Page 15 of 23 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 225

Thread: The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

  1. Top | #141
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,096
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,135
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    That Oxford's death was kept secret (or possibly didn't happen on the stated date at all), and that he was reburied in Westminster Abbey (in "Poet's Corner"?) is very interesting. Waugh's speculations about Jonson's writings are also interesting and possibly correct, but they hardly constitute proof. I was expecting more.

    On the matter of surname spelling: anyone who's played with the genealogy of medieval England will tell you that such spellings are wildly inconsistent. I don't know if it would be probative one way or the other to find the "real" spellings from 16th-century Stratford, but they seem hard to find: most transcriptions "modernize" spelling. It may be best o ignore Wikipedia.

    In front of me now is Shakespeare: The Evidence, a virulently anti-Oxfordian biography by Ian Wilson. It cites a special marriage license issued 27 Nov. 1582 "inter Willelmum Shaxpere et Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton." I mention this NOT to demonstrate that "Shaxpere" was yet another rendition of that surname, but because of the bride's surname "Whateley." We all know he was married to "Hathaway", no? You can find biographies that insist the Bard loved some girl "Whateley" and was disappointed when "Hathaway" showed up (with a shotgun? :-) the next day demanding he marry her instead because she was pregnant! The reality is almost surely much simpler: Surname spelling was very lax (although the Hathaway-->Whateley blunder was extreme).

    I think it is absurd to imagine a coincidence where Oxford chose the "William Shake-speare" pseudonym and the same-named man from Stratford began putting his name on otherwise-anonymous plays independently. The usual explanation, I think, is that Stratford acted first; Oxford saw this and decided Shakespeare would be a convenient pen-name. My guess is that this was reversed: Oxford needed a "living breathing pen-name;" encountered a man with a name that delighted him; and hired Stratford to be his "frontman."
    Jonson takes issue with the Stratford man, calling him a poet ape, an actor. Many have opined that Jonson obviously knew he was not the author but was simply presenting the plays as his own. And honestly, De Vere likely wished it so. This also explains who there are plays out there with Shakespeare's name on them but that are not Shakespeare's.

    What do you make of the Golding letters which state that De Vere is buried in Westminster? I'm also curious your thoughts on the Droeshout Engraving. Do you agree with Orthodoxy that it is simply poor work?

    I think it's appropriate that we can buy Shakespeare literature today upon which the author's name is Edward De Vere.
    Respectfully, I maintain that you have jumped the proverbial gun, Moogly, at least with that last statement! For it to be appropriate to affix De Vere's name to the works of Shakespeare, a lot must be done: legal things at the very least.

    I find it beyond belief that the great majority of Shakespeare scholars would have sided, and still do to this day, with Shakespeare as Shakespeare, IF there is such a preponderance of scientific, forensic proof that De Vere was the author of those works.

    I regard it as given that at least some of the Shakespearean scholars down the years, and especially in modern times, have done the work and thoroughly investigated this alleged proof. I do realize that many orthodoxists, many 'true believers', have, still do, and will continue to pooh-pooh any and all authorship questions and theories about the great and deservedly, universally revered William Shakespeare.

    But be that as it may, this has given a great spark to my life, and I am finally feeling well again. I still have fears, worries, anxiety, and occasional depressive moments, even days; but I think I can safely declare that at present I feel good. In fact I feel strong. So strong that I suspect I am in a manic phase. If I begin to write about God and Christ and faith, that may be a good indicator that such is the case. This bulletin board contains my original die hard atheism, ingrained as a youth, adopted partially from my father and friends, and sustained until about my forty-sixth year.

