Oxford, His Life and Times
david joseph kathman
Patrick has apologized for accusing me of igoring his first post to me,
and I accept his apology. These things happen with Usenet. In the
interests of accuracy, I'm going to respond to a couple of things in
the remainder of the post, though I don't plan to make a habit of this.
In article <19970422212...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
SUSUPPLY <susu...@aol.com> wrote:
>"I seem to remember reading that the financial difficulties of the Earldom
>of Oxford, started when Henry VII fined the 13th Earl 10,000 Pounds, late
>in the 15th century, for exceeding the legal number of retainers allowed
>him, during the king’s visit to the Earl’s castle. Do you have any
>information about this? Also, do you know what the 17th Earl’s financial
>situation was when, after his father’s death, he became a Royal Ward under
>the supervision of Wm. Cecil, and what it was when he attained his
>majority? That is, while young Edward was living in Cecil’s house, did
>his financial situation improve, remain the same, or deteriorate; and what
>did it cost the young man to live with Cecil?
>
>You say that by 1575 he was 6,000 Pounds in debt, do you know what the
>money had been spent on? I have read that he was, at even an early age, a
>patron of writers. Gabriel Harvey, I believe, wrote of having "Angels"
>bestowed upon him by Oxford when he was at university."
>
>Kathman’s answers to me were: "A reasonable question, to which I don’t
>know the answer.", and "…I don’t think his patronage…would have been the
>cause of his poverty.". I hate to have to continually spell out these
>things, but both Kathman and Ross are very good at "missing the point":
>If Kathman doesn’t "know the answer" to my questions, then he has no
>business making "sweeping statements"—as he did to Julia—such as "Edward
>de Vere bankrupted his Earldom by spending all his money….".
The fact that I can't itemize what Oxford spent the money on does not
mean that he didn't spend it. Do you want receipts?
>He does something of the same with this:
>
>"Elizabeth gave him an annuity of 1,000 lbs.
>a year for life, starting in 1586."….
>
>"He got the annuity because he had spent all his money and completely
>ruined the Earldom his father had left him, and it wouldn't do
>to have one of the oldest Earldoms in the kingdom going bankrupt."….
>
>"The language of the grant, as well as later documents, make it
>absolutely clear that the purpose was to allow Oxford to maintain
>appearances until he could find some other source of income, at which
>time the annuity would cease."
>
>Well those statements didn’t strike me as being what I had read about the
>1,000 pound grant, so I asked him to provide the relevant documents, and
>he merely replied:
>
>"Well, I suppose I could. The text of the grant is readily available
>(on p.688 of Ogburn, among other places), and the other documents I
>alluded to are discussed by Irvin Matus in *Shakespeare, IN FACT*,
>pp. 256-61."
>
>Now, I have just reviewed what the language of the grant is (on page 688
>of Ogburn), and it says nothing about allowing the Earl to "maintain
>appearances", much less "make it absolutely clear that [that was] the
>purpose"! What Kathman told Julia, is a bald faced lie!
Um, no. I mentioned both the original grant, which is available
in Ogburn, as well as later documents, which are discussed and quoted
by Matus. From what you write, you seem to have only looked at the
original grant, but it is the later documents which make it clear what
the purpose of the grant was. Lurkers are invited to look at Matus'
book, cited above.
>Here I am going to turn to one of my E-mail correspondents—someone who has
>had dealings with Kathman in the past—who wrote this, about Kathman, to
>me: "I was surprised…to find, on analysing the data he presented, how
>much he had misrepresented it before I induced him to cough it up for
>analysis." I ask fair minded readers: Is that not exactly what I just
>found in Kathman’s remarks to Julia?
I know who this e-mail corrspondent is. Last fall we had a discussion
here about the spelling of Shakespeare's name, in which the
correspondent in question claimed that I had manipulated the facts.
I had done nothing of the sort, and in fact I had made my data
publicly available from the beginning; there was no need to make
me "cough it up". I clarified what I had actually written and defended
it against the correspondent's claims, which were inaccurate and
vague. I heard no more on the matter. If the correspondent would
like to debate the same facts here again, I'd be happy to do so.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Robert L Smith
Concerning Oxford's spending, Aubrey's Brief Lives (Penguin edition) has
this to say,
"...he lived at Florence in more grandeur than the Duke of Tuscany. This
Earle spent fourty thousand pounds per annum in seaven yeares Travell."
The 40,000 number is doubtless to high, but there was clearly tradition of
a spendthrift Earl in the 17th century.
