Page 41 of 45 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 449

Thread: The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

  1. Top | #401
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?
    London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults, but here no insult appears; instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.

    So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?


    In 1580 or thereabouts Oxford wanted to hire a literary assistant (amanuensis etc.) and Gabriel Harvey wanted the job. He wrote a very flattering letter to Oxford (and probably read it aloud during Her Majesty's Progress); the letter included the sentence "Thy will shakes spear(s)"*. That this was Stratford's very name might be a pointless coincidence, but it might not.

    * = The letter was actually in Latin. It might be probable that the particular "Will Shake-spear" translation was never in print prior to the 20th century — I don't know. The standard Anti-Oxfordian response is to tout alternate translations of the Latin, but "Will Shake-spear" is the translation found with wiktionary.org . (great site)

  2. Top | #402
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,864
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,038
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post

    What tactic???

    Damon and Pithias was decent dramatically but the writing was below average. Unmetered rhymed couplets. Thank God iambic pentameter took hold!

    You don't want De Vere associated with that play! De Vere was a much better poet than Richard Edwards! Compare Oxford's poems with Damon and Pithias. You can read it here. Links on the page for what format you want:

    http://elizabethandrama.org/the-play...chard-edwards/

    That wasn't written by Oxford, as surely as Oxford didn't write Shakespeare.

    So what tactic am I using? When I type "Shakespeare" I refer to the author of that canon - whomever they were. I won't type "Shaxper" - for good reasons.

    What tactic am I using?

    Or have I asked that already?

    Oh, I see: a classic example of Oxfordians snatching at anything to link De Vere to Shakespeare. I was not aware of using a tactic, nor do I use "tactics" when discussing things. Oxfordians have often reached beyond the pale when considering what De Vere may have written: the Bible, Spenser, even ALL the major poetry coming out of England at that time. It is not a tactic to point to how silly that is; nor is it a tactic to say plainly and simply that David Gontar was reaching far beyond anything reasonable by suggesting that De Vere not only penned Damon and Pithias, but that this was somehow more proof that De Vere wrote Shakespeare!

    Example from the play:

    SCENE I.

    In Town.

    Here entereth Aristippus.



    Arist. Too strange (perhaps) it seems to some

    That I, Aristippus, a courtier am become:

    A philosopher of late, not of the meanest name,

    But now to the courtly behaviour my life I frame.

    Muse he that lust; to you of good skill,

    I say that I am a philosopher still.

    Lovers of wisdom are termed philosophy.

    Then who is a philosopher so rightly as I?

    For in loving of wisdom proof doth this try,

    That frustra sapit, qui non sapit sibi.

    I am wise for myself: then tell me of troth,

    Is not that great wisdom, as the world go'th?

    Some philosophers in the street go ragged and torn,

    And feeds on vile roots, whom boys laugh to scorn:

    But I in fine silks haunt Dionysius' palace

    Wherein with dainty fare myself I do solace
    Ack! Even if it were De Vere's juvenilia it is execrable. Wordworth, Shelley, and Byron were writing good verse in their early teens.

    "Recovery", he says. Well hardie-har. Again, you act as if it were a criminal act, or of someone in the grip of an addiction, or some sickness, to even consider that the Shakespearean canon may have been written by...of all people...the person it is credited to. Oh the horror!

    ETA: Just saw Swammi's post.

    Swammi: I might be tickled astray by the "His will shakes speares" pun, were it not for the fact that "Shakespeare" was and is a surname in not common but not terribly irregular usage.

    How do you suppose these people got their surname? Should we call them all "Shaxper"?

