest works it seems odd that this already-renowned poet was not asked to provide a dedication.

It’s pretty clear that you’ve got some reading to do on the Elizabethan printing industry, quite frankly. First of all, we don’t know if Shakespeare considered the sonnets his greatest works – or anyone else for that matter. Second, we don’t know if Shakespeare was told of the publication and any point prior to publication, or for that matter, afterwards, and whether he would have been okay with it, and whether he was asked, but refused. But more pertinently, that was not how dedications worked. Printers, as I have noted before, dedicated the things they published to the creators, because those creators usually had nothing to do otherwise with the printing of their works. There was no author-copyright in Elizabethan times, so no contact with the authors was needed, or even desired.

And again: if Shakespeare was alive in 1609 and Oxford wasn’t, it would need the printer to be in on that hoax of yours not to ask Shakespeare for a dedication, even under your assumptions.

When readers implied they’d refuted all the Oxfordian claims I assumed they were familiar with them, and thus abbreviated the discussion of Shakespeare’s astronomy. The claim is that the plays refer to astronomical events (eclipses, etc.), inventions and discoveries, but none that occurred after 1604. If true, it lends at least slight support to the idea the playwright died in 1604. If false, it lends support to the idea that Oxfordians mislead and fabricate. Hence my curiosity on the matter. Surely papers have been written enumerating Shakespeare’s mentions of astronomical events, discoveries, etc.

Apparently, you have different standards of evidence that I do. If there are no references to astronomical events after 1604, that is not evidence one way or the other. There are no references to Denmark after 1604, as far as I can tell. Mysterious coincidence?

In the Oxfordian allegation, whoever was doing post-Oxford edits on the posthumously produced plays added few if any allusions to post-1604 astronomical events.

I’m having a really hard time finding stuff on this astronomy question – but one thing I did find was a complaint by a phycist (and how strange is that! not a literary scholar!) that there are, for example, no references to Galileo’s 1610 discoveries in the three plays Shakespeare wrote or co-wrote after 1610. As fara as I could discover just now, there was no English edition of the text until after Shakespeare’s death, and we’re relatively sure that his Latin wasn’t quite good enough to go around – at least he always uses English translations in the plays.

But again: you’re revealing the essential conspiracy-theorist behavior. What about the references in MacBeth to equivocation and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605? What about the references in The Tempest to the 1610 narratives of shipwrecks? Apparently, under your assumptions, it took the genius of Oxford to make up a rhyme on astronomy, but politics could be entrusted to Oxford’s frontman? In other words, you ignore the evidence you don’t like and harp on whatever gap you perceive to exist.

And note that I’m telling and re-telling you this about acting like a conspiracy-theorist not to dismiss your argument out of hand, but to suggest that you might want to compare your own argument with such conspiracy arguments – that might help you see a bit clearer.

I should have written “bisexual”. Oxford was credibly charged with taking a boy lover during his year in Italy.

QED, eh? I would still suggest that you read up on Elizabethan conceptions of sexuality. “Bisexual” doesn’t cover it either.

Spenser and Daniel were “only” gentlemen, just like Shakespeare. Why would Peacham include them explicitly but cast with “sundry” the gentleman already considered the greatest English writer? (Stratfordian pleading requires near-immortal status in 1609; you can’t then argue Shakespeare was not preeminently famous in 1622!)

?? It seems to me more like you require special pleading, because your assumptions just don’t hold water. I need no near-immortal status in 1609, why should I? Shakespeare was perceived as a competent playwright, possibly a successful businessman, and and overall nice guy, it appears. We know very little of Peacham and his reasons for including one or the other man in his very obviously trimmed list, and to make a case that Shakespeare should have been included, and because he wasn’t, that’s evidence that he wasn’t perceive as a great poet, and that is evidence that he didn’t write the plays, is a bit of a stretch. Shakespeare was not considered the greatest English writer, and there’s no need for him to be seen as such – our evaluations are quite independent of contemporary valuations.

Peacham was, IIRC, known to be very familiar with Shakespeare’s work, presumably “in” on any hoax; that he avoided explicit mention was due to the strict pain-of-punishment secrecy imposed by the English monarch. The Oxfordian model may seem farfetched, but if you’re going to argue against it, argue against it, not some half-baked imitation in which players whimsically ignore or not ignore the Royal imposition of secrecy. King James was no figurehead,** but a dictator one would not want to defy**. (Why James continued the hoax may be unclear but his panic upon Oxford’s death might confirm the King’s position.)

