Since the 18th century, there has been a lingering question as to whether William Shakespeare actually wrote the works attributed to him. The top contenders for the authorship question are Edward De Vere and Christopher Marlowe, but most of the evidence found while researching the debate proves that De Vere wrote the pieces credited to Shakespeare. De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, has notable similarities to Shakespeare’s works. There were many parallels found between Polonius of Hamlet and De Vere’s guardian, William Cecil. There were also coincidences between De Vere’s own life and Hamlet, including a string of passages from a family Bible. One could say that Hamlet was an autobiography of De Vere’s life because of his tennis quarrel with Sydney and the fact that they both killed a man. De Vere’s life was similar to Romeo and Juliet as well – both had a battle between two families followed by a death on each side. Another peculiar finding worth noting is the lion “shaking a spear” on Oxford’s coat of arms. That appears to be a little too coincidental. These evident parallels between the Earl’s life and Shakespeare’s works certainly cannot be overlooked.
Although Edward De Vere has a great deal of evidence pointing in his favor, many scholars still believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author of the Shakespeare works. Members of the Stratford camp believe the actor of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author mainly because it is the most plausible option. Stratfordians cite historical documents of the time period to support their claim of Shakespeare as the true author. One of the most obvious pieces of evidence in Shakespeare’s favor is the fact that all the plays and poems bear the name “William Shakespeare”. Yet, this fact can be easily explained by the presence of a pseudonym used by Edward De Vere to conceal his identity. Another piece of evidence used by the Stratford camp is the fact that William Shakespeare was an actor in the company which performed the plays accredited to him. Anti-Stratfordians cannot argue this fact, but they are able to state that just because he was an actor in the company does not make him the author of the works that were performed. One more piece of evidence supporting the Stratford camp is that Shakespeare’s funerary monument in Stratford bears an engraving that identifies him as a writer. Yet in favor of the Oxfordians, it is reasonable to speculate that the monument had been altered from its original form in order to protect the true identity of the writer. The members of the Stratford camp may present solid evidence on the surface, but if a person looks past the obvious he is able to see the logic of Edward De Vere as the author of the Shakespearean works.
Playing a large role in proving authorship, Edward De Vere’s high-quality education leads many to believe he is in fact the author of the Shakespearian works. Oxfordians and Stratfordians recognize that, in order to write about royal courts, Italian law required a certain prerequisite level of education. The fact that De Vere graduated at age 14 from Cambridge University is very widely accepted. He then became Master of Arts at only 16 years old. With this kind of reputation, he is identified as meeting the qualifications necessary to generate Shakespeare’s productions. For example, the play The Merchant of Venice discussed law, and De Vere studied law, which suggests that he had the knowledge to write this particular play. Edward De Vere is also known to have traveled to Italy in the 1570s, putting him in an ideal position to write knowledgeably about the Venice. Similarities also exist between De Vere and the character Hamlet. In 1572, it is said that Edward De Vere and others routinely played practical jokes on ill-fated travelers on the same stretch of road as Prince Hal does in the play. The most convincing piece of evidence is the fact that Venus and Adonis, derived from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, could only have been possible with Arthur Golding’s translation of this work. Arthur Golding was De Vere’s uncle and his translation was said to be dedicated to De Vere.
It is rumored that Christopher Marlowe was the true writer of Shakespeare. Although some strongly believe that is true, this cannot possibly be accurate because of his death in 1593. The dates of Shakespeare’s works range from the early 1590s until 1611. Previous to Marlowe’s death, he was put in jail for unknown reasons. During the time of the publishing, Marlowe was said to be in jail, making it impossible for him to have written it. It is also rumored that Marlowe faked his death to escape his conviction, however, there is no hard evidence confirming that this was in fact true. Marlowe may have used some of the similar writing styles as Shakespeare, but De Vere had many more similarities such as Shakespeare and De Vere both having strong connections to Elizabeth, and many similarities between De Vere’s writings and Hamlet. Marlowe could not possibly be the writer of Shakespeare because of his death and his unexplainable jail time.
