It appears I missed this on the first go-round. It is interesting news that the “conspiracy myth” of de Vere’s retirement has been overturned! Is this a recent development, and why didn’t you post a link?
The rest of us are stuck with lies like:
[QUOTE=ebooksread.com/authors-eng/percy-allen/the-life-story-of-edward-de-vere-as-william-shakespeare-ell]
FOR some inscrutable reason, or reasons, sufficient, no doubt, at the time, this year 1589, which we have now reached, brings about the most mysterious event in all this enigmatical life of de Vere, namely his permanent retirement from court. Whether the cause was remorse, and self- judgment over his own partial responsibility, as he judged, for the premature death of his Countess, or whether some temporary access of wild melancholy… [but Percy Allen’s opinion is that] for whatever cause, he withdrew in obedience to the Queen’s express command, possibly resulting from a rupture between the pair,…
Whatever the reasons, this fact is certain — that the bearing of the canopy over her Majesty’s head, on the occasion of the Armada celebration, marked the close of his public life, as a courtier. Where the Earl lived, even, until his second marriage at the end of 1591, is not known. He may have been at Wivenhoe ; he may have been at Hackney ; or more probably still, he may have gone to the Forest of Arden, and there have met William : but, though we cannot say where de Vere was, we can say, with some assurance[sic!], what he was doing, namely hard at work preparing the long list of plays which, from his own, and other pens of the group that he headed, are going to flood the stages and book-stalls of London, during the whole of the fifteen-'nineties ;
[/QUOTE]
Exapno Mapcase, why are you being coy? Make yourself useful and present the evidence of “full and busy life” when inferior scholars have him secluded in an unknown location.
Good grief. I had to read these words three times before I figured out what you were misapprehending. No, I’m not failing to acknowledge that Eddie was a playwright. I asked you to cite your claim that
(underlining added). Rereading over my request, I think it’s perfectly clear what I was asking for. To repeat, who described him as “best”, and why should I care about that description?
No, it’s not, your ridiculous point was that he appeared on a list of playwrights that Shakespeare didn’t appear on. Nobody contests that’s true; in fact, here’s another such list:
Eddie de Vere
Eugene Ionesco
My elementary school music teacher
See? There’s de Vere, and Shakespeare’s not on that list! So freakin’ what?
Yeah, my description of the conspiracy was farcical. It’s because it’s a very, very stupid conspiracy theory. Elsewise how do you account for the problems I list?
Edit: yes, I certainly could come up with a better conspiracy. I’m talking about the one YOU came up with, or at least the one you’re presenting here.
So we’ve got some dude saying de Vere was best for comedy, and at the same time, as yet another cog in the hoax, names Shakespeare as a separate person. Apparently he thought de Vere’s comedies under his own name were better than Eddie’s as Bill’s.
Well, yes, now you come to mention it, that is extremely farfetched. As I’ve already pointed out, even the hardcore Oxfordians now accept that any link with the de Vere crest is complete bollocks. And what support is there for the claim that ‘“Will shakes speare” had a special meaning in literacy circles’? Apart, that is, from the obvious one. The silly logic trap would be to assume, as you seem to be implying, that it had some pre-existing significance and that Oxford only then happened to discover that there was an actor of that name. Because that would involve one gigantic coincidence.
Your first point sounds very garbled. Who was the ‘early publisher’? For it is indeed true that some of Oxford’s poems were attributed to ‘E.O’ in the 1576 edition of Paradyse for Daynty Devises. But they continued to be attributed in exactly that way in the 1578, 1580, 1585, 1596 and 1600 editions. And why doesn’t Waugaman cite ‘E.O’ poems being reattributed to ‘Incognito’ and ‘Ignoto’ in his discussion of the use of the latter pseudonyn?
And what you don’t seem to understand is that most writers of the period didn’t use any name at all. No need for a frontman when you can just be anonymous. (Or, if you really want to confuse people, use a series of different pseudonyns.) And who knows, some of Oxford’s actual plays might survive after all, lurking under the much more effective concealment of blatant anonymity.
