rare facts
cyberjazz
Shakespeare. What I need to know is some rare and little known facts
about the famous playwright. I would greatly appreciate any help you
can provide.
Thank you,
cyberjazz
--
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
http://www.talkway.com
Marsha Hersey
on his life. William Shakespeare -A compact Documentary Life by S.
Schoenbaum. (There is a larger veersion as well)
cyberjazz wrote in message ...
Neuendorffer
>
> I'm a senior in high school. I'm doing a research paper on William
> Shakespeare. What I need to know is some rare and little known facts
> about the famous playwright. I would greatly appreciate any help you
> can provide.
> Thank you,
> cyberjazz
> --
> Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
> http://www.talkway.com
Mark Twain wrote everything there is to know:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lm.com/~joseph/shake3.html
<<How curious and interesting is the parallel--as far as poverty of
biographical details is concerned--between Satan and Shakespeare. It is
wonderful, it is unique, it stands quite alone, there is nothing
resembling it in history, nothing resembling it in romance, nothing
approaching it even in tradition. How sublime is their position, and how
over-topping, how sky-reaching, how supreme--the two Great Unknowns, the
two Illustrious Conjecturabilities! They are the best-known unknown
persons that have ever drawn breath upon the planet.
For the instruction of the ignorant I will make a list, now, of those
details of Shakespeare's history which are FACTS-- verified facts,
established facts, undisputed facts:
He was born on the 23d of April, 1564.
Of good farmer-class parents who could not read, could not write,
could not sign their names.
At Stratford, a small back settlement which in that day was shabby
and unclean, and densely illiterate. Of the nineteen important men
charged with the government of the town, thirteen had to "make their
mark" in attesting important documents, because they could not write
their names.
Of the first eighteen years of his life NOTHING is known. They are
a blank.
On the 27th of November (1582) William Shakespeare took out a
license to marry Anne Whateley.
Next day William Shakespeare took out a license to marry Anne
Hathaway. She was eight years his senior.
William Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway. In a hurry. By grace of
a reluctantly granted dispensation there was but one publication of the
banns.
Within six months the first child was born.
About two (blank) years followed, during which period NOTHING AT
ALL HAPPENED TO SHAKESPEARE, so far as anybody knows.
Then came twins--1585. February.
Two blank years follow.
Then--1587--he makes a ten-year visit to London, leaving the family
behind.
Five blank years follow. During this period NOTHING HAPPENED TO
HIM, as far as anybody actually knows.
Then--1592--there is mention of him as an actor.
Next year--1593--his name appears in the official list of players.
Next year--1594--he played before the queen. A detail of no
consequence: other obscurities did it every year of the forty- five of
her reign. And remained obscure.
Three pretty full years follow. Full of play-acting. Then*
In 1597 he bought New Place, Stratford.
Thirteen or fourteen busy years follow; years in which he
accumulated money, and also reputation as actor and manager.
Meantime his name, liberally and variously spelt, had become
associated with a number of great plays and poems, as (ostensibly)
author of the same.
Some of these, in these years and later, were pirated, but he made
no protest.
Then--1610-11--he returned to Stratford and settled down for good
and all, and busied himself in lending money, trading in tithes, trading
in land and houses; shirking a debt of forty-one shillings, borrowed by
his wife during his long desertion of his family; suing debtors for
shillings and coppers; being sued himself for shillings and coppers; and
acting as confederate to a neighbor who tried to rob the town of its
rights in a certain common, and did not succeed.
He lived five or six years--till 1616--in the joy of these elevated
pursuits. Then he made a will, and signed each of its three pages with
his name.
A thoroughgoing business man's will. It named in minute detail
every item of property he owned in the world--houses, lands, sword,
silver-gilt bowl, and so on--all the way down to his "second-best bed"
and its furniture.
It carefully and calculatingly distributed his riches among the
members of his family, overlooking no individual of it. Not even his
wife: the wife he had been enabled to marry in a hurry by urgent grace
of a special dispensation before he was nineteen; the wife whom he had
left husbandless so many years; the wife who had had to borrow forty-one
shillings in her need, and which the lender was never able to collect of
the prosperous husband, but died at last with the money still lacking.
No, even this wife was remembered in Shakespeare's will.
He left her that "second-best bed."
And NOT ANOTHER THING; not even a penny to bless her lucky
widowhood with.
It was eminently and conspicuously a business man's will, not a
poet's.
It mentioned NOT A SINGLE BOOK.
Books were much more precious than swords and silver-gilt bowls and
second-best beds in those days, and when a departing person owned one he
gave it a high place in his will.
The will mentioned NOT A PLAY, NOT A POEM, NOT AN UNFINISHED
LITERARY WORK, NOT A SCRAP OF MANUSCRIPT OF ANY KIND.
Many poets have died poor, but this is the only one in history that
has died THIS poor; the others all left literary remains behind. Also a
book. Maybe two.
If Shakespeare had owned a dog--but we not go into that: we know he
would have mentioned it in his will. If a good dog, Susanna would have
got it; if an inferior one his wife would have got a downer interest in
it. I wish he had had a dog, just so we could see how painstakingly he
would have divided that dog among the family, in his careful business
way.
He signed the will in three places.
In earlier years he signed two other official documents.
These five signatures still exist.
There are NO OTHER SPECIMENS OF HIS PENMANSHIP IN EXISTENCE. Not a
line.
Was he prejudiced against the art? His granddaughter, whom he
loved, was eight years old when he died, yet she had had no teaching, he
left no provision for her education, although he was rich, and in her
mature womanhood she couldn't write and couldn't tell her husband's
manuscript from anybody else's--she thought it was Shakespeare's.
When Shakespeare died in Stratford, IT WAS NOT AN EVENT. It made no
more stir in England than the death of any other forgotten theater-actor
would have made. Nobody came down from London; there were no lamenting
poems, no eulogies, no national tears--there was merely silence, and
nothing more. A striking contrast with what happened when Ben Jonson,
and Francis Bacon, and Spenser, and Raleigh, and the other distinguished
literary folk of Shakespeare's time passed from life! No praiseful voice
was lifted for the lost Bard of Avon; even Ben Jonson waited seven years
before he lifted his.
SO FAR AS ANYBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS AND CAN PROVE, Shakespeare of
Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life.
SO FAR AS ANY ONE KNOWS, HE RECEIVED ONLY ONE LETTER DURING HIS
LIFE.
So far as any one KNOWS AND CAN PROVE, Shakespeare of Stratford wrote
only one poem during his life. This one is authentic. He did write that
one--a fact which stands undisputed; he wrote the whole of it; he wrote
the whole of it out of his own head. He commanded that this work of art
be engraved upon his tomb, and he was obeyed. There it abides to this
day:
Good friend for Iesus sake forbeare
To digg the dust encloased heare:
Blest be ye man yt spares thes stones
And curst be he yt moves my bones.
In the list as above set down will be found EVERY POSITIVELY KNOWN fact
of Shakespeare's life, lean and meager as the invoice is. Beyond these
details we know NOT A THING about him. All the rest of his vast history,
as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of
guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures--an Eiffel Tower of
artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin
foundation of inconsequential facts.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Paul Lugo
It is my understanding that Elizabethan playwrights sold their plays right
out to the companies they worked for, so couldn't this account for why
Shakespeare didn't mention any of his plays in his will? He didn't think
of them as his property.
Paul Lugo
John W Kennedy
>
> I'm a senior in high school. I'm doing a research paper on William
> Shakespeare. What I need to know is some rare and little known facts
> about the famous playwright. I would greatly appreciate any help you
> can provide.
I must warn you that the reply you got from "Neuendorffer" is not to be
trusted. He's out to "prove" a looney-tunes theory, and isn't above
stretching the truth a little when that makes things easier. Some of
what he says is definitely not true, some of it might be true or not,
but no one knows, and most of the rest, no matter how much
"doo-doo-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo" Twilight-Zone music he makes at it, is
perfectly normal for the place and time.
In other words, don't be taken in by cults.
There really aren't any "rare and little known facts" about
Shakespeare. It is true that we don't know much about his life, but the
plain truth of the matter is that we don't know much about the life of
anyone back then who wasn't an important soldier or politician, and we
know more about Shakespeare than almost any other professional writer of
the time.
It's tough luck, but that's how it is.
If you want a neat anecdote, look up the story of how the Globe Theater
was built by sneaking in at night, tearing down another theater,
carrying the parts away, and building a new theater with them in the
next town over. (Legally, what we call "London" today is a combination
of over a dozen separate towns, of which the real historic London is
only one.) We don't know for sure that Shakespeare was involved, but he
probably was, because it was about that time that he became a full
partner in the company.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Edargorter
>>>>>For the instruction of the ignorant I will make a list, now, of those
details of Shakespeare's history which are FACTS-- verified facts,
established facts, undisputed facts:>>>>>
(...the whole list I have deleted...)
Art N. continues...
>>>>>In the list as above set down will be found EVERY POSITIVELY KNOWN fact of
Shakespeare's life, lean and meager as the invoice is. Beyond these details we
know NOT A THING about him. All the rest of his vast history,
as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of
guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures--an Eiffel Tower of
artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin
foundation of inconsequential facts.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer>>>>>
I have enjoyed reading in this newsgroup the various arguments concerning
authorship of Shakespeare's works. Could someone from the other side provide
here a similar concise list of verifiable historical facts making the case for
their choice of author? Or, as Art has done, can you list facts that disqualify
the person named? A concise list like the one Art has provided hits you right
between the eyes (assuming it's all true, and verified by historians).
...just the facts, Ma'am, and no fibs or embellishments, please. Thanks.
Rich C.
John W Kennedy
>
> I have enjoyed reading in this newsgroup the various arguments concerning
> authorship of Shakespeare's works. Could someone from the other side provide
> here a similar concise list of verifiable historical facts making the case for
> their choice of author? Or, as Art has done, can you list facts that disqualify
> the person named? A concise list like the one Art has provided hits you right
> between the eyes (assuming it's all true, and verified by historians).
> ...just the facts, Ma'am, and no fibs or embellishments, please. Thanks.
> Rich C.
See http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > I have enjoyed reading in this newsgroup the various arguments concerning
> > authorship of Shakespeare's works. Could someone from the other side provide
> > here a similar concise list of verifiable historical facts making the case for
> > their choice of author? Or, as Art has done, can you list facts that disqualify
> > the person named? A concise list like the one Art has provided hits you right
> > between the eyes (assuming it's all true, and verified by historians).
> > ...just the facts, Ma'am, and no fibs or embellishments, please. Thanks.
> > Rich C.
John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> See http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html.
"Ah! well a-day! what evil looks had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, an URL by /tross/ about my neck was hung."
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
edarg...@aol.com (Edargorter) wrote:
> Art N. wrote:
> >>>>>For the instruction of the ignorant I will make a list, now, of those
> details of Shakespeare's history which are FACTS-- verified facts,
> established facts, undisputed facts:>>>>>
>
> Art N. continues...
>
of
> Shakespeare's life, lean and meager as the invoice is. Beyond these details we
> know NOT A THING about him. All the rest of his vast history,
> as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of
> guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures--an Eiffel Tower of
> artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin
> foundation of inconsequential facts.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer>>>>>
>
> authorship of Shakespeare's works. Could someone from the other side provide
> here a similar concise list of verifiable historical facts making the case for
> their choice of author? Or, as Art has done, can you list facts that
disqualify
> the person named? A concise list like the one Art has provided hits you right
> between the eyes (assuming it's all true, and verified by historians).
> ...just the facts, Ma'am, and no fibs or embellishments, please. Thanks.
> Rich C.
>
Art is being a shade deceptive when he says "In the list as above set down
will be found EVERY POSITIVELY KNOWN fact of Shakespeare's life, lean and
meager as the invoice is. Beyond these details we know NOT A THING about
him." Here are a few items he either forget or didn't know about, plus a few
comments.
William Shakespeare was born in April, 1564, the oldest son of John
Shakespeare. His father, a glover, trader, and landowner, married Mary
Arden, the daughter of an affluent landowner of Wilmcote. John Shakespeare
was ambitious, and he filled many municipal offices in Stratford, including
that of burgess, which privileged him to educate his children without charge
at the King's New School in Stratford. He rose by election to the position
of Alderman in 1565, and in 1568 he was elected Bailiff (equivalent to
mayor), and in that year he made an application to the Herald's office for a
grant of arms. In his position as Bailiff he was responsible for licensing
companies of actors who applied to play in the Guild Hall. When he stepped
down in 1571, he was appointed deputy to the new Bailiff, his neighbor Adrian
Quiney.
Shakespeare married Ann Hathaway in November, 1582, and six months later
their daughter, Susanna, was born. Two other children were born, the twins
Hamnet and Judith, in February, 1585. Sometime after this he joined a troupe
of players and made his way to London. As a member of London's leading
theater company, the Lord Chamberlain's Company, he wrote plays and
eventually became sharer in the Globe Theatre. He was so successful that in
1596 he successfully renewed his father's application for a grant of arms,
and the following year he bought and restored New Place, the second-largest
house in Stratford. He bought other real estate in Stratford and London,
also.
Shakespeare semi-retired from London life sometime after 1610. He died 23
April 1616, disposing of his large estate in his will.
These, in bare outline, are the facts of Shakespeare's life.
Anti-Stratfordians claim that this William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon
was not the author of the plays and poems that bear his name, a contention
that I will now disprove.
1. The name "William Shakespeare" appears on the plays and poems.
Good evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems bearing his
name is the fact that his name appears on them as the author.
1A. Here is a list of the plays first published in quarto up until the
publication of the First Folio, along with the dates of publication and the
name of the author.
Titus Andronicus - Q1 1594, Q2 1600, Q3 1611, all with the author unnamed.
Henry VI Part 2 - Q1 1594, Q2 1600, both with the author unnamed, Q3 1619 by
William Shakespeare, Gent.
Henry VI Part 3 - Q1 1595, Q2 1600, both with the author unnamed.
Romeo and Juliet - Q1 1597, Q2 1599, Q3 1609, all with the author unnamed.
Richard II - Q1 1597 with the author unnamed, Q2 1598, Q3 1598, Q4 1608, Q5
1615, all by William Shake-speare.
Richard III - Q1 1597 with the author unnamed, Q2 1598 by William
Shake-speare, Q3 1602 by William Shakespeare, Q4 1605, Q5 1612, Q6 1622, all
by William Shake-speare.
Love's Labor's Lost - Q1 1598 by W. Shakespeare.
Henry IV Part 1 - Q1 1598 with the author unnamed, Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4 1608,
Q5 1613, all by W. Shake-speare.