    My conversion, and even my "being drawn to God" stage are documented here, and substantially, in the archives. I believe there is a thread of mine still extant wherein I expounded a theory about God, based at first in Spinozism, then blossoming full psychotic. It may be in Up in Flames or Elsewhere. It's called The Road to Understanding, or something grandiose like that. I am embarrassed by it, but in fact glad it is still around, so readers can see what vast sea-changes a person in the grip of delusional thinking, brought on by chemicals and medications both self -taken and professionally prescribed, often go through. There is much documentation and testimonials to such religious mania, and I believe physicians and neuroscientists have virtually nailed down the very place in the brain where they believe such things begin.

    I posted a link to a video featuring an individual who was going through religious experiences to a far greater degree than I ever did. A well known neuroscientist in the video had been helping the young man. I posted that video long before someone at TFT just recently suspected me of not having done any research into this phenomenon, and indeed, in not even caring to do so, even though she knows that I have mental problems and have been discussing that very thing, right here, since 2010 and 2011!

    My deconversion is also here, scattered about in my usual silly way.

    My usernames were WilliamB, then Gulielmus Beta (when I first converted), then Loretta J. Hyde, and finally back to WAB.

    Sorry for rambling, but I want you and Swammerdami to know that I really do wish to be taken seriously, despite my constantly gadding about trying to be funny. That behavior is double-edged: it has a healing effect, and also, well, I sometimes think I should have been a stand up comic...

    No really...etc&
    Loretta J. Hyde? I recall that one but not the others. I hope that my great ignorance didn't do anything monumentally stupid back then. If it ever did happen I apologize.

    I'm pretty certain that the works of Shakespeare are public domain so I don't think there is anything improper or illegal affixing Oxford's name, particularly when there are so many people who would agree including several SCOTUS judges. Oxfordians have asked the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to engage in a mock trial to prove their case and have been rejected. The SAC is trying to raise 100K as ante to get them to agree. If the Stratfordian case is so strong it should be easy money, so why not jump at the chance? Obviously it's because the matter is far from settled and in a trial setting with forensic evidence the case for Stratford isn't very strong at all. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite. So by refusing the offer the Stratfordians are simply protecting themselves.

    I get the mania and the depression message. Trust me. We could talk for a very long time about those things. Those conditions are part of my family so I am personally familiar with the situation. Everyone must find a coping strategy that works for them and it can take a lifetime of learning to get there and stay there. Believe me, I am not at all unfamiliar with your situation.

    But I'm glad to help make a difference.

  2. Top | #142
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,322
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    5,496
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post

    Respectfully, I maintain that you have jumped the proverbial gun, Moogly, at least with that last statement! For it to be appropriate to affix De Vere's name to the works of Shakespeare, a lot must be done: legal things at the very least.

    I find it beyond belief that the great majority of Shakespeare scholars would have sided, and still do to this day, with Shakespeare as Shakespeare, IF there is such a preponderance of scientific, forensic proof that De Vere was the author of those works.

    I regard it as given that at least some of the Shakespearean scholars down the years, and especially in modern times, have done the work and thoroughly investigated this alleged proof. I do realize that many orthodoxists, many 'true believers', have, still do, and will continue to pooh-pooh any and all authorship questions and theories about the great and deservedly, universally revered William Shakespeare.

    But be that as it may, this has given a great spark to my life, and I am finally feeling well again. I still have fears, worries, anxiety, and occasional depressive moments, even days; but I think I can safely declare that at present I feel good. In fact I feel strong. So strong that I suspect I am in a manic phase. If I begin to write about God and Christ and faith, that may be a good indicator that such is the case. This bulletin board contains my original die hard atheism, ingrained as a youth, adopted partially from my father and friends, and sustained until about my forty-sixth year.

    My conversion, and even my "being drawn to God" stage are documented here, and substantially, in the archives. I believe there is a thread of mine still extant wherein I expounded a theory about God, based at first in Spinozism, then blossoming full psychotic. It may be in Up in Flames or Elsewhere. It's called The Road to Understanding, or something grandiose like that. I am embarrassed by it, but in fact glad it is still around, so readers can see what vast sea-changes a person in the grip of delusional thinking, brought on by chemicals and medications both self -taken and professionally prescribed, often go through. There is much documentation and testimonials to such religious mania, and I believe physicians and neuroscientists have virtually nailed down the very place in the brain where they believe such things begin.