That’s easy to answer, because Rowe tells us where he got the information from. But as his source was Sir William D’Avenant, that’s not exactly a plus-point for its likely accuracy. Also, as Shakespeare had dedicated Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece to Southampton, it would be unsurprising, even to be expected, for Southampton to have given a substantial one-off cash gift to him. Then factor-in exaggeration over the sum involved.
Please learn to read for comprehension. You’re saying that this link isn’t “fully compatible with the hoax model”. No shit Sherlock. I didn’t post it for that reason - I posted it in response to your claim that there is no evidence linking “Shakespeare’s career” to Stratford.
Yes, someone else linked to that page earlier in the thread. But since it doesn’t appear from your arguments that you read and/or comprehended it, I linked to it again and quoted some parts that were pertinent to your claim that there are no references in Stratford to Shakespeare’s playwright career. Do you disagree with the points that this page makes on that topic? Rather than just ignoring any evidence that refutes your points and just moving onto another nitpick?
Also, the fact that the link isn’t “fully compatible with the hoax model” isn’'t surprising, since that page isn’t about the hoax model. The point of that page is to explain the evidence for Shakespeare being the author, not to directly refute the “evidence” against him (other in that there being a lot of evidence for him automatically weakens arguments against him).
Why? Honest question here - I don’t get it. Explain it in small words. Why exactly would an author who wants to remain anonymous need to use the name of a real person who is in the troupe of actors performing “his” plays, rather than using a made up name? What is the necessity? What is the benefit?
Actually, if you’re referring to the spelling of his name having special significance, that’s been pretty thoroughly debunked (link). And the stuff about the de Vere family crest was debunked earlier in this thread.
So you’re saying “some knew” of the hoax, but it was a “severely regarded secret” - and yet repeatedly in this thread you’re saying that de Vere was known in his own time as being a poet/playwright. This just does not make sense. And saying that it doesn’t make sense, and asking if you could give a good reason why all these mutually contradictory things might be true is not being disingenuous (and makes me doubt if you really know the meaning of the word).
I am genuinely curious as to what possible reason de Vere would have for wanting his plays to be credited to someone else. Any of the reasons I have heard of seem like they’re not very good ones given that he was already a known playwright. Seriously - why would he do this?
And if a previous publisher was reprimanded for publishing poems under de Vere’s name and then subsequently published them anonymously - why not publish all of his work anonymously? Why bother crediting them to Shakespeare? You’re the one saying a hoax needed a living, breathing “frontman” - now you’re saying “Incognito” is good enough. Which is it?
How can the case for 2 be stronger than 3 when Oxford was dead before all the plays were written? You need a wacky conspiracy theory about him faking his death or something just to get the barest consistency for an Oxford as author hypothesis. Nothing’s impossible I suppose, but some things are pretty damned implausible.
Septimus, I don’t really have a dog in this particular pissing match, since what little I know about the life of Shakespeare I learned in 9th grade English. As it stands now, I lean toward Occam’s razor–and when a work is attributed to a real person who could have produced it, the simplest explanation is indeed that that person produced said work. That said, the case for Oxford has been presented in a really jumbled way so even if it’s a great case, it doesn’t make much sense and therefore isn’t very convincing.
Can you back up to the beginning and make me a list of the 5 most salient points of the argument?
The problem is that the theory is literally incoherent on the subject of who knew what, when. Sure, nobody knows the details of the suppposed hoax–but I don’t believe there’s a plausible set of folks who knew, and folks who didn’t, that conforms to your innuendos in the bullet-points I listed above. If there is, please share.
Also, are you familiar with the idea of a strange loop?