Midsummer Night's Dream - Q1 1600, Q2 1619, both by William Shakespeare.
Merchant of Venice - Q1 1600 by William Shakespeare, Q2 1619 by W.
Shakespeare.
Henry IV Part 2 - Q1 1600 by William Shakespeare.
Much Ado About Nothing - Q1 1600 by William Shakespeare.
Henry V - Q1 1600, Q2 1602, Q3 1619, all with the author unnamed.
Merry Wives of Windsor - Q1 1602 by William Shakespeare, Q2 1619 by W.
Shakespeare.
Hamlet - Q1 1603 by William Shake-speare, Q2 by William Shakespeare.
King Lear - Q1 1608 by M. William Shak-speare, Q2 1619 by M. William
Shake-speare.
Pericles - Q1 1609, Q2 1609, Q3 1611, all by William Shakespeare, Q4 1619 by
W. Shakespeare.
Trolius and Cressida - Q1 1619 by William Shakespeare.
1B. In 1598 _Palladis Tamia: Wits Treasury_ by Francis Meres was published.
In it he identified four other plays by Shakespeare that did not come out in
quarto: [Two] Gentlemen of Verona, [Comedy of] Errors, Love labors wonne, and
King John. In addition he identified some of the plays which came out
anonymously before 1598, Titus, Romeo and Juliet, and Henry IV as being
written by Shakespeare. Sadly for Oxfordians, he mentions Edward Earl of
Oxford as being a writer of comedies in the same paragraph as he does
Shakespeare.
1C. In the First Folio of 1623 John Heminges and Henry Codell unambigously
named William Shakespere, their "friend and fellow" as being the author of the
plays.
But Oxfordians claim that the name was a pseudonym used by Oxford, and that
there is nothing to tie the name to William Shakespeare of Stratford. Here
is the historical evidence that ties William Shakespeare of Stratford to the
plays bearing his name:
2. William Shakespeare was a player in the company which performed the plays.
2A. On 15 March 1595 the Treasurer of the Queen's Chamber paid "William Kempe
William Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage servants to the Lord Chamberleyne" for
performances at court in Greenwich on 26 and 27 Dec of the previous year.
2B. On 19 May 1603 the Lord Chamberlain's Men were licensed as the King's
Men. The document lists "Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard
Burbage, Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly,
Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly" as members of the troupe.
2C. In the account of Sir George Home, Master of the Great Wardrobe, he lists
the names of those for whom red cloth was bought for the investure of King
James in London on 15 Mar 1604. They are William Shakespeare, Augustine
Phillipps, Lawrence Fletcher, John Hemminges, Richard Burbidge, William Slye,
Robert Armyn, Henry Cundell, and Richard Cowley.
2D. Will of Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605, proved 16 May 1605: "to
my Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould, To my
Fellowe Henry Condell one other thirty shillinge peece in gould . . . To my
Fellowe Lawrence Fletcher twenty shillings in gould, To my Fellowe Robert
Armyne twenty shillings in gould . . . ."
Augustine Phillips' bequest of 30 shillings to his "Fellowe" Shakespeare was
written 11 months after Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips
would have known that he was dead.
2E. On the cast list of Ben Jonson's "Every Man in His Humor," performed 1598:
Will Shakespeare, Aug. Philips, Hen. Condel, Will. Slye, Will. Kempe, Ric.
Burbadge, Ioh. Hemings, Tho. Pope, Chr. Beeston, and Ioh. Duke.
2F. On the cast list of Ben Jonson's "Sejanus," performed 1603: Ric. Burbadge,
Aug. Philips, Will. Sly, Ioh. Lowin, Will. Shake-Speare, Ioh. Hemings, Hen.
Condel, and Alex. Cooke.
So William Shakespeare was an actor in the company that performed the plays
written under his name. But was this the same William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon? The answer, of course, is yes. We have documentary
evidence of this.
3. William Shakespeare the actor was the same William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon.
3A. In 1568, John Shakespeare applied to the Heralds' College for a coat of
arms, but he fell on hard times and let the application lapse. In October of
1596, following the success of his son, John Shakespeare of Stratford upon
Avon applied for a coat of arms, which was granted sometime before 1599.
Thereafter he and his sons were entitled to put "gentleman" after their name,
and it appears wherever William Shakespeare's name is recorded in legal
documents after 1599. This title was reserved for those of the gentility who
were below knights but who had been granted the right to bear arms. That
John's son, William, initiated the application is probable. Shakespeare was
a product of the Elizabethan era, and he accepted the social order as it was
and was ambitious to rise.
3B. In 1602, Peter Brooke, the York Herald, accused Sir William Dethick, the
Garter King-of-Arms, of elevating base persons to the gentry. Brooke drew up
a list of 23 persons whom he claimed were not entitled to bear arms. Number
four on the list was Shakespeare. Brooke included a sketch of the
Shakespeare arms, captioned "Shakespear ye Player by Garter." Unless one is
prepared to argue that John Shakespeare was an actor, or that Edmund
Shakespeare initiated the arms application when he was 16 and was a known
player by the time he was 22, "Shakespear ye Player" can only be the
Shakespeare identified in other documents as an actor, William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman. This is the same coat-of-arms that appears
on the poet's tomb in Stratford.
3C. In his will, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon left a bequest
"to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A
peece to buy them Ringes."
3D. Shakespeare bought the Blackfrier's Gate House in London in 1613. On the
deed dated 10 March 1613, John Hemmyng (also spelled Hemming on the same page)
acted as trustee for the buyer, "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon."
3E. This property is disposed of in Shakespeare's will.
So William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman, was the actor who
performed in the plays in the company for which William Shakespeare wrote
plays.
Shakespeare was also a sharer in the syndicate that owned the Globe Theatre.
There were three parties to the agreement: Nicholas Brend, who owned the
grounds upon which the Globe was built; Cuthbert and Richard Burbage, who
were responsible for half the lease; and five members of the Chamberlain's
Men, William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Augustine Philips, Thomas Pope, and
William Kempe, who were responsible for the other half of the lease. Each of
these men had a 10% share in the profits. The share dropped to 1/12 when
Henry Condell and William Sly came in in 1605-08, and dropped to 1/14 when
Ostler came in in 1611.
It may seem like overkill to ask if William Shakespeare the Globe-sharer was
the same William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman, since all the
sharers were obviously members of the acting company. That he was the same
man is easily proven by legal documents.
4. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman, the actor, was also
the same William Shakespeare who owned a share of the Globe Theatre.
4A. The actor was entitled to append "gentleman" after his name by right of
being granted a coat of arms (see 3A above).
4B. In a mortgage deed of trust dated 7 October 1601 by Nicholas Brend to John
Bodley, John Collet, and Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given control of
the Globe playhouse, the Globe is described as being tenanted by "Richard
Burbadge and Willm Shackspeare gent."
4C. In a deed of trust dated 10 October 1601 by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley,
legally tightening up the control of Bodley of the Globe, again the theater is
described as being tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shakspeare
gentlemen."
4D. In a deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley in 1608, the
Globe is once more described as being tenanted by "Richard Burbadge and Willm
Shakespeare, gent."
(Notice the variation in spelling of Shakespeare's surname between the three
documents, all originating in London. For some reason variants of the name
seem to be a major point in the minds of some Oxfordians.)
So now we've established that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was
an actor in the company that performed his plays, and was also a sharer in
the theater in which the plays were presented. To anyone with a logical
mind, it follows that this William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was
also the writer of the plays and poems that bear his name. He is the man
with the right name, at the right time, and at the right place.
Now, it is true that there exists no play or poem attributed to "William
Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon." The name on the works is "William
Shakespeare." There also exists no comparable attribution for virtually any
of Shakespeare's contemporaries, the only exceptions being some cases where
some ambiguity might exist, such as "John Davies of Hereford" and "William
Drummond of Hawthornden." But his contemporaries knew who he was, and there
was never any doubt in the minds of those who knew him.
5. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, the actor and the Globe-sharer,
was the playwright and poet whose name appears on the works traditionally
attributed to him.
5A. In 1615 Edmund Howes published a list of "Our moderne, and present
excellent Poets" in John Stow's _Annales_. He lists the poets "according to
their priorities (social rank) as neere I could," and in the middle of the 27
listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman." No one has ever
contended that the poet and the playwright were two different individuals.
On the contrary, Oxfordians continually mine the poems for biographical
material.
5B. In the First Folio, John Heminges and Henry Condell said they published
the Folio "onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive,
as was our Shakespeare, by humble offer of his playes."
5C. In the same volume, Ben Jonson wrote a poem "To the memory of my beloved,
The Author Mr. William Shakespeare," in which he says,
Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James!
Here not only does Jonson tie the author to William Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon, but he puts him in James I's court. (See 2B and 2C
above.)
5D. Also in the Folio, Leonard Digges wrote an elegy "To the Memorie of the
deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare," in which he refers to "thy Stratford
Moniment."
5E. In 1634 a Lieutenant Hammond visited Stratford and saw "A neat Monument of
that famous English Poet, Mr. William Shakespeere; who was born heere."
5F. Sir Richard Baker, a contemporary of Shakespeare and a friend of John
Donne, published _Chronicle of the Kings of England_ in 1643. Sir Richard
was a avid fan of the theater, also writing _Theatrum Redivium, or the
Theatre Vindicated_. In the _Chronicle_, for Elizabeth's reign he notes
statesmen, seamen, and soldiers, and literary figures who are mostly
theologians with the exception of Sidney. In conclusion he says, "After such
men, it might be thought ridiculous to speak of Stage-players; but seeing
excellency in the meanest things deserves remembering . . . For writers of
Playes, and such as had been Players theselves, William Shakespeare and
Benjamin Jonson, have specially left their Names recommended to Posterity.
5G. Finally, on 17 August 1608, Shakespeare sued John Addenbrooke in the
Court of Record at Stratford. In the court documents Shakespeare is
described as "generosus, nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie"
(gentleman, recently at the court of lord James, present king of England).
See 2B, 2C, and 5C above. This conclusively identifies the Stratford man as
the same William Shakespeare who was in the court of King James and the same
"beloved, The Author Mr. William Shakespeare" whom Ben Jonson eulogized in
the Folio. What was William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon doing at the
court? The previous year the King's Men had performed there during the
Christmas season.
William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the player, the Globe-sharer,
and the author of the plays and poems that bear his name, and no person of
the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution.
These are just a few of the copious historical facts proving that Shakespeare
wrote Shakespeare. It was only after the rise of Romanticism, in which the
public became accustomed to the idea of the Artist-as-rebel, that anyone ever
doubted the man from Stratford, and only in the 20th century that anyone
proposed Oxford as the real author. They do so 400 years after the fact, out
of ignorance of Elizabethan theatrical history and out of ignorance of the
nature of creativity, using illogical and anachronous reasoning and
unscholarly methods to "prove" their fantasies.
The idea of Oxford-as-Shakespeare is driven by the image of what Oxfordians
think the writer must have been like. Unfortunately, their expectations are
bound to Romanticism, a movement that began in Germany near the end of the
18th century, and Oxfordians seem unable to disassociate their hero from the
milieu of their own time and culture. Consequently, their assumptions about
Elizabethan times are wrong and anachronistic.
Romanticism is explicitly self-conscious and self-referential. At the heart
of romanticism is the rejection of orthodox social norms as oppressive and
corrupting. The romantic believes in freedom and individuality. It is an
imaginative freedom. Having been frustrated in the "world of affairs,"
usually because of his "honesty," the romantic retreats into the power of
imaginative reflection which provides for the "eternal agility" which enables
him to express his freedom and individuality.
Oxford, although none of his known poetry is self-referential, is forced into
all these roles by 20th-century Oxfordians. In their minds,
Oxford-as-Shakespeare is a romantic character. All the characteristics of
romanticism are read into Oxford's life by those who demand a poet more in
keeping with their culturally-bound idea of who the author of Shakespeare's
works should be. Oxford fulfills all the requirements of a romantic hero:
wanderer, outlaw, prodigal child, rebel, lost lover, and victim of consumptive
death.
In order to warp Oxford into the role of Shakespeare, Oxfordians must also
warp history. They "explain away" the lack of evidence for their beliefs by
incorporating the lack of evidence into their belief. They posit a scenerio
in which some necessity forces Oxford into keeping his playwriting secret
from the world. By far their most bizarre "explanation" is the "Tudor Rose"
theory, in which Oxford is the illegitimate child of Queen Elizabeth, who
then had an incestuous relationship with his mother and begat Southhampton,
the supposed "fair youth" of the sonnets, with whom Oxford then had a
homosexual relationship.
When confronted with direct evidence of their irrationality and foolishness,
Stratfordians become part of the plot. Oxfordians will not, or cannot,
evaluate their own beliefs and those of their opponents objectively. They
fold their arms, shut their minds, and cling to their belief in the face of
all the evidence against it. For them objective detachment is impossible.
Any attempt to introduce them to logical, scholarly methods of argument or
accepted rules of evidence is seen by them as "Stratfordian bias." For
evidence for their point of view, we are given the imbecilic anagrams of Art,
the homosexual fantasies of Volker, and the half-witted musings of Crowley
and Streitz. If anyone is convinced by their desperate rationalizations,
that is certainly their right, but that is certainly no justification for
imposing their idiocies on the rest of us, especially given all the evidence
against the Oxfordian "theory."
TR
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
volker multhopp
> Sometime after this he joined a troupe
> of players and made his way to London.
Show your evidence of this "fact"
--Volker
Tom Reedy
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Sometime after this he joined a troupe
> > of players and made his way to London.
>
>
> --Volker
>
Read the rest of the post, Volker. Are you denying that he went to London,
that he joined a troupe of players, or that he did this before rather than
after his marriage?
Edargorter
of list I was looking for. Can the Oxford folks compile a similar list (only
verifiable historical facts, please) making the case for their man? Thanks to
all.
Rich C.
volker multhopp
> > > Sometime after this he joined a troupe
> > > of players and made his way to London.
Better idea, you re-post your argument without this trifle for which
you have no evidence. Maybe I'll find another berry on your sparse
bush.
--Volker
John W Kennedy
It happens by chance that I was thinking something of the sort just this
morning, but along a slightly different line: could it be that the
Ibsen-according-to-Archer and Chekov-according-to-Stanislavky schools of
thought that tyrannized so over theatrical theory until the late 60's
(and still do tyrannize over the perception of "serious" movies and
television) play a part as well, inspiring the view of "Hamlet" as
roman-a-clef that is one of the Oxford gang's chief fetishes?
volker multhopp
> inspiring the view of "Hamlet" as
> roman-a-clef that is one of the Oxford gang's chief fetishes?