Many believe that the true author of Shakespeare’s plays was an aristocrat named Edward De Vere. It can be argued that Shakespeare and De Vere had very similar writing styles, each having consistent flow and comparable theatric style. Specifically, Shakespeare’s six-line pentameter stanza style can be seen in several literary works of Edward De Vere, such as Echo Verses and What Cunning Can I Express. De Vere’s work used a metrical pattern consisting of lines of unrhymed “blank verse.” This was extremely similar to Shakespeare’s later work in which used the same blank verse and poetic pattern. Although common in the 16th century writing, De Vere used a genre of poetry called Lyric Poetry, which expressed personal and emotional feelings. This Lyrical style emulates what Shakespeare would have done in his poems. Another way that De Vere emulated Shakespeare’s writing style was through the use of sonnets. These sonnets are consistent in both of the writers work, and show almost identical structure. Shakespeare’s poetry may have been some of the most influential pieces of literature in today’s society, but his style of writing is closely rivaled by those of Edward De Vere.
Although Edward De Vere has a great deal of evidence pointing in his favor, many scholars still believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author of the Shakespeare works. Members of the Stratford camp believe the actor of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author mainly because it is the most plausible option. Stratfordians cite historical documents of the time period to support their claim of Shakespeare as the true author. One of the most obvious pieces of evidence in Shakespeare’s favor is the fact that all the plays and poems bear the name “William Shakespeare”. Yet, this fact can be easily explained by the presence of a pseudonym used by Edward De Vere to conceal his identity. Another piece of evidence used by the Stratford camp is the fact that William Shakespeare was an actor in the company which performed the plays accredited to him. Anti-Stratfordians cannot argue this fact, but they are able to state that just because he was an actor in the company does not make him the author of the works that were performed. One more piece of evidence supporting the Stratford camp is that Shakespeare’s funerary monument in Stratford bears an engraving that identifies him as a writer. Yet in favor of the Oxfordians, it is reasonable to speculate that the monument had been altered from its original form in order to protect the true identity of the writer. The members of the Stratford camp may present solid evidence on the surface, but if a person looks past the obvious he is able to see the logic of Edward De Vere as the author of the Shakespearean works.
Playing a large role in proving authorship, Edward De Vere’s high-quality education leads many to believe he is in fact the author of the Shakespearian works. Oxfordians and Stratfordians recognize that, in order to write about royal courts, Italian law required a certain prerequisite level of education. The fact that De Vere graduated at age 14 from Cambridge University is very widely accepted. He then became Master of Arts at only 16 years old. With this kind of reputation, he is identified as meeting the qualifications necessary to generate Shakespeare’s productions. For example, the play The Merchant of Venice discussed law, and De Vere studied law, which suggests that he had the knowledge to write this particular play. Edward De Vere is also known to have traveled to Italy in the 1570s, putting him in an ideal position to write knowledgeably about the Venice. Similarities also exist between De Vere and the character Hamlet. In 1572, it is said that Edward De Vere and others routinely played practical jokes on ill-fated travelers on the same stretch of road as Prince Hal does in the play. The most convincing piece of evidence is the fact that Venus and Adonis, derived from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, could only have been possible with Arthur Golding’s translation of this work. Arthur Golding was De Vere’s uncle and his translation was said to be dedicated to De Vere.
It is rumored that Christopher Marlowe was the true writer of Shakespeare. Although some strongly believe that is true, this cannot possibly be accurate because of his death in 1593. The dates of Shakespeare’s works range from the early 1590s until 1611. Previous to Marlowe’s death, he was put in jail for unknown reasons. During the time of the publishing, Marlowe was said to be in jail, making it impossible for him to have written it. It is also rumored that Marlowe faked his death to escape his conviction, however, there is no hard evidence confirming that this was in fact true. Marlowe may have used some of the similar writing styles as Shakespeare, but De Vere had many more similarities such as Shakespeare and De Vere both having strong connections to Elizabeth, and many similarities between De Vere’s writings and Hamlet. Marlowe could not possibly be the writer of Shakespeare because of his death and his unexplainable jail time.