    Abraham Shakespeare (c. 1966–2009), American lottery winner and murder victim
    Clive Shakespeare (1949–2012), English-born Australian pop guitarist, songwriter and producer
    Craig Shakespeare (born 1963), former association football player and manager
    Frank Shakespeare (born 1925), American diplomat and media executive
    Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, 1st Baronet (1893–1980), British Liberal politician
    James Shakespeare (c. 1840–1912), South Australian organist
    Joseph A. Shakspeare (1837–1896), mayor of New Orleans
    Nicholas Shakespeare (born 1957), British novelist and biographer
    Noah Shakespeare (1839–1921), Canadian politician noted for his involvement in the anti-Chinese movement
    Olivia Shakespear (1863–1938), British novelist and playwright
    Percy Shakespeare (1906–1943), British painter
    Robbie Shakespeare (born 1953), Jamaican musician and producer, part of Sly and Robbie
    Stanley Shakespeare (1963–2005), American football player
    Stephan Shakespeare (born 1957), founder of market research company YouGov and of 18 Doughty Street
    Tom Shakespeare, 3rd Baronet (born 1966), geneticist and sociologist
    William Shakespeare (American football) (1912–1975), American football player
    William Shakespeare (singer) (1948-2010), stage name of Australian singer John Cave (also known as John Cabe or Billy Shake)
    William Shakespeare (tenor) (1849–1931), English tenor, pedagogue, and composer
    William Geoffrey Shakespeare (1927–1996), 2nd Baronet Shakespeare of Lakenham, general practitioner in Aylesbury
    William Harold Nelson Shakespeare (1883–1976), cricketer for Worcestershire in the interwar period

    Note: These are only well-known and accomplished persons named Shakespeare. - WAB
    Do you image that De Vere chose the name William Shakespeare and that there were no other "Shakespeares?" And do you imagine that he just happened to pick a pen-name which was virtually the same as an actor in the very theatrical environment he worked in???
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  3. Top | #403
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,852
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,891
    Rep Power
    85
    WAB,

    Don't be so highbrow. Come down to earth. Claw around with the lesser creatures.

  4. Top | #404
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?
    London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults, but here no insult appears; instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.

    So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?


    In 1580 or thereabouts Oxford wanted to hire a literary assistant (amanuensis etc.) and Gabriel Harvey wanted the job. He wrote a very flattering letter to Oxford (and probably read it aloud during Her Majesty's Progress); the letter included the sentence "Thy will shakes spear(s)"*. That this was Stratford's very name might be a pointless coincidence, but it might not be.

    * = The letter was actually in Latin. It might be probable that the particular "Will Shake-spear" translation was never in print prior to the 20th century — I don't know. The standard Anti-Oxfordian response is to tout alternate translations of the Latin, but "Will Shake-spear" is the translation found at wiktionary.org . (great site)

    appears
    Last edited by Swammerdami; 07-26-2021 at 02:32 AM.

  5. Top | #405
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,864
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,038
    Rep Power
    70
    "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? -Swammi.

    What pray tell is this? There is precious little on the Internet to inform me.

    I have come across this:

    In his youth, the Earl of Oxford was a renown jouster. He participated in many of Queen Elizabeth's Accession Day tilts. The name Launce may be an allusion to this, as may the names Launcelot and Shakespeare. Thomas Nashe, in his various allusions to Oxford, refers to him as Pierce Penniless, and Will Monox with "his great dagger".
    I can't seem to copy from the page (have tried many times), but go to the bottom of here:

    https://www.shakespearetarot.com/thef00l

    What do I need to know to think that Monox with his great dagger in any way relates to De Vere?

    There is also this:

    http://www.anonymous-shakespeare.com...x.233.0.1.html

    I have seen references to De Vere aplenty, but have yet to see anything that suggests he could have written Shakespeare.


    ​Alas!

    I see this, after searching around:

    But Tom Nashe admitted he too was present at the banquet, and when he later wrote to Gabriel Harvey, he made a coded reference to the third man as “Will Monox” (an anagram of Will Oxon.—Oxon. being the conventional Latin abbreviation for Oxford, hence the need for not naming him in a letter).
    from: https://www.scientificexploration.or...eviewRoper.pdf

    Mnn...m'kay. But how exactly is Will Monox an anagram of Will Oxon? What happened to the "M".?

    Not that it matters.