Robert L. Smith
<rls...@iac.net>
Stephanie Hughes
Burghley enriched himself via the Court of Wards, not only through
taking the richest prizes for himself, but by essentially robbing the
Crown. It is Joel Hurstfield that presents the evidence, yet, like so
many English historians from that day to this, he refuses to draw the
inescapable conclusions from his own material. Two other instances come
to mind. In a recent book by Charles Nicholl, The Reckoning, about the
murder, or silencing at any rate, of Christopher Marlowe, his own
exhaustively researched evidence that it was Robert Cecil who
orchestrated the sting that brought CM to heel is ignored, while Nicholl
goes galloping off on a wild goose chase to prove that it was Essex who
had Marlowe killed. In his biography of Burghley, Conyers Read, the
truthtelling historian, is forced to reveal facts about Burghley that
lead one to the inevitable conclusion that he had something to do with
the death of Amy Robsart, yet all Read will say is, "this was most
uncharacteristic behavior" on Burghley's part. Historians love Burghley
because he left them so much paper, and the English love him because he
set England on the road to empire, but he didn't get his 300 estates by
quoting the book of common prayer, and he didn't make all the political
omelettes he cooked up without breaking a whole lot of eggs. The
English can see the mote in their neighbors eye, that is, the
machiavellian nature of French politicians like Mazarin and Richelieu,
and point with horror at the behavior of the Italian renaissance
princes, but they won't look at the mote in their own eye. William Cecil
was the Lord Treasurer, secretary of state and spymaster for forty years
of a renaissance Court. He was no Santa Claus. This, of course, has
nothing to do with whether or not Oxford wasted a great deal of his
estate. He probably did. Only let's keep the nature of William Cecil in
perspective.
Stephanie Hughes
Richard Nathan
pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
>In article <335fcc9f...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>thomas...@dial.pipex.com (Thomas Larque) wrote:
>
>... a few questionable assumptions, but many interesting points about
> Oxford's spending behavior... and the many nobles clamoring for
> positions and favour...
>
>I guess you would agree that Oxford fits JT Looney's assessment of
>the Shakespeare author: "Loose and improvident in money matters." ?
>
In view of the fact that Looney thought Oxford wrote the plays, it seems
evident that Looney would think the author was loose and improvident in
money matters. Is there any evidence in the plays or poems themselves
which would support the theory that the author was loose and improvident
in money matters?
In any event, I don't think Oxoford's being loose and improvident in money
matters disqualifies him as the author, but I do not think it supports the
theory that he is the author either.
Stephanie Hughes
> pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
> >I guess you would agree that Oxford fits JT Looney's assessment of
> >the Shakespeare author: "Loose and improvident in money matters." ?
> >
Richard Nathan wrote:
> In view of the fact that Looney thought Oxford wrote the plays, it seems
> evident that Looney would think the author was loose and improvident in
> money matters. Is there any evidence in the plays or poems themselves
> which would support the theory that the author was loose and improvident
> in money matters?
Stephanie:
Just off the top of my head:
Timon of Athens, the entire plot.
Othello: Iago: "Who steals my purse steals trash, etc." (One of many
indications that Iago is an aristocrat, and not just a common soldier.
His connection with the author may be seen in his name, I-ago, meaning
that Iago represents the author's nature at an earlier stage before he
acquired compassion.)
As You Like It, the traveller who sold his lands to see the lands of
others (sorry, can't remember it in more detail)
Merchant of Venice: Antonio is prepared to bankrupt himself out of love
of Bassiano. The entire plot of MOV is devoted to the debate between the
old feudal code which regarded usury with horror and the new middle
class practise of using money to make money. (It is interesting that
Oxford invested heavily in 1578 in an overseas venture, losing his
entire investment, and that the name of the agent who lost the money was
Michael Lok.)
12th Night: Antonio gives Sebastian his whole purse, leaving himself
with nothing.
Henry IV: Falstaff lives high on the hog, yet cannot pay his bill.
Falstaff's money troubles are a prominent feature of every play he is
in. (Falstaff's connection with his author is shown by the fact that his
name is a pun on Shakespeare.)
King Lear: the king's foolishness in giving away his entire patrimony.
Several commentators have pointed out that Lear is in essence an aging
Timon. (It is interesting that Oxford also had three daughters, and was
forced by his father-in-law to sign over his ancient patrimony,
Hedingham Castle, to them, in 1589, about the time of the Leir play,
considered Shakespeare's "source" for Lear.)
(In addition, if, as I think possible, Robert Greene was Oxford's
standin before he began using Shakespeare, the prodigal son theme was
Greene's favorite plot throughout his entire oeuvre, the wastrel youth
who squanders his patrimony on wine and women being his primary
character in tale after tale.)
Richard Nathan
Stephanie Hughes <para...@SpiritOne.com> wrote:
>
>> pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
>> >I guess you would agree that Oxford fits JT Looney's assessment of
>> >the Shakespeare author: "Loose and improvident in money matters." ?
>> >
>Richard Nathan wrote:
>> In view of the fact that Looney thought Oxford wrote the plays, it seems
>> evident that Looney would think the author was loose and improvident in
>> money matters. Is there any evidence in the plays or poems themselves
>> which would support the theory that the author was loose and improvident
>> in money matters?
>
>Stephanie:
>
>Just off the top of my head:
>
I would think that all of the examples Stephanie gives would show that the
author was a man who was very wary about NOT throwing away his money.
>Timon of Athens, the entire plot.
The entire plot of TIMON OF ATHENS shows how foolish Timon was for wasting
his money giving gifts to everyone and throwing lavish feasts that he
could not afford.
>
>Othello: Iago: "Who steals my purse steals trash, etc." (One of many
>indications that Iago is an aristocrat, and not just a common soldier.
>His connection with the author may be seen in his name, I-ago, meaning
>that Iago represents the author's nature at an earlier stage before he
>acquired compassion.)
I don't think so. Iago is a devil, a malicious being of almost pure evil.
Are you saying that's what Oxford was like as a child? In any event,
surely you do not think Oxford - or the author of the plays - really
honestly meant the line about "Who steals my purse steals trash."
Actually, Iago is Spanish for James.
>
>As You Like It, the traveller who sold his lands to see the lands of
>others (sorry, can't remember it in more detail)
I don't remember this myself.
>
>Merchant of Venice: Antonio is prepared to bankrupt himself out of love
>of Bassiano. The entire plot of MOV is devoted to the debate between the
>old feudal code which regarded usury with horror and the new middle
>class practise of using money to make money. (It is interesting that
>Oxford invested heavily in 1578 in an overseas venture, losing his
>entire investment, and that the name of the agent who lost the money was
>Michael Lok.)
Antonio had no reason to believe he would lose all his ships, so I don't
think he was really being wasteful with his money. But in any event, I
don't see this as the sort of play that would be written by a wasteful
man. Maybe by a formerly wasteful man, who learned the error of his
ways. But Oxford seems to have been wasteful all his life.
>
>12th Night: Antonio gives Sebastian his whole purse, leaving himself
>with nothing.
Again, I think the author was showing the dangers of this.
>
>Henry IV: Falstaff lives high on the hog, yet cannot pay his bill.
>Falstaff's money troubles are a prominent feature of every play he is
>in. (Falstaff's connection with his author is shown by the fact that his
>name is a pun on Shakespeare.)
Now you're claiming that the author identified with both Iago and
Falstaff???????
>
>King Lear: the king's foolishness in giving away his entire patrimony.
>Several commentators have pointed out that Lear is in essence an aging
>Timon. (It is interesting that Oxford also had three daughters, and was
>forced by his father-in-law to sign over his ancient patrimony,
>Hedingham Castle, to them, in 1589, about the time of the Leir play,
>considered Shakespeare's "source" for Lear.)
As you should know, the plot of King Lear was not invented by
Shakespeare. It was around for a a very long time before the author was
born. But once again, the play seems to show the evils of wasting money,
so would not be written by someone who personally believed money should
be lavishly thrown away.
Mark Alexander
Richard, your response to Stephanie indicates strongly that you have NOT
read Ogburn's tome. Is that correct? Otherwise, it would seem to me that
you could not reduce her argument to such simplistic terms.
Mark Alexander
--
_______________________________________________
The Underground Grammarian http://members.aol.com/hu4wahz/ug/index.html
The School of Pythagoras
http://members.aol.com/areoasis/Reviews/pythagoras.html
Richard Nathan
Stephanie Hughes <para...@SpiritOne.com> wrote:
>
(snip)
>
>Othello: Iago: "Who steals my purse steals trash, etc." (One of many
>indications that Iago is an aristocrat, and not just a common soldier.
>His connection with the author may be seen in his name, I-ago, meaning
>that Iago represents the author's nature at an earlier stage before he
>acquired compassion.)
>
Do Stephanie's fellow Oxfordian's agree that Oxford wrote Iago as a
self-portrait?
Richard Nathan
No, I haven't read the tome, and I have no intention of doing so - unless
someone on the board can first make a sensible case for Oxford writing the
work. Why should I waste my time reading 900 pages, when no one here has
been able to make it sound sensible.
Do you agree with Stephanie that Oxford wrote Iago as a self-portrait?
Richard Nathan
Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Richard Nathan wrote:
>
>> Mark Alexander wrote:
>> >Richard, your response to Stephanie indicates strongly that you have NOT
>> >read Ogburn's tome. Is that correct? Otherwise, it would seem to me that
>> >you could not reduce her argument to such simplistic terms.
>>
>> someone on the board can first make a sensible case for Oxford writing the
>> work.
>
>support for the Stratfordian authorship (as I recall), then doesn't it
>seem that you have already closed the door to "a sensible case" being
>made?
>
If someone WERE to post sensible arguements for Oxford, I would be willing
to consider them, but it seems unlikely given the fact that I have read so
many posts so far, and have yet to see a sensible arguement.
Actually, when I first heard the Oxfordian case, it did make some sense to
me. At the time I first heard it, I understood the arguement to be that
playwrighting was considered a shameful thing for a member of the court to
be involved in, so Oxford had to use a pseudonym. But then, as I heard
more about the case, I learned that Oxford was already credited with
writing plays - and that according to most Oxfordians, Queen Elizabeth and
most of the other members of the court knew that Oxford was writing
plays. The theory no longer made any sense to me. And the more I read
here, the less sense it makes.
I notice that you, more than any of the other Oxfordians, keep telling
people that they must read Ogburn. You don't seem to have much confidence
in your own ability to make an arguement. If ANYONE on this board will
make a reasonable, compelling arguement for Oxford - then I will read
Ogburn, but so far no one has.
>If not, how would you expect one to go about making such a case?
>
>The rather scattershot posts on this newsgroup certainly are unable to
>address the rather large issues involved in making such a case (somewhat
>akin to murder trial where there are no eyewitnesses, just mounds of
>circumstantial evidence on both sides...well, one side <g>.
I undgerstand that the <g> means you are trying to make a joke, but I
don't get it. Which side do you think has mounds of circumstantial
evidence? The Oxfordians are so illogical that some of them actually
believe there is no evidence whatsoever that William Shakespeare wrote the
plays, dispite his being credited with the authorship at the time.
.and
>inductive arguments arising from that evidence, as well as the deductive
>arguments.)
>
>> Why should I waste my time reading 900 pages, when no one here has
>> been able to make it sound sensible.
>
>You define it as a waste without having read it. Seems to me you really
>*have* closed the door to a sensible case being made. Given the nature
>of our psychological counterpart to the Reticular Activating System (a
>network of neural cells that screen out information regarded as without
>value), I doubt that even if such a case were made that your *censor*
>would even allow that information through.
>
>> Do you agree with Stephanie that Oxford wrote Iago as a self-portrait?
>
>This questions seems like a set up to ridicule me for having an
>UNsensible opinion.
Yeah, that's because it IS an unsensible opinion. A while ago, you
accused me of using reductio ad adsurdum when I restated two of your
actual arguements. I did not carry them to an absurd conculsion, those
were things you really said. You may wish to deny them now, but you
really did say once that if people knew Oxford wrote the plays, then they
would know Queen Elizabeth wasn't a virgin. And you really did quote the
arguement that the statue of Shakespeare did not look like a great
playwright because of the man's physical appearance.
>
>Suffice it to say that if a good case is made for Oxford's authorship,
>then an unusually rich reading emerges from the plays, one that actually
>generates much worthy of reflection.
>
>Anyone can find *patterns*. A pattern only reveals itself as valuable
>and possibly based in reality when it demonstrates a clear capacity to
>open up more information, more that "clicks in", more that aligns with
>larger understandings.
>
>So far, my readings of the plays from the point of view of Oxford's
>authorship has revealed tremendously *Shakespearean* layers and clearing
>up quite a number of obscure passages (obscure to Stratfordians, that
>is).
Please give me a good example of one of these obscure passages.
I've always felt that if you had to know the details of an author's life
to understand what the writer was talking about, then the writer was not
doing a very good job. I know, I know, you have to know details of
Elliot's life and Joyce's life to understand some of their references -
but that's still my opinion.
>
>Please don't ask me to try to make a sensible case for you. You have yet
>to show that the effort has any hope of making an impression...So,
>probably, I should say that the best case is made in the 900-page tome,
>and that you are at a clear disadvantage discussing the Oxfordian
>authorship until you do read it.
>
>There are plenty of other threads. Why do you waste your time with the
>Oxfordian threads if you think it a waste of time even to read the
>principle source of the argument?
>
>Mark Alexander
>
>*** This sentence contradicts itself and, er...well, actually it
>doesn't.
Caius Marcius
In <33653F...@SpiritOne.com> Stephanie Hughes
<para...@SpiritOne.com> writes:
>
>> Thus, Iago is a compound, of Howard, perhaps of other
>betrayers, and also of himself. As Nelson has demonstrated,
>Oxford/Shakespeare had a lot to regret in later life.
Apparently, Oxford didn't get out to the theatre much. Oxfordians seem
to believe that everything in the plays was based on the Earl's
biography, and nothing on the stage and genre conventions of the
Elizabethan theatre. Therefore, we would be mistaken to think of Iago
as the triumphant apotheosis of the Italianate Machiavellian stage
villian of 100 earlier productions.
- CMC
Peter Wilson
In article <5k51vs$d...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If someone WERE to post sensible arguements for Oxford, I would be willing
>to consider them, but it seems unlikely given the fact that I have read so
>many posts so far, and have yet to see a sensible arguement.
>Actually, when I first heard the Oxfordian case, it did make some sense to
>me. At the time I first heard it, I understood the arguement to be that
>playwrighting was considered a shameful thing for a member of the court to
>be involved in, so Oxford had to use a pseudonym. But then, as I heard
>more about the case, I learned that Oxford was already credited with
>writing plays - and that according to most Oxfordians, Queen Elizabeth and
> most of the other members of the court knew that Oxford was writing
>plays. The theory no longer made any sense to me. And the more I read
>here, the less sense it makes.
<snip>
>The Oxfordians are so illogical that some of them actually
>believe there is no evidence whatsoever that William Shakespeare wrote the
>plays, dispite his being credited with the authorship at the time.
>>> Why should I waste my time reading 900 pages, when no one here has
>>> been able to make it sound sensible.
Richard, above are some of your comments that the Oxfordian case
essentially makes no sense. My question for you is:
Why does it make sense to so many highly-educated, highly-knowledgable
lovers of Shakespeare ? < I exclude myself from such company as a novice>
What makes people like Mark Rylance (artistic director of the new Globe),
and Derek Jacobi doubt the Stratford man, and believe in Oxford's
authorship ? Are these men and all other Oxfordians "nonsensical" to you ?
On the issue of your stubborn resistance to the Oxford case (my opinion),
and your unwillingness to read Ogburn's Mysterious William Shakespeare, you
may wish to read a short article by James Hammond on:
"Why Stratfordians Are So Stubborn" at:
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/shak2.htm
Regards, Peter.
"I agreed to put my name to a school of thought that maintains that the
earl, Edward de Vere, was the author of the plays,"...
"Where did this Shakespeare come from? Where did all that knowledge and
eloquence and truth come from?"... "I am highly
suspicious of that gentleman from Stratford on Avon,"... "I'm
pretty convinced our playwright wasn't that fellow. This opinion is very
unpopular with the good burghers of Stratford, I realize, but they also
make their living on the legend of Shakespeare's local origins. I don't
think it was him."
- Derek Jacobi, Washington Times, 4/25/97
Richard Nathan
pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
>In article <5k51vs$d...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
><Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>to consider them, but it seems unlikely given the fact that I have read so
>>many posts so far, and have yet to see a sensible arguement.
>
>>Actually, when I first heard the Oxfordian case, it did make some sense to
>>me. At the time I first heard it, I understood the arguement to be that
>>playwrighting was considered a shameful thing for a member of the court to
>>be involved in, so Oxford had to use a pseudonym. But then, as I heard
>>more about the case, I learned that Oxford was already credited with
>>writing plays - and that according to most Oxfordians, Queen Elizabeth and
>> most of the other members of the court knew that Oxford was writing
>>plays. The theory no longer made any sense to me. And the more I read
>>here, the less sense it makes.
>
>
>>The Oxfordians are so illogical that some of them actually
>>believe there is no evidence whatsoever that William Shakespeare wrote the
>>plays, dispite his being credited with the authorship at the time.
>
>>>> been able to make it sound sensible.
>
>essentially makes no sense.
Please explain why not.
>My question for you is:
>
>Why does it make sense to so many highly-educated, highly-knowledgable
>lovers of Shakespeare ?
An appeal to authority? Come on, Even Oxfordians have to admit that
most scholars say the mann from Stratford wrote the plays.
< I exclude myself from such company as a novice>
>
>What makes people like Mark Rylance (artistic director of the new Globe),
>and Derek Jacobi doubt the Stratford man, and believe in Oxford's
>authorship ? Are these men and all other Oxfordians "nonsensical" to you ?
I cannot say why Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi doubt the Oxford man and
believe in Oxford because I have not spoken to them. I wonder how much
research they have done on the matter.
>
>On the issue of your stubborn resistance to the Oxford case (my opinion),
>and your unwillingness to read Ogburn's Mysterious William Shakespeare, you
>may wish to read a short article by James Hammond on:
>"Why Stratfordians Are So Stubborn" at:
I read the article, and found very little in it that actually relates
specifically to Oxford and Shakespeare. It deals more with why people in
general can be close minded.
>
>http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/shak2.htm
>
>
>Regards, Peter.
>
>
>"I agreed to put my name to a school of thought that maintains that the
>earl, Edward de Vere, was the author of the plays,"...
>"Where did this Shakespeare come from? Where did all that knowledge and
>eloquence and truth come from?"... "I am highly
>suspicious of that gentleman from Stratford on Avon,"... "I'm
>pretty convinced our playwright wasn't that fellow. This opinion is very
>unpopular with the good burghers of Stratford, I realize, but they also
>make their living on the legend of Shakespeare's local origins. I don't
>think it was him."
>
>- Derek Jacobi, Washington Times, 4/25/97
Please, if you can, give me a rational explanation as to why Oxford would
use a pseudonym, when supposedly Queen Elizabeth and most of the major
figures at court were aware he was the author of the plays. Were they
worried that the common people would find out and say, "Oh my God, one of
the members of the court is writing plays. We are scandalized that any
one of them would do something so lower class. Let's have a bloody
revolution and establish a democracy!"
Stephanie Hughes
Richard Nathan wrote:
> Please, if you can, give me a rational explanation as to why Oxford would
> use a pseudonym, when supposedly Queen Elizabeth and most of the major
> figures at court were aware he was the author of the plays.
plays, but not all were aware of everything he did. SH]
> worried that the common people would find out and say, "Oh my God, one of
> the members of the court is writing plays. We are scandalized that any
> one of them would do something so lower class. Let's have a bloody
> revolution and establish a democracy!"
Stephanie:
It is a good question, in fact, it is THE question. That is, it is THE
question to a twentieth century American. The English, particularly the
English of previous centuries, have an instinctive understanding of this
issue; but it needs to be spelled out to most Americans. It's too
complex to explain to full satisfaction here, but I'll try to make a
couple of points, with the understanding that it requires a book, not a
single post.
We don't understand because we don't have royalty or aristocracy as they
did. We live by different rules, in an altogether different paradigm,
and in order for us to understand why a nobleman would write under a
pseudonym (as many did, then and for a good two centuries to follow) we
must make an effort to reconstruct the paradigm that required such a
response. We must also understand that things that are taken for granted
in a culture are often NOT MENTIONED. A recent and minor example comes
from Peter Schiekele (spelling?) who explains that the principle of the
echo in Baroque music was so understood by players of the day that it
was never notated in any way, thus causing much misunderstanding for
modern players. When we reconstruct the paradigms by which other
societies have lived, we must find these factors that are hidden to us,
but that were so powerful at the time that THEY ARE NEVER MENTIONED.
Such factors have usually to do with sex and power, although not always.
It is a little like the Jehovah of the Jews, the name they were
forbidden to mention.
The first point that needs to be understood is the attitude held at the
time by everyone, not just the arisotcracy, towards the comparatively
new phenomenon of writing for publication, and the attitudes held toward
the writing of fiction in particular. These attitudes are often
mentioned in passing by historians, but not given the weight that they
would be given by, say, a cultural anthropologist.
The second is the law of inertia, that once a thing is set in motion it
tends to remain as it is, or to continue to move in a certain direction,
if no one makes an effort to alter it.
The third has to do with the nature of the aristocracy, how they
percieved themselves, how they were percieved by the middle and working
classes, and how they are percieved today.
The fourth has to do with Oxford's own personal situation as an orphan
living under the control of the most powerful man in England, married to
his daughter, with all his funds under his father-in-law's, and the
Queen's, control.
The fifth has to do with the nature of William Cecil, into whose home
and under whose control, Oxford came at the age of twelve, and with the
nature of the Cecil family in the years and centuries following, one of
the most powerful of all English families, over the period of English
colonial domination, and continuing today. David Cecil is an important
English writer and historian of the present time.
The sixth has to do with the rising tide of Puritanism, with its threat
to the stability of the nation and the ancient and inter-related
hierarchies of class and religion, a tide that would engulf the English
establishment in the following half-century, and change it permanently,
and not in all ways for the better, particularly in the area of the
arts.
The seventh has to do with the nature of the Revels, of their powerful
hold on the English psyche, their meaning, much of it still hidden in
arcane folkways, and their tremendous importance to the origins of
theater and published fiction, still not recognized, again because it
falls between the stools of lit. crit. and history, belonging, again, to
the field of cultural anthropology.
Thus, you see, the issue is highly complex. These are only the chapter
headings, not the exegesis, which I will expand upon if there is any
interest. Oxford's story is a fascinating one, even if we never see it
in full, and certainly worth the telling.
Richard Nathan
You haven't answered my basic question - which is why would Oxford be so
concerned about using a pseudonym if Queen Elizabeth herself knew he was
the author of the plays? Who was he trying to fool?
Peter Wilson
In article <5k7pui$p...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Peter wrote:
>>Why does it make sense to so many highly-educated, highly-knowledgable
>>lovers of Shakespeare ?
>An appeal to authority? Come on, Even Oxfordians have to admit that
>most scholars say the man from Stratford wrote the plays.
Richard,
No... I'm not appealing to anyone's authority. I'm challenging your
remark about the Oxfordian case "making sense".
I'm asking you to re-examine your absolute rejectionist
attitude towards the Oxford attribution by asking you to consider:
"Why do so many highly-educated, highly-knowledgable lovers of
Shakespeare doubt the Stratford man and believe in Oxford ?"
I don't expect a reply. Consider it a personal exercise. : )
And yes, I think I understand why "most scholars" believe the man from
Stratford wrote the plays. I accept that they cannot easily reject
that which they have been taught and nurtured and in some respects
prospered with all their lives. They, to some extent, have my sympathy
and understanding. *Belief* in Shakespeare, the common
man from Stratford, is also re-enforced by our shared democratic ideals:
that even the most humble and unprivileged of us can rise up and write the
greatest works in the English language. This is a *huge* barrier that
anti-Stratfordians must face when they attribute the canon to a
member of the priveleged peerage.
>< I exclude myself from such company as a novice>
>>
>>What makes people like Mark Rylance (artistic director of the new Globe),
>>and Derek Jacobi doubt the Stratford man, and believe in Oxford's
>>authorship ? Are these men and all other Oxfordians "nonsensical" to you ?
>
>I cannot say why Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi doubt the Oxford man and
>believe in Oxford because I have not spoken to them. I wonder how much
>research they have done on the matter.
I assume that they have some understanding of the canon, some
experience interpreting it, a understanding of how the author might
have intended the material to be presented. Or they could just be
*starry-eyed snobs*.. but I doubt it. : )
>>On the issue of your stubborn resistance to the Oxford case (my opinion),
>>and your unwillingness to read Ogburn's Mysterious William Shakespeare, you
>>may wish to read a short article by James Hammond on:
>>"Why Stratfordians Are So Stubborn" at:
>>http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/shak2.htm
>
>I read the article, and found very little in it that actually relates
>specifically to Oxford and Shakespeare. It deals more with why people in
>general can be close minded.
Exactly. It provided me with some understanding why my Mother feels
very uncomfortable with this Oxford attribution. She has "faith" in the
common man from Stratford.
Regards, Peter.
Peter Wilson
In article <5k6d2u$e...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius) wrote:
>In <33653F...@SpiritOne.com> Stephanie Hughes
><para...@SpiritOne.com> writes:
>>
>>> Thus, Iago is a compound, of Howard, perhaps of other
>>betrayers, and also of himself. As Nelson has demonstrated,
>>Oxford/Shakespeare had a lot to regret in later life.
>
>Apparently, Oxford didn't get out to the theatre much.
>
>Oxfordians seem
>to believe that *everything* in the plays was based on the Earl's
>biography, and nothing on the stage and genre conventions of the
>Elizabethan theatre.
Isn't this a bit of an over-generalization ?
Biblical scholars (yes orthodox ones) find biblical allusions and
themes "woven" into what most of us regard as secular works.
Hundreds of books apparently contributed to Shakespeare's learning , and
have left an imprint on the canon.
Stephanie's interpretation of Howard as Iago may not be widely
accepted but does that make it unreasonable ? Polonius, as a satirical
figure of Burghley has been put forward, not just by Oxfordian, but
by orthodox sources. Is this too unreasonable ?
The theme of the bad counselor, I think, appears numerous times in
the canon. Biblical scholars have identified the theme as having biblical
sources. Oxfordian scholarship has identified Oxford's bible as pinpointing
similiar biblical sources.
Whoever you think the author of the canon might be... is it not possible,
indeed plausible and reasonable that a living person, or
indeed persons, might be the model for such a character ? Indeed, I submit
real people WERE the model for many of the authors characters... if
only because these characters are SO REAL and SO ACCURATE in their passions
and in their behavior. Shakespeare comes ALIVE for most of us BECAUSE
it is SO REALISTIC. Sorry for the caps. : )
>Therefore, we would be mistaken to think of Iago
>as the triumphant apotheosis of the Italianate Machiavellian stage
>villian of 100 earlier productions.
Your interpretation may indeed, I think, also be reasonable. : )
Cheers, Peter.
Richard Nathan
If, as so many Oxfordians claim, there was NOTHING to associate the man
from Stratford with the "William Shakespeare" who wrote the plays, why
would Oxford's heirs have placed the manuscripts in a monument at
Stratford?????
Mark Alexander
Richard Nathan wrote:
> I believe, if you will go back earlier on this very thread, you will find
> that Mark Alexander said there was nothing to connect the man from
> Stratford with the plays.
Really? I would be fascinated to see you find THAT quote of mine.
<waiting patiently>
Mark Alexander
Richard Nathan
pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
>In article <5kc2d0$e...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
>of the anti-Startfordian position.
>
>There is SOME evidence, ambiguous, tentative (and hotly-contested) that
>connects the plays to the man from Stratford. Professors of English might
>be stubborn and close-minded but they are not stupid. : )
Richard Nathan
>> that Mark Alexander said there was nothing to connect the man from
>> Stratford with the plays.
>
>
><waiting patiently>
>
>Mark Alexander
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>The Underground Grammarian http://members.aol.com/hu4wahz/ug/index.html
>The School of Pythagoras
>http://members.aol.com/areoasis/Reviews/pythagoras.html
How about this. On Tuesday, April 29, in the "Making A Sensible Case
(was: Disguising Yourself)" thread, you wrote, "There seems to be
virtually no evidence that Shakespeare of Stratfored was a literary man."
Sorry, I was wrong about the thread when I said that you had posted it on
this thread.
Mark Alexander
> >> that Mark Alexander said there was nothing to connect the man from
> >> Stratford with the plays.
> >
> >Really? I would be fascinated to see you find THAT quote of mine.
> >
> ><waiting patiently>
> >
> >Mark Alexander
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >The Underground Grammarian http://members.aol.com/hu4wahz/ug/index.html
> >The School of Pythagoras
> >http://members.aol.com/areoasis/Reviews/pythagoras.html
>
> (was: Disguising Yourself)" thread, you wrote, "There seems to be
> virtually no evidence that Shakespeare of Stratfored was a literary man."
>
> Sorry, I was wrong about the thread when I said that you had posted it on
> this thread.
Nice try, Richard, but no cigar. There is no doubt that the First Folio
is linked to Shakspere of Stratford.
Now follow me closely here. <g>
I have never said that "there was nothing to connect the man from
Stratford with the plays."
And yet, at the same time I CAN say "There seems to be virtually no
evidence that Shakspere of Stratford was a literary man."
"seems to be virtually" qualifies the statement. The First Folio's
apparent *endorsement* of Will Shakspere of Stratford is, shall we say,
hardly ringing. It's strikes me as rather odd.
If you claim that both statements are identical in meaning, then I
submit that I write more precisely than you care to read.
Not a flame, mind you...<g>
Mark Alexander
*** Why aren't you more grateful when I prove how wrong you have been?
(Ashleigh Brilliant)
Richard Nathan
Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>Nice try, Richard, but no cigar. There is no doubt that the First Folio
>is linked to Shakspere of Stratford.
>
>Now follow me closely here. <g>
>
>I have never said that "there was nothing to connect the man from
>Stratford with the plays."
>
>And yet, at the same time I CAN say "There seems to be virtually no
>evidence that Shakspere of Stratford was a literary man."
>
>"seems to be virtually" qualifies the statement. The First Folio's
>apparent *endorsement* of Will Shakspere of Stratford is, shall we say,
>hardly ringing. It's strikes me as rather odd.
>
>If you claim that both statements are identical in meaning, then I
>submit that I write more precisely than you care to read.
>
>Not a flame, mind you...<g>
>
>Mark Alexander
>
>*** Why aren't you more grateful when I prove how wrong you have been?
>(Ashleigh Brilliant)
Leaving aside what "seems to be virtually" means, are you now claiming
that the First Folio is the ONLY material evidence that the man of
Stratford was a literary man?
You would make a better case for Oxford if you would learn to stop
continually overstating yourself.
Richard Nathan
marga...@aol.com (MARGARETH1) wrote:
>Richard Nathan wrote (to Mark Alexander):
>
>>are you now claiming
>>that the First Folio is the ONLY material evidence that the man of
>>Stratford was a literary man?
>
>of the *inference* that some make from Shakspere's having been an actor.
>Since we don't know what kind of roles he played, that bare fact doesn't
>tell us much.)
>
>>You would make a better case for Oxford if you would learn to stop
>>continually overstating yourself.
>
>of Stratford was a literary man, I'm sure many Stratfordians would be
>eternally grateful to you, Richard. :-) Otherwise, I don't think this is
>an example of Mark's continually overstating himself.
>
>MH
>
Shakespeare wasn't just an actor. He was also a shareholder in the King's
Men. Even Joseph Sobran, in his new book saying Oxford wrote the plays,
admits as much. The fact that Shakespeare was both an actor and a
shareholder in an acting company that put on plays attributed to William
Shakespeare as an author surely qualifies as evidence that he was the
author of the plays. You may say it is unconvincing circumstantial
evidence - you may even say it is misleading - but you can't honestly
claim it doesn't qualify as evidence.