Many believe that the true author of Shakespeare’s plays was an aristocrat named Edward De Vere. It can be argued that Shakespeare and De Vere had very similar writing styles, each having consistent flow and comparable theatric style. Specifically, Shakespeare’s six-line pentameter stanza style can be seen in several literary works of Edward De Vere, such as Echo Verses and What Cunning Can I Express. De Vere’s work used a metrical pattern consisting of lines of unrhymed “blank verse.” This was extremely similar to Shakespeare’s later work in which used the same blank verse and poetic pattern. Although common in the 16th century writing, De Vere used a genre of poetry called Lyric Poetry, which expressed personal and emotional feelings. This Lyrical style emulates what Shakespeare would have done in his poems. Another way that De Vere emulated Shakespeare’s writing style was through the use of sonnets. These sonnets are consistent in both of the writers work, and show almost identical structure. Shakespeare’s poetry may have been some of the most influential pieces of literature in today’s society, but his style of writing is closely rivaled by those of Edward De Vere.
The Oxford Case. Now a film ... Disputed dates ... was The Tempest about a shipwreck that happened in 1610, was macBeth inspired by the Gunpowder plot of 1605 etc. etc. The Oxfordians will always say "no" of course (well they have to, their man died in 1604).
So much more important than all this citing of dates, parallels between Oxford's life and Hamlet, quotes from sonnets about "my name being hidden" is the theatricality of the plays and the creation of the characters. These plays could only be wrought by someone who LIVED the theatre, who was a player and knew how to "speak the speech"
Look at the "Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I" speech. The misuse of the iambic pentameter, short lines, midline endings, replacement of iambs for trochees, lines with more than 10 beats etc etc are all gifts for the actor. Only a player could write like that. Anybody who had received a classical education would never make those "mistakes"
Playhouse practice. The plays belonged to the companies, not to the authors. Shakespeare was the only playwright out of the 22 or so professional playwights of the time who was a playing member of a company. The players controlled what plays to perform and how the plays were written. And the plays had to reflect the members of the company (or hired men and boy apprentices) available. A Midsummer Night's Dream, for example, could only be played if the company had 2 good boy actors, one tall, one short. The players would decide which plays to present in what we would now call committee. It is unimaginable that William Shakespeare, as a playing member of the company, managed to hide for over 15 years the fact that he was not the author of the plays under consideration. And equally unimaginable that the entire company knew and yet nobody ever let slip the slightest indication.
John Heminges knew Shakespeare for over 30 years. They met in probably 1587 and Heminges was a beneficiary in Shakespeare's will. As was Burbage. They were all liars? Why?
The Oxford argument often turns around his relationship with Queen Elizabeth and the necessity to hide his identity for these plays. Firstly, there are a number of contemporary references to plays penned by Oxford, none of which has survived (one has to question why) and secondly, Elizabeth died before Oxford, so why not "come clean" after her death? In 1623 when the First Folio was printed, Elizabeth had been dead for 20 years and Oxford for 19. What possible motivation could there be for continuing the pretence?
All the arguments for Oxford are "coincidental". (a lion shaking a spear on a coat of arms ... ???) The documentation for the Stratford man is extant. Francis Meres mentions BOTH Oxford and Shakespeare as playwrights of the time. And there are numerous other references to Shkespeare Poet and Playwright in contemporary documents. Some people have cited Oxford's poetry as "similar in style" Well indeed ... they both used a metric rhyming form / discipline that was popular at the time. It's a bit like saying that John Lee Hooker and B.B. King use a similar style. The discipline of 12 bar blues is common to both but any comparison ends there.