[ul]
[li]de Vere was a nobleman, living contemporaneously with some playwright known as William Shakespeare.[/li][li]de Vere was a poet himself of some accomplishment - he’s mentioned by The Variety (or what have you) of the times.[/li][li]de Vere also had written some plays, none of which survive today.[/li][li]However! It was apparently gauche for noblemen to produce such base things as plays and poems.[/li][li]But de Vere’s genius couldn’t be denied![/li][li]So he finds himself a patsy, and publishes great works of English literature under this poor actor’s name.[/li][li]This patsy finds the arrangement agreeable - he gets to act, pal around with the queen, help finance an acting troupe and theatre, and generally elevate himself and his family. All while de Vere continues to manage his own nobleman affairs.[/li][li]Through all this, de Vere continues to not only write the patsy’s stuff, but also write and publish his own stuff, in a completely different style, that most people think isn’t quite as good as the patsy’s.[/li][li]Even though it’s still gauche for a nobleman to do so.[/li][li]Then de Vere dies. Or maybe fakes his death.[/li][li]And the patsy continues to publish great works of English literature for another decade or so.[/li][/ul]
Do I have it? And does this make any sense to anyone? Really?!
About the gaucheness of a nobleman pursuing such, well, pursuits: I say balderdash and poppycock. While he didn’t write plays (that I know of, anyway) we know none other than Henry VIII wrote sonnets, poems, and musical compositions - we have them! If it’s gauche for a nobleman to do such things, certainly a king wouldn’t amuse himself with such faff. But yeah, it’s good to be the king and so maybe he did it anyway.
I think you left out the fact that, despite this guy’s use of a patsy, de Vere still gets publicly called a playwright in fawning terms by his peers, AND that some folks list him as a playwright under his name (and not his patsy’s name), AND that the king cares so little about the hoax that when de Vere dies he goes ahead and commemorates the occasion with de Vere’s plays written under the patsy’s name.
Well, I suppose the answer to your stated question is that Percy Allen wrote that book in the early 1930s (I see dates of either 1930, 1931, or 1932) and it’s just on the edge of probability that superior scholars have had time to dig up a few more facts about de Vere’s life in the intervening 79 years. You don’t have to search far for his activities from 1591 on. Wikipedia will do.
If you go there, you may want to check out Percy Allen on some other pages. The makers of Anonymous surely looked at the page on the Prince Tudor Theory.
Allen was a true nut job. His theories were embraced and even embroidered by other nut jobs, although they were an embarrassment to those who were merely deluded about de Vere. I suppose the seances he held with the people involved who told him many of his “facts” might have had something to do with it. If he’s your source for your “facts” and your arguments you should perhaps quietly step away from the keyboard.
It could be worse, I admit. You could be citing Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (2001) by Paul Streitz. That’s a goody.
I apologize to everyone in the thread if I’ve been rude. I especially apologize to any fellow skeptics out there, for not “debating” well.
And I apologize for taking so long to respond. I post back-forth on SDMB but used to prefer off-line editing for long posts. Trying to develop such a long post, I kept feeling a need for long disclaimers, etc. And I could never get started anyway: a summary was needed and there’s just too much to cover, even for someone only casually familiar with the matter. So I will just ad lib a few posts, hoping to get a little closure here. I am not knowledgable on prerequisite issues; indeed I welcome collaboration on this Conspiracy Hypothesis draft. … And, even if you’re certain no Oxford hypothesis can approach the Stratford hypothesis in likelihood, I must ask for at least a temporary suspense of disbelief:
Assume your mission is to prepare the least implausible Oxfordian hypothesis, e.g. for a movie.
Assume your mission is to prepare the least implausible Oxfordian hypothesis, e.g. for a movie.
1589 was an interesting time in England. The Spanish Armada has been repelled, but the Essex Rebellion is still to come. The Queen wants to advance the theater, possibly using it for political purposes.