    I posted a link to a video featuring an individual who was going through religious experiences to a far greater degree than I ever did. A well known neuroscientist in the video had been helping the young man. I posted that video long before someone at TFT just recently suspected me of not having done any research into this phenomenon, and indeed, in not even caring to do so, even though she knows that I have mental problems and have been discussing that very thing, right here, since 2010 and 2011!

    My deconversion is also here, scattered about in my usual silly way.

    My usernames were WilliamB, then Gulielmus Beta (when I first converted), then Loretta J. Hyde, and finally back to WAB.

    Sorry for rambling, but I want you and Swammerdami to know that I really do wish to be taken seriously, despite my constantly gadding about trying to be funny. That behavior is double-edged: it has a healing effect, and also, well, I sometimes think I should have been a stand up comic...

    No really...etc&
    Loretta J. Hyde? I recall that one but not the others. I hope that my great ignorance didn't do anything monumentally stupid back then. If it ever did happen I apologize.

    I'm pretty certain that the works of Shakespeare are public domain so I don't think there is anything improper or illegal affixing Oxford's name, particularly when there are so many people who would agree including several SCOTUS judges. Oxfordians have asked the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to engage in a mock trial to prove their case and have been rejected. The SAC is trying to raise 100K as ante to get them to agree. If the Stratfordian case is so strong it should be easy money, so why not jump at the chance? Obviously it's because the matter is far from settled and in a trial setting with forensic evidence the case for Stratford isn't very strong at all. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite. So by refusing the offer the Stratfordians are simply protecting themselves.

    I get the mania and the depression message. Trust me. We could talk for a very long time about those things. Those conditions are part of my family so I am personally familiar with the situation. Everyone must find a coping strategy that works for them and it can take a lifetime of learning to get there and stay there. Believe me, I am not at all unfamiliar with your situation.

    But I'm glad to help make a difference.
    Thanks, Moogly.

    I know about public domain. When I said "legal" I am imagining the whole transition from Shakespeare to De Vere, not just the relatively small percentage of Shakespeare lovers who are in the Oxfordian camp. They can do what they like. Make books with the De Vere name, sell them to whomever wants to buy them. Have at it. I don't think the Stratford man's name or reputation is in any imminent peril.

    No matter how this goes for me personally, I am still, at this very moment, not averse to the possibility that I may become an Oxfordian.

    But let's go back to what I was saying. I don't believe you actually expect the majority of Shakespearean scholars and regular lovers of Shakespeare to simply acquiesce and go along with the erasure of that beloved name, and/or that very individual? It is simply not about to happen any time soon.

    I am planning on posting some citations from anti-Oxfordians, just for balance, in the thread. I do realize that you have read much or most if not all of the creditable (meaning Shakespearean scholars who have investigated the evidence Oxfordians claim to have amassed) objections and arguments, and my reasons for doing that have nothing to do with trying to persuade you or Swammerdami.

    I will also add that I have heard and read some things from Oxfordians which I consider to be superficial at least, and downright laughable at most. Tom Veal linked to a page somewhere that shows graphic charts and such showing correlations and correspondences between a variety of Shakespeare's lines, mostly from the sonnets I think, and De Vere's extant poems. Well, some of these connections were absurd on their face. There is also, or there is professed to be, scientific research and testing which virtually eliminates the possibility that De Vere could have written Shakespeare. I know that sounds vague. I cannot remember those links and pages. I should have made notes! I will allow for the possibility that such scientific data doesn't really exist.