The debate will continue, of that there is no doubt. As an actor and director I cannot help the feeling that the Oxfordians are like Tybalt ... "deaf to reason"
So much more important than all this citing of dates, parallels between Oxford's life and Hamlet, quotes from sonnets about "my name being hidden" is the theatricality of the plays and the creation of the characters. These plays could only be wrought by someone who LIVED the theatre, who was a player and knew how to "speak the speech"
Look at the "Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I" speech. The misuse of the iambic pentameter, short lines, midline endings, replacement of iambs for trochees, lines with more than 10 beats etc etc are all gifts for the actor. Only a player could write like that. Anybody who had received a classical education would never make those "mistakes"
Playhouse practice. The plays belonged to the companies, not to the authors. Shakespeare was the only playwright out of the 22 or so professional playwights of the time who was a playing member of a company. The players controlled what plays to perform and how the plays were written. And the plays had to reflect the members of the company (or hired men and boy apprentices) available. A Midsummer Night's Dream, for example, could only be played if the company had 2 good boy actors, one tall, one short. The players would decide which plays to present in what we would now call committee. It is unimaginable that William Shakespeare, as a playing member of the company, managed to hide for over 15 years the fact that he was not the author of the plays under consideration. And equally unimaginable that the entire company knew and yet nobody ever let slip the slightest indication.
John Heminges knew Shakespeare for over 30 years. They met in probably 1587 and Heminges was a beneficiary in Shakespeare's will. As was Burbage. They were all liars? Why?
The Oxford argument often turns around his relationship with Queen Elizabeth and the necessity to hide his identity for these plays. Firstly, there are a number of contemporary references to plays penned by Oxford, none of which has survived (one has to question why) and secondly, Elizabeth died before Oxford, so why not "come clean" after her death? In 1623 when the First Folio was printed, Elizabeth had been dead for 20 years and Oxford for 19. What possible motivation could there be for continuing the pretence?
All the arguments for Oxford are "coincidental". (a lion shaking a spear on a coat of arms ... ???) The documentation for the Stratford man is extant. Francis Meres mentions BOTH Oxford and Shakespeare as playwrights of the time. And there are numerous other references to Shkespeare Poet and Playwright in contemporary documents. Some people have cited Oxford's poetry as "similar in style" Well indeed ... they both used a metric rhyming form / discipline that was popular at the time. It's a bit like saying that John Lee Hooker and B.B. King use a similar style. The discipline of 12 bar blues is common to both but any comparison ends there.
The debate will continue, of that there is no doubt. As an actor and director I cannot help the feeling that the Oxfordians are like Tybalt ... "deaf to reason"
For me the question of authorship is settled by the with the publication of the first folio. Was it Shakespeare's family or his estate that paid the 1000 pound cost for publication. No it is paid for by Susan De Vere's husband and brother.
Susan De Vere is the daughter of Edward DeVere.
My logical question is this. Why was Susan DeVere involved in the publication of the works of Shakespeare when her own father is listed in the early 1600's as a great Elizabethan poet. Why did she not publish his works. The first folio was for a run of 500 copies sold at one pound each. It was therefore a labour of love. Ben Jonson who did not write a poem at Shakespeare's death writes the introductory poem in the first folio. Does this say more about Ben's close relationship with Susan De Vere than to the man from Stratford
Susan De Vere is the daughter of Edward DeVere.
My logical question is this. Why was Susan DeVere involved in the publication of the works of Shakespeare when her own father is listed in the early 1600's as a great Elizabethan poet. Why did she not publish his works. The first folio was for a run of 500 copies sold at one pound each. It was therefore a labour of love. Ben Jonson who did not write a poem at Shakespeare's death writes the introductory poem in the first folio. Does this say more about Ben's close relationship with Susan De Vere than to the man from Stratford
I'm not a scholar of this debate, but in my opinion James Shapiro argued convincingly against the Oxford theory in his "Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" (Simon and Schuster, 2010).