Much is known of Edward de Vere. He was already a well known writer, had gotten himself in a variety of trouble (manslaughter, offending the Queen, bringing a lad back from Italy for immoral purposes, squandering his fortune). About this time he retires to pursue his writing. He had secretaries (e.g. Lyly), son(s)-in-law (e.g. Stanley), who were themselves accomplished writers. It seems likely he was cooperating with Her Majesty to promote the theater. He sponsered “Oxford’s Boys” while “Chamberlain’s Men” put on Shakespeare’s plays – but don’t forget that Edward de Vere was the hereditary 18th Great Chamberlain of England.
Meanwhile, there’s William Shakespere of Stratford. Almost nothing is known of his early life; even that he went to school is just an inference. There was a rumor (dated 1616?) he fled to London as a young man to avoid a poaching charge, and a claim (1620+) that he acted or play-acted as a youth, but otherwise little documentation survives except parish records and something of the Shakespere business (John had fallen on hard times, poss. due to fines for Catholicism).
But the case against Stratford is point 3; this is Point 1 in which we postulate Stratford as front man, the living breathing pen name.
The reason Why Shakespere in particular was chosen for this role, and the precise nature of his role in the theater and hoax will be left as unsolved problems. It is alleged that the praise “Thy Will Shakes Spears” (or its Latin equivalent) had been directed at Oxford at a court dinner. That he chanced upon the man from Stratford, thought “Wow!” to himself about the name, and then celebrated by devising the Front man hoax seems far from impossible. (Whether Shakespere was already an actor, or instead functioned as scribe/factotum will be left unsolved.)
Anyway, Shakespere suddenly gets a coat-of-arms, and starts buying property in Stratford. This sudden wealth seems incomensurate with what a player would have earned, with few plays or sonnets yet written. Southampton gets involved, becomes the patron of Shakespeare. But AFAIK and excepting the dedications obviously, few or no letters or other documents connect Shakespeare and Southampton. The 2nd dedication is alleged too sweet to be a commoner addressing an Earl: “The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end … What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours.”
The sonnets entreating Southampton to marry were written at the same time Oxford was trying hard to get him as son-in-law. Glance at Wikipedia for a recent portrait of Southampton seeing how girlish he looked when young, and relate this to sonnets.
After 1604 no further dedications “by” Shakespeare appear. Much goes unexplained now; I mentioned the “never writer” example; there are many more.
Before continuing to develop the case, we must deal with the strongest counterarguments:
Computational stylistics disprove Oxford as author
I see only three ways to escape from this problem while keeping Oxford as author:
[ul][li] The writings were a team effort, with others than Oxford teaching Oxford, practicing with him, editing his verses, etc.[/li][li] The team was a two-man partnership. I will call them Oxford and the Collaborator, without further clarification.[/li][li] My understanding is that many of Oxford’s poems were written in the 1560’s by the teen-aged Edward. The poems and plays were mostly written beginning in the 1590’s. We all certainly agree that the Shakespeare Author, whoever he was, was a unique genius. Is it farfetched to imagine that such a genius, writing poems as a lark in his teens, then making it is his life’s work at age 40, could have improved his skills enough to defeat such a statistical test?[/li][/ul]
I think any or all of these points can overcome the objection.
While Oxford fails the stylistic test, it is not fair to ignore conections between the two bodies of poetry. Oxford, like Shakespeare, was an avid word creator – many new words earlier attributed to Shakespeare have been found in Oxford’s work. There are several metaphors (and morphological forms) present in each body.
Some plays were written when Oxford was dead
I note that the chronology of the plays is disputed. In an Oxford plus Collaborater hypothesis, the 2nd writer did some work after 1604. Because of the age gap between true Author and Front man, in a hoax scenario it would be logical to withhold some work for later publication. There are at least 2 sonnets which, if read as Oxford addressing his front man / pen-name, can be read as discussing this effect!
Why would there be a hoax anyway?
Unfortunately, I can’t answer this either. That the taboo against noble poets and playwrights revealing their work was strict is very clear (despite Stratfordian mumblings) but I think it had gone beyond this. Some of the plays had political content. (Recall, e.g. that Richard II was performed the day before the arrests of Essex and Southampton.) That Elizabeth (advised by Walsingham?) had decreed the Authorship to be a state secret does not seem impossible. Recall that the publisher of Green’s Groatsworth published a retraction, implying high authority.