    This is clutching at straws.

    More Thomas Nashe, referring to Will Monox:

    I and one of my fellows, Will. Monox (Hast thou never heard of him and his great dagger?) were in company with him a month before he died[75], at that fatal banquet of Rhenish wine and pickled herring (if thou wilt needs have it so), and then the inventory of his apparel came to more than three shillings (though thou sayest the contrary). I know a broker in a spruce leather jerkin with a great number of gold rings on his fingers and a bunch of keys at his girdle shall give you thirty shillings for the doublet alone, if you can help him to it. Hark in your ear, he had a very fair cloak with sleeves, of a grave goose-turd green; it would serve you as fine as may be…
    One thing to be taken from this excursion: Listen to Tommy Nashe! Excellent writer...
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  6. Top | #406
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,852
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,891
    Rep Power
    85
    Great exchange.

    Can someone speculate why there are plays in the name of William Shake-speare that by all accounts are not part of the Shakespeare canon?

    Why is Edward DeVere's bible part of the Shakespeare Folger Library?

  7. Top | #407
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,864
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,038
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Great exchange.

    Can someone speculate why there are plays in the name of William Shake-speare that by all accounts are not part of the Shakespeare canon?

    Why is Edward DeVere's bible part of the Shakespeare Folger Library?
    Good questions both.

    I personally feel there are some plays, or at least one, which had scarce if anything to do with Shakespeare: Henry the VIII. In my reading, I feel it basically sucks, and cannot have been the same hand that penned Macbeth, Lear, Tempest, Othello, etcetera. There are others, such as Pericles, or maybe even Timon of Athens - and some do not believe Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus (actually, it smells like Marlowe...)

    Why have such plays been entered into the canon? I have one answer:

    There have been multitudes of Shakespeare scholars through out the last four centuries. These people know far more about Shakespeare (and/or the accepted canon of Shakespearean work) than I do. I take it as a given that my opinions and feelings mean little compared to literal lifetimes of studying and examining everything surrounding the Bard of Avon.

    If scholars come to an agreement that such and such a work might not have been Shakespeare, then I nod and deal with it (though I may privately disagree or come to my own opinion - knowing that my opinion means all of - Jack Squat - in the long run.)

    As for De Vere's Bible being included in the SFL - I do not know! I do know that at Oxfraud there is much material into that subject:

    https://oxfraud.com/index.php/bible-home
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  8. Top | #408
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    17
    My last post may have been over-wrought. Let's take it slowly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?
    1. London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters and pamphlets.
    2. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference.
    3. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed.
    4. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults,
    5. but here no insult appears;
    6. instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.
    7.So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?
    I've labeled the seven sentences of the syllogism. Do you agree with #1? #2? Tell us when you're ready to move on to #3.

  9. Top | #409
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,864
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,038
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    My last post may have been over-wrought. Let's take it slowly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Did WAB ever give his interpretation of "Will. Monox with his great dagger"? Or "Thy will shakes spears"?
    1. London's playwrights wrote about each other in letters and pamphlets.
    2. Clearly "Monox with his great dagger" is a cryptic reference.
    3. Almost surely it refers to Edward de Vere. Anyone who doubts this much is simply under-informed.
    4. Cryptic references to a person were sometimes used in insults,
    5. but here no insult appears;
    6. instead it was common courtesy to keep the name of a playwright hidden if he was also a Peer of the Realm. Again, anyone who doubts that would be common courtesy is simply ignorant.
    7.So far so good. But why is Edward de Vere apparently given the nickname "Will" ?
    I've labeled the seven sentences of the syllogism. Do you agree with #1? #2? Tell us when you're ready to move on to #3.
    What's with the large font in your prior post? You realize that is the same as dumb Americans speaking to people who don't speak English, and raising their voices in the idea that speaking loudly will help others who speak different languages to understand them? It is insulting, which was your intention; but that's okay, I notice you do it to other people in other threads. I notice that lots of all o' y'all put things in large font to insult your interlocutors. Some of you lament that you can't write your posts in crayon. You and the others ought to stop that. You should take it as given that anyone who participates at this site can bloody read. Not only that, it makes you look angry and overly challenged.