You are basing your opinion on someone who admittedly knows little about the 17th Earl of Oxford. He does, however, have the gall to speculate on the mental condition of Sigmund Freud, who was a confirmed Oxfordian after reading the 1920 book, "Shakespeare Identified". I'm in the creative arts, and I know how the process works. Shapiro is not, and does not. No offense to him, I accept him as a Professor of English Literature. I have zero respect for his attitude, and haughty admission that he knows next to nothing about Edward de Vere. I suggest you read about de Vere, either by buying or borrowing a copy of "Shakespeare by Another Name" by Mark Anderson, or some of the biographical content found online on the Oxfordian websites. I did notice that Shapiro did not mention that Walt Whitman was a devout Anti-Stratfordian. Had he lived to 1920, I have no doubt he would have been an Oxfordian, as he had a premonition that the true author of the history plays was "one of the wolfish Earls" so close to the Queen herself. If you think about it, it is absurd to imagine a commoner telling the 3rd Earl of Southampton he should get married.(to one of Oxford's daughters, "by chance"
Shaksper would have been executed or had a hand removed for such an act of hubris. Kindly note that the First Folio was dedicated to De Vere's in-laws. Shapiro did not feel the need to tell you that. Kindly note that the printer dedicated an earlier book, a major project, to Susan de Vere. I think it was dedicated to her as enticement to receive permission to work on the First Folio. There's no link between de Vere's family and the man from Stratford. Why would Oxford's family have an interest in a Stratford money lender and part time actor's work? In short, you need to read up on Edward de Vere, so you can make an informed opinion. Mr. Shapiro simply suffers from cognitive dissonance. Sorry we've killed Santa Claus. It's a fascinating mystery, and worth your time to read up on the 17th Earl of Oxford. Happy reading~~~~
Shaksper would have been executed or had a hand removed for such an act of hubris. Kindly note that the First Folio was dedicated to De Vere's in-laws. Shapiro did not feel the need to tell you that. Kindly note that the printer dedicated an earlier book, a major project, to Susan de Vere. I think it was dedicated to her as enticement to receive permission to work on the First Folio. There's no link between de Vere's family and the man from Stratford. Why would Oxford's family have an interest in a Stratford money lender and part time actor's work? In short, you need to read up on Edward de Vere, so you can make an informed opinion. Mr. Shapiro simply suffers from cognitive dissonance. Sorry we've killed Santa Claus. It's a fascinating mystery, and worth your time to read up on the 17th Earl of Oxford. Happy reading~~~~
The "Oxford case" has not been made into a film. The film "Anonymous" is fiction, and has an agenda to drive a particular story which is for entertainment. It is rife with historical inaccuracies, as many of Shakespeare's history plays did, when it suited the plot and storyline.
The film was directed by someone who speaks English as a second language. It shows. It's a flawed film with some good visuals. It was not made to prove the Oxfordian case.
The film was directed by someone who speaks English as a second language. It shows. It's a flawed film with some good visuals. It was not made to prove the Oxfordian case.
The "Oxford case" has not been made into a film. The film "Anonymous" is fiction, and has an agenda to drive a particular story which is for entertainment. It is rife with historical inaccuracies, as many of Shakespeare's history plays did, when it suited the plot and storyline.
The film was directed by someone who speaks English as a second language. It shows. It's a flawed film with some good visuals. It was not made to prove the Oxfordian case.
The film was directed by someone who speaks English as a second language. It shows. It's a flawed film with some good visuals. It was not made to prove the Oxfordian case.
James I think if you found James Shapiro's book interesting and you're open to examining the validity of his methods, his assertions (and conclusions) then you'll be interested in Warren Hope's book review. Hope exposes the flaws in Shapiro's arguments, at the same time praising the effort. Here's the link: http://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/is-that-true-a-review-of-james-shapiros-contested-will/
The original poster (CurrFlan, etc.) wrote, "many scholars still believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author of the Shakespeare works." Honestly, that should probably read, "all reputable scholars," or perhaps "all scholars who aren't conspiracy theorists." The Oxfordian "theory" has been debunked by so many real Shakespearean scholars, I'm surprised that this is still such a big issue.
So go ahead, wow me with your Oxfordian "scholarship."
So go ahead, wow me with your Oxfordian "scholarship."
Hi Cory, when you use the term 'many scholars' do you include literary scholars as well as historians? When you look closely at how their 'scholarship' has been conducted, you might see that rigorous historical methods have rarely been applied by most Shakespeare 'scholars' in the past. I attribute this to the fact that literary scholars are not historians, and even many historians are not as methodical as they should be - especially if they 'have a dog in the fight' (confirmation bias).