That Oxford had some political hold, and that it connected to Southampton, is clear from the curious events of 24-25 June 1604: Upon the death of Edward Oxford, King James threw a fit, arresting Southampton and others, and apparently destroying documents of both Oxford and Southampton. (Recall that no will surfaced for Oxford.)
How could such a hoax have stayed secret?
Would not the hoaxster and his accomplices have left some cryptic clues?
These are good questions. Full answer would require details of Stratford’s role. For now, I’ll say only that the deafening silence in Stratford Town itself about the Stratford authorship is consistent with what we’d expect from a front man, directed to avoid visibility: discussion in the home town would expose a hoax, but that town is almost eerily silent.
2. The sonnets, plays, and assoc. printed material give good clues.
The sonnets are almost autobiographical if by Oxford, yet puzzling when related to Stratford. In the earlier thread, which started when I posted several of the puzzling sonnets, no comment was ever offered about any particular sonnet, yet they were ruled off-limits for discussion of author’s identity. If that’s the ruling, fine; but obviously a case will suffer.
Oxford famously got a 1000-pound per annum allowance from the Queen. Coincidence? This was a lot of money, perhaps the largest “salary” (if that is what it was) in England, as attested by Elizabeth herself quoted as saying “Even Great Oxford gets not that much” when someone asked for even more. (Judged by this comment and if she’s being quoted accurately, Elizabeth seems to have forgiven the alleged fart, though I suppose “Great” might just pertain to his hereditary title.)
** 3. A case against authorship by WS of Stratford**
I will not argue this case, but some Dopers have ignored it altogether. What little is known of Shakespere does not sound like the author’s life.
He pursues business in Stratford, buying real estate, accused of hoarding, sueing for shillings. There are plenty of fawning odes to Shakespeare written by London theater people, but what of the Stratford relatives and citizens who presumably knew him well?
It is the utter paucity of evidence recounted in Stratford or by Stratfordians that some find suspicious. Rebuttal is that letters are lost to flood or fire, and 400-year old evidence is always sparse, yet the attics and cellars of Stratford have been scoured and nothing turns up.
No books, no manuscripts, no letters mentioning a favorite townsman in the theater, no bragging by nephews or grandchildren. Nothing.
No letters by Shakespeare have turned up; one letter to Shakespeare about a loan.
Apparently I was inadequately explicit in defining “Stratford-related” evidence. Of course we all agree that WS of Stratford, WS of London, and WS the author (or putative author) are all the same person, which is what “How do We” seeks to prove.
Unless I missed something the entire “How do we” pages mentions only two non-Shakespeare Stratfordians: Field the book printer, and a mutual acquantance of Manningham of the “Conqueror came first” joke. Surely you don’t consider these probative.
Do Field-written or -remembered documents exist? If there was a hoax, it seems probable that hoaxster Shakespere coopted a few friends to aid in the hoax.
The poems Oxford wrote as a teenager, and the plays and sonnets he wrote in middle age should be treated separately, no?
Let’s focus just on this point, because I think it’s pretty easy to put in the “disproved” column and never have to deal with it again.
And here’s why I think it’s easy: as you note, de Vere was told in public and obsequious terms by another noble that he was a great playwright, “the best” at comedy. If there’s a taboo against noble playwrights revealing their work, why did this happen?
I’d like you to spend some time focusing on this objection to your point. First, provide evidence that such a taboo existed. Second, explain why public compliments for a noble’s playwright are compatible with such a taboo. Both types of claims are indispensable if you’re going to consider this point true and valid. Otherwise, I think we can throw it away and never deal with it again.
… And, even if you’re certain no Oxford hypothesis can approach the Stratford hypothesis in likelihood, I must ask for at least a temporary suspense of disbelief: