Stratford Willy & Oxford
Gary Kosinsky
One of the more intriguing aspects of the Oxford case
are the supposed parallels between events in Oxford's life
and certain scenes in the plays.
Is there any reason not to believe that the Stratfordian
Shakespeare could have written the plays, but incorporated
these events from Oxford's life into the plays?
I have no idea how familiar the general public would
have been with many of the experiences of Oxford, but is it
not possible that Shakespeare (of Stratford) heard about these
experiences and they became grist for his mill? For that matter,
is it possible that Shakespeare (of Stratford) actually knew
Oxford, and got the experiences from him first-hand?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kosinsky gk...@vcn.bc.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard...@worldnet.att.net
In article <KL8L1wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>,
gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote:
>
> One of the more intriguing aspects of the Oxford case
> are the supposed parallels between events in Oxford's life
> and certain scenes in the plays.
>
(snip)
I'm glad you said "supposed parallels." There is no evidence for a lot of the
"supposed parallels" that the Oxfordians cite.
As I posted elsewhere, there is no evidence Oxford was involved in a robbery
at Gad's Hill. Oxford's servants did commit a robbery on a rode that ran past
Gad's Hill, but no one (until Oxfordians came along in the 20th Century) said
the robbery took place at Gad's Hill or that Oxford was involved.
You'll also find Oxfordians claiming that the theme of unjust jealousy
reflects Oxford's remorse over his unfounded accusation that his wife had
committed adultery. It's true that Oxford claimed his wife was adulterous,
and his accusation appears to be completely unfounded, but there is no
evidence whatsoever that Oxford ever expressed any guilt or remorse over
treating his wife so badly.
Oxfordians undoubtedly feel the proof is in the plays. The plays show
husbands regret unfounded accusations of adultery, so Oxford must have felt
regret because he wrote the plays! How do we know he wrote the plays?
Because they so closely parallel his life, such as his regret over his
unfounded accusations of adultery!
Do you see any stunning parallels between events in the plays and Oxford's
life?
> Is there any reason not to believe that the Stratfordian
> Shakespeare could have written the plays, but incorporated
> these events from Oxford's life into the plays?
>
> I have no idea how familiar the general public would
> have been with many of the experiences of Oxford, but is it
> not possible that Shakespeare (of Stratford) heard about these
> experiences and they became grist for his mill? For that matter,
> is it possible that Shakespeare (of Stratford) actually knew
> Oxford, and got the experiences from him first-hand?
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary Kosinsky gk...@vcn.bc.ca
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
david joseph kathman
In article <KL8L1wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>, Gary Kosinsky <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> One of the more intriguing aspects of the Oxford case
>are the supposed parallels between events in Oxford's life
>and certain scenes in the plays.
>
>Shakespeare could have written the plays, but incorporated
>these events from Oxford's life into the plays?
In theory, this is possible, since Elizabethans gossiped incessantly
about courtiers and royalty, just as people today devour gossip
about the royal family. Such sources as John Manningham's diary
and John Chamberlain's letters are full of Court gossip.
In practice, there is no reason to believe that Shakespeare
incorporated any events from Oxford's life into the plays,
because these alleged parallels have been greatly exaggerated
by Oxfordians. When the facts haven't been distorted (as in
the examples Richard Nathan gives in this thread), most of
these "parallels" are commonplaces of the type that can be found
for virtually any Elizabethan courtier. As I've pointed out many
times, both King James and the Earl of Essex fit the character of
Hamlet better than Oxford does (see
http://www.bcpl.net/~tross/ws/ox2.html), and many other plays
contain "parallels" with the life of Essex. Many Shakespeare
scholars have claimed that certain of Shakespeare's characters
are based on Essex, but nobody except Oxfordians have ever thought
that any of them are based on Oxford. The romantic version of
Oxford that you read about in Oxfordian books is a construct
bearing little relationship to the historical Edward de Vere.
> I have no idea how familiar the general public would
>have been with many of the experiences of Oxford, but is it
>not possible that Shakespeare (of Stratford) heard about these
>experiences and they became grist for his mill? For that matter,
>is it possible that Shakespeare (of Stratford) actually knew
>Oxford, and got the experiences from him first-hand?
It's not impossible, I suppose, but I know of no evidence for
such a scenario, and no reason to think that Shakespeare would
have needed access to Oxford's life story. You might as well
ask whether it's possible that Shakespeare knew O.J. Simpson,
since Othello is about a powerful black man who murders his
white wife.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Richard J Kennedy
David Kathman puts it that Shakespeare was always about and
scrounging up how the nobility lived, spoke, and knew the
heat of the political kitchen by conversation with the
Ministers and Courtiers close to the throne. But yet
the man was never seen, never mentioned, never in any way
spoken of as a literary man of any scope. When the man from
Stratford was 7 years dead he was brought up as the writer
of the plays, and not before that time.
--
Joe Conlon
I would like to point out the fact that servants were a fact of life in all
the upper class homes. They are ignored by their employers just like
furniture much of the time. They usually know almost all that goes on in
the household and they talk and gossip among themselves and servants from
other families. Traveling acting companies would eat and socialize with
those servants and carry stories throughout the land. There is nothing at
all unbelievable about William Shakespeare being quite knowledgeable about
the goings on among the nobility. His company performed at court more often
than any other company of the period.
Joe Conlon, Warsaw, IN
Richard...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message
<6gufk8$5re$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <KL8L1wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>,
Tad Davis
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
And of course Oxford was first brought up as the writer of the plays....
how many years was it that he had been dead, again?
--
Tad Davis Senior Systems Analyst
dav...@isc.upenn.edu Information Systems and Computing
voice 215-898-7864 Administrative Information Technologies
fax 215-898-0386 University of Pennsylvania
Richard J Kennedy
O
I'm glad that Tad Davis agrees that the man from Stratford was
dead for 7 years before anyone connected him with the plays and
poems of shakespeare. Well, of course he must agree, and all
other Stratfordians agree to this also, but Davis is brave
enough to admit it. Now, what does that mean? It must mean
that for his whole writing career, the man from Stratford kept
it a close secret that he was a writer. And why would he do
that. It's a great mystery, or it is no mystery whatsoever,
and the last guess is the best. The man was illiterate and had
two illiterate daughters and no one in Stratford or the whole
world otherwise had anything to say when he died, except his
son-in-law, who commented, "My father in law died on Wednesday."
And farewell, Shakespeare, "sic transit gloria horseshit".
--
Joe Conlon
The below is not quite accurate IMHO. I recall reading several contemporary
entries in diaries of playgoers who mention going to see a play by
Shakespeare. I don't have the text handy, but I believe it was cited in
"The World of Shakespeare's Theater". I'll check for the exact source when
I can.
Joe Conlon, Warsaw, IN
Richard J Kennedy wrote in message <6guv89$n...@ednet2.orednet.org>...
But yet
>the man was never seen, never mentioned, never in any way
>spoken of as a literary man of any scope. When the man from
>Stratford was 7 years dead he was brought up as the writer
>of the plays, and not before that time.
>
>--
>
Richard...@worldnet.att.net
The article by Kennedy is completely inaccurate, but not necessarily for the
reasons you mention.
I know there have been a number of references to people attending plays
written by Shakespeare in his lifetime -- particularly "Macbeth" and "All is
True" (a/k/a "Henry VIII"). But I don't recall that these diary entries
mentioned the name of the author.
However, it doesn't matter whether they mention the name of the author,
because there are quite a number of references to William Shakespeare being
the author of the plays during Shakespeare's lifetime.
However, none of the references to Shakespeare during his lifetime refer to
him as "William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon" -- so according to people
such as Kennedy, these don't count. If it doesn't mention the man's
hometown, it can't possibly be a reference to the man from Stratford.
Oh, I should mention, in case you are new here, Richard Kennedy is an idiot.
In article <6h0k5p$ira$1...@nix2.kconline.com>,
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On 14 Apr 1998, Richard J Kennedy wrote:
<snip>
> that for his whole writing career, the man from Stratford kept
> it a close secret that he was a writer. And why would he do
> that. It's a great mystery, or it is no mystery whatsoever,
> and the last guess is the best. The man was illiterate and had
> two illiterate daughters and no one in Stratford or the whole
> world otherwise had anything to say when he died, except his
> son-in-law, who commented, "My father in law died on Wednesday."
> And farewell, Shakespeare, "sic transit gloria horseshit".
>
Sic transit gloria horseshit indeed. Didn't we have this "My
father-in-law died on Wednesday" discussion last year. (Except then I
believe you said it was a Thursday.) No doubt, John Hall said something
upon Shakespeare's death, but as it turns out, his comments were not
recorded.
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
Richard...@worldnet.att.net
We all know from his recent posts that Richard Kennedy likes to play little
games and post hoaxes. Therefore, we can never again take anything he
writes at face value.
I suspect the post below is another game or hoax.
What he really means is that there were lots of people during Shakespeare's
lifetime who said the plays were written by someone named William
Shakespeare, but there is no record of anyone before the 20th Century saying
that Oxford wrote the plays which were attributed to centuries to William
Shakespeare.
In article <6h0m4q$9...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
rken...@orednet.org (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
>
>
> O
> I'm glad that Tad Davis agrees that the man from Stratford was
> dead for 7 years before anyone connected him with the plays and
> poems of shakespeare. Well, of course he must agree, and all
> other Stratfordians agree to this also, but Davis is brave
> enough to admit it. Now, what does that mean? It must mean
> that for his whole writing career, the man from Stratford kept
> it a close secret that he was a writer. And why would he do
> that. It's a great mystery, or it is no mystery whatsoever,
> and the last guess is the best. The man was illiterate and had
> two illiterate daughters and no one in Stratford or the whole
> world otherwise had anything to say when he died, except his
> son-in-law, who commented, "My father in law died on Wednesday."
> And farewell, Shakespeare, "sic transit gloria horseshit".
>
KQKnave
>The below is not quite accurate IMHO. I recall reading several contemporary
>entries in diaries of playgoers who mention going to see a play by
>Shakespeare. I don't have the text handy, but I believe it was cited in
>"The World of Shakespeare's Theater". I'll check for the exact source when
>I can.
>Joe Conlon, Warsaw, IN
>
>
These new guys are too much.
It won't do you any good unless the source says explicitly
that they saw a play by William Shakespeare OF STRATFORD-
ON-AVON. Simply "William Shakespeare" won't do if you want
to convince an Oxfordian. If it doesn't say "William Shakespeare
OF STRATFORD-ON-AVON", they will say it is a forgery, or it
was some other guy named Shakespeare, or it was really Oxford
under a pseudonym, etc. And I wouldn't bother with Occam's Razor,
it's been tried.
Jim
Richard J Kennedy
Conlon is right, of course. Shakespeare was mentioned, but never
connected with the man from Stratford. That's Gibralter, and it's
set right in the path of the Stratfordians.
--
Richard J Kennedy
The argument is easy to distinguish, one side and the other.
The Stratfordians say that every reference to Shakespeare is a
reference to the man from Stratford. The anti-Stratfordians
ask for proof of that, and none is forthcoming.
--
Richard J Kennedy
John Hall's remark about his father in law "died last Thursday"
(or Wednesday or whatever) is indeed on record. That's all he
ever said about the man that we know. I don't think we can
rely on things that he "might" have said, that's just all that
he did say. Or anyone else for that matter, until 7 years
after he was dead.
Isn't this clear? Certain of the regular posters seem not to
think so, as if they have other information. Let us hear it, then.
Here's a similiar example: much was said about Martin Mar-Prelate,
in that the name was used a lot. But the name could not be
connected to anyone, and it still can not. Merely to use a name,
does not identify who belongs to thename. That's the whole
question, you see. That's the problem. If we had any information
that would lead us to believe that the Stratford man was the
man "Shakespeare", then all of us would believe it. But the
proof isn't there. He was a man connected to the theater, and
for the ten years of his greatest fame a man about town, I
should think, who had many friends, I would suppose, but there
is no word of anyone seeing him or speaking to him. And this
is the great problem, and why the authorship debate continues,
and why it will continue until something shows up. Meanwhile,
I don't see any position except to be skeptical.
Who was Martin Mar-Prelate? That's a very good question, and
has vexed the historians for centuries. Shake-speare the same.
If someone said that Richard Nat-Han signed his name to a
dictionary of childish ranting, I would ask for proof that it
was >our< Richard Nathan. The hyphen would tip me off that
someone was trying to mystify us, and I would jump to his
defense. And if someone wrote a book of sweet reason and
light and the name on the title page was Richard Ken-nedy, I
think he would say I didn't write it. In fact, I'm sure of
it, and I thank him in advance. I mean to say, that Richard
Nathan does not try to hide his childish ranting, and I am
likewise happy to share my sweetness and light with everyone,
and therefore we do not use hyphens in our names to mess up
the issue and cause problems for our biographers.
--
Richard J Kennedy
John Chamberlain (1554-1628) was a man about the town of
London in Shakespeare's time, and we are left with 479
of his letters written from 1597 to 1627. In other words, he
was writing about the doings in London when Shakespeare
was at the top of his form. This correspondence is collected
into a book edited by Norman Egbert McClure -- The Letters
of John Chamberlain -- in two volumes published by the
American Philosophical Society, 1939.
Ben Jonson seemed to refer to this man in speaking of "the
ambler of St. Pauls." Now St. Pauls was where all the book-
sellers and printers put out their new works, all the pamphlets,
sermons, plays and so forth that were hot off the press and
onto the market. Everyone who was anyone in the literary
world congregated there to find what was new, and they
strolled the middle aisle discussing affairs of state, the latest
scandals, the new plays and literature, who was in, who was
out, and so forth. Ben Jonson refers to Chamberlain as the
"ambler of St. Pauls". The man lived only a short walk from
the cathedral, had independent means, and was what you
might call a habitue of Pauls, always there, always picking
up the news, and he passed on these many letters to his
friend Sir Dudly Carleton, "Knight Lord Ambassador for his
Majestie with the States of the United Provinces at the Hagh."
And so his friend, lonesome in the lowlands, got the news
from London. As McClure says, "He writes of gossip heard in
London or in the country houses where he was a guest, of plays
and masques and hunting and bear-baiting, of duels and riots
and executions, of quite dinners with friends, of the widest
variety of details that reveal the daily life of Shakespeare's
London. England's kings and queens and great men and the
humblest of her people live again in these letters."
Chamberlain was interested in most anything that moved, but
was not himself a player. He was evidently an unassuming
man, with many friends, but evidently only a shadow to the
great events of the time. "My funeral" he wrote at the end of
his life, "I would have performed with as little trouble and
charge as may be answerable to the still and quiet course I
have always sought to follow in my life time." Chamberlain
did never write for publication, and in fact cautioned his
friend Carleton in this manner: "How confidently I write to you
of all things, but I hope you keep it to yourself, and then there
is no danger, and I am so used to be at libertie and freedom of
speech when I converse or write to my friends that I cannot
easily leave it."
McClure comments on the extraordinary range of Chamberlain's
interests: "In no diary of the period and in no other series of
letters is the many-sided life of Elizabethan and Jacobean London
and England so fully and honestly revealed." And this: "From
1597 to 1627 (the letters) provide, as do the letters of no one of
his contemporaries, an almost continuous commentary on the
outstanding men and events of the time."
We should expect to hear much from Chamberlain, then, of the
men we know well, those of us who delve into the theater life
of the time, and the byways about, for he "spent his life, or at
least the part of it covered by his extant letters, in the shadow
of the great Cathedral (Pauls), the center of the book-trade
and the general meeting-place of all Londoners...He went there,
it appears, almost daily to meet friends or to talk with others
like himself who sought news wherever they could find it."
And indeed he collected the news. In his letters there is mention
great and small about such poets, actors, theater folk, and
playwrights and other noteworthies as Edward Alleyn, Sir Francis
Bacon, Francis Beaumont, Richard Burbage, Thomas Carew, George
Chapman, Sanuel Daniel, Sir John Davies, Sir John Denham, John
Donne, Nathan Field, Sir John Harington, John Hayward, Ben
Jonson, with notice of the works of Thomas Middleton, Sir
Walter Raleigh, Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, Sir John
Suckling, and George Wither. These were the men up front in
the public eye, the toast and gossip of the time in that world
of literature and the theater. Chamberlain writes a lively
letter, and what has he to say about his neighbor Shakespeare?
But first some more background.....
Chamberlain also visited the theaters and the pubs, and speaks
of Blackfriers, the Globe, the Cockpit, the Mermaid Tevern and the
Windmill, the Fortune and the Swan. But most of all he visited
the cathedral: "Frequenter and lover of Paul's he certainly was,"
so writes McClure, "...for here was the heart of London; here he
heard the latest news, found books fresh from the press; here
came courtier and serving-man, actor and alderman and
apprentice; here the spectacle, the pageant of London life passed
before him.
Chamberlain's closest friends, so notes our editor, were William
Camden, the antiquary and historian, Sir Henry Provost of Eton,
Sir Thomas Bodley, founder of the Bodleian Library, Thomas
Allen, mathematician, Lancelot Andrewes....and a paragraph of
such high placed gentlemen follow. "Chamberlain was, as we
have seen, a well-to-do Londoner of the merchant class,
intelligent and cultivated, with an unusual number of friends
prominent in the life of the city and the court....He writes of the
trial of the Earls of Essex and Southampton, the death of Queen
Elizabeth and of Prince Henry, the marriage of the Princess
Elizabeth, the execution of Raleigh, Queen Anne's elaborate
funeral, King James death," and other such high matters. But
he enjoyed also to describe the meaner day by day event, such
as this description of a duel "twix one Huchinson of Grayes Inne
and Sir German Poole, who assaulting the other upon advantage,
hurt him in three or four places, and cut off three of his fingers
before he could draw his weapon, whereupon inraged he flew upon
him and getting him downe bit off a goode part of his nose and
carried it away in his pocket."
It's somewhat dissapointing that Chamberlain was not more a
theater-goer. He had the theater news all right, who was writing
what, and about riots, falling scaffolding, restrictions, closures, the
building of new theaters and such, and names many names. As
McClure says, "But if he seldom went to the public playhouses, he
was aware of much that occured there." And the real meat of that,
for us, would be what he had to say about Shakespeare the
superstar, actor, shareholder, and number one playwright for much
of the time when Chamberlain was writing his letters to his friend.
Here's McClure's paragraph about that -- what Chamberlain had to
say about Shakespeare:
"Interesting as these glimpses of the theater are, they disappoint:
the omit what modern readers would value most. As Chamberlain
made his way along Cheapside and Wood Street toward Cripplegate
to visit his friend Alexander Williams, he passed near a house in
Silver Street where England's greatest dramatist then had lodgings.
Doubtless Chamberlain often passed him in the street, often rubbed
elbows with him in the crowded center aisle of St. Paul's, often
heard mention of him and his plays, often saw his thin quartos
offered for sale in St. Paul's Churchyard; he may have known the
man well, may have talked with him often; but nowhere in the
letters is there any indication that Chamberlain even so much as
knew of the existence of Shakespeare."
There he is, the invisible, nearly non-existent man from Stratford,
with practically no biography of any interest to us, a vague and
whispy presence, a ghost, a phantom, elusive as a rumor, and John
Chamberlain the news hound could find him out no better than
the many biographers since. What can be made of it? As Lear
says, "Nothing can be made of nothing", but he was wrong. The
Stratfordian establishment has made much of the man from
Stratford, and that was intended to be so, and the hoax has
carried these many years. And yet his contemporary and near
neighbor, John Chamberlain, appeared not to know of the man's
existence. There it is, and I'll leave to your imagination the
next paragraph, which would be all exclamation points and
question marks.
--
Tom Reedy
In article <6h0m4q$9...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
rken...@orednet.org (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
>
>
> O
> I'm glad that Tad Davis agrees that the man from Stratford was
> dead for 7 years before anyone connected him with the plays and
> poems of shakespeare. Well, of course he must agree, and all
> other Stratfordians agree to this also, but Davis is brave
> enough to admit it. Now, what does that mean? It must mean
> that for his whole writing career, the man from Stratford kept
> it a close secret that he was a writer. And why would he do
> that. It's a great mystery, or it is no mystery whatsoever,
> and the last guess is the best. The man was illiterate and had
> two illiterate daughters and no one in Stratford or the whole
> world otherwise had anything to say when he died, except his
> son-in-law, who commented, "My father in law died on Wednesday."
> And farewell, Shakespeare, "sic transit gloria horseshit".
>
> --
>
>
Richard. The problem with your posts is that I can't tell when you're
hallucinating. Isn't there an MHMR in your area?
TR
Tom Reedy
In article <199804150129...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
And even if the reference DOES say "William shakespeare gent. of
Stratford-upon-Avon" they claim it is a forgery.
I have yet to receive a refutation that doesn't use the "forgery" defense on
the following historical facts:
POINT #1
A. May 19, 1603, on the license for the King's Men - "Wee . . . doe licence
. . . Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne
Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard
Cowly . . . ."
B. Oxford died June 24, 1604.
C. Will of Augustine Phillips, written May 4, 1605, proved May 16, 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 comes
11 months after Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips would
have known that he was dead. Therefore, Shakespeare and Oxford cannot be the
same person. Since Volker admits that the actor and the writer were the same
man, Oxford could not be the writer.
POINT #2
William Shakespeare is connected with John Heminge through several
contemporary documents. Not only in the license for the King's Men (above),
but from the lease of the grounds upon which the Globe was built (Feb 21,
1599, in which the name is spelled Heminges) & the indenture between the
shareholders of the Globe (Feb 20, 1599, spelled Hemynges). These are known
through a court record of April 28, 1619, so they are not strictly
contemporary. However, the lease for the Blackfriers Theater, Aug 9, 1608, is
recounted in a court document dated May 20, 1611. The Latin document lists
Ricardus Burbadge, Johannia Hemynges, & Willo Shakespeare.
Now in the deed for the Blackfrier's Gate House, March 10, 1613, John Hemmyng
(also spelled Hemming) acts as trustee for the buyer, "William Shakespeare of
Stratford upon Avon."
The indenture for the Blackfriers Gate House effectively ties William
Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to John Heminge, ten years before the
publication of the First Folio.
POINT #3
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, since he accepted
the social order as it was and was ambitious to rise.
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.
POINT #4
That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund Howe's
1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists the poets
"according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the middle of the 27
listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman," thus effectively
naming the Stratford man as the poet.
POINT #5
Volker has also conceded that the William Shakespeare, sharer in the Globe
theater, was also the playwright. That this playwright was the man from
Stratford is shown by three documents contemporary to him.
1. Oct 7, 1601 - mortgage deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, John
Collet, & Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given contol of the Globe
playhouse, tenented by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
2. Oct 10, 1601 - deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, legally
tightening up the control of Bodley. Again the Globe is described as being
tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
3. 1608 - deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley. The Globe is
once more described, and the tenants listed as "Richard Burbage and William
Shakespeare, gentlemen."
A. "William Shakespeare, gentleman" is the Stratford man (Point #3 above).
B. The Globe tenant mentioned in the above deeds specifically names "William
Shakespeare (or Shackspeare), gent."
C. Therefore, the Stratford man is the Globe-sharer.
D. Volker has agreed that the Globe-sharer is the playwright.
E. Therefore, the Stratford man is the playwright.
POINT #6 - A WORD ABOUT THE INTERLINEATIONS
I know Volker doesn't accept the interlineations of the will as authentic,
saying "signatures at ends or bottoms cannot prove cognizance of
interlineations--only accompanying signatures or initials can do that,"
without giving any proof but his own opinion, as usual, but I would like more
than his word for it.
If the interlineations were forged to show a connection between Shakespeare
and Heminge & Condell, why are all the other interlineations in the will in
the same hand? On sheet one the forgers changed the month from Januarij to
Martij, inserted the phrases "in discharge of her marriage porcion," "that
shee," "by my executours & overseers," "the stock," "to be," and "the house."
On sheet two they forged not only "& to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard
Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes," but they
inserted six more phrases that could not be of any benefit to the hoaxers. On
sheet three, in addition to the famous second-best bed bequest, they inserted
"the saied" to legally tighten up the appointment of the overseers of the
will, and struck out "Seale" and wrote "hand" to make the circumstances of the
publishing accurate.
The forgers would have had to be lawyers to tidy up the will in such a manner.
That the forgers did all this strains credulity, yet the so-called forgeries
are in the same hand as the rest of the interlineations. The only possible
motivation would be to gain more credence for their forgery, yet this is a
conspiracy--according to Volker--in which "H&C weren't trying to build an
iron-clad story; they just wanted to create some plausibility" (post of 5 Mar
98, Re; the Most Wonderful &c).
Tom Reedy
In article <6h1j4r$g...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
> (or Wednesday or whatever) is indeed on record. That's all he
> ever said about the man that we know.
So where is this record? We'd all like to read it.
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On 15 Apr 1998, Richard J Kennedy wrote:
>
> John Hall's remark about his father in law "died last Thursday"
> (or Wednesday or whatever) is indeed on record. That's all he
> ever said about the man that we know. I don't think we can
> rely on things that he "might" have said, that's just all that
> he did say. Or anyone else for that matter, until 7 years
> after he was dead.
And I thought my memory was bad. I'll repost some of my
relevant words.
=============== Start =======================================
Richard, I think you've remembered what Ogburn said correctly
although I'll bet you've forgotten the provenance of Ogburn
gives for that "*fact*. I was unable to find *The Mysterious
William Shakespeare* at the library (someone had it out) but
Ogburn's earlier book *Shake-spear, The Real Man Behind the
Name* was in. In it, Ogburn writes of John Hall:
"It was he, by the way, who, according to an entry in his
notebook seen by a writer on the Boston *Transcript* which
subsequently vanished, made the world's only comment on the
passing of one of our civilization crowned with its most honored
laurels: "My father-in-law died on Thursday"
Needless to say, I'm more amazed than impressed. The only
surviving *notebook* of John Hall is indeed that aforementioned
medical case journal. Ogburn asks us to believe that an unnamed
reporter at an unspecified date, saw an entry like no others in
the journal. All the other entries are cases are dated post
1617(most much later) and are descriptions of successful
treatments. And by implication, Ogburn wants us to believe that
all of the prior examiners of the notebook were either extremely
unobservant or more than a little dishonest. There is nothing
good that can be said about what Ogburn has done with this
*fact*. If that's all he had, he should have left it buried in
his notes. Otherwise he should have at least given us all of
the relevant details including the name of the reporter and the
date he published his *accusation*. The appearance is that
Ogburn is either over credulous when it comes to anything which
could possibly support his position(or even worse, cynically
dishonest).
<snip rest of post>
================== End ========================================
>
> Isn't this clear? Certain of the regular posters seem not to
> think so, as if they have other information. Let us hear it, then.
> Here's a similiar example: much was said about Martin Mar-Prelate,
> in that the name was used a lot. But the name could not be
> connected to anyone, and it still can not. Merely to use a name,
> does not identify who belongs to thename. That's the whole
> question, you see. That's the problem. If we had any information
> that would lead us to believe that the Stratford man was the
> man "Shakespeare", then all of us would believe it. But the
> proof isn't there. He was a man connected to the theater, and
> for the ten years of his greatest fame a man about town, I
> should think, who had many friends, I would suppose, but there
> is no word of anyone seeing him or speaking to him. And this
> is the great problem, and why the authorship debate continues,
> and why it will continue until something shows up. Meanwhile,
> I don't see any position except to be skeptical.
>
The situation you find so remarkable, is what's found for almost all of
the middleclass Elizabethan or Jacobean authors. It's only a problem
if you think that Shakespeare's contemporaries regarded him in
a bardolotrous light. (The evidence is that such a light wasn't
generally seen until the 19th century.)
> Who was Martin Mar-Prelate? That's a very good question, and
> has vexed the historians for centuries.
It even vexed the Elizabethans but there's no record of anyone
being vexed concerning who wrote the works of Shakespeare
until nearly 200 years later.
<snip>
Richard Nathan
>humblest of her people live again in these letters."
>
The last time Kennedy wrote this, I noted that Chamberlain was a commoner.
The fact that someone said a commoner brough England's kings and queens
to life seemed to fly in the face of the standard Oxfordian argument that
a commoner could not right convincinly of noblility.
When I posted that, Kennedy denied that that was a standard Oxfordian
argument.
Richard Nathan
I just wanted to make sure that no one is mis-led by Kennedy's post into
thinking that the author's name was always hyphenated when it used as the
author in Shakespeare's lifetime. Sometimes it was hyphenated, but there
were manny times when it was not.
rken...@orednet.org (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
>
>John Hall's remark about his father in law "died last Thursday"
>(or Wednesday or whatever) is indeed on record. That's all he
>ever said about the man that we know. I don't think we can
>rely on things that he "might" have said, that's just all that
>he did say. Or anyone else for that matter, until 7 years
>after he was dead.
>
>Isn't this clear? Certain of the regular posters seem not to
>think so, as if they have other information. Let us hear it, then.
>Here's a similiar example: much was said about Martin Mar-Prelate,
>in that the name was used a lot. But the name could not be
>connected to anyone, and it still can not. Merely to use a name,
>does not identify who belongs to thename. That's the whole
>question, you see. That's the problem. If we had any information
>that would lead us to believe that the Stratford man was the
>man "Shakespeare", then all of us would believe it. But the
>proof isn't there. He was a man connected to the theater, and
>for the ten years of his greatest fame a man about town, I
>should think, who had many friends, I would suppose, but there
>is no word of anyone seeing him or speaking to him. And this
>is the great problem, and why the authorship debate continues,
>and why it will continue until something shows up. Meanwhile,
>I don't see any position except to be skeptical.
>
>Who was Martin Mar-Prelate? That's a very good question, and
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On 15 Apr 1998, Richard J Kennedy wrote:
<snip long post concerning Chamberlain>
Last fall Dave Kathman mentioned that the only playwright Chamberlain
mentioned by name(other than Shakespeare) was Ben Jonson and he appeared
only because he was involved in producing masques at court.
Tad Davis
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
> I'm glad that Tad Davis agrees that the man from Stratford was
> dead for 7 years before anyone connected him with the plays and
> poems of shakespeare.
I said and implied no such thing, nor do I agree with that statement. A
typical Oxfordian maneuver.
Tad Davis
Richard J Kennedy wrote:
And when was it, again, that it was connected with Oxford?
(Please don't distort my answer this time into an apparent support of
your position, like you did the last time -- in typically Oxfordian
obfuscatory fashion.)
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article Tom Reedy <aaa...@ramail.angelo.edu> says...
[snip]
Might a humble lawyer, with only limited knowledge of the evidence for
and against the Stratford cause, but with some knowledge of the law
(including the Common Law of England as it was in the time when the plays
commonly attributed to Shakespeare were written) offer some observations
concerning the *forged interlineation* theory which seems to be critical
to the Oxfordian cause:
1. The will was, of course, admitted to probate by the English judicial
system. Even in those days, probate was not granted unless SOMEONE was
prepared to swear to the will's authenticity. Now, people sometimes
perjure themselves - perhaps no less often in those God-fearing times
than in the modern world. But would anyone have perjured themselves
merely to create "some plausibility" in favour of the Stratford case,
centuries before any authorship controversy had arisen ?
2. More fundamentally, in those times forgery of a will was not merely a
serious criminal offence - it was a felony, punishable by hanging. The
Law Reports include cases up to the late Eighteenth Century of execution
for forging wills. Can anyone take seriously the notion that, merely to
create "some plausibility" in favour of the Stratford case, centuries
before any authorship controversy had arisen, some mischief-maker risked
the gallows ?
3. As Tom Reedy points out, a lawyer - or, at the very least, someone
with detailed knowledge of the most arcane points of probate and
testementary law - would have been required to effect the forgery. This
branch of the law was, at the time, generally administered by lawyers
qualified in civil law (proctors or solicitors, rather than mere
attorneys) - the "upper eschelon", if you like, of the legal profession.
Many were clerics. Would such a person have risked hanging for what, at
the time, would have been an entirely pointless prank ?
4. It astonishes me that the "second best bed" chestnut remains popular
with Shakespearian [sic.] scholars [double sic.]. Any legal historian
will tell you that the reason for this provision was simple: under right
of dowry, Shakespeare's widow would have received his "best bed"
irrespective of the provisions of his will; the legacy of the "second
best bed" was an accretion to the entitlements which his widow would
otherwise have received, rather than some subtle slight on his widow.
--
Anthony Morris QC
Brisbane
Australia
"quod Rex no debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege"
The King [government] is under no man, but is under God and the law.
- Lord Chief Justice Coke, Prohibitions del Roy, (1608) 12 Co.Rep. 63 at
65
volker multhopp
morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
> 1. The will was, of course, admitted to probate by the English judicial
> system. Even in those days, probate was not granted unless SOMEONE was
> prepared to swear to the will's authenticity. Now, people sometimes
Except the will was altered *after* the will had been probated, hence there
little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence little
chance of punishment. Therefore your arguments pretty much fall apart.
> 4. It astonishes me that the "second best bed" chestnut remains popular
> with Shakespearian [sic.] scholars [double sic.]. Any legal historian
> will tell you that the reason for this provision was simple: under right
> of dowry, Shakespeare's widow would have received his "best bed"
> irrespective of the provisions of his will; the legacy of the "second
> best bed" was an accretion to the entitlements which his widow would
> otherwise have received, rather than some subtle slight on his widow.
Well, I've never heard of this. So, what else besides the 1st best bed was
automatically entitled to Anne, even though the will explicity rendered all
other property not given to others unto Susanne and John???
--Volker
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, volker multhopp wrote:
> morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
>
> > 1. The will was, of course, admitted to probate by the English judicial
> > system. Even in those days, probate was not granted unless SOMEONE was
> > prepared to swear to the will's authenticity. Now, people sometimes
>
> Except the will was altered *after* the will had been probated, hence there
> little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence little
> chance of punishment. Therefore your arguments pretty much fall apart.
Believe it or not, a lawsuit might well refer back to a previously
probated will, so any such alterations would still have been treated as
serious infractions.
I don't know why you think there was little risk of getting caught. I'm
pretty sure I'd not find it easy to get and alter a will buried in some
courthouse archive.
>
> > 4. It astonishes me that the "second best bed" chestnut remains popular
> > with Shakespearian [sic.] scholars [double sic.]. Any legal historian
> > will tell you that the reason for this provision was simple: under right
> > of dowry, Shakespeare's widow would have received his "best bed"
> > irrespective of the provisions of his will; the legacy of the "second
> > best bed" was an accretion to the entitlements which his widow would
> > otherwise have received, rather than some subtle slight on his widow.
>
> Well, I've never heard of this. So, what else besides the 1st best bed was
> automatically entitled to Anne, even though the will explicity rendered all
> other property not given to others unto Susanne and John???
>
The widow's portion was customarily equivalent to one third of the
deceased's estate but I don't know how they figured out which pieces of
property were the widow's. Perhaps Anne received her portion in cash. My
understanding of the terms of the will is similar to Volker's. IOW, the
best bed would probably have ended up in John and Susanna Hall's
possession.
Personally, I find the most likely reason that Anne was given the second
best bed is that she had an emotional attachment of some sort to it.
Perhaps it was their marriage bed or maybe it was hers back when she was a
Hathaway.
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <3535CFCE...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
>
> > 1. The will was, of course, admitted to probate by the English judicial
> > system. Even in those days, probate was not granted unless SOMEONE was
> > prepared to swear to the will's authenticity. Now, people sometimes
>
> Except the will was altered *after* the will had been probated, hence there
> little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence little
> chance of punishment. Therefore your arguments pretty much fall apart.
I knew that, when I dared to post a message reflecting adversely on the
Oxfordian cause, I would attract some response; and I should have
anticipated that it would be characterized by the admixture of logical
fallacies, far-fetched hypotheses and out-and-out vitriol which seem to
be the stock-in-trade of many Oxfordians.
Let us consider Volker's hypothesis. A will, without interlineations,
was admitted to probate and enrolled in the court records. Someone -
apparently someone with a solid legal background - broke into the court
registry, or bribed a registry official, or in some other way got access
to the court files, and then skilfully effected a forgery in a way which
was and remains utterly beyond detection. Frankly, I have seen more
plausible hypotheses on the X-Files.
Note that Volker says, "the will WAS [my emphasis] altered *after* the
will had been probated [sic.]"; not, for example, the will MIGHT HAVE
BEEN or COULD HAVE BEEN altered after probate - it WAS altered. Needless
to say, no evidence of this exists, unless one commences with the
assumption that WS of Stratford was not the WS who wrote the plays, so
that any documentation connecting the two MUST be a forgery. But, for
Volker, it is a matter of faith: the will (if it is genuine) demolishes
the Oxford case; so, according to his twisted logic, it WAS fraudulently
altered.
However, even assuming that what Volker proposes is even a plausible
hypothesis, how does it follow that "[my] arguments pretty much fall
apart". My argument is that it is extremely unlikely that a person or
persons (and especially a person having the requisite legal
knowledge) whould have risked conviction for a capital felony, merely as
some kind of prank to add substance to the Stratford cause. Volker's
hypothesis does not detract from the fact that the forgery involved the
commission of a capital felony, for it was still a capital felony to
forge a will, whether or not it had been admitted to probate. Volker's
hypothesis merely adds further offences (including capital offences) to
the train of events which led to his imagined forgery. Not only was
there forgery of a will; according to Volker, there was also forgery of
an official court record (another capital offence), and either breaking
and entering a court registry (yet another capital offence) or corrupt
participation in the conspiracy by a court officer (yet another capital
offence). Why does this mean that my argument "pretty much fall[s]
apart" - if anything, it strengthens my argument.
When Volker lacks evidence he resorts to bold asseverations: "hence there
[was] little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence
little chance of punishment". Does Volker seriously suggest that it is
easier to get away with forging a will which has already been admitted to
probate, and forms part of an official court record, than forging a will
before it has been admitted to probate ? Does he seriously suggest that
severe sanctions (and the risk of death by execution) would not attach to
a person found to have broken into a registry (or corrupted a court
officer) for the purpose of fraudulently changing an official court
record ? The absurdity of these propositions speaks for itself.
> > 4. It astonishes me that the "second best bed" chestnut remains popular
> > with Shakespearian [sic.] scholars [double sic.]. Any legal historian
> > will tell you that the reason for this provision was simple: under right
> > of dowry, Shakespeare's widow would have received his "best bed"
> > irrespective of the provisions of his will; the legacy of the "second
> > best bed" was an accretion to the entitlements which his widow would
> > otherwise have received, rather than some subtle slight on his widow.
>
> Well, I've never heard of this. So, what else besides the 1st best bed was
> automatically entitled to Anne, even though the will explicity rendered all
> other property not given to others unto Susanne and John???
I acknowledge and respect the fact that, for once, Volker has admitted
his ignorance. But, to answer his question, the law which applied at the
relevant time is stated as follows in William Blackstone's "Commentaries
on the Laws of England" (from the first edition of 1765 to 1769), vol.2,
at p.518:
"If the deceased leaves a widow and children, his substance (deducting
the widow's apparel and furniture of her bed-chamber, which in London is
called the 'widow's chamber') is divided into three parts; one of which
belongs to the widow, another to the children, and the third to the
administrator ...".
This describes the situation on intestacy. But, as Blackstone elsewhere
notes, there is much authority for the view that a testator could not
deprive his widow of her automatic entitlement to a "reasonable part",
including her "apparel and furniture of her bed-chamber". At p.493, he
notes:
"For Bracton lays down the doctrine of the 'reasonable part' to be the
common law ... . And Glanvil, 'magna carta', Fleta, the year-books,
Fitzherbert, and Finch, do all agree with Bracton, that this right to the
'pars rationabilis' was by the common law: which also continues to this
day to be the general law of our sister kingdom of Scotland."
So, in Shakespeare's time, the generally accepted view was that a widow
was entitled - irrespective of the terms of her husband's will - to
receive automatically her apparel and the furniture of her bed-chamber.
Unless Volker is now going to suggest that Blackstone - as well as
Bracton, Fleta, the year-books, Fitzherbert and Finch - have all been
forged, or that Blackstone was part of an international conspiracy to add
credibility to the allegedly forged will, this is surely the end of any
debate about the "second best bed" legacy.
There are other theories for the "second best bed" legacy. One is that
it had a peculiar emotional attachment for Anne; another is that the
"best bed" was a fixture, and therefore could not have been left to Anne
separately from the real property to which it was affixed; yet another is
that, under the ancient laws of heriots and mortuaries, Shakespeare was
bound to "remember his lord and the church, by leaving them his two best
chattels" (Blackstone, op.cit., at p.493). But why look for solutions to
a supposed conundrum when any competent legal history scholar will tell
you that there is no conundrum at all.
Richard J Kennedy
Anthony Morris regards the messing about with Shakespearean
documents and such to be off the limits, but there was very much
forgery done on documents in past centuries, most of it discovered,
or so the scholar's hope. E.K. Chambers lists a dozen of active
fabricators, wanting to make some evidence to put Shakespeare of
Stratford up as Plausible, and to bulk out the record of the
poet because there is very little to work with. Also, there's
the effigy in Holy Trinity. What's there now is not what was
first put up, which was a man, Shakespeare's father, hoding a
woolsack. (If anyone wants, we can go to the evidence of this
again.)
--
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <6h6dvo$r...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
>
> Anthony Morris regards the messing about with Shakespearean
> documents and such to be off the limits
[snip]
FALSE. I did not generalise about "Shakespearean documents and such". I
simply referred to the extreme improbability that a will, and especially
a will which had already been admitted to probate, could or would be
forged in a way which clearly required the active involvement of an
experienced probate lawyer. You may get away with misquoting and/or
misrepresenting the arguments of other contributors to this newsgroup, Mr
Kennedy, but you will not get away with doing the same to me.
> but there was very much
> forgery done on documents in past centuries, most of it discovered,
> or so the scholar's [sic.] hope.
[snip.]
Show me one - just one - example of any of these documents which involved
an official court record; which required the active participation of a
competent lawyer; and which involved the commission of a capital offence.
Then I will agree that there is some substance in your rebuttal.
You concede that most such forgeries were discovered. Presumably this was
because they were fairly amateurish. If one considers the hypothesis
that the interlineations in the will of WS were forged, it would have
required not only a competent lawyer, but also a person skilled in
creating false documents. Again, show me one - just one - example of a
similar fabrication, and I will agree that there is some substance in
your rebuttal.
> E.K. Chambers lists a dozen of active
> fabricators, wanting to make some evidence to put Shakespeare of
> Stratford up as Plausible, and to bulk out the record of the
> poet because there is very little to work with.
[snip.]
None of this explains why anyone would take the risk of being hanged, by
forging emendations to the will of WS, and then leave it in the court
registry for 120 years or so until it was discovered. If someone
really wanted to create a forgery to bolster the Stratford cause, surely:
(a) They would have done it in such a way as to support the
Stratford cause unequivocally, rather than merely providing
supporting evidence (albeit very compelling supporting evidence, when it
is placed alongside other contemporary documents linking WS the
playwrite with a number of the legatees mentioned in the
interlineations); and
(b) They would have ensured that it was promptly brought to public
attention, rather than lying in a registry for decades.
> Also, there's
> the effigy in Holy Trinity. What's there now is not what was
> first put up, which was a man, Shakespeare's father, hoding a
> woolsack. (If anyone wants, we can go to the evidence of this
> again.)
[snip.]
Only an Oxfordian could see some connexion between the forging of a will,
and the alleged replacement of the Holy Trinity effigy, as if the fact
that the effigy was allegedly replaced somehow makes it more likely that
the will was forged.
++++++++++++++++++++++
In a recent posting, somebody commented that Mr Kennedy is an idiot. I
had been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. But Mr Kennedy
has a peculiar knack of removing any possible doubts on this score, at
least.
Caius Marcius
In <MPG.fa143125...@news.supernews.com>
morr...@thehub.com.au writes:
>
>Let us consider Volker's hypothesis. A will, without interlineations,
>was admitted to probate and enrolled in the court records. Someone -
>apparently someone with a solid legal background - broke into the
court
>registry, or bribed a registry official, or in some other way got
access
>to the court files, and then skilfully effected a forgery in a way
which
>was and remains utterly beyond detection. Frankly, I have seen more
>plausible hypotheses on the X-Files.
LOL! I think our Oxfordian friends derive some of their more zany
notions from the hit series "The Ox-Files".
- CMC
Joe Conlon
In my understanding the "best bed" was what the guest bed was commonly
referred to and it would have gone to Suzzanna. The "second best bed" would
have been their marriage bed and the one Anne would have wanted.
Joe Conlon, Warsaw, IN
r...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote in message ...
volker multhopp
morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
> > Except the will was altered *after* the will had been probated, hence there
> > little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence little
> > chance of punishment. Therefore your arguments pretty much fall apart.
> I knew that, when I dared to post a message reflecting adversely on the
> Oxfordian cause, I would attract some response; and I should have
> anticipated that it would be characterized by the admixture of logical
> fallacies, far-fetched hypotheses and out-and-out vitriol which seem to
> be the stock-in-trade of many Oxfordians.
You have mentioned Oxford "out-and-out vitriol" while responding to my
post. Where in my post was there any vitriol?
> Let us consider Volker's hypothesis. A will, without interlineations,
> was admitted to probate and enrolled in the court records. Someone -
> apparently someone with a solid legal background - broke into the court
> registry, or bribed a registry official, or in some other way got access
> to the court files, and then skilfully effected a forgery in a way which
> was and remains utterly beyond detection. Frankly, I have seen more
> plausible hypotheses on the X-Files.
Oh? What exactly is your point? That forged documents are less
plausible than X-files plots? Are you claiming all forgeries have
detected?
>
> Note that Volker says, "the will WAS [my emphasis] altered *after* the
> will had been probated [sic.]"; not, for example, the will MIGHT HAVE
> BEEN or COULD HAVE BEEN altered after probate - it WAS altered. Needless
> to say, no evidence of this exists, unless one commences with the
> assumption that WS of Stratford was not the WS who wrote the plays, so
> that any documentation connecting the two MUST be a forgery. But, for
> Volker, it is a matter of faith: the will (if it is genuine) demolishes
> the Oxford case; so, according to his twisted logic, it WAS fraudulently
> altered.
That fact is that the reference to the actors is an interlineation --
you cannot prove Shakspere saw the interlineation; I can't prove it's a
forgery.
> My argument is that it is extremely unlikely that a person or
> persons (and especially a person having the requisite legal
> knowledge) whould have risked conviction for a capital felony, merely as
> some kind of prank to add substance to the Stratford cause.
The purpose was pragmatic-- to make it safer to produce the First
Folio. Justice was more arbitrary back then, but it's extraordinarily
unlikely H&C would have been tried, let alone executed for altering a
superannuated will for purpose of publishing Shake-speare's works.
> When Volker lacks evidence he resorts to bold asseverations: "hence there
> [was] little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence
> little chance of punishment". Does Volker seriously suggest that it is
> easier to get away with forging a will which has already been admitted to
> probate, and forms part of an official court record, than forging a will
> before it has been admitted to probate ?
Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
already been executed.
> > Well, I've never heard of this. So, what else besides the 1st best bed was
> > automatically entitled to Anne, even though the will explicity rendered all
> > other property not given to others unto Susanne and John???
> [...] to answer his question, the law which applied at the
> relevant time is stated as follows in William Blackstone's "Commentaries
> on the Laws of England" (from the first edition of 1765 to 1769), vol.2,
> at p.518:
> "If the deceased leaves a widow and children, his substance (deducting
> the widow's apparel and furniture of her bed-chamber, which in London is
> called the 'widow's chamber') is divided into three parts; one of which
> belongs to the widow, another to the children, and the third to the
> administrator ...".
> This describes the situation on intestacy.
ROTFL!!! What is the Stratfordian position here??? That there was no
forgery, because there was no will??? Or perhaps the Stratfordian
position is that the rules of intestacy apply, even if there is a will?
Really, how is your comment germane?
> But, as Blackstone elsewhere
> notes, there is much authority for the view that a testator could not
> deprive his widow of her automatic entitlement to a "reasonable part",
> including her "apparel and furniture of her bed-chamber". [...]
> So, in Shakespeare's time, the generally accepted view was that a widow
> was entitled - irrespective of the terms of her husband's will - to
> receive automatically her apparel and the furniture of her bed-chamber.
No, by specifying that she receive the 2nd best bed, Shakspere (or his
lawyer, rether) is declaring what a "reasonable part" of the estate is.
He is shutting the door on an appeal against the will. If she had not
been mentioned in the will (and she was mentioned only the one time in
the entire will), she could have claimed a "reasonable part". Anne may
have made Will's life on earth hell, but Will used his male perogative
to get revenge in his death. There is no way he could have treated her
worse in the will than as he did-- by relegating her entirely to the 2nd
bed and its furniture. It's like bequeathing $1 to your ingrateful
son. Shakspere's will is an undying testament to his bottomless
loathing of his wife.
> Unless Volker is now going to suggest that Blackstone - as well as
> Bracton, Fleta, the year-books, Fitzherbert and Finch - have all been
> forged, or that Blackstone was part of an international conspiracy to add
> credibility to the allegedly forged will, this is surely the end of any
> debate about the "second best bed" legacy.
I don't think so! I think our QC has only demonstrated his naive
understanding of this aspect of the law.
> There are other theories for the "second best bed" legacy. One is that
> it had a peculiar emotional attachment for Anne; another is that the
> "best bed" was a fixture, and therefore could not have been left to Anne
> separately from the real property to which it was affixed; yet another is
> that, under the ancient laws of heriots and mortuaries, Shakespeare was
> bound to "remember his lord and the church, by leaving them his two best
> chattels" (Blackstone, op.cit., at p.493).
What a crock! Obviously many writers have been concerned Shakspere's
treatment of his wife and have tried to make it better. Rules of
intestacy will not make it pretty, however.
--Volker
Tom Reedy
In article <353919BB...@erols.com>,
vol...@erols.com wrote:
>
> morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
> > Let us consider Volker's hypothesis. A will, without interlineations,
> > was admitted to probate and enrolled in the court records. Someone -
> > apparently someone with a solid legal background - broke into the court
> > registry, or bribed a registry official, or in some other way got access
> > to the court files, and then skilfully effected a forgery in a way which
> > was and remains utterly beyond detection. Frankly, I have seen more
> > plausible hypotheses on the X-Files.
>
> Oh? What exactly is your point? That forged documents are less
> plausible than X-files plots? Are you claiming all forgeries have
> detected?
His point, volker, is that your hypothesis is ridiculous.
>
> >
> > Note that Volker says, "the will WAS [my emphasis] altered *after* the
> > will had been probated [sic.]"; not, for example, the will MIGHT HAVE
> > BEEN or COULD HAVE BEEN altered after probate - it WAS altered. Needless
> > to say, no evidence of this exists, unless one commences with the
> > assumption that WS of Stratford was not the WS who wrote the plays, so
> > that any documentation connecting the two MUST be a forgery. But, for
> > Volker, it is a matter of faith: the will (if it is genuine) demolishes
> > the Oxford case; so, according to his twisted logic, it WAS fraudulently
> > altered.
>
> That fact is that the reference to the actors is an interlineation --
> you cannot prove Shakspere saw the interlineation; I can't prove it's a
> forgery.
The fact that all the interlineations are in the same hand and ink argue for
all of them being made at the same time. Since the other interlineations
function to tighten up the will, it is probable that none of them were forged.
Do you understand this argument?
> > My argument is that it is extremely unlikely that a person or
> > persons (and especially a person having the requisite legal
> > knowledge) whould have risked conviction for a capital felony, merely as
> > some kind of prank to add substance to the Stratford cause.
>
> The purpose was pragmatic-- to make it safer to produce the First
> Folio. Justice was more arbitrary back then, but it's extraordinarily
> unlikely H&C would have been tried, let alone executed for altering a
> superannuated will for purpose of publishing Shake-speare's works.
>
So you're saying that the penalties of H & C publishing the FF would have been
harsher than if they had gotten caught altering a court document--that they
weighed the risks & costs and chose the lesser evil. And what would have been
the penalty for publishing the FF, 19 years after Oxford died, 21 years after
Elizabeth (who supposedly forbade Oxford to publish plays under his own name,
but looked the other way when he used the Shakespeare alias), & 20 years into
the reign of the king who honored Oxford? Really, your scenerio makes no
sense, & it gets worse everytime you add to it.
> > When Volker lacks evidence he resorts to bold asseverations: "hence there
> > [was] little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence
> > little chance of punishment". Does Volker seriously suggest that it is
> > easier to get away with forging a will which has already been admitted to
> > probate, and forms part of an official court record, than forging a will
> > before it has been admitted to probate ?
>
> Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
> already been executed.
Right. So why would H & C have broken into the records & add forgeries to a
will that nobody would ever look at until decades later? Or do you have any
evidence that people went to the courthouse & read old wills for amusement
when they didn't have anything better to do.
<snip>
> What a crock! Obviously many writers have been concerned Shakspere's
> treatment of his wife and have tried to make it better. Rules of
> intestacy will not make it pretty, however.
>
> --Volker
>
>
More on the secnd-best bed later.
Honestly, Volker, sometimes I wonder if you're putting us on. When
reasonable, reality-based people have a hypothesis, they usually look at the
evidence & see if it conforms with what is known. You seem to have no
compunctions about mouthing the most far-fetched theories without any
necessity to test it against the evidence. Either you're very lazy or you
don't want your prejudices to be exposed, & either way [I know, I know, Reedy
says there can only be two choices!] you deceive yourself, which is the worse
type of lie.
TR
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, volker multhopp wrote:
<snip>
> > [was] little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence
> > little chance of punishment". Does Volker seriously suggest that it is
> > easier to get away with forging a will which has already been admitted to
> > probate, and forms part of an official court record, than forging a will
> > before it has been admitted to probate ?
>
> Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
> already been executed.
>
>
Curiously, I was under the impression that wills are carefully stored
away in a safe location for a good reason. No doubt you know better.
I'll admit that I find it conceivable that you know virtually nothing
about Elizabethan law. But then your argument would seem to owe more to
chutzpah than it would anything else. Tell me it isn't so.
volker multhopp
r...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
> > Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
> > already been executed.
> away in a safe location for a good reason. No doubt you know better.
typically afforded the protection given unexecuted wills. Iow, they're
usually moved to a larger, but a less secure public back storage room.
They are reasonably accessible to lawyers, legal clerks, and others.
This is from my experiences with American courthouses.
> I'll admit that I find it conceivable that you know virtually nothing
> about Elizabethan law.
I haven't claimed expertise in Elizabethan law, but apparently you
think you know more on this that is relevant than I do. So tell us,
what do you know about E law that will cast light on this matter for us?
--Volker
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <353919BB...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> That fact is that the reference to the actors is an interlineation --
> you cannot prove Shakspere saw the interlineation; I can't prove it's a
> forgery.
Precisely, Volker ! So, in the absence of direct proof, one seeks the
most plausible explanation for the known facts. The most plausible
explanation for interlineations appearing on a will, duly admitted to
probate in accordance with the then (as now) very exacting requirements
of the common law, is that the interlineations were made with the
knowledge and consent of the testator.
You are unable to put forward any more credible alternative. When it is
pointed out that, all things considered, the chance that someone made the
interlineations BEFORE the will was admitted to probate was very slight,
you come up with the even more far-fetched scenario that the
interlineations were added after the will was admitted to probate.
In the absence of any proof whatsoever that this occurred - and you admit
that you have none - it strains credibility to advance this even as a
working hypothesis.
> The purpose was pragmatic-- to make it safer to produce the First
> Folio. Justice was more arbitrary back then, but it's extraordinarily
> unlikely H&C would have been tried, let alone executed for altering a
> superannuated will for purpose of publishing Shake-speare's works.
Is that so, Volker ? And what is your authority (apart from your own
surmise or guess-work) for this proposition ? Do you imagine that those
responsible for the administration of justice in Elizabethan times really
approved of people either breaking into Court registries, or bribing
Court officials, for the purpose of fraudulently altering wills after
they had been admitted to probate ? I don't think so !
> > When Volker lacks evidence he resorts to bold asseverations: "hence there
> > [was] little risk of getting caught, and, if caught, no harm done, hence
> > little chance of punishment". Does Volker seriously suggest that it is
> > easier to get away with forging a will which has already been admitted to
> > probate, and forms part of an official court record, than forging a will
> > before it has been admitted to probate ?
>
> Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
> already been executed.
Presumably you don't mean "executed", which is the signing (execution) of
a will.
But how is it "easier" to get access to an official copy of a will,
enrolled in the Court records, than forge an emendation before it is
admitted to probate ?
> > [...] to answer his question, the law which applied at the
> > relevant time is stated as follows in William Blackstone's "Commentaries
> > on the Laws of England" (from the first edition of 1765 to 1769), vol.2,
> > at p.518:
>
> > "If the deceased leaves a widow and children, his substance (deducting
> > the widow's apparel and furniture of her bed-chamber, which in London is
> > called the 'widow's chamber') is divided into three parts; one of which
> > belongs to the widow, another to the children, and the third to the
> > administrator ...".
>
> > This describes the situation on intestacy.
>
> ROTFL!!! What is the Stratfordian position here??? That there was no
> forgery, because there was no will??? Or perhaps the Stratfordian
> position is that the rules of intestacy apply, even if there is a will?
> Really, how is your comment germane?
First, I do not purport to state the "Stratfordian position". Many
contributors to this group do so with far greater knowledge and authority
that I could. I simply point out, as a lawyer, that the Oxfordian
position betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of English testementary
law of the relevant era.
Secondly, I did not suggest that there was any intestacy. As I went on
to point out, Blackstone cites several venerable authorities for the
proposition that the intestacy rules applied even where there was a will,
to the extent of preventing a husband from disinheriting his wife of her
"reasonable part", including her apparel and the furniture of her
bedchamber.
Thirdly, my comment is "germane" for the very reason that the
preponderence of legal authority in Elizabethean times supports the view
that a wife could not lawfully be deprived of her "reasonable part".
> No, by specifying that she receive the 2nd best bed, Shakspere (or his
> lawyer, rether) is declaring what a "reasonable part" of the estate is.
> He is shutting the door on an appeal against the will. If she had not
> been mentioned in the will (and she was mentioned only the one time in
> the entire will), she could have claimed a "reasonable part". Anne may
> have made Will's life on earth hell, but Will used his male perogative
> to get revenge in his death. There is no way he could have treated her
> worse in the will than as he did-- by relegating her entirely to the 2nd
> bed and its furniture. It's like bequeathing $1 to your ingrateful
> son. Shakspere's will is an undying testament to his bottomless
> loathing of his wife.
I don't know what learning or qualifications Volker has to discuss
Elizabethan testamentary laws, but he seems to be confusing modern
American legal doctrines with those which applied in England at the
relevant time.
Says Volker: "If she had not been mentioned in the will (and she was
mentioned only the one time in the entire will), she could have claimed a
"reasonable part"." Where, pray tell, is your authority for this ? Let
me tell you that I know of no authority for such a proposition applying
in English testementary law until the enactment of legislation
establishing principles of testators' family maintenance in the late
Nineteenth Century. So which Elizabethan cases, or text-writers, do you
cite as authority for this proposition, Volker ? Or is it, like so much
that you post to this newsgroup, a figment of your no doubt fertile
imagination ?
Says Volker: "It's like bequeathing $1 to your ingrateful son." Again,
Volker, where is your authority that this was effective as a means of
disinheriting ingrates in Elizabethan times ? Or have you just made it
up ?
> > Unless Volker is now going to suggest that Blackstone - as well as
> > Bracton, Fleta, the year-books, Fitzherbert and Finch - have all been
> > forged, or that Blackstone was part of an international conspiracy to add
> > credibility to the allegedly forged will, this is surely the end of any
> > debate about the "second best bed" legacy.
>
> I don't think so! I think our QC has only demonstrated his naive
> understanding of this aspect of the law.
Ah yes, Volker, "naive" I might be - one of those simple individuals who
supposes that wills admitted to probate are not mysteriously amended in
the way that your far-fetched hypothesis suggests. So perhaps you would
care to outline your qualifications for challenging my knowledge and
understanding of Elizabethan common law. What case-law, what texts, what
other authorities, do you rely on for your interpretation of how
testementary law operated in Shakespeare's time ?
--
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <3539CBB6...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> Executed wills do remain in government archives, but they are not
> typically afforded the protection given unexecuted wills. Iow, they're
> usually moved to a larger, but a less secure public back storage room.
> They are reasonably accessible to lawyers, legal clerks, and others.
> This is from my experiences with American courthouses.
(1) Once again, I shall assume that when Volker talks about "unexecuted"
and "executed" wills, he means something else. A will is "executed" when
it is duly signed in the presence of appropriate witnesses.
(2) Volker's hypothesising (= guesswork) concerning the alleged post-
probate fraudulent emendations to WS's will is now shown to be based on
his "experiences" - whatever these may be - "with American courthouses"
(not as the defendant, one hopes). Assuming that Volker's "experiences"
support the proposition that wills are, in contemporary American
courthouses, afforded a greater degree of protection before probate than
after, how does this justify an inference that the same thing occurred in
Elizabethan England ?
(3) So far as I am aware, the best authority on the system for
maintaining public records in England - prior to the establishment of the
Public Records Office (where WS's will is now housed) in 1838 - is the
"Report from the Select Committee on the Public Records" of 1800.
Although this report acknowledges (and regrets) the fact that the public
records of the various courts were then scattered amongst a variety of
repositories in different parts of the country, and that there was very
little organization as to which records were deposited where, it
emphasises the fact that the then existing system had become a burden
BECAUSE of the necessity to maintain the security and integrity of
records in a wide variety of places.
> I haven't claimed expertise in Elizabethan law, but apparently you
> think you know more on this that is relevant than I do. So tell us,
> what do you know about E law that will cast light on this matter for us?
I cannot answer for Rob; but, apart from my being "One of Her Majesty's
Counsel Learned in the Law", English legal history has been one of my
hobbies for close to 20 years.
So, what are your qualifications, Volker ?
--
volker multhopp
Tom Reedy wrote:
> So you're saying that the penalties of H & C publishing the FF would have been
> harsher than if they had gotten caught altering a court document [...]
"Court document", right, a dead will.
>--that they
> weighed the risks & costs and chose the lesser evil.
Pretty much.
>And what would have been
> the penalty for publishing the FF, 19 years after Oxford died, 21 years after
> Elizabeth (who supposedly forbade Oxford to publish plays under his own name,
> but looked the other way when he used the Shakespeare alias), & 20 years into
> the reign of the king who honored Oxford? Really, your scenerio makes no
> sense, & it gets worse everytime you add to it.
Show us what I've "added to it". I've been consistent about this for
many months. One thing they would have lost would have been the
established name recognition of "Shakespeare". They were supposed to
have prefered to advance a disgraced, ruined, queer earl as author over
the already popular commoner? To use a name which had been forbidden by
royal decree and thus risk political difficulty. To jeopardize a major
effort, the publication of the *First Folio*, when the alternative was a
small hoax, little more than a prank?
> > Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
> > already been executed.
> Right. So why would H & C have broken into the records & add forgeries to a
> will that nobody would ever look at until decades later? Or do you have any
> evidence that people went to the courthouse & read old wills for amusement
> when they didn't have anything better to do.
In the off chance that there would have been problems from the
political sector-- they could claim they were trying the best they could
to erase the Oxford-Shakespeare connection, even to the point of
providing a false alternate candidate.
--Volker
volker multhopp
morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
> > That fact is that the reference to the actors is an interlineation --
> > you cannot prove Shakspere saw the interlineation; I can't prove it's a
> > forgery.
> Precisely, Volker ! So, in the absence of direct proof, one seeks the
> most plausible explanation for the known facts. The most plausible
> explanation for interlineations appearing on a will, duly admitted to
> probate in accordance with the then (as now) very exacting requirements
> of the common law, is that the interlineations were made with the
> knowledge and consent of the testator.
If this ground were examined in isolation, I would be inclined to grant
that the interlineations were known to the testator. However, we have
gotten here after a long journey. The starting point was a simple
re-appraisal of Shakspere as author. He was a questionable candidate,
esp after the record of his life strongly suggested he was illiterate.
How could a likely illiterate Stratford businessman be a London actor
and author? The will, with its reference to the actors seemed to bridge
this crucial chasm-- but, lo and behold, that critical reference was not
original to the will-- but added later. We can legitimately ask whether
this is a false trail.
> You are unable to put forward any more credible alternative. When it is
> pointed out that, all things considered, the chance that someone made the
> interlineations BEFORE the will was admitted to probate was very slight,
> you come up with the even more far-fetched scenario that the
> interlineations were added after the will was admitted to probate.
I have been absolutely consistent about the will and when it was
altered (well, I have said it possible, that the alteration was late as
Joe Greene, a century later), long before you said anything, so let's
not re-invent the history of this discussion. You don't find my
scenario credible; I do.
> > The purpose was pragmatic-- to make it safer to produce the First
> > Folio. Justice was more arbitrary back then, but it's extraordinarily
> > unlikely H&C would have been tried, let alone executed for altering a
> > superannuated will for purpose of publishing Shake-speare's works.
> Do you imagine that those
> responsible for the administration of justice in Elizabethan times really
> approved of people either breaking into Court registries, or bribing
> Court officials, for the purpose of fraudulently altering wills after
> they had been admitted to probate ? I don't think so !
I never claimed the administrators "approved" of such alterations; what
I said was, they wouldn't execute anyone for a "crime" for which there
were no victims.
> > Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
> > already been executed.
> Presumably you don't mean "executed", which is the signing (execution) of
> a will.
We disagree about the technical meaning of the word. In Amercian
usage, to "execute" a will means to carry out its instructions.
"execute [...] 3: [...] do what is provided or required by < ~ the
provisions of a will> [...]" [-- *Webster's 3rd New International
Dictionary*]
Perhaps someone with an *OED* could adjudicate the meaning of "execute"
here.
> But how is it "easier" to get access to an official copy of a will,
> enrolled in the Court records, than forge an emendation before it is
> admitted to probate ?
They are not afford the same security-- because executed wills don't
determine poeple's fortunes.
> > > This describes the situation on intestacy.
> > ROTFL!!! What is the Stratfordian position here??? That there was no
> > forgery, because there was no will??? Or perhaps the Stratfordian
> > position is that the rules of intestacy apply, even if there is a will?
> > Really, how is your comment germane?
> First, I do not purport to state the "Stratfordian position". Many
> contributors to this group do so with far greater knowledge and authority
> that I could. I simply point out, as a lawyer, that the Oxfordian
> position betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of English testementary
> law of the relevant era.
No Oxfordian here has ever suggested that that Shakspere died
intestate. It is not Oxfordians who have puzzled about the provisions
of the will. What remains is that Shakspere detested his wife, and cut
her off as best he could-- but this is irrelevant to the authorship
issue.
> Secondly, I did not suggest that there was any intestacy.
So why did you bring it up???
>As I went on
> to point out, Blackstone cites several venerable authorities for the
> proposition that the intestacy rules applied even where there was a will,
> to the extent of preventing a husband from disinheriting his wife of her
> "reasonable part", including her apparel and the furniture of her
> bedchamber.
But there is no possible application of intestacy, because he did
mention her the one time, and there he pre-emptively declared what the
"reasonable part" of the estate was-- the 2nd best bed.
> Thirdly, my comment is "germane" for the very reason that the
> preponderence of legal authority in Elizabethean times supports the view
> that a wife could not lawfully be deprived of her "reasonable part".
"Preponderence of legal authority in Elizabethean times" is hogwash.
Intestacy rules are a nauseous canard with no relevance to Shakspere's
will.
> Says Volker: "If she had not been mentioned in the will (and she was
> mentioned only the one time in the entire will), she could have claimed a
> "reasonable part"." Where, pray tell, is your authority for this ?
That is *exactly* the purpose of the "reasonable part" rule you
repeatedly cited.
> Ah yes, Volker, "naive" I might be - one of those simple individuals who
> supposes that wills admitted to probate are not mysteriously amended in
> the way that your far-fetched hypothesis suggests. So perhaps you would
> care to outline your qualifications for challenging my knowledge and
> understanding of Elizabethan common law. What case-law, what texts, what
> other authorities, do you rely on for your interpretation of how
> testementary law operated in Shakespeare's time ?
Sometimes, the law says exactly what it says it says. The will said
Anne gets the 2nd best bed and its furniture, some people get other
things, and Susanna and her family get the rest of the estate. That's
exactly how it would have divided up. It's up to you to come with other
"secret" provisions of the law that would have divided the estate
otherwise-- and don't bother with rules of intestacy.
--Volker
Richard J Kennedy
What difference does it make if Hemming and Condel were remembered
by the Statford Shakespeare -- he was involved in the theater
somehow. But the gifts of those rings does not make the man from
Stratford a writer, this is implied in no way whatsoever. Again
and again, the man from Stratford was not connected with the literary
world >in any way< until he was 7 years dead. That's the stone that
can't be moved.
--
Tom Reedy
In article <MPG.fa468ca7...@news.supernews.com>,
morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
<snip>
> In the absence of any proof whatsoever that this occurred - and you admit
> that you have none - it strains credibility to advance this even as a
> working hypothesis.
You must understand something about Volker: to him an hypothesis is the same
as an argument. Apparently his pride in coming up with an hypothesis is such
that he feels no necessity to advance an argument in its support.
TR
volker multhopp
> pronounced upon by the Court as being the lawful last will and testament
> of William Shakespeare, gentleman, of Stratford-upon-Avon.
What bloated pomposity!
> If you thnik that amending "dead wills" is any easy thing, might I
> suggest that you drop into the Public Records Office in Chancery Lane,
> next time you're in London, and ask to borrow Shakespeare's will (or
> anyone else's, for that matter) for a few hours, because you want to make
> some changes to it.
Right. Checking an original will in late 20th c London is *exactly*
like checking a dead will in some backwater in the 17th c.
> > Show us what I've "added to it". I've been consistent about this for
> > many months.
> Can I believe what I'm reading ? Not only does Volker admit that he's
> been peddling this same clap-trap "for many months" - he's actually proud
> of it ! It's nice to know that faith still exists, so certain and
> unshakeable, that it is firmly shut against persuasion or proof.
So, let's note that you've almost gotten away with avoiding your
specious claim that I have added to my scenario. If I had such hollow
arguments as you, I would run away from them, too.
> What do you do in your spare time, Volker ? Convene your local branch of
> the flat-earth society ? Preside over local meetings of the Creationist
> league ? Write tracts for the local UFO spotters' guild ? Peddle new
> theories about the JFK assassination ? Document sightings of the late
> Elvis Presley ? With your imagination, there must be so many avenues of
> gainful employment open to you !
Tell us, Anthony, have you shot your wad on Shakespeare? Do you no
longer find him interesting enough? How about getting back on topic?
--Volker
volker multhopp
morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
> > > > "Court document", right, a dead will.
> > > No ! Not just a "dead will" ! A document formally and solemnly
> > > pronounced upon by the Court as being the lawful last will and testament
> > > of William Shakespeare, gentleman, of Stratford-upon-Avon.
> > What bloated pomposity!
> logical error of "petitio principii", and moved over to arguments of the
> "ad hominem" kind ?
I didn't say you were pomposity, I said that of your description. If
you feel that apt, fine, but I was attacking the argument, not the
person.
> > Right. Checking an original will in late 20th c London is *exactly*
> > like checking a dead will in some backwater in the 17th c.
> Volker, if I remember correctly, it was you who suggested that your
> experience in contemporary American courthouses offered some guide as to
> what happened in English court registries in Elizabethan times.
I'm refering to a fact that remains true-- that executed wills do not
receive the security unexecuted ones do. Obviously, security of
original court documents in general has increased.
> And I'm not talking about "checking" a will - I talking about obtaining
> the probate copy for long enough to effect detailed interlineations so as
> to change its meaning.
Just how many copies of the will do you think they had lying around?
Today you can ask for a xerox, back then they would have shown you the
original.
> > > What do you do in your spare time, Volker ? Convene your local branch of
> > > the flat-earth society ? Preside over local meetings of the Creationist
> > > league ? Write tracts for the local UFO spotters' guild ? Peddle new
> > > theories about the JFK assassination ? Document sightings of the late
> > > Elvis Presley ? With your imagination, there must be so many avenues of
> > > gainful employment open to you !
> >
> > Tell us, Anthony, have you shot your wad on Shakespeare? Do you no
> > longer find him interesting enough? How about getting back on topic?
>
> Vulgarity is the last resort of the incompetent; and I do not proposed to
> dignify your obscene remark with a response, beyond observing that:
>
> (1) As it seems to me, it is entirely "on topic" to emphasise - perhaps
> colourfully, I admit - the absurdity of your position.
You tied none of your crack=pot schemes to theory.
> (3) I will be careful, in future, not to waste my time engaging in a
> battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Ah! Now we do have ad hominem, and very unoriginal stuff, at that.
--Volker
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <353A0B08...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> If this ground were examined in isolation, I would be inclined to grant
> that the interlineations were known to the testator.
Hallelujah ! And if the interlineations were known to the testator, then
the testator personally knew the actors in favour of whom specific
legacies were bequeathed. And this is all the proof you need that WS of
Stratford and WS the playwrite were one and the same person. And there's
an end on't.
> However, we have
> gotten here after a long journey. The starting point was a simple
> re-appraisal of Shakspere as author. He was a questionable candidate,
> esp after the record of his life strongly suggested he was illiterate.
> How could a likely illiterate Stratford businessman be a London actor
> and author? The will, with its reference to the actors seemed to bridge
> this crucial chasm-- but, lo and behold, that critical reference was not
> original to the will-- but added later. We can legitimately ask whether
> this is a false trail.
You may have "gotten [sic.] here after a long journey"; "we" certainly
didn't. When you have direct proof of a fact - that WS of Stratford and
WS the playwrite were one and the same person - what justification is
there to reject this direct proof because your interpretation of the
Stratford WS's life "strongly suggested he was illiterate". The very
fact that he made a will leaving specific bequests to a number of fellow
actors strongly suggests the contrary.
Your own words, my dear Volker, show that your argument lifts itself up
by its own bootstraps - a classical case of a "petitio principii" or
circular argument. To challenge the will, first you have to assume that
WS of Stratford was illiterate, and did not know his fellow actors
mentioned in the will. Once you accept that the will, "examined in
isolation", is probably valid, you lose any basis for presupposing that
its author was illiterate. Game, set and match.
> I have been absolutely consistent about the will and when it was
> altered (well, I have said it possible, that the alteration was late as
> Joe Greene, a century later), long before you said anything, so let's
> not re-invent the history of this discussion. You don't find my
> scenario credible; I do.
Frankly, I don't care whether your absurd hypothesis is one which you
dreamt up 24 hours or 10 years ago - either way, its equally implausible.
Nor, frankly, do I care that you are able to persuade yourself that it is
credible. Objectively - and I speak as one who comes to this debate with
no preconceptions either in favour of or against Stratford - it is mind-
numbingly far-fetched.
If you, or anyone else, can offer any serious suggestion as to how - or
why - anyone with the necessary legal skills could have altered WS's will
after it was admitted to probate, I shall listen to what you have to say.
So far, all I hear is bluster and bulldust.
> I never claimed the administrators "approved" of such alterations; what
> I said was, they wouldn't execute anyone for a "crime" for which there
> were no victims.
Your knowledge of the administration of criminal justice in Elizabethan
times (or, for that matter, at any time up to the Victorian era) is
woeful, if you imagine that the law was not enforced with its full rigour
on persons who:
(a) either broke into, or bribed their way into, court registries; and
(b) fraudulently altered official court records.
> We disagree about the technical meaning of the word. In Amercian
> usage, to "execute" a will means to carry out its instructions.
> "execute [...] 3: [...] do what is provided or required by < ~ the
> provisions of a will> [...]" [-- *Webster's 3rd New International
> Dictionary*]
>
> Perhaps someone with an *OED* could adjudicate the meaning of "execute"
> here.
I'll happily give you the OED meaning, which is:
"Execute.
"3. Law. To go through the formalities necessary to the validity of (a
legal act, e.g. a bequest, agreement, mortgage, etc.). Hence, to
complete and give validity to (the instrument by which such act is
effected) by performing what the law requires to be done, as by signing,
sealing, etc."
And if you want a legal definition, try "Wharton's Law-Lexicon" (7th ed.,
1883):
"Execution of Wills.
"By the Wills Act, 1 Vict. c.26, a will must be in writing ... and signed
on the foot or end thereof by the testator, or by some other person in
his presence and by his direction; and such signature must be made or
acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses
present at the same time; and each such witness must attest and subscribe
the will in the presence of the testator ... [etc.]"
> They are not afford[ed] the same security-- because executed wills don't
> determine poeple's fortunes.
I ask again - where's your authority for this asseveration ?
> No Oxfordian here has ever suggested that that Shakspere died
> intestate.
Nor have I; nor has anyone else, until you first suggested it.
> > Secondly, I did not suggest that there was any intestacy.
>
> So why did you bring it up???
Because - if you bothered to read fully and apply your mind to my
original and subsequent postings - you would see that Blackstone cites a
series of authorities for the proposition that a husband cannot, by the
terms of his will, deprive his wife of what she would be entitled to on
intestacy - including her apparel and the furniture of her bedchamber.
> But there is no possible application of intestacy, because he did
> mention her the one time, and there he pre-emptively declared what the
> "reasonable part" of the estate was-- the 2nd best bed.
Again, you apply modern American legal notions to Elizabethan law. The
"reasonable part" was not what the husband declared it to be, but what
the law declared it to be - including the widow's apparel and the
furniture of her bed-chamber.
> "Preponderence of legal authority in Elizabethean times" is hogwash.
> Intestacy rules are a nauseous canard with no relevance to Shakspere's
> will.
I'm sorry, Volker, that you think you know more about the common law of
Elizabethan times than Blackstone and all of the authors whom he cites.
But you will never understand the subject, if you approach it with the
usual American assumption that everyone else's laws must be the same as
your own.
> > Says Volker: "If she had not been mentioned in the will (and she was
> > mentioned only the one time in the entire will), she could have claimed a
> > "reasonable part"." Where, pray tell, is your authority for this ?
>
> That is *exactly* the purpose of the "reasonable part" rule you
> repeatedly cited.
Ah ... yeh ? ... and where do we find your authority for this
interesting insight into the *exact* purpose of provisions which you
elsewhere describe as *hogwash* ?
> Sometimes, the law says exactly what it says it says.
And sometimes it doesn't. In Shakespeare's time, the law said that a
husband could not deprive his wife of her "reasonable part" - i.e.,
including her apparel and the furniture of her bed-chamber. The husband
could not get around this, by leaving his widow the second-best bed.
Therefore, a bequest of the second-best bed is in addition to, rather
than in substitution for, the bequest of the first-best bed.
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <353A1074...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> "Court document", right, a dead will.
No ! Not just a "dead will" ! A document formally and solemnly
pronounced upon by the Court as being the lawful last will and testament
of William Shakespeare, gentleman, of Stratford-upon-Avon.
If you thnik that amending "dead wills" is any easy thing, might I
suggest that you drop into the Public Records Office in Chancery Lane,
next time you're in London, and ask to borrow Shakespeare's will (or
anyone else's, for that matter) for a few hours, because you want to make
some changes to it.
> Show us what I've "added to it". I've been consistent about this for
> many months.
Can I believe what I'm reading ? Not only does Volker admit that he's
been peddling this same clap-trap "for many months" - he's actually proud
of it ! It's nice to know that faith still exists, so certain and
unshakeable, that it is firmly shut against persuasion or proof.
> > Right. So why would H & C have broken into the records & add forgeries to a
> > will that nobody would ever look at until decades later? Or do you have any
> > evidence that people went to the courthouse & read old wills for amusement
> > when they didn't have anything better to do.
>
> In the off chance that there would have been problems from the
> political sector-- they could claim they were trying the best they could
> to erase the Oxford-Shakespeare connection, even to the point of
> providing a false alternate candidate.
What do you do in your spare time, Volker ? Convene your local branch of
the flat-earth society ? Preside over local meetings of the Creationist
league ? Write tracts for the local UFO spotters' guild ? Peddle new
theories about the JFK assassination ? Document sightings of the late
Elvis Presley ? With your imagination, there must be so many avenues of
gainful employment open to you !
--
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <353A6764...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
>
> > > "Court document", right, a dead will.
>
> > No ! Not just a "dead will" ! A document formally and solemnly
> > pronounced upon by the Court as being the lawful last will and testament
> > of William Shakespeare, gentleman, of Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> What bloated pomposity!
Hey Volker ! Have you given up on arguments which suffer from the
logical error of "petitio principii", and moved over to arguments of the
"ad hominem" kind ?
> > If you thnik that amending "dead wills" is any easy thing, might I
> > suggest that you drop into the Public Records Office in Chancery Lane,
> > next time you're in London, and ask to borrow Shakespeare's will (or
> > anyone else's, for that matter) for a few hours, because you want to make
> > some changes to it.
>
> Right. Checking an original will in late 20th c London is *exactly*
> like checking a dead will in some backwater in the 17th c.
Volker, if I remember correctly, it was you who suggested that your
experience in contemporary American courthouses offered some guide as to
what happened in English court registries in Elizabethan times.
And I'm not talking about "checking" a will - I talking about obtaining
the probate copy for long enough to effect detailed interlineations so as
to change its meaning.
> > > Show us what I've "added to it". I've been consistent about this for
> > > many months.
>
> > Can I believe what I'm reading ? Not only does Volker admit that he's
> > been peddling this same clap-trap "for many months" - he's actually proud
> > of it ! It's nice to know that faith still exists, so certain and
> > unshakeable, that it is firmly shut against persuasion or proof.
>
> So, let's note that you've almost gotten away with avoiding your
> specious claim that I have added to my scenario. If I had such hollow
> arguments as you, I would run away from them, too.
Actually, Volker, the "added to it" comment was Tom Reedy's, not mine.
So I am not avoiding any "specious claim" which I made that you added to
your scenario. I am just marvelling at the fact that you are so
convinced of the correctness of your position that your mind is closed,
even to reasoned argument.
> > What do you do in your spare time, Volker ? Convene your local branch of
> > the flat-earth society ? Preside over local meetings of the Creationist
> > league ? Write tracts for the local UFO spotters' guild ? Peddle new
> > theories about the JFK assassination ? Document sightings of the late
> > Elvis Presley ? With your imagination, there must be so many avenues of
> > gainful employment open to you !
>
> Tell us, Anthony, have you shot your wad on Shakespeare? Do you no
> longer find him interesting enough? How about getting back on topic?
Vulgarity is the last resort of the incompetent; and I do not proposed to
dignify your obscene remark with a response, beyond observing that:
(1) As it seems to me, it is entirely "on topic" to emphasise - perhaps
colourfully, I admit - the absurdity of your position.
(2) The passage which you object to comes at the end of a posting which
is otherwise entirely on point.
(3) I will be careful, in future, not to waste my time engaging in a
battle of wits with an unarmed man.
--
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <6hdjic$f...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
Let me see if I understand Mr Kennedy's new model:
(1) Yes, WS of Strafford and WS the actor were one and the same person,
since Mr Kennedy concedes that WS of Stratford "was involved in the
theater somehow", and - on the evidence of the will - knew both Hemming
and Condel.
(2) Therefore, WS of Stratford is not the illiterate buffoon that Volker
suggests.
(3) Yet somebody - possibly the Earl of Oxford, possibly somebody else -
used the name of a fairly prominent London actor, friend of Hemming and
Condel, as a pseudonym under which to write his plays, including (if it
was Oxford) plays written after his (Oxford's) death.
(4) And yet, according to Mr Kennedy, knowing two other London actors
well enough to remember them in his will - two other actors whose names
feature on the same playbills as the name of WS - does not connect WS of
Stratford with the literary world, since WS of Stratford (so says Mr
Kennedy) was not connected with the literary world "in any way until he
was 7 years dead".
Please, Mr Kennedy, even you can surely do better than this !
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, volker multhopp wrote:
> r...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
>
> > > Hell, yes. No one particularly gives a damn abut a will that has
> > > already been executed.
>
> > Curiously, I was under the impression that wills are carefully stored
> > away in a safe location for a good reason. No doubt you know better.
>
> Executed wills do remain in government archives, but they are not
> typically afforded the protection given unexecuted wills. Iow, they're
> usually moved to a larger, but a less secure public back storage room.
> They are reasonably accessible to lawyers, legal clerks, and others.
> This is from my experiences with American courthouses.
>
> > I'll admit that I find it conceivable that you know virtually nothing
> > about Elizabethan law.
>
> I haven't claimed expertise in Elizabethan law, but apparently you
> think you know more on this that is relevant than I do. So tell us,
> what do you know about E law that will cast light on this matter for us?
>
> --Volker
>
I didn't claim that I knew much about Elizabethan law. What I did was
question whether or not you did. AFAIK, you know no more about
Elizabethan law than you did Elizabethan education when you told us that
one of your assertations was based upon "distant, faded readings, mostly
fiction of by-gone days-- and first hand experience with some modern
rustics." Personally, I found it astounding that you then felt that you
had a good basis from which to dispute the findings of David Cressy; a man
who'd spent a large part of his life studying the subject. (IIRC, you
implied that his grasp of reality was not very good.) But perhaps, you
have a far better understanding of Elizabethan law. There's a wide gap
between expert and "know nothing". Whereabouts do you lie? You certainly
seem to have more knowledge about the American practice than I do, but I'm
not at all sure why you think that knowledge should apply to the
circumstances surrounding Shakespeare's will. (It seems to me, an
unwarranted assumption.)
I'm sure I would be placed somewhere close to the ignorant end of the
scale, when it comes to Elizabethan law(or for that matter, modern law.)
But I've always been of the opinion, that even the ignorant should be
allowed to ask questions. As it happens, I have a question which I hope
relates to whether or not Shakespeare's contemporaries "particularly gave
a damn" about probated wills.
IIRC, Shakespeare's will specified who would inherit his real property
when his heirs died. Does that imply that the terms of his will
remained important for at least 40 or 50 years?
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <Pine.A41.3.96.980420...@pcr8.pcr.com>,
r...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com says...
> I'm sure I would be placed somewhere close to the ignorant end of the
> scale, when it comes to Elizabethan law(or for that matter, modern law.)
> But I've always been of the opinion, that even the ignorant should be
> allowed to ask questions. As it happens, I have a question which I hope
> relates to whether or not Shakespeare's contemporaries "particularly gave
> a damn" about probated wills.
>
> IIRC, Shakespeare's will specified who would inherit his real property
> when his heirs died. Does that imply that the terms of his will
> remained important for at least 40 or 50 years?
>
Actually, Rob, although protesting your ignorance, you ask a most
perspicacious and important question. And the answer is - yes, the terms
of Shakespeare's will remained important for at least 40 or 50 years, and
probably very much longer.
The reason is that, in Elizabethan times, and indeed until relatively
modern times, England had no system for registering ownership of land or
interests in land. So, when you went to buy or sell a block of land, or
to grant or take a lease, a mortgage, an easement, or any other form of
interest in land, the "chain of title" had to be proved.
So Shakespeare's heirs - and their heirs and successors - needed to keep
a complete record of the history of land dealings, showing the source
from which they derived their title. And one vital link in the "chain of
title" would have been, and remained, Shakespeare's will.
And this is why Wolker is right off target, when he suggests that it was
(in his words) a "dead will", and implies that it could have been altered
after it was admitted to probate, as a relatively simple matter, without
any substantial risk of serious punishment.
--
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
<snip>
>
> The reason is that, in Elizabethan times, and indeed until relatively
> modern times, England had no system for registering ownership of land or
> interests in land. So, when you went to buy or sell a block of land, or
> to grant or take a lease, a mortgage, an easement, or any other form of
> interest in land, the "chain of title" had to be proved.
>
> So Shakespeare's heirs - and their heirs and successors - needed to keep
> a complete record of the history of land dealings, showing the source
> from which they derived their title. And one vital link in the "chain of
> title" would have been, and remained, Shakespeare's will.
>
> And this is why Wolker is right off target, when he suggests that it was
> (in his words) a "dead will", and implies that it could have been altered
> after it was admitted to probate, as a relatively simple matter, without
> any substantial risk of serious punishment.
>
<snip>
Thanks for clearing that up.
JPWearing
Just a couple of points about the will and Oxfordians. Shakespeare made Thomas
Russell overseer of his will. Russell had considerable estates near Stratford.
One of his relatives was Leonard Digges who wrote one of the Memorial poems in
the first Folio. Interestingly enough, Digges' translation of "Gerardo" was
published in 1622, by Edward Blount, the publisher of the First Folio. The
First Folio was "put together" by Heminge and Condell, to both of whom
Shakespeare left money to buy rings. Doubtless, Oxfordians can explain all this
away, but personally I'm at a loss to understand why all these men, personally
known to Shakespeare the Stratford/London actor, would all conspire to
attribute the plays to Shakespeare years after Oxford's death, if the plays
were really not Shakespeare's. The bottom line, the Will also supports the
fact that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Any attribution to Oxford (or Marlowe,
Bacon, et al) ALWAYS requires a conspiracy theory of some sort or another.
Richard...@worldnet.att.net
Elsewhere, Mark Alexander wrote that the First Folio was published by
Oxford's son-in-law. I asked for evidence, but he hasn't supplied any yet.
I know I've heard this argument from Oxfordians before, but I can't remember
the details of it.
I also remember that this theory is debunked in Matus's book, "SHAKESPEARE,
IN FACT," -- but I seem to have misplaced my copy of it.
Can anyone here shed any light on the theory that the First Folio was
published by Oxford's son-in-law?
In article <199805061548...@ladder03.news.aol.com>#1/1,
Neuendorffer
JPWearing wrote:
>
> Just a couple of points about the will and Oxfordians. Shakespeare made Thomas
> Russell overseer of his will. Russell had considerable estates near Stratford.
> One of his relatives was Leonard Digges who wrote one of the Memorial poems in
> the first Folio. Interestingly enough, Digges' translation of "Gerardo" was
> published in 1622, by Edward Blount, the publisher of the First Folio. The
> First Folio was "put together" by Heminge and Condell, to both of whom
> Shakespeare left money to buy rings. Doubtless, Oxfordians can explain all this
> away, but personally I'm at a loss to understand why all these men, personally
> known to Shakespeare the Stratford/London actor, would all conspire to
> attribute the plays to Shakespeare years after Oxford's death, if the plays
> were really not Shakespeare's. The bottom line, the Will also supports the
> fact that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Any attribution to Oxford (or Marlowe,
> Bacon, et al) ALWAYS requires a conspiracy theory of some sort or another.