I'd encourage you to read Diana Price as an example of good historical methodology before putting all 'Oxfordians' in the same basket and applying the old 'argumentum ad hominem'.
Personally I won't pretend to know enough to identify who did most of the play writing, but I have read widely enough to form a view that the Stratford William Shakespeare was, at most, a play broker who may have dabbled in writing or commisioning plays now known as 'the apocrypha'.
The 'consensus' or 'orthodoxy' of biblical scholars (until the 1970s) was that Moses was a historical figure - doubters were shunned, ridiculed, called names (conspiracy theorists!) - until finally proper historical methods were applied and the 'orthodoxy' is now that Moses never existed as a historical figure. Good historians, like good scientists, when applying sound methodology, don't have a 'dog in the fight'. To attribute negative character traits to them for pursuing the truth in the face of conflicting evidence is unreasonable.
I'd encourage you to read Diana Price as an example of good historical methodology before putting all 'Oxfordians' in the same basket and applying the old 'argumentum ad hominem'.
Personally I won't pretend to know enough to identify who did most of the play writing, but I have read widely enough to form a view that the Stratford William Shakespeare was, at most, a play broker who may have dabbled in writing or commisioning plays now known as 'the apocrypha'.
The 'consensus' or 'orthodoxy' of biblical scholars (until the 1970s) was that Moses was a historical figure - doubters were shunned, ridiculed, called names (conspiracy theorists!) - until finally proper historical methods were applied and the 'orthodoxy' is now that Moses never existed as a historical figure. Good historians, like good scientists, when applying sound methodology, don't have a 'dog in the fight'. To attribute negative character traits to them for pursuing the truth in the face of conflicting evidence is unreasonable.
Geoff,
Actually, if you read my post more closely, I only quoted the original poster's use of the term "many scholars." What I actually said was "ALL reputable scholars" (emphasis added) reject the Oxfordian theory, as well as all the other alternate authorship theories.
I haven't read Diana Price's work, but I have read much of Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare, and that was quite enough for me to reject the methodology of anti-Shakespeareans. (I refuse to call them anti-Stratfordians.) I will take the word of orthodox scholars, such as Bevington and Greenblatt, any day over all of the conspiracy theories. (I also won't put orthodox in quotes, like Ogburn routinely did.)
You can feel free to disagree with me, but I haven't seen a shred of actual evidence against the very straightforward statement of the First Folio that Mr. William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. I don't recall ascribing any negative character traits to the conspiracy theorists, other than calling them conspiracy theorists.
Actually, if you read my post more closely, I only quoted the original poster's use of the term "many scholars." What I actually said was "ALL reputable scholars" (emphasis added) reject the Oxfordian theory, as well as all the other alternate authorship theories.
I haven't read Diana Price's work, but I have read much of Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare, and that was quite enough for me to reject the methodology of anti-Shakespeareans. (I refuse to call them anti-Stratfordians.) I will take the word of orthodox scholars, such as Bevington and Greenblatt, any day over all of the conspiracy theories. (I also won't put orthodox in quotes, like Ogburn routinely did.)
You can feel free to disagree with me, but I haven't seen a shred of actual evidence against the very straightforward statement of the First Folio that Mr. William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. I don't recall ascribing any negative character traits to the conspiracy theorists, other than calling them conspiracy theorists.
Cory, I did read your post carefully. When you used the term 'all reputable scholars' I assumed you did not intend to make such an absurd generalisation. Hence I gave you the benefit of the doubt and paraphrased you instead of quoting. Sorry if that is not crediting you with what you actually meant. If you actually meant "all reputable scholars" then you are claiming to have read all scholarship on the subject and I find it difficult to believe you have done that.
Operating on your own reasoning above, If I were to claim that reading part of one 'Stratfordian' book would be quite enough for me to reject the methodology of all 'Stratfordians'.