?!?! Sorry, Septimus: this really isn’t even worth replying to. The level of convoluted argumentation necessary to uphold this strain of explanation is just too much for me – not to mention its utter misconception of Jacobian England. Instead, I’ve highlighted the instances of your unfounded assumptions of unproven (and even un-evidenced) “special pleadings”. Consider them.

[Weedy]

@septimus

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.)

Eclipses and the Pleiades are referred to in King Lear, which may or may not have been written before 1604. Astrology is discussed twice in that play, by different characters.

Prospero in The Tempest talks about ‘a most auspicious star’ that he hopes will bring him good fortune.

Hermione, in A Winter’s Tale, says “some ill planet reigns: I must be patient till the heavens look, With an aspect more favourable”

Astronomy is referred to in Cymbeline as well (one of the few places it’s mentioned by name), and the character Postumus was portrayed as being born under the planet Jupiter, and there’s a bit where Jupiter visits him in his sleep.

Some people think that mentions of eclipses in Othello refers to one that took place in 1605, although the play is generally dated a little bit earlier than that.

Troilus and Cressida talks about a comet, and some people think that may have been added in a rewrite after Halley’s comet went past in 1607. Or not.

That’s all I could find with Google.

[bonzer]

@Enterprise

I’m having a really hard time finding stuff on this astronomy question – but one thing I did find was a complaint by a phycist (and how strange is that! not a literary scholar!) that there are, for example, no references to Galileo’s 1610 discoveries in the three plays Shakespeare wrote or co-wrote after 1610. As fara as I could discover just now, there was no English edition of the text until after Shakespeare’s death, and we’re relatively sure that his Latin wasn’t quite good enough to go around – at least he always uses English translations in the plays.

Your surmise is correct that Shakespeare couldn’t have seen an English translation of the Sidereus Nuncius, since there wasn’t one until 1880. There’s also some doubt about how widely the 1610 Latin edition penetrated into England; there’s no evidence that Thomas Harriot (1560-1621), whose research interests paralleled Galileo’s, ever saw a copy.
How news did spread into England was by letter, but how much of a splash it made there at this stage is unclear.

Inevitably, people have claimed to detect Galilean references in the late plays of Shakespeare, such as Medicean Stars in Cymbeline. This doesn’t strike me as particularly convincing and indeed is only part of the author’s silly wider view about astronomy in Shakespeare. He is, predictably, an Emeritus Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Even if that were a convincing example, it still wouldn’t help with septimus.
Hell, if he were genuinely interested, it’d be no more than a couple of hours idle effort to check the late plays for astronomical references himself. Probably quicker than possibly wasting time checking whether, for example, this 1907 article or this 1887 book was what he wanted.

[Enterprise]

@bonzer

Your surmise is correct that Shakespeare couldn’t have seen an English translation of the Sidereus Nuncius, since there wasn’t one until 1880. There’s also some doubt about how widely the 1610 Latin edition penetrated into England; there’s no evidence that Thomas Harriot (1560-1621), whose research interests paralleled Galileo’s, ever saw a copy.
How news did spread into England was by letter, but how much of a splash it made there at this stage is unclear.

Thanks, bonzer. I can add that I just now found a short article on a 1605 partial eclipse appearing in King Lear (probably 1606 according to New Cambridge Shakespeare, no earlier than 1603). And surprisingly enugh, I wasn’t even looking for anything related to this thread…

[bonzer]

Since the obvious astronomical references in the plays that I could think of are all rather generic - as in Weedy’s examples - the thread prompted me to find out what references the Oxfordians do think are specific.

The whole “the plays make references to pre-1604 astronomical events, but none after” argument derives from this 1998 paper (a pdf) by Eric Altschuler. It argues that the plays make three specific references to pre-1604 events:
[ul]Bernardo’s “When yond same star that’s westward from the pole” that he sees from the battlements of Elsinore is Brahe’s supernova, SN1572A. The evidence seems a stretch, particularly when the context is just a flowerly way of Bernardo reporting a time of night, with no suggestion that there’s anything remarkable about the star. As for the significance of Brahe being related to ‘Rosenkrans’ and ‘Guldensteren’, the simpler explanation involves realising that the Brahes were Danish nobility related to all the other Danish noble families and that Shakespeare had just picked up those names as plausible ones for noble Danes.[/ul]
[ul]All comets are references to that of 1577. Very, very weak.[/ul]
[ul]Various references in Troilus and Cressida about the Earth attracting things are all references to Gilbert’s earthly magnetism, published the previous year. Possibly, but this is a variation on the “Newton invented gravity” fallacy: people knew that the Earth attracted stuff long, long before Gilbert.[/ul]