    Back to legal issues for a moment: How would the process to replace Shakespeare's name with De Vere's go, anyway? Your camp would have to convince scholars, professors, librarians, book-sellers, book manufacturers, et al, in order to carry out such a monumental transition. Legal snags would be due to the very high probability that absolute, inviolate, incontrovertible proof of De Vere's authorship will not be forthcoming; and there would be too much money to be lost in simply going along with the tide, even for merchants and other professionals who believed that Oxford was the Author.

    More later...
    "Mine is the right to be wrong." - Ian Anderson

  3. Top | #143
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,096
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,135
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post

    Respectfully, I maintain that you have jumped the proverbial gun, Moogly, at least with that last statement! For it to be appropriate to affix De Vere's name to the works of Shakespeare, a lot must be done: legal things at the very least.

    I find it beyond belief that the great majority of Shakespeare scholars would have sided, and still do to this day, with Shakespeare as Shakespeare, IF there is such a preponderance of scientific, forensic proof that De Vere was the author of those works.

    I regard it as given that at least some of the Shakespearean scholars down the years, and especially in modern times, have done the work and thoroughly investigated this alleged proof. I do realize that many orthodoxists, many 'true believers', have, still do, and will continue to pooh-pooh any and all authorship questions and theories about the great and deservedly, universally revered William Shakespeare.

    But be that as it may, this has given a great spark to my life, and I am finally feeling well again. I still have fears, worries, anxiety, and occasional depressive moments, even days; but I think I can safely declare that at present I feel good. In fact I feel strong. So strong that I suspect I am in a manic phase. If I begin to write about God and Christ and faith, that may be a good indicator that such is the case. This bulletin board contains my original die hard atheism, ingrained as a youth, adopted partially from my father and friends, and sustained until about my forty-sixth year.

    My conversion, and even my "being drawn to God" stage are documented here, and substantially, in the archives. I believe there is a thread of mine still extant wherein I expounded a theory about God, based at first in Spinozism, then blossoming full psychotic. It may be in Up in Flames or Elsewhere. It's called The Road to Understanding, or something grandiose like that. I am embarrassed by it, but in fact glad it is still around, so readers can see what vast sea-changes a person in the grip of delusional thinking, brought on by chemicals and medications both self -taken and professionally prescribed, often go through. There is much documentation and testimonials to such religious mania, and I believe physicians and neuroscientists have virtually nailed down the very place in the brain where they believe such things begin.

    I posted a link to a video featuring an individual who was going through religious experiences to a far greater degree than I ever did. A well known neuroscientist in the video had been helping the young man. I posted that video long before someone at TFT just recently suspected me of not having done any research into this phenomenon, and indeed, in not even caring to do so, even though she knows that I have mental problems and have been discussing that very thing, right here, since 2010 and 2011!

    My deconversion is also here, scattered about in my usual silly way.

    My usernames were WilliamB, then Gulielmus Beta (when I first converted), then Loretta J. Hyde, and finally back to WAB.

    Sorry for rambling, but I want you and Swammerdami to know that I really do wish to be taken seriously, despite my constantly gadding about trying to be funny. That behavior is double-edged: it has a healing effect, and also, well, I sometimes think I should have been a stand up comic...

    No really...etc&
    Loretta J. Hyde? I recall that one but not the others. I hope that my great ignorance didn't do anything monumentally stupid back then. If it ever did happen I apologize.

    I'm pretty certain that the works of Shakespeare are public domain so I don't think there is anything improper or illegal affixing Oxford's name, particularly when there are so many people who would agree including several SCOTUS judges. Oxfordians have asked the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to engage in a mock trial to prove their case and have been rejected. The SAC is trying to raise 100K as ante to get them to agree. If the Stratfordian case is so strong it should be easy money, so why not jump at the chance? Obviously it's because the matter is far from settled and in a trial setting with forensic evidence the case for Stratford isn't very strong at all. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite. So by refusing the offer the Stratfordians are simply protecting themselves.

    I get the mania and the depression message. Trust me. We could talk for a very long time about those things. Those conditions are part of my family so I am personally familiar with the situation. Everyone must find a coping strategy that works for them and it can take a lifetime of learning to get there and stay there. Believe me, I am not at all unfamiliar with your situation.

    But I'm glad to help make a difference.
    Thanks, Moogly.

    I know about public domain. When I said "legal" I am imagining the whole transition from Shakespeare to De Vere, not just the relatively small percentage of Shakespeare lovers who are in the Oxfordian camp. They can do what they like. Make books with the De Vere name, sell them to whomever wants to buy them. Have at it. I don't think the Stratford man's name or reputation is in any imminent peril.

    No matter how this goes for me personally, I am still, at this very moment, not averse to the possibility that I may become an Oxfordian.

    But let's go back to what I was saying. I don't believe you actually expect the majority of Shakespearean scholars and regular lovers of Shakespeare to simply acquiesce and go along with the erasure of that beloved name, and/or that very individual? It is simply not about to happen any time soon.
    I don't perceive a need for any kind of transition. It isn't something that needs to be decided one way or the other. Perhaps one camp might bring suit against the other for some reason, but anyone can be sued by anyone for anything at anytime so that's not really an issue. It's Verey (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) much like Natural Selection/Evolution vs Intelligent design/Creationism imho. Anyone can observe Shakespeare for what it is whether ascribing the writings to the experiences of De Vere or not. Don't you agree? The claim among Stratfordians is that the Stratford man did not write from his experiences, that he just more or less rewrote earlier works, and of course a lot of that did occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    I am planning on posting some citations from anti-Oxfordians, just for balance, in the thread. I do realize that you have read much or most if not all of the creditable (meaning Shakespearean scholars who have investigated the evidence Oxfordians claim to have amassed) objections and arguments, and my reasons for doing that have nothing to do with trying to persuade you or Swammerdami.

    I will also add that I have heard and read some things from Oxfordians which I consider to be superficial at least, and downright laughable at most. Tom Veal linked to a page somewhere that shows graphic charts and such showing correlations and correspondences between a variety of Shakespeare's lines, mostly from the sonnets I think, and De Vere's extant poems. Well, some of these connections were absurd on their face. There is also, or there is professed to be, scientific research and testing which virtually eliminates the possibility that De Vere could have written Shakespeare. I know that sounds vague. I cannot remember those links and pages. I should have made notes! I will allow for the possibility that such scientific data doesn't really exist.

    Back to legal issues for a moment: How would the process to replace Shakespeare's name with De Vere's go, anyway? Your camp would have to convince scholars, professors, librarians, book-sellers, book manufacturers, et al, in order to carry out such a monumental transition. Legal snags would be due to the very high probability that absolute, inviolate, incontrovertible proof of De Vere's authorship will not be forthcoming; and there would be too much money to be lost in simply going along with the tide, even for merchants and other professionals who believed that Oxford was the Author.

    More later...
    Please do. That's what makes it interesting. And you may have me at a disadvantage as I'm not really that well read on the subject, believe it or not. I'm certainly no Shakespeare scholar, just very interested in the subject as my scientific mind latches on to whodunnits quite readily. But I have done a bit of creative writing and was a Lit major in college so do have some appreciation for the art of composing verse, same as yourself. It strikes me as quite odd that the claim is made that the Stratford man or any writer could not be personally motivated and involved in his craft, that it was just some sort of robotic enterprise to make a buck. I'd want some real world examples other than the Stratford man to help support and illustrate this claim.

    Enough for now...

  4. Top | #144
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    12
    As with Mr. Moogly, "whodunits" intrigue me, especially ancient or long-ago mysteries. (I started to list examples, but it would be a huge distraction here.) I have no "agenda" regarding the Shakespeare Authorship: it's just a mystery that's fun to think about or discuss.

    I admire your willingness to expose your personal issues, WAB. (Perhaps thinking about the Authorship will be a useful distraction for you.) Partly inspired by you, I am considering telling parts of my own life story in the Introduce Yourself forum here. It could quickly turn to embarrassing aspects of my life that nobody alive today knows, and might serve me as rehearsal for telling my kids — all adult now — about their father.


    I do want to comment on the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    ...
    I find it beyond belief that the great majority of Shakespeare scholars would have sided, and still do to this day, with Shakespeare as Shakespeare, IF there is such a preponderance of scientific, forensic proof that De Vere was the author of those works.

    I regard it as given that at least some of the Shakespearean scholars down the years, and especially in modern times, have done the work and thoroughly investigated this alleged proof. I do realize that many orthodoxists, many 'true believers', have, still do, and will continue to pooh-pooh any and all authorship questions and theories about the great and deservedly, universally revered William Shakespeare.
    I have great respect for scientists; my default is to accept expert opinion without question. This is especially true in the physical sciences (and math): Laymen who question the teachings of climatologists or even expert mechanical engineers are usually just making fools of themselves.

    But experts are far from infallible, especially in the "soft" sciences. (I myself was once a highly paid expert. Never mind what fields: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." :-) For example, you can read my comments in a TFT thread on prehistoric languages about the vitriolic debate among linguists regarding the Amerindian Hypothesis. Wikipedia will make it clear right away which side has the 51% in the Amerindian debate; but many experts (and one relatively well-read layman!) are rather certain the 49% are correct.

    As another genealogical example relevant to our thread — Henry Carey was one of the Lords Chamberlain who was a patron of a company which staged Shakespeare plays — there is much dispute about whether Henry Carey's father was William Carey or King Henry VIII. Genealogical experts (including the highly respected site I linked to earlier) agree that Henry was most likely the King's son and his older sister Catherine was almost certainly the King's daughter. Yet Wiki's Catherine Carey mentions her probable father only in a final section beginning with the phrase "In fiction." (BTW, Henry Carey had an affair with Emilia Lanier, allegedly the "Dark Lady" of the Sonnets!)

    (ETA:Re-reading that Wiki article just now, I see that Wiki now does give more mention of the Kingly fathership than I implied.)

    Anyway, there are many experts who agree with the anti-Stratfordians, but, since they are less than 51% in number, they get shouted down. And who is an "expert" anyway? Historians? Professors of literature? People with common sense or first-hand understanding of literary skill? Among the latter group there is a long list of writers (Twain, Whitman, James, etc.) who are anti-Stratfordian, along with half a dozen U.S. Supreme Court Justices (a group not noted for crackpottery).

    As for literary experts: I've presented them with numerous challenges (via Google, not in person!) to explain some of the Sonnets. Sonnets that make zero sense if written by Stratford but excellent sense if written by someone like Oxford. If Stratfordian scholars have any explanation whatsoever for these strange Sonnets (or for peculiarities like Peacham's anagram or the Troilus preface) they've kept it secret from Google.

  5. Top | #145
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,096
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,135
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    As with Mr. Moogly, "whodunits" intrigue me, especially ancient or long-ago mysteries. (I started to list examples, but it would be a huge distraction here.) I have no "agenda" regarding the Shakespeare Authorship: it's just a mystery that's fun to think about or discuss.

    I admire your willingness to expose your personal issues, WAB. (Perhaps thinking about the Authorship will be a useful distraction for you.) Partly inspired by you, I am considering telling parts of my own life story in the Introduce Yourself forum here. It could quickly turn to embarrassing aspects of my life that nobody alive today knows, and might serve me as rehearsal for telling my kids — all adult now — about their father.


    I do want to comment on the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    ...
    I find it beyond belief that the great majority of Shakespeare scholars would have sided, and still do to this day, with Shakespeare as Shakespeare, IF there is such a preponderance of scientific, forensic proof that De Vere was the author of those works.

    I regard it as given that at least some of the Shakespearean scholars down the years, and especially in modern times, have done the work and thoroughly investigated this alleged proof. I do realize that many orthodoxists, many 'true believers', have, still do, and will continue to pooh-pooh any and all authorship questions and theories about the great and deservedly, universally revered William Shakespeare.
    I have great respect for scientists; my default is to accept expert opinion without question. This is especially true in the physical sciences (and math): Laymen who question the teachings of climatologists or even expert mechanical engineers are usually just making fools of themselves.

    But experts are far from infallible, especially in the "soft" sciences. (I myself was once a highly paid expert. Never mind what fields: "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." :-) For example, you can read my comments in a TFT thread on prehistoric languages about the vitriolic debate among linguists regarding the Amerindian Hypothesis. Wikipedia will make it clear right away which side has the 51% in the Amerindian debate; but many experts (and one relatively well-read layman!) are rather certain the 49% are correct.

    As another genealogical example relevant to our thread — Henry Carey was one of the Lords Chamberlain who was a patron of a company which staged Shakespeare plays — there is much dispute about whether Henry Carey's father was William Carey or King Henry VIII. Genealogical experts (including the highly respected site I linked to earlier) agree that Henry was most likely the King's son and his older sister Catherine was almost certainly the King's daughter. Yet Wiki's Catherine Carey mentions her probable father only in a final section beginning with the phrase "In fiction." (BTW, Henry Carey had an affair with Emilia Lanier, allegedly the "Dark Lady" of the Sonnets!)

    (ETA:Re-reading that Wiki article just now, I see that Wiki now does give more mention of the Kingly fathership than I implied.)

    Anyway, there are many experts who agree with the anti-Stratfordians, but, since they are less than 51% in number, they get shouted down. And who is an "expert" anyway? Historians? Professors of literature? People with common sense or first-hand understanding of literary skill? Among the latter group there is a long list of writers (Twain, Whitman, James, etc.) who are anti-Stratfordian, along with half a dozen U.S. Supreme Court Justices (a group not noted for crackpottery).

    As for literary experts: I've presented them with numerous challenges (via Google, not in person!) to explain some of the Sonnets. Sonnets that make zero sense if written by Stratford but excellent sense if written by someone like Oxford. If Stratfordian scholars have any explanation whatsoever for these strange Sonnets (or for peculiarities like Peacham's anagram or the Troilus preface) they've kept it secret from Google.
    Does Anderson have anything to say bout the preface to Troilus and Cressida? As I continue reading SBAN it will be on my mind. Anderson contends that much of Shakespear's dramas were originally performed for the Queen, then recast later as stage plays for a general audience. But that doesn't help us understand the preface.

    Right now Oxford is 28 years old in 1578 and may have already written Troilus for the Queen. I will keep my radar up on this one. Very interesting. Peacham on the other hand is a done deal, there really isn't any mystery there, just anti-Oxfordian denial.

  6. Top | #146
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    494
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Does Anderson have anything to say bout the preface to Troilus and Cressida? As I continue reading SBAN it will be on my mind. Anderson contends that much of Shakespear's dramas were originally performed for the Queen, then recast later as stage plays for a general audience. But that doesn't help us understand the preface.

    Right now Oxford is 28 years old in 1578 and may have already written Troilus for the Queen. I will keep my radar up on this one. Very interesting. Peacham on the other hand is a done deal, there really isn't any mystery there, just anti-Oxfordian denial.
    Anderson mentions the curious fact that one edition of Troilus advertises that the play had been performed at Globe Theatre by The King's Men; a subsequent edition contradicted this with "Eternal reader, you have here a new play, never staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar ..." (Anderson doesn't mention that "eternal reader" might mean "Ever reader.")

    However Anderson does NOT seem to mention at all the preface I'm referring to: "From a Never Writer to an Ever Reader. News" (Anderson focuses on Oxford's biography, rather than miscellaneous external clues.)