Suffice to say that yes I already feel free to disagree with you. The problem is not so much evidence against the First Folio - it's that posthumous documents such as the First Folio don't constitute reasonable evidence in the absence of any contemporary evidence of a literary nature. Check whether there are any other playwrites of the era who left no trail whatsoever of a literary nature. They simply don't exist. You would know this if you had read more than part of one book.
Operating on your own reasoning above, If I were to claim that reading part of one 'Stratfordian' book would be quite enough for me to reject the methodology of all 'Stratfordians'.
Suffice to say that yes I already feel free to disagree with you. The problem is not so much evidence against the First Folio - it's that posthumous documents such as the First Folio don't constitute reasonable evidence in the absence of any contemporary evidence of a literary nature. Check whether there are any other playwrites of the era who left no trail whatsoever of a literary nature. They simply don't exist. You would know this if you had read more than part of one book.
"All reputable scholars" does NOT in fact mean the same thing as "all known scholarship," so I don't think it's an absurd generalization at all. It's merely an accurate statement of the scholarly consensus.
Also, I didn't say Ogburn's book was the only book I've read on the subject. But it was enough to make me give up on attempting to wade through Oxfordian theories.
Also, I didn't say Ogburn's book was the only book I've read on the subject. But it was enough to make me give up on attempting to wade through Oxfordian theories.
Well I'm here for a discussion and to learn Cory, so if you've any reading suggestions for me that debunk the best of the Oxfordian books or perhaps even better any reading that clearly lays out the evidence for William of Stratford (by an actual historian if you don't mind) then I'm all ears. The more specific you are the more interested I'd be in reading, as I say I am actually here to learn not so much to poke holes in how you might express your view etc. Sorry if I was a bit overly eager to point out your fallacious reasoning!
No Cory? Nothing to suggest? How about a discussion? Or is that not what you came to this topic for?
Sorry, Geoff, it's been a busy several days since my last post.
I'm actually starting to regret having posted in the first place, not because I'm convinced by any anti-Stratfordian arguments, but rather because I don't, in fact, enjoy the process of debate. So, no...extended discussion was not what I came to this particular subject for. As a new user of PlayShakespeare.com, I was merely browsing the subjects available on the forum, and the phrase the original poster used (something about "many" scholars believing the so-called orthodox view) struck me as odd, and so I made an offhand comment.
All that being said, it seems you are very passionate about the authorship argument, a subject in which I only have a minor interest. So I would love to hear from you, say, your top three or so points that made the anti-Stratfordian position seem sensible and meaningful to you. I doubt I will change my opinion much, as everything I've read so far strikes me as implausible. But I am reminded of the good friend who recommended Charlton Ogburn's book to me last year, who said the book was "life-changing" for him. As I mentioned, I read Ogburn's book for several hundred pages, and found it rambling and incoherent. But perhaps Diana Price's work is more appealing. My point is, those of you who are devoted to this debate seem to find the anti-Stratfordian position very persuasive, and seem quite devoted to the idea. So I would love it if you would share some of that passion with me.
For my part, I will attempt to be as non-judgmental as possible, and merely share with you whether or not I find them convincing. This is not my field of study by any means, so I'm not interested in a sustained argument, but I am interested in people's love of Shakespeare (or "Shakespeare," as the case may be)!
Hope this approach makes some sense to you...
I'm actually starting to regret having posted in the first place, not because I'm convinced by any anti-Stratfordian arguments, but rather because I don't, in fact, enjoy the process of debate. So, no...extended discussion was not what I came to this particular subject for. As a new user of PlayShakespeare.com, I was merely browsing the subjects available on the forum, and the phrase the original poster used (something about "many" scholars believing the so-called orthodox view) struck me as odd, and so I made an offhand comment.
All that being said, it seems you are very passionate about the authorship argument, a subject in which I only have a minor interest. So I would love to hear from you, say, your top three or so points that made the anti-Stratfordian position seem sensible and meaningful to you. I doubt I will change my opinion much, as everything I've read so far strikes me as implausible. But I am reminded of the good friend who recommended Charlton Ogburn's book to me last year, who said the book was "life-changing" for him. As I mentioned, I read Ogburn's book for several hundred pages, and found it rambling and incoherent. But perhaps Diana Price's work is more appealing. My point is, those of you who are devoted to this debate seem to find the anti-Stratfordian position very persuasive, and seem quite devoted to the idea. So I would love it if you would share some of that passion with me.