What's wrong with roman-a-clef? It's a popular pastime. In E England
it would have taken supreme ability to capture the court in disguise.
Besides, if finding that relations in the canon can be understood as
relations within Burghley house, what's wrong with that?
--Volker
Richard Nathan
jointed the troup before he came to London. There is no way to know
which came first - joining the troupe, or going to London.
The fact that Volker chose this very minor statement to quible with
shows how bankrupt his position is, and it shows what a superb job you
did in making the case for Shakespeare of Stratford.
Tom Reedy <aaa...@ramail.angelo.edu> wrote:
>In article <36AD8E01...@erols.com>,
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Tom Reedy wrote:
>>
>> > Sometime after this he joined a troupe
>> > of players and made his way to London.
>>
>> Show your evidence of this "fact"
>>
>> --Volker
>>
>
>Read the rest of the post, Volker. Are you denying that he went to London,
>that he joined a troupe of players, or that he did this before rather than
>after his marriage?
>
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Oxford, frustrated and disgraced at court, found a new freedom in the
> > public theater under his pseudonym, William Shake-speare.
> Show your evidence of this "fact."
I didn't offer it as fact, but as my model. It's speculative.
--Volker
Dave Kathman
>
> Perhaps Volker is inferring that you were implying that Shakespeare
> jointed the troup before he came to London. There is no way to know
> which came first - joining the troupe, or going to London.
I think Volker is denying that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an
actor at all. I went through this with him at great length a couple of
years ago, soon after he joined the group. His position is that all
references to "William Shakespeare" as an actor before 1604 are actually
references to Oxford in his William Shakespeare "persona", and all such
references after Oxford's death in 1604 are forgeries by Heminges,
Condell,
et al to perpetuate the myth of an actor named William Shakespeare.
Is that reasonably accurate, Volker?
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
> > of players and made his way to London.
>
>
>
In article <36A4595D...@erols.com>,
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Tylonius wrote:
>
> > Do you concede that there was a William Shakespeare
> > that worked in the London theatre scene? If so, who was he then?
>
> Oxford, frustrated and disgraced at court, found a new freedom in the
> public theater under his pseudonym, William Shake-speare.
>
> --Volker
>
Show your evidence of this "fact."
TR
Nigel Davies
I second that. A superb contribution from Tom.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Tom Reedy
>
> > > Oxford, frustrated and disgraced at court, found a new freedom in
the
> > > public theater under his pseudonym, William Shake-speare.
>
>
>
> --Volker
>
No, you didn't. You made a simple declarative statement, with no qualifiers.
No "perhaps." No "maybe." Then you try to call me on a statement that is
proven. Shakespeare was an actor. He went to London. There is proof of
this. I present it in the essay. If you want to argue with the statement,
the only point at which you can is the time at which he did it. He might
have joined a troupe and gone to London before his children were born, just
popping into Stratford for the odd shag with his wife, but you can't argue
with the main facts of the statement.
You seem to think you can operate under different rules of evidence than the
rest of the world, and then insist that your opponents toe the line. But of
course, that is the scholastic standard of Oxfordia. Nothing new about it at
all.
Tom Reedy
edarg...@aol.com (Edargorter) wrote:
> Thanks to Tom R. for that very instructive and lengthy post. That's the kind
> of list I was looking for. Can the Oxford folks compile a similar list (only
> verifiable historical facts, please) making the case for their man? Thanks to
> all.
> Rich C.
>
Sorry, you won't get one from the Oxfordians. For an example of the types of
arguments they use, read Volker, Art. N., and Crowley. You'll soon realize
that Oxfordism is a type of mental illness, not a scholarly discipline.
volker multhopp
> I think Volker is denying that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an
> actor at all. I went through this with him at great length a couple of
> years ago, soon after he joined the group. His position is that all
> references to "William Shakespeare" as an actor before 1604 are actually
> references to Oxford in his William Shakespeare "persona",
Right.
> and all such
> references after Oxford's death in 1604 are forgeries by Heminges,
> Condell,
> et al to perpetuate the myth of an actor named William Shakespeare.
Or, perhaps on occasion, by 18th+ c bardolators.
--Volker
Tom Reedy
That may very well be his position, but it's a long way from proving
Shakepseare was not an actor. The fact is, the references name Shakespeare,
not Oxford. I think anyone can see here the machinations of the self-deluded
Oxfordian mentality as I set forth in my essay.
John W Kennedy
The issue is not whether Shakespeare _might_ have written a
roman-a-clef, but whether he in fact did so in "Hamlet". The facts that
"Hamlet" is clearly based on known sources and that there was an earlier
Hamlet play (I have not the scholarship to discuss what it might have
been or by whom, but it is clear enough that it existed) plainly
militate against this theory, although in principle it could be argued
that (as has in fact happened from time to time in the history of play
writing) he found the existing story apt to his purpose (c.f., "The
Crucible"). A more deadly argument against the Oxfordian hypothesis is
that the plot of "Hamlet" does not particularly correspond to what is
actually known of the life of the E of O.
But other counter-arguments are possible, in addition to those. Tom
Reedy observes in the post to which I replied that the Hamlet-is-Oxford
theory makes of Oxford a Byronic Romantic-age hero, and that it is as
anachronistic and improbable to expect such in Elizabethan or Jacobean
London as it would be to expect Frauendienst in Periclean Athens or
Marxism in Federalist Washington. My own, lesser, contribution is that
the oft-encountered Oxfordian theory that Shakespeare's plays are
somehow critical of the English court of his day (most recently
appearing on HLAS in the form of the amusing pipe dream that ALL of
Shakespeare's Histories have a republican agenda) is equally
anachronistic, based on the drama critic's idee fixe traditionally known
as "Ibsenism" (though Ibsen himself had discarded "Ibsenism" even before
the word appeared in English), for while broad political satire is as
old as Aristophanes, the "problem play" is a thoroughly modern
invention, and the delusion that all Truly Artistic Plays _must_ be
"problem plays" is thoroughly modern as well.
(In my earlier posting I also mentioned obsessive "Chekovism", but upon
consideration, although it has certainly contributed to a great deal of
malignant Shakespearean pedagogy, I cannot see that it has had any
material effect on the Authorship issue one way or the other.)
Neuendorffer
> edarg...@aol.com (Edargorter) wrote:
> > Thanks to Tom R. for that very instructive and lengthy post. That's the kind
> > of list I was looking for. Can the Oxford folks compile a similar list (only
> > verifiable historical facts, please) making the case for their man? Thanks to
> > all.
> > Rich C.
>
> Sorry, you won't get one from the Oxfordians. For an example of the types of
> arguments they use, read Volker, Art. N., and Crowley. You'll soon realize
> that Oxfordism is a type of mental illness, not a scholarly discipline.
verifiable?
1: capable of being verified or disproved by experiment or observation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well here are some "historical facts":
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Greene died in the house of a SHOEMAKER named Isam (1592)
SHOEMAKER's son Kit Marlowe was struck dead on the 1001st Ramadan
(1593)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Warwick, 1577: Thomas Shaxper, SHOEMAKER, made his will, naming sons
William, Thomas, and John, and a daughter Joan (who died that year).
William Shaxper DROWNED in the AVON RIVER on June 6, 1579.
His brother Thomas became a butcher and eventually went on to marry
the daughter of the mayor of Coventry, and in 1610
Thomas' son John was apprenticed in London to William Jaggard,
the printer who would eventually print the Shakespeare First Folio.>>
courtesy - David Kathman.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"SHAKESPEARE A TO Z" by Charles Boyce:
<<"HAMLETT, KATHERINE (died 1579): Englishwoman whose death may be
reflected in that of Ophelia in "HAMLET." A resident of Tippinton, a
village near Stratford, Mistress Hamlett was DROWNED in the AVON RIVER
while fetching water, and a coroner's jury hesitated over the
possibility of suicide before declaring, two months later, that she had
died a natural death. It has been speculated that the coincidental
similarity between a family name he once knew and the name of his
protagonist might have recalled Katherine Hamlett's death to the
playwright -- who was 15 when it occurred -- as he described Ophelia's
death by drowning, declared 'doubtful' by the Priest, although the
coroner 'finds it Christian burial.'>>
courtesy - Richard Nathan.
http://www.entrenet.com/~groedmed/stratford.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But I don't know how you go about "verifying"
the truth of them (outside of common sense).
Art Neuendorffer
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > I didn't offer it as fact, but as my model. It's speculative.
> No "perhaps." No "maybe." Then you try to call me on a statement that is
> proven.
You've got this all wrong. My position is the authorship of the plays
is the object of competing models, none of which is free of problems. I
offer statements based on my model without constant "perhaps"s just as
you do on yours. The difference is you claim your position is proved.
>Shakespeare was an actor. He went to London. There is proof of
> this. I present it in the essay.
Good. Then there is no problem your presenting this evidence without
carrying-on.
> You seem to think you can operate under different rules of evidence than the
> rest of the world, and then insist that your opponents toe the line. But of
> course, that is the scholastic standard of Oxfordia. Nothing new about it at
> all.
No, I insist that Strats work under different rules because they say
their case is proved. Besides, you've had 400 years to hone your
arguments.
--Volker
Edargorter
Stratford that got my attention. Shoemaker? Marlowe? Ramadan? It's easy to lose
me, Art. Surely you can post a list of known historical facts that make your
case for Oxford. Thank you,
Rich C.
Art N. wrote and quoted:
volker multhopp
> That may very well be his position, but it's a long way from proving
> Shakepseare was not an actor. The fact is, the references name Shakespeare,
> not Oxford. I think anyone can see here the machinations of the self-deluded
> Oxfordian mentality as I set forth in my essay.
We are at least agreed the actor must be the author. The illogic is
that the Stratford man who had trouble writing his own name was either.
--Volker
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
Here you seem to stand apart from other Oxfordians. Most of them are
apparently convinced by the evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was at
least a minor actor.
Where did you pick up your expertise in Elizabethan handwriting analysis?
To my relatively uneducated eye, the signatures on the will look
reasonable for a literate man lying on his deathbed. The Belott-Montjoy
signature is abreviated but it's seems pretty well done except for the
blot. My own signatures are no better. The Blackfriars mortgage
signatures are squeezed onto what Chambers calls one inch wide strips of
parchment. I believe he also mentions that they are somewhat greasy. It
would be an interesting experiment to attempt some signatures with a quill
under those circumstances.
In any event, if you really need an explanation that explains poor
handwriting in his later years, what's wrong with scrivener's palsy? It
seems far more likely than an Elizabethan Earl acting on the public stage.
Oxford's enemies would have had a field day.
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply/
volker multhopp
> To my relatively uneducated eye, the signatures on the will look
> reasonable for a literate man lying on his deathbed. The Belott-Montjoy
> signature is abreviated but it's seems pretty well done except for the
> blot. My own signatures are no better. The Blackfriars mortgage
> signatures are squeezed onto what Chambers calls one inch wide strips of
> parchment. I believe he also mentions that they are somewhat greasy. It
> would be an interesting experiment to attempt some signatures with a quill
> under those circumstances.
> In any event, if you really need an explanation that explains poor
> handwriting in his later years, what's wrong with scrivener's palsy? It
> seems far more likely than an Elizabethan Earl acting on the public stage.
> Oxford's enemies would have had a field day.
To my relatively uneducated eye-- only the most partisan eye could hope
all signatures are from the same hand. [signatures visible at:]
http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/WSSigs.htm
The only "legitimate" explanation linking the Will3 to the Will1 and
Will2 sigs, is that Shakspere signed the smooth Will3 first, then a
couple days later, after a stroke or other major damage, then scratched
Will1 and the jagged Will2 (check the difference in the small "a" of
Shaksper). This raises questions about whether he was cognizant of the
addition of the money for rings for H, C, and B.
As you agree, the other two sigs show no resemblance to the Will sigs.
--Volker
--Volker
Neuendorffer
>
> Come on now, Art N., it was your list of known historical facts disqualifying
> Stratford that got my attention. Shoemaker? Marlowe? Ramadan? It's easy to lose
> me, Art. Surely you can post a list of known historical facts that make your
> case for Oxford. Thank you,
> Rich C.
Please don't call me Surely!
A) It was MARK TWAIN's list of known historical facts disqualifying
Stratford that got your attention.
B) My posting of the following 'Stratfordian historical facts':
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Warwick, 1577: Thomas Shaxper, SHOEMAKER, made his will, naming sons
William, Thomas, and John, and a daughter Joan (who died that year).
William Shaxper DROWNED in the AVON RIVER on June 6, 1579.
His brother Thomas became a butcher and eventually went on to marry
the daughter of the mayor of Coventry, and in 1610
Thomas' son John was apprenticed in London to William Jaggard,
the printer who would eventually print the Shakespeare First Folio.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
"SHAKESPEARE A TO Z" by Charles Boyce:
<<"HAMLETT, KATHERINE (died 1579): Englishwoman whose death may be
reflected in that of Ophelia in "HAMLET." A resident of Tippinton, a
village near Stratford, Mistress Hamlett was DROWNED in the AVON RIVER
while fetching water, and a coroner's jury hesitated over the
possibility of suicide before declaring, two months later, that she had
died a natural death. It has been speculated that the coincidental
similarity between a family name he once knew and the name of his
protagonist might have recalled Katherine Hamlett's death to the
playwright -- who was 15 when it occurred -- as he described Ophelia's
death by drowning, declared 'doubtful' by the Priest, although the
coroner 'finds it Christian burial.'>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
was meant to suggest to you that 'Stratfordian historical facts'
aren't worth a bucket of warm spit as TRUTH . . . but they provide
wonderful clues about what sort of games are being played.
C) The fact of the matter is there are
ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL FACTS that clearly
indicate the authorship of Shakespeare.
D) However, common sense would suggest one (or more)
of the following candidates:
Francis Bacon
Anthony Bacon (Sir Francis' brother)
Barnabe Barnes (playwright)
Richard Barnfield (poet)
Richard Burbage
Robert Burton
William Butts (a grandson of Henry VII's court physician)
Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury
Henry Chettle (printer and playwright)
Samuel Daniel (playwright)
Thomas Dekker
William Stanley, Earl of Derby
Lord Mountjoy, Earl of Devonshire
John Donne
Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, Earl of Dorset
Michael Drayton
Sir Edmund Dyer (courtier, patron and poet)
Queen Elizabeth
Walter Devereux, the First Earl of Essex
Robert Devereux, the Second Earl of Essex
Henry Ferrers (country gentleman?)