    (I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about Peacham.)

  7. Top | #147
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,322
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    5,496
    Rep Power
    67
    In rereading here I see. I have overlooked some specific questions from Swammy & Moogly. I just want to quickly say that I am not ignoring them, I simply have a terrible short term memory and I also get very tangled up in distractions I make for myself.

    In the interest of staying honest, let me say a few things:

    First, Moogly, I agree that laymen will generally look foolish when disputing with scientists! No argument there from me. If you were to check, you would notice that in my nearly 17 years here I have only very rarely traipsed about in the science fora. I spent most of my time in philosophy and general discussion. I know my limits.

    About the Stratford monument - I don't know enough about that to venture a qualified opinion, but I will say it doesn't look good for our Stratford bloke. But what do I know?


    Golding letters, Drueshout engraving - I have no opinion yet, don't know enough. Let me look into that tomorrow and I'll see if I can venture anything my silly brain thinks about them.

    In the meantime, dang it, where's everybody else? 150 active members and it's already whittled down to the three of us?

    Dagnabbit!

    More later...
    "Mine is the right to be wrong." - Ian Anderson

  8. Top | #148
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,322
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    5,496
    Rep Power
    67
    Egads.

    I have spent an hour or more in a thread on Facebook.

    In a group called ShakesVere, which I joined. I found the group through a friend, who's apparently an Oxfordian.

    Yikes!

    I shall not be continuing with that group...

    "Over to you, Howard!"

    ...
    Last edited by WAB; 01-14-2021 at 10:39 AM.
    "Mine is the right to be wrong." - Ian Anderson

  9. Top | #149
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,096
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,135
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    Egads.

    I have spent an hour or more in a thread on Facebook.

    In a group called ShakesVere, which I joined. I found the group through a friend, who's apparently an Oxfordian.

    Yikes!

    I shall not be continuing with that group...

    "Over to you, Howard!"

    ...
    ShakesVere? That is clever. I don't do facebook but that would be a proper reason to join.

    Shakespeare and the authorship question isn't so interesting a subject for the general population so I'm not surprised that so few people participate. The authorship question, however, has made Shakespeare much more interesting for me.

    And by scientific I simply mean evidence based.

  10. Top | #150
    Veteran Member WAB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    3,322
    Archived
    2,174
    Total Posts
    5,496
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WAB View Post
    Egads.

    I have spent an hour or more in a thread on Facebook.

    In a group called ShakesVere, which I joined. I found the group through a friend, who's apparently an Oxfordian.

    Yikes!

    I shall not be continuing with that group...

    "Over to you, Howard!"

    ...
    ShakesVere? That is clever. I don't do facebook but that would be a proper reason to join.

    Shakespeare and the authorship question isn't so interesting a subject for the general population so I'm not surprised that so few people participate. The authorship question, however, has made Shakespeare much more interesting for me.

    And by scientific I simply mean evidence based.
    Yeah, I think you should consider joining the group, Moogly. Mark Anderson is in it. Assuming it's the same Mark Anderson. One never knows these days.

    Linky: https://www.facebook.com/groups/shakesvere/


    I do wish to say a couple things, however, and I hope you and Swammy will not take offense. Rest assured, none is intended. And no matter what happens, I am still grateful to you and Swammy for helping me find renewed interest in living. Thanks!

    Now. The reason I said I will not be continuing with that group is because, from what I have read thus far, I suspect that at least some of those folks have lost their marbles. I say this with affection, as one who has lost lots of marbles over recent years. Um, well let's just say I only have two marbles left. I know because I just counted them.

    *

    To you and Swammy:

    Have either of you read Umberto Eco's novel, Foucault's Pendulum? If not, I think you would enjoy it. I read it around the time it came out and it has stuck with me.

    Linky (spoiler warning): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum
    "Mine is the right to be wrong." - Ian Anderson

Posting Permissions

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