For my part, I will attempt to be as non-judgmental as possible, and merely share with you whether or not I find them convincing. This is not my field of study by any means, so I'm not interested in a sustained argument, but I am interested in people's love of Shakespeare (or "Shakespeare," as the case may be)!
Hope this approach makes some sense to you...
Mark Twain put it quite well I think - "that when even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine any evidence or any circumstance that shall seem to cast doubt on the validity of that superstition". So no, I won't be producing any 'Oxfordian' scholarship to 'wow' you. Personally, like Twain, I'm a 'brontosaurian' not an 'Oxfordian' or 'Baconian' or 'Nevillite' or 'Sackvillian'. It's the 60 barrels of Plaster Of Paris that gives the game away in the Stratford case.
Well, even though I'm still not convinced by anti-Stratfordian theories, I am interested enough to dig a bit more deeply into the authorship controversy. I found James Shapiro's Contested Will fascinating. Meanwhile, I registered for Ros Barber's MOOC about Shakespeare: I just listened to a webinar with Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells arguing with Barber, and I'm not convinced that they gave her a fair listen. They talked over her a LOT, and she was making some pretty decent anti-Stratfordian points. We'll see what else I can learn.
Also, I checked out Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare from the library (again). I'm not sure I have the stamina to get through the whole thing. But I will see how far I can get. I've also taken a little look at Delia Bacon's and J. Thomas Looney's famous (or infamous, depending on who you ask) books at archive.org. Some interesting ideas there as well...
Don't expect me to sign the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" any time soon, though...
Also, I checked out Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare from the library (again). I'm not sure I have the stamina to get through the whole thing. But I will see how far I can get. I've also taken a little look at Delia Bacon's and J. Thomas Looney's famous (or infamous, depending on who you ask) books at archive.org. Some interesting ideas there as well...
Don't expect me to sign the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" any time soon, though...
Greetings Cory,
A change in attitude or position on the Authorship question usually doesn't come quickly. And for many it doesn't come at all. It often takes a fair amount of reading before one becomes convinced of the strength of the doubter's position, even if one isn't convinced that Stratfordian position is wrong or weak. I think someone has come a long way if they can even summarize a half dozen of the non-Stratfordian points. Or to compare some of the basic points and counterpoints. But you may also come to follow the topic as a non-committal intellectual pastime. That way you would still learn a lot of interesting things related to the Shakespeare works, the Elizabethan-Jacobean stage, and the London area history of the times.
Thanks for positing!
A change in attitude or position on the Authorship question usually doesn't come quickly. And for many it doesn't come at all. It often takes a fair amount of reading before one becomes convinced of the strength of the doubter's position, even if one isn't convinced that Stratfordian position is wrong or weak. I think someone has come a long way if they can even summarize a half dozen of the non-Stratfordian points. Or to compare some of the basic points and counterpoints. But you may also come to follow the topic as a non-committal intellectual pastime. That way you would still learn a lot of interesting things related to the Shakespeare works, the Elizabethan-Jacobean stage, and the London area history of the times.
Thanks for positing!
I'm not a scholar of this debate, but in my opinion James Shapiro argued convincingly against the Oxford theory in his "Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" (Simon and Schuster, 2010).
SHapiro uses ad hominem arguments throughout the book, which is not proper scholarship at all. He also bases his dismissal of the anti-Stratfordian arguments on the mental state of Delia Bacon and outmoded political views of J. T. Looney; he does not address the issue at hand of who wrote "Shakespeare" at all. Nothing he presents is based on fact, only conjecture and faith, what Jonson called "blonde affection" in his poem from the First Folio.
I would suggest reading up on fallacious arguments then reread Shapiro's book again. You will find it lacking in substance and realize he has nothing to stand on.
There are no replies made for this post yet.