John Fletcher
Michele Angelo Florio (Florentine reformer, fled to England in 1576)
John Florio(aka Giovanni Florio - son of Michele Angelo,
Oxford professor & translator of Montaigne)
Robert Greene
Bartholomew Griffin (gentleman?)
Thomas Heywood
Ben Jonson
Thomas Kyd
Thomas Lodge (poet, occasional playwright)
John Lyly
Christopher Marlowe
Thomas Middleton
Anthony Munday (playwright)
Thomas Nashe
Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
Henry, Lord Paget
George Peele (playwright & poet)
Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke
Henry Porter
Sir Walter Raleigh
Roger Manners, Earl of Rutland
Elizabeth Sidney, Countess of Rutland
Sir Anthony Shirley (well-known traveller and protégé of Essex - a play
was written about him, in which Will Kemp played a role)
Sir Philip Sidney
Wentworth Smythe
Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton
Edmund Spenser
Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling
William Warner or Walker (poet?)
Thomas Watson (poet)
John Webster
Robert Wilson (player)
The Ancient Mystic Order of the Rosicrucians
--------------------------------------------------
E) If you require to be spoon fed ideas I recommend:
_The Mysterious William Shakespeare : The Myth & the Reality_
by Charlton Ogburn
(or better yet just stick to Stratford Trust fairy tale).
--------------------------------------------------
Surly Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> To my relatively uneducated eye, the signatures on the will look
> reasonable for a literate man lying on his deathbed.
No doubt quite a few people were lying here.
T. Russell for instance:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford inherited Bilton Manor (on the south bank of the Avon near the
forest of Arden on the outskirts of Rugby) from his grandmother
Elizabeth Trussell (1496-1527). It is the only Oxford house still
standing today.
/---------------------------------------------\
| |
William Blount Constance Blount --- Thomas
[Lord Mountjoy] Elizabeth TRUSSELL | Tyrrell
| | |
| John deVere --- Margery - Charles
Tyrrell
Katherine Blount --- Maurice Berekely | |
| | |
| Edward deVere <--( black horse )
Widow Russell --- Henry BEREKELY
|
|
T.Russell (---- overseer of Shakespeare's will)
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Belott-Montjoy signature is abreviated
> but it's seems pretty well done except for
> the blot.
and the Montjoy. [William Blo(u)t/Mo(u)ntjoy?]
> My own signatures are no better.
We can all believe that at least.
> The Blackfriars mortgage
> signatures are squeezed onto what Chambers calls one inch wide strips of
> parchment. I believe he also mentions that they are somewhat greasy. It
> would be an interesting experiment to attempt some signatures with a quill
> under those circumstances.
And using a cushion for a writing desk!
> In any event, if you really need an explanation that explains poor
> handwriting in his later years, what's wrong with scrivener's palsy?
We give up, what's wrong with scrivener's palsy?
> It
> seems far more likely than an Elizabethan Earl acting on the public stage.
> Oxford's enemies would have had a field day.
Oxford may well have acted but NOT on the public stage.
Art Neuendorffer
volker multhopp
> Surely, you can do better than this, Volker. If you wish to
> imagine that the rings stipulated to his will to Hemminges, Condell
> and Burbage were added to perpetuate a conspiracy and create the
> illusion that Shakespeare was associcated with London theatre -- then
> why didn't the mysterious forger make the link more explicit? Why go
> to all that trouble to plant such a subtle clue? Wouldn't you want to
> spell out the connection if your intent were nefarious? Remember, you
> have no way of knowing if anyone is even going to think of looking for
> such a clue in the first place (indeed, no one did until almost 150
> years laters -- perhaps you believe the conspirators were aiming their
> fakery at Edmund Malone?)
How would the forgers know when the interlineation would be found? Why
couldn't they leave a subtle clue which wouldn't appear immediately
absurd to the locals, like an illiterate bequeathing manuscripts?
--Volker
volker multhopp
>Even if we grant your premise that the signatures are
> the only examples of Shakespeare's handwriting (actually, it's more
> precise to say they are the only samples that have general universal
> agreement) and even if we grant that they are poorly rendered
> (again, a subjective notion that I'm not ready to concede) -- but even
> if we *do* grant these to you, you cannot conclude illiteracy from
> that. Elsewise, 90% of the doctors in America would qualify as
> illiterate.
I'm concerned the sigs aren't from the same hand. What do doctors have
to do with it?
>Truism #914: Handwriting is not indicative of literacy.
Well, signatures aren't.
> If you want to butress your illiteracy conceit with other
> premises, that's fine ... bring'em on.
His parents were illiterate, his wife illiterate, at least one,
possibly all children illiterate. It looks like an illiterate
household. There's nothing from his hand except the sigs. No one
talked about him reading or writing anything, about being an actor or a
playwright. Show me his literacy.
> Now back to our forger lurking in the shadows. Why bother with
> an insignificant trifle in a minor legal document in Stratford. Why
> would anyone check such a document anyway? You imagine them traveling
> there and going to all that trouble when his family and friends are
> right there and could be questioned with greater ease.
There are many scenarios possible. Maybe H&C provided for the
Stratford monument-- when they were there, they doctored the will.
>Do you imagine
> a scenario where someone checks the will but *doesn't* ask follow-up
> questions of the locals about their famous native son?
Why should the locals know about London actors? I don't think such
hoaxes are thought out completely carefully.
> I imagine our shadowy forger would be a Londoner (or at least have
> influence in London) and far more likely to forge a document based there
> (a bill of sales for a play, a financial transfer of theatre shares,
> real-estate interests, etc.), than to screw around with the Stratford
> holdings. It would achieve the same end and be simpler to affect.
H&C were interested in making it seem as if Shakespeare could be the
Stratford man. They wanted/needed a Stratford component.
--Volker
Dave Furstenau
> The only "legitimate" explanation linking the Will3 to the Will1 and
> Will2 sigs, is that Shakspere signed the smooth Will3 first, then a
> couple days later, after a stroke or other major damage, then scratched
> Will1 and the jagged Will2 (check the difference in the small "a" of
> Shaksper). This raises questions about whether he was cognizant of the
> addition of the money for rings for H, C, and B.
Surely, you can do better than this, Volker. If you wish to
imagine that the rings stipulated to his will to Hemminges, Condell
and Burbage were added to perpetuate a conspiracy and create the
illusion that Shakespeare was associcated with London theatre -- then
why didn't the mysterious forger make the link more explicit? Why go
to all that trouble to plant such a subtle clue? Wouldn't you want to
spell out the connection if your intent were nefarious? Remember, you
have no way of knowing if anyone is even going to think of looking for
such a clue in the first place (indeed, no one did until almost 150
years laters -- perhaps you believe the conspirators were aiming their
fakery at Edmund Malone?)
Dave Furstenau d...@binary.net
http://www.binary.net/df
Lincoln, Nebraska
Dave Furstenau
> Dave Furstenau wrote:
>
>> Surely, you can do better than this, Volker. If you wish to
>> imagine that the rings stipulated to his will to Hemminges, Condell
>> and Burbage were added to perpetuate a conspiracy and create the
>> illusion that Shakespeare was associcated with London theatre -- then
>> why didn't the mysterious forger make the link more explicit? Why go
>> to all that trouble to plant such a subtle clue? Wouldn't you want to
>> spell out the connection if your intent were nefarious? Remember, you
>> have no way of knowing if anyone is even going to think of looking for
>> such a clue in the first place (indeed, no one did until almost 150
>> years laters -- perhaps you believe the conspirators were aiming their
>> fakery at Edmund Malone?)
>
> couldn't they leave a subtle clue which wouldn't appear immediately
> absurd to the locals, like an illiterate bequeathing manuscripts?
>
> --Volker
The extremes you go to in order to preserve your notions are
stupifying. Even if we grant your premise that the signatures are
the only examples of Shakespeare's handwriting (actually, it's more
precise to say they are the only samples that have general universal
agreement) and even if we grant that they are poorly rendered
(again, a subjective notion that I'm not ready to concede) -- but even
if we *do* grant these to you, you cannot conclude illiteracy from
that. Elsewise, 90% of the doctors in America would qualify as
illiterate. Truism #914: Handwriting is not indicative of literacy.
Deal with it.
If you want to butress your illiteracy conceit with other
premises, that's fine ... bring'em on.
Now back to our forger lurking in the shadows. Why bother with
an insignificant trifle in a minor legal document in Stratford. Why
would anyone check such a document anyway? You imagine them traveling
there and going to all that trouble when his family and friends are
right there and could be questioned with greater ease. Do you imagine
a scenario where someone checks the will but *doesn't* ask follow-up
questions of the locals about their famous native son? If Shakespeare
were a fraud, such questions would get simple blank stares, right?
Would you find a rather neutral comment in a will convincing, when no one
in town could verify the connection? (Were they *all* in on it?)
I imagine our shadowy forger would be a Londoner (or at least have
influence in London) and far more likely to forge a document based there
(a bill of sales for a play, a financial transfer of theatre shares,
real-estate interests, etc.), than to screw around with the Stratford
holdings. It would achieve the same end and be simpler to affect.
KQKnave
In article <Pine.A41.3.96.990127...@pcr8.pcr.com>,
Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com writes:
>In any event, if you really need an explanation that explains poor
>handwriting in his later years, what's wrong with scrivener's palsy?
Or how about just plain old infirmity due to age? My great-great
grandfather signed his will in two places, both dated the same day.
One signature is neat, the other looks like he was holding a
jackhammer at the same time.
Jim
Dave Furstenau
> Dave Furstenau wrote:
>
>> Even if we grant your premise that the signatures are
>> the only examples of Shakespeare's handwriting (actually, it's more
>> precise to say they are the only samples that have general universal
>> agreement) and even if we grant that they are poorly rendered
>> (again, a subjective notion that I'm not ready to concede) -- but even
>> if we *do* grant these to you, you cannot conclude illiteracy from
>> that. Elsewise, 90% of the doctors in America would qualify as
>> illiterate.
>
> have to do with it?
You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. The signatures
are his, they're not his. Earlier in this subthread you wrote:
"The illogic is that the Stratford man who had trouble
writing his own name was either [an actor or author]."
This sounds to me like you are giving him credit for at least one of
the signatures, then turning around and using its mere appearance to
accuse him of illiteracy. How else is one to interpret your statement,
the subtext of which seems to be: "If he has so much trouble scrawling
out his own name, how can he be an author?" How can you make a statement
about his ability to sign his name unless you admit that at least one
of the signatures are his (it doesn't matter which)? You must allow
that, or your above statement makes no sense. Then, we're back to
square-one: You cannot judge literacy on a signature. Plenty of
educated people have terrible penmanship.
I guess I must be missing your point, but I've reread several
earlier messages and keep coming up with the same contradiction. I'm
trying real hard not to misrepresent your position, so tell me where I
err.
>> Now back to our forger lurking in the shadows. Why bother with
>> an insignificant trifle in a minor legal document in Stratford. Why
>> would anyone check such a document anyway? You imagine them traveling
>> there and going to all that trouble when his family and friends are
>> right there and could be questioned with greater ease.
>
> There are many scenarios possible. Maybe H&C provided for the
> Stratford monument-- when they were there, they doctored the will.
This would be after his death? When the will was filed? These
guys waltzed into town and marched into the Prerogative Office and doctored
the will with interlinears matching the handwriting of the rest of the
document? Even if you imagine the handwriting is different, you still
have to explain how these strangers in Stratford were able to do
this. Don't tell me -- they bribed the officials? The lawyers were
in on the conspiracy too?
At what point do we quit retreating into ad hoc rationalizations?
>> Do you imagine
>> a scenario where someone checks the will but *doesn't* ask follow-up
>> questions of the locals about their famous native son?
>
> Why should the locals know about London actors? I don't think such
> hoaxes are thought out completely carefully.
Now I'm confused again. *Who* were they planting this evidence
for? I was never really clear on that. Since most everyone in
England seems to be in on the conspiracy, who's left to contradict it?
>> I imagine our shadowy forger would be a Londoner (or at least have
>> influence in London) and far more likely to forge a document based there
>> (a bill of sales for a play, a financial transfer of theatre shares,
>> real-estate interests, etc.), than to screw around with the Stratford
>> holdings. It would achieve the same end and be simpler to affect.
>
> H&C were interested in making it seem as if Shakespeare could be the
> Stratford man. They wanted/needed a Stratford component.
Fair enough. That still doesn't preclude using London documents
and specifying "Wm. Shakesper of Stratford".
Edargorter
>>>>> The fact of the matter is there are
ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL FACTS that clearly
indicate the authorship of Shakespeare.>>>>>
Rich C.
Tom Reedy
illness?
In article <36AF4A6E...@erols.com>,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<Warwick, 1577: Thomas Shaxper, SHOEMAKER, made his will, naming sons
> William, Thomas, and John, and a daughter Joan (who died that year).
>
> William Shaxper DROWNED in the AVON RIVER on June 6, 1579.
>
> His brother Thomas became a butcher and eventually went on to marry
> the daughter of the mayor of Coventry, and in 1610
> Thomas' son John was apprenticed in London to William Jaggard,
> the printer who would eventually print the Shakespeare First Folio.>>
>
> courtesy - David Kathman.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> "SHAKESPEARE A TO Z" by Charles Boyce:
>
> <<"HAMLETT, KATHERINE (died 1579): Englishwoman whose death may be
> reflected in that of Ophelia in "HAMLET." A resident of Tippinton, a
> village near Stratford, Mistress Hamlett was DROWNED in the AVON RIVER
> while fetching water, and a coroner's jury hesitated over the
> possibility of suicide before declaring, two months later, that she had
> died a natural death. It has been speculated that the coincidental
> similarity between a family name he once knew and the name of his
> protagonist might have recalled Katherine Hamlett's death to the
> playwright -- who was 15 when it occurred -- as he described Ophelia's
> death by drowning, declared 'doubtful' by the Priest, although the
> coroner 'finds it Christian burial.'>>
>
> courtesy - Richard Nathan.
>
> http://www.entrenet.com/~groedmed/stratford.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But I don't know how you go about "verifying"
> the truth of them (outside of common sense).
>
> Art Neuendorffer
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Tom Reedy
> > imagine that the rings stipulated to his will to Hemminges, Condell
> > and Burbage were added to perpetuate a conspiracy and create the
> > illusion that Shakespeare was associcated with London theatre -- then
> > why didn't the mysterious forger make the link more explicit? Why go
> > to all that trouble to plant such a subtle clue? Wouldn't you want to
> > spell out the connection if your intent were nefarious? Remember, you
> > have no way of knowing if anyone is even going to think of looking for
> > such a clue in the first place (indeed, no one did until almost 150
> > years laters -- perhaps you believe the conspirators were aiming their
> > fakery at Edmund Malone?)