    You're not going to teach me how to Google? Yet another insult. Gee, thanks!

    "Let's take it slowly..." ??? Another insult!

    You wrote: Just for starters,
    Swammi: the M in "Will Monox" seems unnecessary — but may I assume you know a LITTLE bit of French? — and — behold — a separate occurrence of "Will Oxon" without the M improves the hypothesis. And who said it HAD to be an anagram?
    I was responding to this, which I posted above, a quote from a page I linked to (Post #405):

    But Tom Nashe admitted he too was present at the banquet, and when he later wrote to Gabriel Harvey, he made a coded reference to the third man as “Will Monox” (an anagram of Will Oxon.—Oxon. being the conventional Latin abbreviation for Oxford, hence the need for not naming him in a letter).
    - In the words of Steve Martin: Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Calm yourself down or don't expect any further conversation about Oxford coming from me; and once I'm gone, I am sure you've noticed that no-one else on this discussion board is even remotely interested in this overblown infatuation with De Vere (probably caused in great part by the film Anonymous. Film is especially persuasive when done well, and even more so when you have an actor [who played De Vere] who is magnetically handsome, gracious, and charming). Not that you and Moogly have been persuaded by it (I don't even know if either of you saw it), but apparently many have, as evidenced in the Facebook group about Oxford, Shakesvere.

    You will notice that I have been patient with you and Moogly, and have entertained your belief in De Vere to the best of my ability. Some would say I have been "humoring" you both - which would not be that far from the truth.

    It is possible that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Possible, but far from certain.

    ETA: "Tell us when you're ready to move on to #3..." - So fucking condescending! Oh alright, alright! I have been condescending at times as well, so I forgive you, because I love you. Where's the hug smilie?

    I am not interested in the Monox w/ his great dagger conversation. So it is cryptic? Everything is cryptic and secretive (and conspiratorial) for Oxfordians. Or so it seems.

    I think I said this before but it bears repeating: My patience and good will with this silliness is getting all three of us absolutely nowhere. The best responses to the OP came from DBT and Bronzeage at the beginning of the thread. And Bomb#20 had some excellent commentary and questions that were not given a fair...ahem...

    shake.
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  10. Top | #410
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    17
    I apologize. You're right; I got angry, mostly due to personal stresses and lack of sleep, and started pounding on the keyboard. And I do have a brattish habit of responding to any perceived insult with 1000-fold escalation. One of my friends says, with good reason, that I remind him of Donald Trump!

    Sincere apologies again. Whether there was first condescension in your own posts is irrelevant: I shouldn't have reciprocated at all, let alone a thousand-fold.

    I should resist any urge to keep bumping this thread. I wrote the first posts, many months ago, because it gives me a certain pleasure to set my own thoughts into clear writing; I thought I did so. There's no reason I should worry about how others respond.

    To me, the "Will Monox" mention is interesting because it strongly implies that Nashe was, for whatever reason, associating the name "Will" with Edward de Vere. It doesn't prove that de Vere wrote Hamlet. It doesn't tell us whether de Vere's poetry was good or bad. Why Nashe wanted to connect de Vere to "Will" may remain forever a mystery.

    That Nashe sentence demonstrates that fellow playwrights — for there is no doubt that de Vere was a playwright, whether mediocre or not — tip-toed around identifying him explicitly. It SEEMS to imply that "Will" was — for whatever reason — a nickname or joke name that could be associated with de Vere. I hoped for something like "Interesting. Yes, it seems to imply such a connection, but ..." However, as far as I can tell you've not acknowledged that the quote even refers to Edward de Vere.

    Whatever faults Oxfordians have, anti-Oxfordians are often too dismissive of such clues, in my opinion.

    And once more, sincere apologies for my bizarre and inexcusable temper.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •