Page 42 of 45 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 449

Thread: The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

  1. Top | #411
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,853
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,892
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    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.
    Elizabethan public theater wasn't like theater today. It was held in low regard, similar to how we today think about strip clubs, romance novels and pornography. DeVere was an Earl of Oxford, which would be similar to being a senator or supreme court justice or other person in high, respectable public office. This is why there are all these cryptic references to him and his writing. Even if publicly associated with these plays he could claim they were not his.

    But he wouldn't even have to do that because Elizabethan England was a police state of the first order. Even insinuating that an Earl of Oxford and close associate of the Queen was writing porn would get you imprisoned and maybe have your hand cut off or your tongue removed. So lets not get all anachronistic about the times thinking things were like today. Not even close.

    I submitted the question about DeVere's bible. What do I get? Go check it all out at Oxfraud. Seriously? That's it?

    Swammi, feel free to bump the thread whenever. There is always more information to share on the subject.

    And thanks, WAB, for the participation!

  2. Top | #412
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,867
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,041
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    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.
    Yes, Swammi, it is interesting. The Oxfordian position is very compelling. I also apologize for my dismissive comments, which are entirely unqualified, since I have not sufficiently researched all the information.

    Moogly - I wish I could say more about De Vere's bible, but I don't know enough about it.
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  3. Top | #413
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,743
    Rep Power
    17
    Unless there's good reason to think otherwise, I'd dismiss the fact that de Vere's Bible ended up at Folger as an irrelevant coincidence. (Does Folger have lots of miscellaneous documents from that era?)

    The significance of Oxford's Bible is that his underlinings show NEW (previously unnoted: cf. Scientific Method) connections between the Bible and the Plays, e.g.
    Quote Originally Posted by https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/shakespeares-bible/
    One of the marked passages (Philippians 2:15) includes not only the words “naughtie” and “worlde”, but also, in a footnote (pasted in on the right), the word “candle”, thus providing three key words in Portia’s Merchant of Venice speech, “How far this little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a naughty world.” (V, ii, 61-2)
    (I think I noted this connection to Portia's speech earlier in this thread, but it was easier to Google "De Vere's Bible candle" than to use TFT search! Stritmatter claims at least 100 other connections.)


    At the risk of beating a dead horse, the "Will Monox ... and his great dagger" quote now strikes me!

    When I first encountered that quote I was already aware of many dozens of "coincidences" connecting Oxford to the Works, and this was just another one. Ho-hum; It didn't seem so special.

    But looking at it in isolation, it now strikes me as special! It seems almost unquestionable that Thomas Nashe is referring to Edward de Vere and, for whatever reason, connecting him with the name "Will." Do anti-Oxfordians offer any explanation for this?

  4. Top | #414
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,853
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,892
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Unless there's good reason to think otherwise, I'd dismiss the fact that de Vere's Bible ended up at Folger as an irrelevant coincidence. (Does Folger have lots of miscellaneous documents from that era?)

    The significance of Oxford's Bible is that his underlinings show NEW (previously unnoted: cf. Scientific Method) connections between the Bible and the Plays, e.g.
    Quote Originally Posted by https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/shakespeares-bible/
    One of the marked passages (Philippians 2:15) includes not only the words “naughtie” and “worlde”, but also, in a footnote (pasted in on the right), the word “candle”, thus providing three key words in Portia’s Merchant of Venice speech, “How far this little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a naughty world.” (V, ii, 61-2)
    (I think I noted this connection to Portia's speech earlier in this thread, but it was easier to Google "De Vere's Bible candle" than to use TFT search! Stritmatter claims at least 100 other connections.)


    At the risk of beating a dead horse, the "Will Monox ... and his great dagger" quote now strikes me!

    When I first encountered that quote I was already aware of many dozens of "coincidences" connecting Oxford to the Works, and this was just another one. Ho-hum; It didn't seem so special.

    But looking at it in isolation, it now strikes me as special! It seems almost unquestionable that Thomas Nashe is referring to Edward de Vere and, for whatever reason, connecting him with the name "Will." Do anti-Oxfordians offer any explanation for this?
    Obviously the reason DeVere's bible is there is because it's Elizabethan, along with many other such things. I do think it is a great irony. Now if it disappears, being the tremendous piece of circumstantial evidence that it is, I'll get suspicious. It would have been nice had DeVere written a marginal note, "perfect for Lear." But even such a note would be dismissed by the SBC as happening after the fact.

    The circumstantial case is simply overwhelming. We all owe a tremendous debt to Looney for his detective work and dedication and love of the subject.

    If you pick up Stratfordian literature you constantly hear the refrain that there was no doubt about the author being TSM for 200 years. Of course that's bull, as anyone who has investigated the subject knows. There were questions for thirty years before TSM died in 1616, as you indicate, all credible and factual. Stratfordians don't attempt to answer these questions and instances. They continue to peddle propaganda because it suits their economic interests.

  5. Top | #415
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,867
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,041
    Rep Power
    70
    Nevermind
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  6. Top | #416
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,867
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,041
    Rep Power
    70
    Well, I was booted out of ShakesVere on Facebook.

    Hey Swammi and Moogly, I found a published poet who is an Oxfordian. His name is Gilbert Wesley Purdy. I don't know anything about his poetry, except that he's published at some pretigious venues (such as Jacket) but one of his books intrigues me to no end:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...api_tkin_p1_i0

    One (or is it three??) sonnets theorized as Shakespeare's.

    Anyone know if these sonnets are on the Internet anywhere? This book was published in 2015. One would think such a monumental discovery would be all over the place? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious. I honestly want to read these sonnets and see if they stack up to the Bard (whomever they were).

    I see another page about the book, but no taste of the sonnet(s):

    https://bookshop.org/books/discovere.../9781514750407

    Little else that I can see. Dang it!
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  7. Top | #417
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,743
    Rep Power
    17
    I also hit a brick wall with Googling: no excerpt from any alleged sonnet, nothing about the alleged book with the sonnets. Purdy has a 2017 book about which Google Books says "Preview unavailable, Searching inside unavailable." Purdy seems more focused on getting $4.95 for his Kindle-book than with anything else.

    I don't think ordinary Google Search searches Usenet, so I did a search for "Purdy" at a Usenet Shakespeare group. I got one hit, and that "Purdy" is a misspelling for "pretty" or such in some rant about Marlowe. (The Google Groups interface to Usenet is so sabotaged now the URL Google gave me may not even take you to the post with "purdy.")

    Life is too short to worry about "scholars" like this. I maintain a Wish-List at an on-line book-store, but I'm passing on Mr. Purdy!

  8. Top | #418
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,853
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,892
    Rep Power
    85
    There's a market for such trinkets. Maybe Purdy is such a vendor. I do not know but remain curious. The manufacture of biblical artifacts and their sale among collectors and believers occurs similarly. The church of my youth allegedly had the relics of Saint Mathias entombed within the altar. Really? But believers believe so the market thrives.

    On a completely different note I made a realization today, no doubt expressed elsewhere, perhaps by many persons. It is that Oxford accomplished precisely that which he continues to be known for and doubted of, namely that he is the author. He continues to have plausible deniability and continues to have accreditation. It's mind blowing, really. It was so during his life and continues to be so.

    In a way I was also booted out of the Facebook site in that I was never granted entry. It was the only reason i signed up for Facebook.

    What the world needs is a book with the complete writings of Oxford. I mean everything, his letters, his early poetry, everything he transcribed that is at Hatfield, the whole works.
    And of course the Shakespeare canon.

    If TSM was the writer why did he hyphenate his name?

  9. Top | #419
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,867
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    6,041
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    There's a market for such trinkets. Maybe Purdy is such a vendor. I do not know but remain curious. The manufacture of biblical artifacts and their sale among collectors and believers occurs similarly. The church of my youth allegedly had the relics of Saint Mathias entombed within the altar. Really? But believers believe so the market thrives.

    On a completely different note I made a realization today, no doubt expressed elsewhere, perhaps by many persons. It is that Oxford accomplished precisely that which he continues to be known for and doubted of, namely that he is the author. He continues to have plausible deniability and continues to have accreditation. It's mind blowing, really. It was so during his life and continues to be so.

    In a way I was also booted out of the Facebook site in that I was never granted entry. It was the only reason i signed up for Facebook.

    What the world needs is a book with the complete writings of Oxford. I mean everything, his letters, his early poetry, everything he transcribed that is at Hatfield, the whole works.
    And of course the Shakespeare canon.

    If TSM was the writer why did he hyphenate his name?
    That's a good question, Moogly. Maybe TSM was not the writer?? And maybe Oxford was?
    When one has no character one has to apply a method. - Albert Camus, The Fall

  10. Top | #420
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,743
    Rep Power
    17
    Purdy's book is the least of my worries w/r researching claims on the topic. Consider this claim from Anderson's book. He suggests that the Author attended the single performance of a Dido which was performed only once (when TSM was 19 years old), but with a play-script surviving today. (But can anyone find that script on-line?) Guest of honor for the presentation was Albert Laski, a Polish General. This episode supposedly motivated a speech in Hamlet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet
    I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was never acted; or if it was, not above once; for the play, I remember, pleas'd not the million, 'twas caviary to the general; but it was (as I receiv'd it, and others, whose judgments in such matters cried in the top of mine) an excellent play, well digested in the scenes,...

    One speech in't I chiefly lov'd. 'Twas AEneas' tale to Dido, and thereabout of it especially where he speaks of Priam's slaughter. If it live in your memory, begin at this line- let me see, let me see:
    'The rugged Pyrrhus, like th' Hyrcanian beast-'
    'Tis not so; it begins with Pyrrhus:
    'The rugged Pyrrhus, he whose sable arms,...
    But then I try to check into this, I hit pay-walls. (And how might the play be "never acted" if it was "caviar to the general"? Adding confusion is that Marlowe wrote another Dido a few years later.)

    A lot of other claims are hard to pursue. Shame on whoever started this thread, rekindling my interest in this down-the-rabbit-hole topic!

    ETA: Irrelevant perhaps, but I was intrigued that Giordano Bruno, the famous "heretic," also allegedly attended the 1583 performance of Dido.

    EETA: Apparently TWO Didos were performed at that special 1583 presentation, Gager's (in Latin?) and Marlowe's. And I found a documentary video:
    http://edox.org.uk/projects/performi...ing-dido-film/

Posting Permissions

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