>
> How would the forgers know when the interlineation would be found? Why
> couldn't they leave a subtle clue which wouldn't appear immediately
> absurd to the locals, like an illiterate bequeathing manuscripts?
>
> --Volker
>
Subtle clue. Right. You mean like the monument in the church which was in
place by the time the folio was printed?
TR
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > That may very well be his position, but it's a long way from proving
> > Shakepseare was not an actor. The fact is, the references name Shakespeare,
> > not Oxford. I think anyone can see here the machinations of the
self-deluded
> > Oxfordian mentality as I set forth in my essay.
>
> that the Stratford man who had trouble writing his own name was either.
>
> --Volker
>
Sorry, Volker, but it is most certainly not a fact that the Stratford
man had trouble writing his name. Moreover, there is much more evidence
that he could write than his signatures--against no hard evidence that
your man was "Shake-speare." Which doesn't make you illogical but
irrational in your choice pf premises.
--Bob G.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> William Shaxper DROWNED in the AVON RIVER on June 6, 1579.
>
>
of the Oeuvre, but surely he wouldn't have had time to write it all.
Tom Reedy
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > That may very well be his position, but it's a long way from proving
> > Shakepseare was not an actor. The fact is, the references name Shakespeare,
> > not Oxford. I think anyone can see here the machinations of the
self-deluded
> > Oxfordian mentality as I set forth in my essay.
>
> We are at least agreed the actor must be the author. The illogic is
> that the Stratford man who had trouble writing his own name was either.
>
> --Volker
>
So you're saying that logic dictates that actors must be literate to some
degree. Fine. That puts Shakespeare in a literate family for you, since his
brother Edmund was an actor.
TR
Tom Reedy
For what? The historical facts indicate it clearly enough for the rest of
the world. Instead of arguing the record, Art makes a blanket statement
proving nothing except his obtuseness. Just because he says "The fact of the
matter is . . ." does not make it true. Read his other posts and then tell
me how much confidence you have in his statements of "fact."
And where's that list of historical records indicating Oxford's authorship?
volker multhopp
> Sorry, Volker, but it is most certainly not a fact that the Stratford
> man had trouble writing his name.
Wrong, the evidence is in the signatures themselves-- they don't look
like each other. See http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/WSSigs.htm.
--Volker
Neuendorffer
>
> >
> > William Shaxper DROWNED in the AVON RIVER on June 6, 1579.
> >
> >
> I don't get it, Art: if Oxford drowned in 1579, he may have written most
> of the Oeuvre, but surely he wouldn't have had time to write it all.
>
> --Bob G.
Oxford was SHAKE-SPEARE
NOT Glover's son SHAKSPERE
NOR Shoemaker's son SHAXPER.
These last two were but RED HERRINGS:
---------------------------------------------------------
> The puissant red herring, the golden Hesperides red herring, the
> Meonian red herring, the red herring of Red Herrings' Hall, every
> pregnant peculiar of whose resplendent laud and honour to delineate
> and adumbrate to the ample life were a work that would drink dry
> fourscore and eighteen Castalian fountains of eloquence, consume
> another Athens of fecundity, and abate the haughtiest poetical fury
> 'twixt this and the burning zone and the tropic of Cancer.
> --- (Nashe's Lenten Stuff)
---------------------------------------------------------
"She is nether fish nor flesh, nor good red herring."
--- _Proverbes_ (John Heywood)
Not fish (food for the monk), not flesh (food for the people generally),
nor yet red herring (food for
paupers).
---------------------------------------------------------
Herring-bone: a peculiar stitch in needlework,
chiefly used in working flannel:
http://www.dwnet.com/marlowe/01home.html
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/shaxmonc.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
DOCTOR CAIUS
By gar, de herring is no dead so as I vill kill him.
Take your rapier, Jack; I vill tell you how I vill kill him.
---------------------------------------------------------
FALSTAFF
Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a WEAVER; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
PRINCE HENRY
How now, WOOL-SACK! what mutter you?
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Plunkett's "Shaksper of Stratford, A Monumental Deception"
pictures the WOOL PACKERS Association insignia of the day on page 27 and
it comprises:
a *woolsack with 4 tied corners*
right below the words:
'The Wool=packers.'
'WoolShag=ckspear'
--------------------------------------------------
<<Poor Poet-Ape, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit,
Fool, as if half eyes will not know a fleece
From locks of WOOL, or shreds from the whole piece.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Tarlatan => A kind of thin, transparent cotton muslin for dresses.
Kemp => Coarse, rough hair WOOL or fur, injuring its quality.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
that the Stratford man had trouble writing his name.
--Bob G.
Neuendorffer
> And your point is . . . ?
> To prove my contention that Oxfordism is a mental illness?
Pretending to be the Phantom is a mental illness.
Art
John W Kennedy
>
> This sounds to me like you are giving him credit for at least one of
> the signatures, then turning around and using its mere appearance to
> accuse him of illiteracy. How else is one to interpret your statement,
> the subtext of which seems to be: "If he has so much trouble scrawling
> out his own name, how can he be an author?" How can you make a statement
> about his ability to sign his name unless you admit that at least one
> of the signatures are his (it doesn't matter which)? You must allow
> that, or your above statement makes no sense. Then, we're back to
> square-one: You cannot judge literacy on a signature. Plenty of
> educated people have terrible penmanship.
Not to mention that only an expert is fit to judge the penmanship of a
secretary hand in the first place, seeing that it isn't even an ancestor
of modern English handwriting. Otherwise, one falls into the error of
the student who said, "It's no wonder the Neanderthals became extinct;
they were all so ugly that they never mated."
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
David L. Webb
[...]
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, you won't get one from the Oxfordians. For an example of the
types of
> > arguments they use, read Volker, Art. N., and Crowley. You'll soon realize
> > that Oxfordism is a type of mental illness, not a scholarly discipline.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> verifiable?
> 1: capable of being verified or disproved by experiment or observation
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, Art, how can you say this with a straight face?! You
habitually VER-ify things that have nothing whatEVER to do with Oxford --
the works of Shakespeare, for instance.
> But I don't know how you go about "verifying"
> the truth of them (outside of common sense).
But Art, you tirelessly VER-ify things that are far beyond the bounds of
"common sense"!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> In Ben Jonson's _The Poetaster_ a 'parcel-poet'
> by the name of 'Crispinus' or 'Cri-spinas'
> boasts about his coat-of-arms.
>
> St. Crispin is the patron Saint of Leatherworkers.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
"Spinas" means "thorn", and "parcel poet" looks suspiciously like
"parcel post", and the "thorn" is clearly the THURN & Taxis, the imperial
postal system in central Europe (Taxis was postmaster to Holy Roman emperor
Maximilian I from 1489) whose symbol is a posTHORN. The Thurn & Taxis
survives in _The Crying of Lot 49_ as the courier system of the Tristero
conspiracy. I *told* you that Oxford was Pynchon, Art! Of course, that
really should be "TriSTARot" (note that the STAR recurs in _The PoetASTER_,
and that your beloved Tarot cards make an appearance in "TrisTAROT"), which
is an anagram of "It's rot, Art". If you change the "r" in "Crispinus" to
an "o", the result is a perfect anagram of "suspicion".
> Too bad the DAUGHTERS of gentlemen (e.g., William Shakspere)
> were not talk how to read & write.
Dave Kathman has pointed out that the Stratford town records contain the
signature of Susanna Shakespeare. Do you dispute this fact? If so, on
what grounds? If not, then your ridiculous generalization is hard to
justify.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Shakespeare died on the exact same date as Cervantes.
> [Neither left any letters, books or manuscripts.]
> St. George's Day
> April 23, 1616 (Gregorian)
> Conjunction of Saturn & Sun
> (on the first waxing quarter moon after Easter).
> ---------------------------------------------------------
But Shakespeare was born on the same day as Nabokov (April 23), and
eVERy one of Nabokov's English-language works bears the dedication "To
VERa." MoreoVER, Nabokov's novel _Pale Fire_ (the title is taken from a
line in _Timon of Athens_) poses an intricate authorship conundrum, and his
novel _The Real Life of Sebastian KNIGHT_ poses the essential problem of
biography so dear to the hearts of Oxfordians. His novel _Bend Sinister_
teems with anti-Stratfordian references. Why doesn't your "reasoning"
demomstrate just as plausibly that Oxford was also Nabokov?
> > Art, broaden your horizons! Read Accounts of Revels, there're theatrical
> > references galore to Shakespeare, in any month, many after Oxford died.
>
> Yeah, sure, Greg.
>
[...]
> > No, really, check it out, Art. It's the antidote for all but only the most
> > acute Oxfordianism.
>
> Better to be a cute Oxfordian than an obtuse Stratfordian.
[...]
> "Not having acute sensibility or perceptions; dull; stupid; as, obtuse
> senses." --Milton.
Have you EVER noticed that "Milton" and "Bilton" differ by only a single
initial consonant, and in both cases the consonant in question is a voiced
bilabial? Maybe Oxford was Milton, too, as well as Shakespeare, Cervantes,
Pynchon, and Nabokov!
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Stratfordian Supposition NUMBERO 1:
>
> Shake-speare CANNOT POSSIBLY be a pseudonym.
> [After all we are aware of every pseudonym we are aware of.]
> ----------------------------------------------------
No, the oVERwhelming evidence suggests that an actor named William
Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him; his contemporaries thought
so, and there is copious evidence that he was an actor in the troupes that
performed the works attributed to him. In view of the abdundant evidence,
why hypothesize a pseudonym? It defies common sense. I don't know of many
Stratfordians who assert that the name "CANNOT POSSIBLY be a pseudonym" --
that sounds like the absolutist, dogmatic pontification of an Oxfordian.
The probability is vanishingly small, however.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Anti-Stratfordian Supposition NUMBERO 1:
>
> NO PERSON with an ILLITERATE family
> (i.e., parents, wife & children)
> COULD POSSIBLY have written Shake-speare.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
Another rigid, absolutist, dogmatic, Oxfordian pontification -- this
"supposition" (as you concede it to be) admits NO qualifications or
exceptions, does it, Art? The words you capitalize for emphasis are
especially revealing. The above pontification sounds exactly like Jerry
Falwell's absolutist certainty. And yet you trot out this long-discredited
Oxfordian article of faith despite evidence that:
(1) Shakespeare could read and write (his signatures survive on several
documents, and many literary works were attributed to him by people who
should know; there is overwhelming evidence that he was an actor, a
profession which it would be difficult indeed for an illiterate to pursue);
(2) His daughter Susanna could read and write (her signature survives in
the Stratford records);
(3) A letter written to Shakespeare survives;
(4) There is documentary reference to a book owned by "Mr. Shakespeare,"
which suggests that at least someone in the family probably owned books.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> The Anti-Stratfordian Supposition is simply common sense.
>
> The Stratfordian Supposition requires years of indoctrination.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
In view of the above evidence -- of which you seem to be blissfully
ignorant, and wilfully choose to remain so, since much of it is quite easy
to check, at least for someone who can read (and who chooses to read books,
rather than going to the Brotherblue web site for his information) -- who
is flouting "common sense"?
David Webb
volker multhopp
> Not to mention that only an expert is fit to judge the penmanship of a
> secretary hand in the first place, seeing that it isn't even an ancestor
> of modern English handwriting. Otherwise, one falls into the error of
> the student who said, "It's no wonder the Neanderthals became extinct;
> they were all so ugly that they never mated."
My concern is not ugliness nor penmanship, but that the sigs don't
resemble each other.
See http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/WSSigs.htm, and judge for
yourself.
--Volker
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
> To my relatively uneducated eye-- only the most partisan eye could hope
> all signatures are from the same hand. [signatures visible at:]
> http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/WSSigs.htm
I've not seen enough Elizabethan signatures to make a personal judgement
on those variabilities but I will say that I've seen some evidence that
Elizabethans did not all feel that they had to sign their names exactly
the same way each time. They sometimes varied spelling and they sometimes
varied how they formed the letters. In one of Charle's Hamilton's books,
there are a number of signatures by Philip Sidney. One looks like it was
written by someone named "Ph Lickei" and some of the letters are formed
differently than in the other signatures.
Chambers's point was that the conditions under which the signatures were
made influenced had to influence how they were made. Anyone squeezing
their name onto a one inch wide greasy paper, is not likely to sign it the
same as they would on their will. Anyone signing a legal document in
which they have no real interest, might very well dash off a sloppy
abreviated version of their name. The signature of a seriously ill person
will likely little resemble one made in better health.
I'm not an expert but Chambers's explanation seems adequate. He seems to
have been a careful and honest scholar who saw hundreds of Elizabethan
signatures. It isn't clear why I shouldn't weigh his very educated opinon
more than your admittedly uneducated opinion.
> The only "legitimate" explanation linking the Will3 to the Will1 and
> Will2 sigs, is that Shakspere signed the smooth Will3 first, then a
> couple days later, after a stroke or other major damage, then scratched
> Will1 and the jagged Will2 (check the difference in the small "a" of
> Shaksper). This raises questions about whether he was cognizant of the
> addition of the money for rings for H, C, and B.
I don't have any problem with the idea of him signing the last page first.
And I think it's likely that he signed the other two pages later after the
modifications where made. I can't think of any good reason to suppose
he wasn't cognizant of any of the interlineations and there are lots of
good reasons to suppose that no such interlineations would have lightly
been made without his approval. For one thing, while 26s 8p for a ring
doesn't sound like much today, it was a sum equivalent to about a
month's wages for a master craftsman.
> As you agree, the other two sigs show no resemblance to the Will sigs.
>
There are definite similarities between the Belott signature and the first
Blackfriars signature. And those two signatures each have some
similiarities to the last will signature, the most obvious being the dots
in the "W"s. Charles Hamilton also pointed out that Shakespeare generally
made the first "l" larger than the second. Since I haven't seen hundreds
of Elizabethan signatures, I can't really say how rare each of those
"similarities" are, but I'd not be surprised if the combination of those
"similarities" is quite rare.
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
volker multhopp
> > Why
> > couldn't they leave a subtle clue which wouldn't appear immediately
> > absurd to the locals, like an illiterate bequeathing manuscripts?
> place by the time the folio was printed?
A monument the publishers might have ordered? A monument that doesn't
say Shakspere was an actor, poet, or playwright?
--Volker
Dave Furstenau
> varied how they formed the letters. In one of Charle's Hamilton's books,
> there are a number of signatures by Philip Sidney. One looks like it was
> written by someone named "Ph Lickei" and some of the letters are formed
> differently than in the other signatures.
> There are definite similarities between the Belott signature and the first
> Blackfriars signature. And those two signatures each have some
> similiarities to the last will signature, the most obvious being the dots
> in the "W"s. Charles Hamilton also pointed out that Shakespeare generally
> made the first "l" larger than the second.
Careful Rob ...
If you're going to appeal to Charles Hamilton and accept his
scholarship, then you might be placed into the position of admitting
that the entire will was in Shakespeare's hand. After all, the
evidence you are citing was exactly that which he was using to make
his case for that belief.
Personally, I think he makes a very strong case, but I am also
aware that he rattles the cages of orthodox Shakespearean studies to
the point where they desparately try to disclaim him (though few seem
to have his manuscript credentials).
Whether he is right or wrong I am to learn. I simply don't know
and (thus) remain neutral. His technical arguments *seem* compelling,
but I can't really judge. His secondary arguments are quite logical
from where I sit, so I would dearly love to read a scholarly defense
of the other side, but can't seem to scrounge up any references.
Usually, they attempt to dismiss him with the intellectual equivalent
of a roll of the eyes; a pretty anemic response.
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
<snip>
>
> His parents were illiterate, his wife illiterate, at least one,
> possibly all children illiterate. It looks like an illiterate
> household.
All of his Stratford friends seem to have been literate. His brothers
seem to have been literate as well.
You'd do well to drop the idea that a mark on a legal document was
necessarily made by an illiterate. Are you still disputing the idea that
contemporary literate women, by custom, put their mark on legal documents?
I sometimes think that you deliberately ignore the difficulties in
determining the literacy level of Elizabethans, preferring instead to let
your prejudices dictate a simplistic analysis.
<snip>
Rob
Remove the xs to reply.
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > We are at least agreed the actor must be the author. The illogic is
> > that the Stratford man who had trouble writing his own name was either.
> degree.
Yes, definitely. Certainly this actor is literate. Perhaps some minor
actors learned their roles by rote, but I have no reason to suppose
that.
>Fine. That puts Shakespeare in a literate family for you, since his
> brother Edmund was an actor.
Whether Edmund was an actor is tangential to whether W Shakspere was.
The whole authorship cannot hang from this point. But I believe the
church records indicating Ed an actor to have been forged. There is no
lack of other Shakespeare records that were accepted, and then rejected
as forgeries. See my webpage on forgeries:
http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/forgery.htm
--Volker
>
> TR
volker multhopp
> Here's a look at the Queen's signature:
> http://tudor.simplenet.com/elizabeth/
> I can count 14 X's in her scripty masterpiece.
> Does that make Her Majestie 14 times more illiterate than Susanna?
I see country and sea beneath her, and clouds and smoke above. I see
tall buildings and gates. Her signature is a bright thriving picture of
England.
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
I see a self-enamored power source in need of protection and harmony above her,
below her and on all sides.
I do not know at what age Eliz penned this, but today its the level of work of a
10-year-old (with time to fill) who is enjoying the satisfaction of the ink
taking shape to mean something.
I believe Eliz to be literate (no thanks to her parents but her step-mom) but in
this early stage of widespread literacy, was interested in the writing action
itself. She was fanciful, for sure, and went vertical, which indicates pride.
Any handwriting experts around? Give it a look:
http://tudor.simplenet.com/elizabeth/
Greg Reynolds
Neuendorffer
> In article <19990128010151...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
> edarg...@aol.com (Edargorter) wrote:
> > Art N. wrote (along with other things):
> > >>>>> The fact of the matter is there are
> > ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL FACTS that clearly
> > indicate the authorship of Shakespeare.>>>>>
> > Thanks, I think.
> > Rich C.
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> For what? The historical facts indicate it clearly enough for the rest of
> the world. Instead of arguing the record, Art makes a blanket statement
> proving nothing except his obtuseness.
Greg Reynolds thinks I'm cute:
> No, really, check it out, Art. It's the antidote for all but only the most
> acute Oxfordianism.
Tom Reedy wrote:
> Just because he says "The fact of the
> matter is . . ." does not make it true. Read his other posts and then tell
> me how much confidence you have in his statements of "fact."
By all means!
Art
Greg Reynolds
Neuendorffer wrote:
> Greg Reynolds thinks I'm cute:
>
> > No, really, check it out, Art. It's the antidote for all but only the most
> > acute Oxfordianism.
>
Art, I doubt you are cute and wouldn't wonder about it out loud.
Maybe you are, maybe not. Maybe just cute to yourself.
I'd ask for a retraction but that would be like asking Pandora if she has change
for a dollar.
Greg Reynolds
"Living is an art, its not a science. You make it up..."
-Al Hirschfeld
volker multhopp
> That you think the signatures don't look like each other makes it a FACT
> that the Stratford man had trouble writing his name.
That the signatures don't look like each other makes it look like the
Stratford man had trouble writing his own name.
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
Volker did you ever sign a check while driving, or not have a flat surface,
or be shivering, or be tired, or not look while writing, or feel silly and
stylish? Did your pen ever malfunction, or did you use something that works,
but isn't a pen at all?
To post these signatures on your site only to discredit them is peculiar,
indeed. The only key word in your text on your site is "extant." If six
survived 400 years, I believe there were hundreds and hundreds that didn't.
That would be your universe for study.
To say the man is illiterate based on what he wrote is upsidedown and
backward thinking. It hurts the logical mind to gather that OXY-MORON-ic mush
into a workable thought.
There is nothing in his handwriting to conclude negatively about him. He
definitely wrote, according to Volker's website (but not to Volker).
He wrote. He wrote plays and sonnets, and epic poetry, and he EVEN wrote on
Volker's website.
Why? Because he is a writer. That's all you prove. Your miserable guesswork
is outside the fact that you already substantiate on your site--that the man
was literate.
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp
> Volker did you ever sign a check while driving,
Was Shakspere driving?
>or not have a flat surface,
From writing on a pillow, perhaps.
> or be shivering, or be tired, or not look while writing, or feel silly and
> stylish?
Do any of these apply to signing the will, or the realty related sigs?
--Volker
volker multhopp
> Why? Because he is a writer. That's all you prove. Your miserable guesswork
> is outside the fact that you already substantiate on your site--that the man
> was literate.
Whoops ... I almost missed it. Where did I prove that?
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Hey, wow, you're right! All we can deduce from the monument is that he
was a male human being who could write, had the art of Virgil, the
wisdom of Socrates, and now dwelt on Mount Olympus. What a letdown
for the Stratfordian side.
--Bob G.
volker multhopp
> Hey, wow, you're right! All we can deduce from the monument is that he
> was a male human being who could write, had the art of Virgil, the
> wisdom of Socrates, and now dwelt on Mount Olympus. What a letdown
> for the Stratfordian side.
The writer of the inscription certainly respected Virgil and Socrates.
Ot1h, the inscription does celebrate Shakespeare; otoh, it doesn't say
Shakspere is he.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> The writer of the inscription certainly respected Virgil and Socrates.
> Ot1h, the inscription does celebrate Shakespeare; otoh, it doesn't say
> Shakspere is he.
Come off it, Volker. The Oxfordian case is getting more and more farcical. The
inscription celebrates "SHAKSPEARE" right under the bust that matches every
pictorial depiction of the man. He signed his will "William SHAKSPEARE", EXACTLY
the same. The monument is in Stratford, not Hedingham or Hackney.
Elvis Presley's grave doesn't eulogise Eddie Cochran. It's in Graceland
celebrating Elvis Presley. Just as Shakespeare's celebrates Shakespeare in
Stratford.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > What's wrong with roman-a-clef? It's a popular pastime. In E England
> > it would have taken supreme ability to capture the court in disguise.
> > Besides, if finding that relations in the canon can be understood as
> > relations within Burghley house, what's wrong with that?
> The issue is not whether Shakespeare _might_ have written a
> roman-a-clef, but whether he in fact did so in "Hamlet". The facts that
> "Hamlet" is clearly based on known sources and that there was an earlier
> Hamlet play (I have not the scholarship to discuss what it might have
> been or by whom, but it is clear enough that it existed) plainly
> militate against this theory, although in principle it could be argued
> that (as has in fact happened from time to time in the history of play
> writing) he found the existing story apt to his purpose (c.f., "The
> Crucible"). A more deadly argument ...
Wait. Your first "argument wasn't deadly at all-- I'm not even sure it
qualifies here as an argument. The author adopted a pre-existing plot,
and adapted it to his own purposes. You can't prove anything from that.
>against the Oxfordian hypothesis is
> that the plot of "Hamlet" does not particularly correspond to what is
> actually known of the life of the E of O.
The necessary correspondences of character-relationships is there. I
certainly don't expect an author to produce an *exact* re-creation of
life experiences.
> But other counter-arguments are possible, in addition to those. Tom
> Reedy observes in the post to which I replied that the Hamlet-is-Oxford
> theory makes of Oxford a Byronic Romantic-age hero, and that it is as
> anachronistic and improbable to expect such in Elizabethan or Jacobean
> London as it would be to expect Frauendienst in Periclean Athens or
> Marxism in Federalist Washington.
Piffle. Shakespeare didn't give damn about your 20th c retrospective
classifications. He wrote what he knew.
>My own, lesser, contribution is that
> the oft-encountered Oxfordian theory that Shakespeare's plays are
> somehow critical of the English court of his day (most recently
> appearing on HLAS in the form of the amusing pipe dream that ALL of
> Shakespeare's Histories have a republican agenda) is equally
> anachronistic, based on the drama critic's idee fixe traditionally known
> as "Ibsenism" (though Ibsen himself had discarded "Ibsenism" even before
> the word appeared in English), for while broad political satire is as
> old as Aristophanes, the "problem play" is a thoroughly modern
> invention, and the delusion that all Truly Artistic Plays _must_ be
> "problem plays" is thoroughly modern as well.
This is strictly your determination that "problem plays" are
exclusively modern, and henceforth Shakespeare could not have been
talking about real matters.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> >> illiterate.
> > I'm concerned the sigs aren't from the same hand. What do doctors
> > have to do with it?
> You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. The signatures
> are his, they're not his.
They're certainly allegedly his.
>Earlier in this subthread you wrote:
> "The illogic is that the Stratford man who had trouble
> writing his own name was either [an actor or author]."
> This sounds to me like you are giving him credit for at least one of
> the signatures, then turning around and using its mere appearance to
> accuse him of illiteracy.
As I've said, I'm not concerned with penmanship-- I am concerned that
the sigs don't resemble each other. There are different hands at work.
Was one Shakspere's? I don't know.
>How else is one to interpret your statement,
> the subtext of which seems to be: "If he has so much trouble scrawling
> out his own name, how can he be an author?" How can you make a statement
> about his ability to sign his name unless you admit that at least one
> of the signatures are his (it doesn't matter which)?
That doesn't follow. He may have had so much trouble, he couldn't sign
any of them.
>You must allow
> that, or your above statement makes no sense. Then, we're back to
> square-one: You cannot judge literacy on a signature. Plenty of
> educated people have terrible penmanship.
Again, see above on penmanship.
> > There are many scenarios possible. Maybe H&C provided for the
> > Stratford monument-- when they were there, they doctored the will.
> This would be after his death? When the will was filed? These
> guys waltzed into town and marched into the Prerogative Office and doctored
> the will with interlinears matching the handwriting of the rest of the
> document? Even if you imagine the handwriting is different, you still
> have to explain how these strangers in Stratford were able to do
> this. Don't tell me -- they bribed the officials? The lawyers were
> in on the conspiracy too?
The will was written shortly before death. One possibility would have
been that H&C heard Shakspere was dying, and hurried to Stratford to
look after their interests. They got there just in time to get the
interlineation added. But I'm not going to develop endless detail for
things unknown. The alteration of the will might have been done by Joe
Greene, the guy who "beautified" the moniment and found the will over a
century later. We don't have to run the lawyers in-- it was presumably
a clerk who wrote out the will. Bribery?-- are you going to tell us
bribery was unknown in E England, or even uncommon? The will might been
forged well after probate-- someone asks to see the will, and
surreptiously adds the interlineation.
> > Why should the locals know about London actors? I don't think such
> > hoaxes are thought out completely carefully.
> Now I'm confused again. *Who* were they planting this evidence
> for? I was never really clear on that. Since most everyone in
> England seems to be in on the conspiracy, who's left to contradict it?
I'm not to pretend to be able to give a one sentence answer, and may
fail to give an adequate one. Life can be complex, and there were
likely complex reasons tugging at the conspirators. One reason was the
commercial desire to keep the popular "Shakespeare" as author. Another
was to deal with various interests who didn't want the earl of Oxford
identified as the author.
> > H&C were interested in making it seem as if Shakespeare could be the
> > Stratford man. They wanted/needed a Stratford component.
> Fair enough. That still doesn't preclude using London documents
> and specifying "Wm. Shakesper of Stratford".
Exactly. And that might explain the Blackfriars gatehouse. In 1613,
the King's Men, wishing to solidify the "common Shakespeare" identity,
cut Shakspere in on the deal by giving him a piece of the gatehouse.
--Volker
Dave Furstenau
> Dave Furstenau wrote:
>> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> This sounds to me like you are giving him credit for at least one of
>> the signatures, then turning around and using its mere appearance to
>> accuse him of illiteracy.
>
> As I've said, I'm not concerned with penmanship-- I am concerned that
> the sigs don't resemble each other. There are different hands at work.
> Was one Shakspere's? I don't know.
Okay, then you are logically forced to retract your comment:
"The illogic is that the Stratford man who had trouble
writing his own name was either [an actor or author]."
You can only say he had "trouble writing his own name" if you
have a concrete example of this. If you flip-flop on the authenticity
of the signatures, you undercut your own statement. From your
perspective the only *possible* examples of his handwriting are the
signatures (I dispute this). If they aren't really his (only one has
to be -- and we don't even need to know which one), you have no
basis to make any claim whatsoever on his literacy. From your
perspective, there aren't any valid samples. The *most* you can say
is that MAYBE there's a POSSIBILITY he MIGHT have been illiterate
since he came from a rural area (with plenty of literate neighbors) or
he PROBABLY COULD have been illiterate, since he left no samples of
his handwriting. This last notion is a non-sequitur, since the absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence. You simply can't draw *any*
significant conclusions and any attempt to do so is disingenuous.
This will hurt you in the long run. When you doggedly persist in
such contortions, people will doubt you even when your arguments are
reasonable and plausible -- since you've demonstrated such a low
standard of evidence.
>> How else is one to interpret your statement,
>> the subtext of which seems to be: "If he has so much trouble scrawling
>> out his own name, how can he be an author?" How can you make a statement
>> about his ability to sign his name unless you admit that at least one
>> of the signatures are his (it doesn't matter which)?
>
> That doesn't follow. He may have had so much trouble, he couldn't sign
> any of them.
Again: No signature sample = No valid comments about the signature.
You are penned in (as it were). If your argument is: We don't have
his signature, therefore he had trouble writing his signature, therefore
he was illiterate -- then I won't waste electrons explaining what a
negative fallacy is.
On the vast conspiracy to doctor the will:
> century later. We don't have to run the lawyers in-- it was presumably
> a clerk who wrote out the will. Bribery?-- are you going to tell us
> bribery was unknown in E England, or even uncommon? The will might been
> forged well after probate-- someone asks to see the will, and
> surreptiously adds the interlineation.
And all of Shakespeare and all references to him *could* have been
written in last century. Just depends on how big of a conspiracy
you're willing to swallow. And that's the fundamental problem, isn't it?
That's why discussing history with an Verean is like nailing jell-o
to a tree. Every time to argue yourself into a logical corner you
rub-rub-rub your lantern and the genie of "conspiracy" appears to chase
away your inconsistancies with a blustering myriad of hoakum. You don't
*need* evidence when you can simply re-adjust your circle of conspirators
at will. A new letter from fom Nashe appears mentioning the great
playwright Bill Shakespeare from Stratford? ***POOF*** Nashe is in on
the conspiracy. PUH-leeez! ...
>> Fair enough. That still doesn't preclude using London documents
>> and specifying "Wm. Shakesper of Stratford".
>
> Exactly. And that might explain the Blackfriars gatehouse. In 1613,
> the King's Men, wishing to solidify the "common Shakespeare" identity,
> cut Shakspere in on the deal by giving him a piece of the gatehouse.
rub-rub-rub.
Tom Reedy
> > But other counter-arguments are possible, in addition to those. Tom
> > Reedy observes in the post to which I replied that the Hamlet-is-Oxford
> > theory makes of Oxford a Byronic Romantic-age hero, and that it is as
> > anachronistic and improbable to expect such in Elizabethan or Jacobean
> > London as it would be to expect Frauendienst in Periclean Athens or
> > Marxism in Federalist Washington.
>
> Piffle. Shakespeare didn't give damn about your 20th c retrospective
> classifications. He wrote what he knew.
>
John, it is obvious that Volker does not understand the argument. Not
surprising, since him being a prime example of it precludes any objectivity on
his part.
He illustrates my point perfectly.
TR
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Dave Furstenau wrote:
<snip>
> Careful Rob ...
>
> If you're going to appeal to Charles Hamilton and accept his
> scholarship, then you might be placed into the position of admitting
> that the entire will was in Shakespeare's hand. After all, the
> evidence you are citing was exactly that which he was using to make
> his case for that belief.
> Personally, I think he makes a very strong case, but I am also
> aware that he rattles the cages of orthodox Shakespearean studies to
> the point where they desparately try to disclaim him (though few seem
> to have his manuscript credentials).
> Whether he is right or wrong I am to learn. I simply don't know
> and (thus) remain neutral. His technical arguments *seem* compelling,
> but I can't really judge. His secondary arguments are quite logical
> from where I sit, so I would dearly love to read a scholarly defense
> of the other side, but can't seem to scrounge up any references.
> Usually, they attempt to dismiss him with the intellectual equivalent
> of a roll of the eyes; a pretty anemic response.
>
Hi Dave,
I'll take another look at his methods. I wasn't impressed the first time
but I don't know enough to make an informed judgement.
It seems to be generally agreed that the main difficulty in finding
Shakespeare's hand in unsigned documents is that the signatures provide
too small a sample for accurate comparisons. I do think that Hamilton had
some interesting ideas to get around that problem. For instance, I'd like
to see what some other paleography experts have to say about his
comparison of the coat-of-arms drafts to hand D in Sir Thomas More.
I wonder how hard it is to get a basic understanding of paleographic
methodology.
Dave Furstenau
>
> It seems to be generally agreed that the main difficulty in finding
> Shakespeare's hand in unsigned documents is that the signatures provide
> too small a sample for accurate comparisons. I do think that Hamilton had
> some interesting ideas to get around that problem.
I wonder if anyone has thought to collect samples from
Shakespeare's lawyer and any of his clerks. Certainly, there must be
a few of these around and a comparsion between other legal documents
from the law firm against Shakespeare's will would stand a good chance
of settling the issue.
If Hamilton spoke to this, I missed it. Nonetheless, it would be
the natural path for an a rival to obliterate his argument. It could
never prove it (of course) only disprove it.
John W Kennedy
> The necessary correspondences of character-relationships is there. I
> certainly don't expect an author to produce an *exact* re-creation of
> life experiences.
How so? In the end, all the Oxfordian argument comes down to is:
Hamlet and Oxford both had dead fathers and remarried mothers (a
situation common as muck before this century), and
Hamlet and Oxford had (completely opposite) romantic relationships
with young ladies whose fathers were royal advisers.
> > But other counter-arguments are possible, in addition to those. Tom
> > Reedy observes in the post to which I replied that the Hamlet-is-Oxford
> > theory makes of Oxford a Byronic Romantic-age hero, and that it is as
> > anachronistic and improbable to expect such in Elizabethan or Jacobean
> > London as it would be to expect Frauendienst in Periclean Athens or
> > Marxism in Federalist Washington.
>
> Piffle. Shakespeare didn't give damn about your 20th c retrospective
> classifications. He wrote what he knew.
Yes, and what he _didn't_ know was 18th-century German romanticism.
Rarely, very rarely, there are instances of fundamental changes in human
viewpoints. One of the most dramatic, one that is still with us, is the
medieval notion that Romantic Love is a Good and Inportant Thing, rather
than an amusing form of temporary insanity. Another is the 18th-century
notion that shouting and shaking ones fist at gods and kings is a Grand
and Heroic thing to do. (The "Prometheus Bound" of Aschylus is a step
in that direction, but no more than a step; he refuses to accept the
injustice of Zeus, but he does not rant, as he does in his Romantic-age
incarnations.)
It is not a question of Shakespeare "giving a damn about ...
classifications", but one of seeing in the terms of his own time.
Shakespeare could no more be or conceive of a Byronic hero than he could
be or conceive of a Whig, a Thatcherite, or. for that matter, a
Scientologist.
> >My own, lesser, contribution is that
> > the oft-encountered Oxfordian theory that Shakespeare's plays are
> > somehow critical of the English court of his day (most recently
> > appearing on HLAS in the form of the amusing pipe dream that ALL of
> > Shakespeare's Histories have a republican agenda) is equally
> > anachronistic, based on the drama critic's idee fixe traditionally known
> > as "Ibsenism" (though Ibsen himself had discarded "Ibsenism" even before
> > the word appeared in English), for while broad political satire is as
> > old as Aristophanes, the "problem play" is a thoroughly modern
> > invention, and the delusion that all Truly Artistic Plays _must_ be
> > "problem plays" is thoroughly modern as well.
>
> This is strictly your determination that "problem plays" are
> exclusively modern, and henceforth Shakespeare could not have been
> talking about real matters.
I usually find myself fighting against the prejudice that "Ibsenism" is
the be-all and end-all of Dramatic Art; this is the first time I can
recall having to take up the case from the other side. Do you honestly
believe that "Pillars of Society", "A Doll's House", and "Ghosts"
brought nothing new to the stage? That (to name but two) Archer and
Shaw were making all that fuss over nothing?
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
that he was a male human being who could write, had the art of Virgil,
the wisdom of Socrates, and now dwelt on Mount Olympus. What a letdown
for the Stratfordian side."
Volker: "The writer of the inscription certainly respected Virgil and
Socrates. The inscription does celebrate Shakespeare; otoh, it
doesn't say Shakspere is he."
No, the inclusion of his name, date of death and age at that time in an
inscription on a monument in his place of burial isn't enough to
establish that. You win again, Volker.
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > As I've said, I'm not concerned with penmanship-- I am concerned that
> > the sigs don't resemble each other. There are different hands at work.
> > Was one Shakspere's? I don't know.
> Okay, then you are logically forced to retract your comment:
> "The illogic is that the Stratford man who had trouble
> writing his own name was either [an actor or author]."
> You can only say he had "trouble writing his own name" if you
> have a concrete example of this. If you flip-flop on the authenticity
> of the signatures, you undercut your own statement. From your
> perspective the only *possible* examples of his handwriting are the
> signatures (I dispute this). If they aren't really his (only one has
I don't know why you're carrying on about this. My position is clear--
I don't know if Shakspere wrote/drew one, two or none of those
signatures. I know he didn't do all of them. That's trouble enough
writing his own name.
> And all of Shakespeare and all references to him *could* have been
> written in last century. Just depends on how big of a conspiracy
> you're willing to swallow. And that's the fundamental problem, isn't it?
I am sympathetic to your problems with conspiracy theories. However, I
must say one thing speaks strongly for de Vere as playwright: the
plays. We will have another one next.
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Volker (mainly since, of course, I've previously addressed them all
many times.) Three really got to me, though:
(1) If, as you muse, Shakespeare may have had so much trouble signing
his name, he made NONE of the signatures attributed to him, why are
those signatures indications of illiteracy? Did some OTHER illiterate
make them FOR him? (To remake Dave F.'s point.)
(2) If your favorite historical figure, Joe Greene doctored the will
over a hundred years after it was written, what happens to your idea
that the clue inserted was trivial because the forger didn't want
to plant a clue that the locals would immediately have seen to be false?
Greene had no reason not to mention Shakespeare's books and manuscripts,
etc., or have him make a bequest to Al Jones, "who was so supportive of
mine plaies."
(3) Right, as you say, "In 1613, the King's Men, wishing to solidify
the 'common Shakespeare' identity, cut Shakspere in on the deal by
giving him a piece of the (Blackfriar's) gatehouse." Glad you finally
accepted my help. (It was I who presented you with this idea many
months ago; you said absolutely nothing, but obviously liked it.)
Tom Reedy
Searches have been made and the handwriting of the clerk who drafted the will
remains unique. I don't know if anyone has ever searched the arms
applications, but it seems to me it would be a simple matter to compare the
handwriting of the Shakespeare application to other applications.
Likewise the handwriting of the first part of the Belott-Mountjoy deposition
of Shakespeare remains unique, with no other matches to any of the other
clerks in the suit. It suspiciously resembles the handwriting in
Shakespeare's marriage bond. Compare the words "Willm Shakespeare of
Stratford-upon-Avon" in the first line of the deposition with the words
"Willm Shagspere" in the marriage bond.
TR
volker multhopp
> Volker: "The writer of the inscription certainly respected Virgil and
> Socrates. The inscription does celebrate Shakespeare; otoh, it
> doesn't say Shakspere is he."
> No, the inclusion of his name, date of death and age at that time in an
> inscription on a monument in his place of burial isn't enough to
> establish that. You win again, Volker.
Funny how it always seems to turn out that way. Do you detect a
pattern?
--Volker
Paul Crowley
<rri...@ibm.net> wrote:
>It is not a question of Shakespeare "giving a damn about ...
>classifications", but one of seeing in the terms of his own time.
>Shakespeare could no more be or conceive of a Byronic hero than he could
>be or conceive of a Whig, a Thatcherite, or. for that matter, a
>Scientologist.
Great writers often seem to be timeless in the sense that they
presage all kinds of concepts and developments in awareness and
knowledge that do not come to maturity for decades or centuries
later. Darwin is a good example. He is almost always worth
re-reading. He has much that is valuable to read and consider on
many of the current debates in the field -- yet, of course, he
could have had no idea of the scientific developments that
provide much of their modern context.
Anyone who studies Shakespeare is frequently amazed at how modern
he seems to be. It did not need Byron to invent the idea of a
aesthetic hero who was hated and disdained. Someone who found
himself in a similar situation a couple of hundred years earlier
could have readily developed many of the same ideas and
attitudes.
>> >the delusion that all Truly Artistic Plays _must_ be
>> > "problem plays" is thoroughly modern as well.
That many 'Truly Artistic Plays' will 'problem plays' has a
certain grounding in logic and fact. It is a common theme
thoughout the arts.
Paul.
volker multhopp
> I'm not going to address all of your too-many recent comments,
> Volker (mainly since, of course, I've previously addressed them all
> many times.) Three really got to me, though:
> (1) If, as you muse, Shakespeare may have had so much trouble signing
> his name, he made NONE of the signatures attributed to him, why are
> those signatures indications of illiteracy? Did some OTHER illiterate
> make them FOR him? (To remake Dave F.'s point.)
They are indications of his illiteracy, not theirs. They had to sign
for him.
> (2) If your favorite historical figure, Joe Greene doctored the will
> over a hundred years after it was written, what happens to your idea
> that the clue inserted was trivial because the forger didn't want
> to plant a clue that the locals would immediately have seen to be false?
> Greene had no reason not to mention Shakespeare's books and manuscripts,
> etc., or have him make a bequest to Al Jones, "who was so supportive of
> mine plaies."
I'm only offering possibilities. The historical record is so open,
there's still a lot of wiggle room.
> (3) Right, as you say, "In 1613, the King's Men, wishing to solidify
> the 'common Shakespeare' identity, cut Shakspere in on the deal by
> giving him a piece of the (Blackfriar's) gatehouse." Glad you finally
> accepted my help. (It was I who presented you with this idea many
> months ago; you said absolutely nothing, but obviously liked it.)
You're right, I have shifted my stance, and I'm sorry if I didn't
recognize your contribution. I had wanted to push the Stratford-side of
the hoax back until 1623, but I couldn't hold that. Shakespeare
obviously knew Shakspere as he reveals in *Winter's Tale*. Remember,
this is almost a straight rip-off of R Greene's Pandosto-- except he
flippantly exchanges Sicily and Bohemia (creating the sea-coast
problem), and the addition of the character Autolycus. Remember R
Greene's and Jonson's complaints of theft? Here is a speech added for
the author's character-- Shakespeare talking about Shakspere:
AUTOLYCUS. Vices, I would say, sir. I know this man well; he hath
been since an ape-bearer; then a process-server, a bailiff; then
he compass'd a motion of the Prodigal Son, and married a tinker's
wife within a mile where my land and living lies; and, having
flown over many knavish professions, he settled only in rogue.
Some call him Autolycus.
--Volker
KQKnave
In article <36B22D19...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
>Remember R
>Greene's and Jonson's complaints of theft?
Where did Jonson complain of Shakespeare's thievery?
Jim
KQKnave
In article <36B20CF8...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
> However, I
>must say one thing speaks strongly for de Vere as playwright: the
>plays.
In what way? Is there anything in the plays that refer or pertain
unequivocally to Oxford? For example, are there any references to
tin mines?
Jim
volker multhopp
> > However, I
> >must say one thing speaks strongly for de Vere as playwright: the
> >plays.
> In what way? Is there anything in the plays that refer or pertain
> unequivocally to Oxford? For example, are there any references to
> tin mines?
Not to that tawdry aspect, but plenty to other important parts of his
life.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> >Remember R
> >Greene's and Jonson's complaints of theft?
> Where did Jonson complain of Shakespeare's thievery?
Remember Poet-Ape?
--Volker
Neuendorffer
>
> Shakespeare
> obviously knew Shakspere as he reveals in *Winter's Tale*. Remember,
> this is almost a straight rip-off of R Greene's Pandosto-- except he
> flippantly exchanges Sicily and Bohemia (creating the sea-coast
> problem),
A) Bohemia DID have a seacoast on the Adriatic and
B) Shakespeare NEVER did anything FLIPPANTLY!
-------------------------------------------------------
When the Holy Roman Empire broke up in 1564:
1) Catholic Philip II (Inquisition/Armada) of Spain [Boo! Hiss!]
was in charge of Sicily; while . . .
2) H.R. Emperor Maxmilian II (1564-1576) was in charge of Bohemia.
Maxilian was a humanist, closet-Lutheran & patron of the arts.
[Applause! Applause!]
Bohemia had a long history of defying the authority of Rome (e.g., John
Hus and Jerome of Prague were burnt for heresy in 1417). And although
Bohemia came under the rule of Catholic Habsburgs in 1526 by the late
16th century this had produced a string of tolerant (if not outright
Protestant) leaders for Bohemia.
Maxmilian II was followed by his son Rudolph II:
Rudolph II of Bohemia (1576-1612) demonstrated less religious
tolerance than his father but he did made his imperial capital Prague
the intellectual hub of Europe. Tycho Brahe, Kepler and the English
astrologer and mystic John Dee were all enticed to Rudolph's eccentric
court of dwarfs and giants. [Tycho even burst his blatter waiting to be
excused from the royal banquet table.]
Perhaps, _The Winter's Tale_(c.1610) was modified/reversed
Specifically for the benefit of Rudy's court.
------------------------------------------------------------
Besides sucking up to Rudy there was possibly
a useful allusion to Dionysius of Syracuse:
<<In 405 BC, just ten years after the ill-fated Sicilian expedition of
Athens, a general, DIONYSIUS seized control over Syracuse. DIONYSIUS is
best known for the manner in which he kept himself in power for 38
years. He did so by unending suspicion and eternal vigilance. There is a
story that he had a bell shaped chamber ["the ear of DIONYSIUS"] opening
into the state prison with the narrow end connecting to his room. In
this way, he could secretly listen to conversations in the prison and
learn if any conspiracies were brewing.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Was _The Winter's Tale_ written to warn Elizabeth about the dangers of
becoming OVERLY suspicious like the Sicilians Dionysius and Leontes?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Note that Elizabeth I herself remained in power for 44+ years thanks
mostly to an efficient (and ruthless) secret service under Francis
Walsingham (& Sir William Cecil/Lord Burghley - as made clear in the
recent movie 'Elizabeth'). The most famous portraiture of Elizabeth
(called the 'rainbow' portrait because Liz is holding a rainbow) shows
Liz in a dress bedecked with the 'eyes' and 'ears' of her secret
service.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
Art's an usher in a theatre complex playing the same fifteen shows over and
over and he leaves his walkietalkie on as he sweeps up popcorn and junior
mints from aisle to aisle and then hits send.
Neuendorffer
>
> Me: "Hey, wow, you're right! All we can deduce from the monument is
> that he was a male human being who could write, had the art of Virgil,
> the wisdom of Socrates, and now dwelt on Mount Olympus. What a letdown
> for the Stratfordian side."
----------------------------------------------------------------
(P)reparatory to, (S)tately Plump, (M)r. Leopold Bloom
(P)oldy, (S)tephen, (M)olly
judicium (P)ylium, genio (S)ocratem, arte (M)aronem
Nestor Socrates Vergil
(Telemachus) (Xenophon) (Ver/gil)
Tell make us Oxenphord Vere/Will
Make us tell (of) Oxenford's genius (&) Vere/Will's art
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terra tegit, populus maeret , Olympus
the earth coVERs him, the people MOurn , OlyMpus
the earth coVERs him, the urn of the OM people, plus my OM MS
(manuscripts)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
few months, sweep, sweep...
Neuendorffer
>
> I nailed it!
> Art's an usher in a theatre complex playing the same fifteen shows over and
> over and he leaves his walkietalkie on as he sweeps up popcorn and junior
> mints from aisle to aisle and then hits send.
NO talking and please put your feet down . . .
. . . aren't you PeeWee Herman?
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Yeah, but I'll slog on, anyway. Us rigidniks never give up.
--Bob G.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > Volker (mainly since, of course, I've previously addressed them all
> > many times.) Three really got to me, though:
>
> > (1) If, as you muse, Shakespeare may have had so much trouble signing
> > his name, he made NONE of the signatures attributed to him, why are
> > those signatures indications of illiteracy? Did some OTHER illiterate
> > make them FOR him? (To remake Dave F.'s point.)
>
> They are indications of his illiteracy, not theirs. They had to sign
> for him.
So, they were LITERATE signatures.
> > (2) If your favorite historical figure, Joe Greene doctored the will
> > over a hundred years after it was written, what happens to your idea
> > that the clue inserted was trivial because the forger didn't want
> > to plant a clue that the locals would immediately have seen to be false?
> > Greene had no reason not to mention Shakespeare's books and manuscripts,
> > etc., or have him make a bequest to Al Jones, "who was so supportive of
> > mine plaies."
>
> I'm only offering possibilities. The historical record is so open,
> there's still a lot of wiggle room.
>
Another problem with your thesis here is that if the hoaxsters snuck
only the references to rings into the will to avoid the locals'
commenting on an absurdity, why did the hoaxsters go so far as to
compare Shakespeare to Virgil, etc. Or just speak of all he hath writt?
Sure, you say they were really speaking of Oxford, but how would a
Stratfordian know that? Especially when they didn't want him to know
it!
> > (3) Right, as you say, "In 1613, the King's Men, wishing to solidify
> > the 'common Shakespeare' identity, cut Shakspere in on the deal by
> > giving him a piece of the (Blackfriar's) gatehouse." Glad you finally
> > accepted my help. (It was I who presented you with this idea many
> > months ago; you said absolutely nothing, but obviously liked it.)
>
> You're right, I have shifted my stance, and I'm sorry if I didn't
> recognize your contribution. I had wanted to push the Stratford-side of
> the hoax back until 1623, but I couldn't hold that. Shakespeare
> obviously knew Shakspere as he reveals in *Winter's Tale*. Remember,
> this is almost a straight rip-off of R Greene's Pandosto-- except he
> flippantly exchanges Sicily and Bohemia (creating the sea-coast
> problem), and the addition of the character Autolycus. Remember R
> Greene's and Jonson's complaints of theft? Here is a speech added for
> the author's character-- Shakespeare talking about Shakspere:
>
> AUTOLYCUS. Vices, I would say, sir. I know this man well; he hath
> been since an ape-bearer; then a process-server, a bailiff; then
> he compass'd a motion of the Prodigal Son, and married a tinker's
> wife within a mile where my land and living lies; and, having
> flown over many knavish professions, he settled only in rogue.
> Some call him Autolycus.
>
Umph. We already did this one, Volker. This is a joke:
Autolycus is pretending to not be Autolycus--to the amusing extent of
saying bad things about himself. It's not like Oxford as Shakespeare
speaking maliciously of Shakespeare but like Shakespeare disguised
as Oxford speaking maliciously of Shakespeare.
KQKnave
In article <36B24356...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
>> Where did Jonson complain of Shakespeare's thievery?
>
> Remember Poet-Ape?
>
> --Volker
>
Yes, I remember Poet-Ape. Where did Jonson complain of
Shakespeare's thievery?
Jim
KQKnave
In article <36B24329...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
>Not to that tawdry aspect, but plenty to other important parts of his
>life.
>
Such as? Anything unequivocal? Anything that can *only* be
interpreted as originating from Oxford's life?
Jim
volker multhopp
> > for him.
> So, they were LITERATE signatures.
Right.
> > I'm only offering possibilities. The historical record is so open,
> > there's still a lot of wiggle room.
> Another problem with your thesis here is that if the hoaxsters snuck
> only the references to rings into the will to avoid the locals'
> commenting on an absurdity, why did the hoaxsters go so far as to
> compare Shakespeare to Virgil, etc.
Homage to Shakespeare.
>Or just speak of all he hath writt?
The inscription can be understood as a disguised joke on the hicks by
the Londoners.
> Sure, you say they were really speaking of Oxford, but how would a
> Stratfordian know that?
Who says they were trying to achieve clarity?
>Especially when they didn't want him to know
> it!
Exactly.
> > AUTOLYCUS. Vices, I would say, sir. I know this man well; he hath
> > been since an ape-bearer; then a process-server, a bailiff; then
> > he compass'd a motion of the Prodigal Son, and married a tinker's
> > wife within a mile where my land and living lies; and, having
> > flown over many knavish professions, he settled only in rogue.
> > Some call him Autolycus.
> Umph. We already did this one, Volker. This is a joke:
> Autolycus is pretending to not be Autolycus--to the amusing extent of
> saying bad things about himself. It's not like Oxford as Shakespeare
> speaking maliciously of Shakespeare but like Shakespeare disguised
> as Oxford speaking maliciously of Shakespeare.
Well, you're getting there.
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
literate person, or literate persons. So if even one of them was
the Stratford man's, the Stratford man was literate. So the Stratford
man didn't even sign his will. But no one noticed his illiteracy or
commented on it when things like the inscription mentioning what he
wrote appeared.
You seem to be missing many points. Here you seem not to understand
the absurdity of the hoaxsters' being subtle with the interlineation,
only making it mention rings to actors instead of a play-manuscript
to Hamnet Sadler to prevent some local from saying, "Egad, our
illiterate friend would never have a play-manuscript to give anyone,"
while at the same time putting up an inscription that locals would
take as describing that same illiterate as someone who "hath writt,"
had the art of Virgil, and was now on Mount Olympus.
About the comparison of Shakespeare to Virgil, you say it was "Homage
to Shakespeare." Okay, but the locals would have thought their
illiterate fellow villager was meant and wonder about it. Perhaps
even to a literate bystander who wrote it down. Why would the hoaxsters
take a chance of that happening?
That "all he hath writt" can be "understood as a disguised joke on
the hicks (one of whose kid wrote him letters in Latin) by the
Londoners" is possible, too, I suppose--but, again, it would have
been taken literally by the locals and wondered about, perhaps aloud.
You simply can't say the inscription was unclear: it was absolutely
clear. Yes, a great joke to someone who knew that persons of importance
were trying to make the Stratford man out to be an author, but
inexplicable to those who knew he wasn't an author but didn't know about
the hoax. And if all the locals knew about the hoax, why the silly
pseudo-clue in the will when a much better one could have been added.
Also, to repeat Dave F., why no better forged clues in London?
Your scenario continues to seem batty to me. Much better for me would
be having Shakespeare semi-literate and able in his lifetime to pretend
to be an author--to such an extent that the monument and its inscription
are put up sincerely to honor him. But it's hard to believe he could
only have been semi-literate, not fully literate, and if he was fully
literate, there's hardly any argument left against his having been the
author.
> > > AUTOLYCUS. Vices, I would say, sir. I know this man well; he hath
> > > been since an ape-bearer; then a process-server, a bailiff; then
> > > he compass'd a motion of the Prodigal Son, and married a tinker's
> > > wife within a mile where my land and living lies; and, having
> > > flown over many knavish professions, he settled only in rogue.
> > > Some call him Autolycus.
>
> > Umph. We already did this one, Volker. This is a joke:
> > Autolycus is pretending to not be Autolycus--to the amusing extent of
> > saying bad things about himself. It's not like Oxford as Shakespeare
> > speaking maliciously of Shakespeare but like Shakespeare disguised
> > as Oxford speaking maliciously of Shakespeare.
>
> Volker: "Well, you're getting there."
>
Not really. I was pointing out that, given your premise, your reasoning
was fallacious. But I don't accept your premise (i.e., that Autolycus
is a satire on Shakespeare of Stratford). Autolycus is simply a
comic figure in a play who comes out here with a very well-done comic
bit that flows out of the plot naturally and is of a kind common in
comedies of this sort. If it is based on anyone from its creator's
life, I like the idea it was John Shakespeare, myself, but that's
pure speculation, needless to say.
volker multhopp
> Okay, Volker, for you all the Shakespeare signatures were those of a
> literate person, or literate persons. So if even one of them was
> the Stratford man's, the Stratford man was literate.
No, I said if others signed for him, they were literate. If he simply
aped a signature someone else made for him, that wouldn't make him
literate.
>So the Stratford
> man didn't even sign his will.
I haven't said that.
>But no one noticed his illiteracy or
> commented on it when things like the inscription mentioning what he
> wrote appeared.
Which is perhaps why the inscription is so cryptic. But why should
they comment, what would they say, what record of their sayings would
remain?
> You seem to be missing many points. Here you seem not to understand
> the absurdity of the hoaxsters' being subtle with the interlineation,
How dare you presume to set such limits? If I were to engage in an
elaborate hoax with a bunch of theatrical friends, how dare you suppose
you could understand the subtlety of any particular move we might make--
especially 400 years later?
> About the comparison of Shakespeare to Virgil, you say it was "Homage
> to Shakespeare."
>Okay, but the locals would have thought their
> illiterate fellow villager was meant and wonder about it. Perhaps
> even to a literate bystander who wrote it down. Why would the hoaxsters
> take a chance of that happening?
What danger is there? Great ancient names on a monument-- looks
impressive, no wonder the family didn't object.
>
> That "all he hath writt" can be "understood as a disguised joke on
> the hicks (one of whose kid wrote him letters in Latin) by the
> Londoners" is possible, too, I suppose--but, again, it would have
> been taken literally by the locals and wondered about, perhaps aloud.
>
> You simply can't say the inscription was unclear: it was absolutely
> clear.
Not absolutely clear that Shakspere was Shakespeare.
> Also, to repeat Dave F., why no better forged clues in London?
Enough to fool you, right?
> I like the idea [Autolycus] was John Shakespeare, myself, but that's
> pure speculation, needless to say.
I'm glad to hear this, Bob. At least you're looking for the author
in/of the plays.
--Volker