Altschuler at least recognises that the various other astronomical references he notes are unspecific in date, but thinks them evidence that the plays display an acute knowledge of and interest in science. Err, no. That Venus is bright and that it can appear as both the Morning and Evening Star is just the sort of astronomical knowledge you might expect any country yokel to know.
He wants to establish this interest so he can claim that it’s remarkable that the plays don’t mention the following post-1604 events:
[ul]Kepler’s supernova, SN1604A. If forced to guess the best candidate for a contemporary astronomical event cropping up in the plays, this would have been mine. But since I’m not convinced by Altschuler’s argument that there are other such references pre-1604, I’m not too worried that it didn’t.[/ul]
[ul]Halley’s Comet in 1607. As above.[/ul]
[ul]The Galilean discoveries. I’ve discussed these in a previous post. I’ll note that Altschuler thinks the plays should mention sunspots, but then he seems to think Galileo published their discovery in 1610. He didn’t. It wasn’t until 1612 that Scheiner and him published anything about them. That’s getting very late as a candidate contemporary reference for the plays. (Johann Fabricius had actually published their discovery in 1611, but nobody noticed his pamphlet at the time.)[/ul]
[ul]Kepler’s Laws of 1610. This is insane. While he was one of the best known astronomers in Europe, Astronomia Nova was a fearsomely obscurely written and technical book, with the laws involved buried amidst a mass of detail. The usual interpretation is that it took even the professionals some time to realise what Kepler had done. It’s amateur history at its worst to assume that just because the laws were formally published in 1610 that everyone with an interest in astronomy knew about them.[/ul]
It’d be nice if there were references to the first three in the plays, but personally I’m not troubled by their absence.

In summary, it’s not the sudden absence of datable astronomical references in the plays after 1604 that’s striking. It’s that there are none before then either.

[bonzer]

To correct myself, Astronomia Nova and Kepler’s first two laws were published in 1609, not 1610.

[septimus]

@bonzer

In summary, it’s not the sudden absence of datable astronomical references in the plays after 1604 that’s striking. It’s that there are none before then either.

Thanks for this, bonzer. I wanted to give Oxfordians at least some benefit of the doubt on their long string of coincidences, but as I see many that are not even “half-truths”, I lose interest in pursuing the others. Can I have the Mod retitle the thread: “Shaksper probably did write the Sonnets (though gullible/skeptical septimus still isn’t 100% sure)”? :smack:

[Marley23]

@septimus

Thanks for this, bonzer. I wanted to give Oxfordians at least some benefit of the doubt on their long string of coincidences, but as I see many that are not even “half-truths”, I lose interest in pursuing the others. Can I have the Mod retitle the thread: “Shaksper probably did write the Sonnets (though gullible/skeptical septimus still isn’t 100% sure)”? :smack:

I’ll change the title to “Did Shaksper write the Sonnets?” “Shaksper probably DID write the sonnets” doesn’t really describe what’s been argued in the thread so far.

[APB]

@BrainGlutton

Do we ever know whether Wm Shaksper of Stratford (whose house I’ve visited) was the same person as Shakespeare the playwright? I’ve heard there is some doubt on that point.

That raises a subtlety which proponents of other candidates tend to gloss over or, more often, fail to grasp. One must carefully distinguish between the claims that,

(1) William Shakespeare of Stratford was William Shakespeare the famous London actor, and

(2) that William Shakespeare the famous London actor wrote the plays

This is because the evidence for the first claim is overwhelming. The property in Blackfriars owned by the Stratford Shakespeare has already been mentioned. There is also the bequest made by him in his will of mournings rings to John Heminge, Richard Burbage and Henry Condell, all of them actors and shareholders in the King’s Men, and, in the case of Heminge and Condell, the two men who would see the First Folio through the press. And, most decisively of all, there is the complaint in 1602 by the York Herald, Ralph Brooke, about the coat-of-arms which had been granted to John Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon (i.e. Shakespeare’s father) and ‘Shakespear ye Player’. There is thus hard documentary evidence directly proving that the Stratford man was the actor.

The second claim is necessarily much trickier. But only in the sense that the fact that works were published under someone’s name and that everyone at the time accepted that attribution is not proof of authorship. It is however damned good circumstantial evidence and is exactly the basis on which most other literary attributions are accepted. Also, strong circumstantial evidence is still more impressive than the very weak (not to say inaccurate) circumstantial evidence proposed in favour of any of the alternative candidates.

[ZenBeam]

I didn’t see a link to this yet, on CNN’s front page: Was Shakespeare’s ghost writer … Shakespeare?. Talks about a book, “Contested Will”, that’s just come out on the subject of the authorship of the plays. It also mentions an upcoming movie on the same subject. How timely.