Note. This began on the Shakespeare and Italy topic but I’m moving it here so readers can go right to it and not go through the Italy posts.
In response to a very long post I’m breaking it up into several smaller posts for easier reading and in case additional responses keep growing on some of the questions.
Reply Part 1
I never wrote that it was illogical not to agree with me, so please do not imply that I did to try to bolster your argument. My statement was that the evidence for supporting the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford is abundant and wide-ranging for the era in which he lived, much more abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary playwrights. The documentary evidence falls into several different categories, all mutually reinforcing, and shows that a real person named William Shakespeare wrote the poems and plays attributed to him.
--What preceeded your “it follows” was your evidence that Stratford’s W.S. was an actor that performed in the Shakespeare plays and was also a sharer in that company. I and thousands of others do not see that your authorship conclusion “follows” from your two pieces of evidence. The lack of a logical deduction was so great that I could only end up deducing an alternative explanation. But I see you have more evidence and argument.
Your first, and quite large paragraph, contains numerous smaller assertions that I think are best addressed by responding to each as they come up. So I’m going to break up the paragraph as I respond. As before, your comments are in bold.
Here is the logical analysis:
1. The name "William Shakespeare" appears on the plays and poems.
--Importantly, this is technically not true. Of the approximate 48 quartos (depending on what all is counted) and V&A and Lucrece, there are about 12 of them by “William Shakespeare”. It looks like three others listed as by “W. Shakespeare” and I have no problem with that. But where our opinion differs, is with the approximate 17-19 of these that have the last name with the hyphen as Shake-speare, and with the approximate 17 that were published with no author’s name, even long after the Shakespeare name had become famous and a selling point. More complete statistics than mine can be found on page 23 of Shahan and Waugh’s Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?
First and foremost, you are operating under the claim, without any documentary evidence, that the name "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and that there is nothing to tie the name to William Shakespeare of Stratford.
--Not remotely true. I can’t recall ever reading of non-Stratfordians that think that there is NO evidence connecting the works to the Stratford man. Generally, the argument is that the evidence is weak, very suspicious, contradictory, greatly lacking in confirmatory evidence, and possibly approaching the nearly impossible.
This claim is baseless and without any documentary evidence to back up the claim it is a conspiracy theory at best.
--We are as likely to cite the same documentary evidence against your theory as you use to assert it. Plus, a mass of circumstantial evidence we think outweighs your theory’s circumstantial evidence.
"William Shakespeare" has none of the characteristics of a pseudonym;
--maybe not, but we think that “Shake-speare” does have such a characteristic that can’t be logically dismissed.
it was the real name of a person closely connected with the production of the plays,
--Here you’re presuming what in fact we’re debating.
and there is no indication in the historical record that anybody ever suspected it of being a pseudonym
--in your opinion. We don’t agree.
or said that anybody other than William Shakespeare was the author.
--Are you even going to try to have a rational exchange? Or is it your intent to just waste everyone’s time here? What you should be attempting to say here is that “or said that anybody other than [the actor/sharer from Stratford] was the author”. To which we say that such thought seems to have been hinted at by some (Vicars, Ben Jonson, Hall and Marston, for example). If there was an intent to hide “the true author” then you shouldn’t expect to find an open explicit declaration that the Stratford man was not, or that someone else was.
The claim that the occasional hyphenation of "Shake-speare" indicated a pseudonym is completely groundless and unsupported by any evidence. There were not two separate names, "Shakspere" and "Shakespeare"; rather, they were the same name, with "Shakespeare" being by far the most common spelling, especially in London, both in non-literary references to the man from Stratford and in literary references to Shakespeare as a poet and playwright.
--These are just your assertions that are worthless in a debate. Interested readers can go to the doubtaboutwill.org site for some of the counterarguments. Readers should also know that scholars used to routinely spell the name as “Shakspere” in their journals. This is mentioned in Chapter 1 of Shakspeare Beyond Doubt? By Shahan and Waugh. In this chapter A.J. Pointon Ph.D. writes “The most effective deception—the change to his name—took hold around 1916, the tercentenary of Shakspere’s death. It was then that orthodox scholars, individuals and organizations involved in what had become the lucrative “Shakespeare business” began airbrushing the name “Shakspere” out of existence. In all new publications it would be replaced by Shakespeare, while every Shakspere family tree published became the “Shakespeare family tree. By this technique, people would eventually believe the Shaksperes of Stratford were really called Shakespeare and doubts about it would be met with astonishment and incomprehension.”
The historical evidence ties William Shakespeare of Stratford to the plays bearing his name. Many plays, poems and sonnets were attributed to Shakespeare during his lifetime.
--For any young or still-bewildered readers, the question is whether the authorial attribution to “Shakespeare” absolutely was meant for the actor/shareholder from Stratford, who never spelt his name exactly like that.
Additionally, Francis Meres attributed twelve plays to Shakespeare, including four which were never published in quarto: [Two] Gentlemen of Verona, [Comedy of] Errors, Love labors wonne, and King John. He also identified some of the plays that were published anonymously before 1598 -- Titus, Romeo and Juliet, and Henry IV -- as being written by Shakespeare.
--Yes, to whomever the author Shake-speare/Shakespeare was.
To be continued…
In response to a very long post I’m breaking it up into several smaller posts for easier reading and in case additional responses keep growing on some of the questions.
Reply Part 1
I never wrote that it was illogical not to agree with me, so please do not imply that I did to try to bolster your argument. My statement was that the evidence for supporting the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford is abundant and wide-ranging for the era in which he lived, much more abundant than the comparable evidence for most other contemporary playwrights. The documentary evidence falls into several different categories, all mutually reinforcing, and shows that a real person named William Shakespeare wrote the poems and plays attributed to him.
--What preceeded your “it follows” was your evidence that Stratford’s W.S. was an actor that performed in the Shakespeare plays and was also a sharer in that company. I and thousands of others do not see that your authorship conclusion “follows” from your two pieces of evidence. The lack of a logical deduction was so great that I could only end up deducing an alternative explanation. But I see you have more evidence and argument.
Your first, and quite large paragraph, contains numerous smaller assertions that I think are best addressed by responding to each as they come up. So I’m going to break up the paragraph as I respond. As before, your comments are in bold.
Here is the logical analysis:
1. The name "William Shakespeare" appears on the plays and poems.
--Importantly, this is technically not true. Of the approximate 48 quartos (depending on what all is counted) and V&A and Lucrece, there are about 12 of them by “William Shakespeare”. It looks like three others listed as by “W. Shakespeare” and I have no problem with that. But where our opinion differs, is with the approximate 17-19 of these that have the last name with the hyphen as Shake-speare, and with the approximate 17 that were published with no author’s name, even long after the Shakespeare name had become famous and a selling point. More complete statistics than mine can be found on page 23 of Shahan and Waugh’s Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?
First and foremost, you are operating under the claim, without any documentary evidence, that the name "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, and that there is nothing to tie the name to William Shakespeare of Stratford.
--Not remotely true. I can’t recall ever reading of non-Stratfordians that think that there is NO evidence connecting the works to the Stratford man. Generally, the argument is that the evidence is weak, very suspicious, contradictory, greatly lacking in confirmatory evidence, and possibly approaching the nearly impossible.
This claim is baseless and without any documentary evidence to back up the claim it is a conspiracy theory at best.
--We are as likely to cite the same documentary evidence against your theory as you use to assert it. Plus, a mass of circumstantial evidence we think outweighs your theory’s circumstantial evidence.
"William Shakespeare" has none of the characteristics of a pseudonym;
--maybe not, but we think that “Shake-speare” does have such a characteristic that can’t be logically dismissed.
it was the real name of a person closely connected with the production of the plays,
--Here you’re presuming what in fact we’re debating.
and there is no indication in the historical record that anybody ever suspected it of being a pseudonym
--in your opinion. We don’t agree.
or said that anybody other than William Shakespeare was the author.
--Are you even going to try to have a rational exchange? Or is it your intent to just waste everyone’s time here? What you should be attempting to say here is that “or said that anybody other than [the actor/sharer from Stratford] was the author”. To which we say that such thought seems to have been hinted at by some (Vicars, Ben Jonson, Hall and Marston, for example). If there was an intent to hide “the true author” then you shouldn’t expect to find an open explicit declaration that the Stratford man was not, or that someone else was.
The claim that the occasional hyphenation of "Shake-speare" indicated a pseudonym is completely groundless and unsupported by any evidence. There were not two separate names, "Shakspere" and "Shakespeare"; rather, they were the same name, with "Shakespeare" being by far the most common spelling, especially in London, both in non-literary references to the man from Stratford and in literary references to Shakespeare as a poet and playwright.
--These are just your assertions that are worthless in a debate. Interested readers can go to the doubtaboutwill.org site for some of the counterarguments. Readers should also know that scholars used to routinely spell the name as “Shakspere” in their journals. This is mentioned in Chapter 1 of Shakspeare Beyond Doubt? By Shahan and Waugh. In this chapter A.J. Pointon Ph.D. writes “The most effective deception—the change to his name—took hold around 1916, the tercentenary of Shakspere’s death. It was then that orthodox scholars, individuals and organizations involved in what had become the lucrative “Shakespeare business” began airbrushing the name “Shakspere” out of existence. In all new publications it would be replaced by Shakespeare, while every Shakspere family tree published became the “Shakespeare family tree. By this technique, people would eventually believe the Shaksperes of Stratford were really called Shakespeare and doubts about it would be met with astonishment and incomprehension.”
The historical evidence ties William Shakespeare of Stratford to the plays bearing his name. Many plays, poems and sonnets were attributed to Shakespeare during his lifetime.
--For any young or still-bewildered readers, the question is whether the authorial attribution to “Shakespeare” absolutely was meant for the actor/shareholder from Stratford, who never spelt his name exactly like that.
Additionally, Francis Meres attributed twelve plays to Shakespeare, including four which were never published in quarto: [Two] Gentlemen of Verona, [Comedy of] Errors, Love labors wonne, and King John. He also identified some of the plays that were published anonymously before 1598 -- Titus, Romeo and Juliet, and Henry IV -- as being written by Shakespeare.
--Yes, to whomever the author Shake-speare/Shakespeare was.
To be continued…
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.