Perhaps one or more of these gentlemen was responsible for the set of
theatrical references which occur like clockwork every 9 years in the
month of March:
1595, March 15 - Shakespeare, Kempe and Burbage were listed as
receiving payment for 'two comedies or interludes' played before the
queen.
1604, March 15 - Shakespeare and eight other players each received 4.5
yards (9 cubits) of red cloth to make liveries for participating as
grooms in King James coronation.
1613, March 10 - Shakespere purchased the old Blackfriar's gatehouse.
March 31 - Shakespere & Burbage were paid for Rutland's impreso.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note = extrapolating backwards in even steps of 9 years one eventually
arrives at March 15, 44 BC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also - on Mar.15, 1616 Shakespeare's new son-in-law (Thomas Quiney)
grieved as his old girlfriend and child as they were buried.
Art Neuendorffer
volker multhopp
JPWearing wrote:
> Just a couple of points about the will and Oxfordians. Shakespeare made Thomas
> Russell overseer of his will. Russell had considerable estates near Stratford.
> One of his relatives was Leonard Digges who wrote one of the Memorial poems in
> the first Folio. Interestingly enough, Digges' translation of "Gerardo" was
> published in 1622, by Edward Blount, the publisher of the First Folio. The
> First Folio was "put together" by Heminge and Condell, to both of whom
> Shakespeare left money to buy rings. Doubtless, Oxfordians can explain all this
> away, but personally I'm at a loss to understand why all these men, personally
> known to Shakespeare the Stratford/London actor, would all conspire to
> attribute the plays to Shakespeare years after Oxford's death, if the plays
> were really not Shakespeare's. The bottom line, the Will also supports the
> fact that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Any attribution to Oxford (or Marlowe,
> Bacon, et al) ALWAYS requires a conspiracy theory of some sort or another.
It's possible Digges, hearing of plans to publish the *FF*, said to
H&C, "By the way, I know a guy up in Stratford named 'William
Shakspere', and H&C said, "Hey, maybe we could avoid trouble by pointing
at this guy as the author."
--Volker
Mark Alexander
Darn. I got them backwards. It was actually Philip Herbert, Earl of
Montgomery, (the *other* patron of the First Folio) who *married*
Oxford's daughter: Susan Vere. His brother, William, was merely an
object of interest for Bridget, but they never married.
Sorry about that. How embarrassing that BOTH patrons of the First Folio
have a connection to Oxford.
And none to Shaksper.
Again from the DNB
***BEGIN***
Herbert, Philip, Earl of Montgomery and fourth Earl of Pembroke
1584-1650, born 10 Oct. 1584, was younger son of Henry Herbert, second
earl of Pembroke [q.v.], by his third wife, Mary Herbert [q.v.]. He
seems to have been named Philip after his mother's brother, Sir Philip
Sidney. With his elder brother William, third earl of Pembroke [q.v.],
he matriculated at New College, Oxford, on 9 March 1592-3, when nine
years old (Oxf. Univ. Reg., Oxf. Hist. Soc., ii. ii. 195). He only
stayed at the university three or four months. In April 1597 ‘little Mr.
Philip Harbert’ was reported to be a suitor for the hand of Mary
Herbert, heiress of Sir William Herbert of St. Julians, who ultimately
married another kinsman, Edward, the well-known lord Herbert of Cherbury
[q.v.] (Sydney Papers, ii. 43). On his first visit to court in April
1600 his forwardness caused general amazement (ib. p. 190). In the
following year his father offered the queen 5,000l. if she would allow a
royal ward, daughter of Sir Arthur Gorges, to marry him, but the offer
was declined. After ‘long love and many changes,’ he was, in October
1604, ‘privately contracted to my Lady Susan [Vere, third daughter of
Edward, seventeenth earl of Oxford], without the knowledge of any of his
or her friends’ (Lodge, Illustrations, iii. 238). On 27 Dec. the
marriage took place at Whitehall with elaborate ceremony, in which the
king took a prominent part (Winwood, Mem. ii. 43). James gave the bride
land worth 500l., and the bridegroom land to the value of 1,000l. a
year.
Philip is said to have been a handsome young man, and in the early years
of James's reign was acknowledged to be the chief of the royal
favourites. ‘The comeliness of his person’ and his passion for hunting
and field-sports, writes Clarendon, rendered him ‘the first who drew the
king's eyes towards him with affection.’ ‘He pretended to no other
qualifications than to understand dogs and horses very well.’ In May
1603 he became a gentleman of the privy chamber, on 23 July was
appointed a knight of the Bath, and from 1605 to the end of the reign
was a gentleman of the bedchamber. He was member for Glamorganshire in
the parliament of 1604, and on 4 May 1605 was created Baron Herbert of
Shurland in the Isle of Sheppey, Kent, and Earl of Montgomery. On 9 Feb.
1606-7 James I bestowed on his favourite the castle of Montgomery, which
he took from its rightful owner, Edward Herbert, lord Herbert of
Cherbury, but in July 1613 the new earl restored it to his kinsman on
payment of 500l. From 1608 onwards he received lavish grants of land
from James. Montgomery accompanied the king to Oxford in August 1605,
and was created M.A. In 1606 it was rumoured that he was deep in debt,
and that the king was compounding with his creditors (Cal. State Papers,
Dom. 1603-10, pp. 334, 348). In court-tournaments and in masques he was
always a prominent figure (cf. ib. 1611-18, pp. 428, 512).
[...]
The earl accepted the dedication of numerous books, often in conjunction
with his brother William. To ‘the incomparable pair of brethren’ the
first folio of Shakespeare's works was inscribed in 1623, and to
Massinger, Montgomery, like his mother and brother, was a constant
patron throughout his life, continuing a pension to Massinger's widow.
--
_____________________________________
The Shakespeare Authorship SOURCEBOOK
http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/
The Underground Grammarian
http://members.aol.com/hu4wahz/ug/index.html
Mark Alexander
Richard...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Elsewhere, Mark Alexander wrote that the First Folio was published by
> Oxford's son-in-law. I asked for evidence, but he hasn't supplied any yet.
>
> I know I've heard this argument from Oxfordians before, but I can't remember
> the details of it.
>
> I also remember that this theory is debunked in Matus's book, "SHAKESPEARE,
> IN FACT," -- but I seem to have misplaced my copy of it.
>
> Can anyone here shed any light on the theory that the First Folio was
> published by Oxford's son-in-law?
>
Richard, I think you mistook my reference. I was referring to William Herbert,
Earl of Pembroke who is one of the "patrons" and who was obviously supportive of
the First Folio project. Since he married Bridget Vere, Oxford's daughter, we have
an interesting connection between the First Folio and Oxford, one that if
*Shakspere's* daughter had been the designated spouse, Stratfordians would be all
over the place theorizing how the manuscripts were left for disposal through her.
In case you think this made up or *disputed* by that famous suppressor of evidence
Irvin Leigh Matus, here is the Natl Dict. of Biography:
***BEGIN***
Herbert, William, third Earl of Pembroke 1580-1630, eldest son of Henry Herbert,
second earl [q.v.], by his third wife, Mary Herbert [q.v.], was born at Wilton 8
April 1580. In his childhood his mother secured the services of Samuel Daniel
[q.v.] as his tutor. A later tutor was named Sandford. On 8 March 1592-3 he
matriculated from New College, Oxford, where he stayed two years. In April 1597 he
was persuading his father to allow him to live in London, and in August his
parents were corresponding with Burghley respecting a proposal to marry him to
Burghley's granddaughter, Bridget Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. The girl
was only thirteen years old, and it was intended that Herbert should travel before
settling down to married life. Both considerations suggested difficulties, and the
proposal came to nothing, although the match was agreeable to Herbert, and the
Earl of Oxford wrote of him as well brought up and ‘faire conditioned,’ with ‘many
good partes in him’ (Tyler, Shakespeare's Sonnets, pp. 45-7).
[...]
In 1603 his mother conjured him, ‘as he valued her blessing, to employ his own
credit and that of his friends to ensure’ the pardon of Raleigh. On 4 Nov. 1604 he
married Lady Mary, the wealthy daughter of Gilbert Talbot, seventh earl of
Shrewsbury (Lodge, Illustrations, iii. 56, 83). The wedding was celebrated by a
tournament at Wilton (Aubrey).
Pembroke shared the literary tastes of his mother and uncle, Sir Philip Sidney. He
wrote verse himself, and was, according to Aubrey, ‘the greatest Mæcenas to
learned men of any peer of his time or since.’ Donne was an intimate friend. He
was always well disposed to his old tutor Daniel and to his kinsman George Herbert
[q.v.]. William Browne lived with him in Wilton House. He was generous to
Massinger the dramatist, son of his father's steward. Ben Jonson addressed an
eulogistic epigram to him in his collection of epigrams, which is itself dedicated
to him. Every New-year's day Pembroke sent Jonson 20l. to buy books (Conversations
with Drummond, pp. 22, 25). Inigo Jones, who is said to have visited Italy at his
expense, was in his service. Chapman inscribed a sonnet to him at the close of his
translation of the ‘Iliad,’ and Davison's ‘Poetical Rhapsody’ (1601) is dedicated
to him. The numerous books in which a like compliment is paid him, often in
conjunction with his brother Philip, amply attest the largeness of his patronage.
The two Herberts, William and Philip, are ‘the incomparable pair of brethren’ to
whom the first folio of Shakespeare's works is dedicated (1623); and the editors
justify the selection of their patrons on the ground that the Herberts had been
pleased to think Shakespeare's plays something heretofore, and had ‘prosecuted
both them and their author living with so much favour.’ Pembroke and his brother
knew Shakespeare in his professional capacity of king's servant or member of James
I's company of actors. In Pembroke as lord chamberlain the editors of the greatest
dramatic publication of the day naturally sought their patron. There is no
evidence that Pembroke was Shakespeare's special or personal patron, or came into
any direct personal relations with the poet.
***END***
Mark
volker multhopp
morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
> > It's possible Digges, hearing of plans to publish the *FF*, said to
> > H&C, "By the way, I know a guy up in Stratford named 'William
> > Shakspere', and H&C said, "Hey, maybe we could avoid trouble by pointing
> > at this guy as the author."
> demonstration, or proof. They don't even constitute an argument, unless
> there is SOMETHING to show that the possibility is also a probability.
Our knowledge of history is incomplete, there are gaps which will
always remain unfilled. A model must be able to bridge such gaps
without straining credulity too much-- but the bridge cannot be proved,
only speculated.
> STEP THREE: H&C added: "Gee, and what a coincidence. This guy left us
> rings in his will, and we don't even know him !"
No, no, no. The rings were forged into the will.
--Volker
david joseph kathman
Richard...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Elsewhere, Mark Alexander wrote that the First Folio was published by
> Oxford's son-in-law. I asked for evidence, but he hasn't supplied any yet.
>
> I know I've heard this argument from Oxfordians before, but I can't remember
> the details of it.
>
> I also remember that this theory is debunked in Matus's book, "SHAKESPEARE,
> IN FACT," -- but I seem to have misplaced my copy of it.
>
> Can anyone here shed any light on the theory that the First Folio was
> published by Oxford's son-in-law?
I think Mark is talking about the fact that the First Folio was
dedicated by Heminges and Condell to Philip and William Herbert, the
Earls of Montgomery and Pembroke respectively. Philip Herbert had
married Oxford's daughter Susan Vere in 1605, the year after Oxford's
death, thus making him Oxford's posthumous son-in-law. One could
argue about the significance of this relationship, but it's not
all that relevant, because Oxfordians who use this argument seem
to have little understanding of the difference between the dedicatee
of a book and the editor/publisher. Books were dedicated to
important people, often noblemen, in the hope of currying favor;
being the object of such a dedication had nothing to do with
actually compiling and/or publishing the book. Oxfordians sometimes
argue that the First Folio was such an expensive production that
Pembroke and Montgomery must have paid for it, but this reveals
ignorance of Elizabethan publishing practices. The colophon of
the book (on the last page) says that it was "Printed at the
Charges of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, I. Smithweeke, and W. Aspley";
i.e. these were the men who paid for it. Only Isaac Jaggard
(William Jaggard's son) and Edward Blount are listed as the
printers on the title page, which means that the book was actually
printed in their shops. (William Jaggard died during the printing,
and his shop passed to his son Isaac). What all this means is
that a consortium of four stationers (Jaggard, Blount, Smithweeke,
and Aspley) put up the money for the publication, which was
printed in the printing houses of Jaggard and Blount but likely
sold in the shops of all four. (Smithweeke and Aspley may have
had some further financial arrangements with the other two, but
we can't know for sure what these were.) Complicated arrangements
like this were sometimes necessary for very large and complicated
books; for example, Holinshed's Chronicles had been published
by a consortium of five stationers. But even simple publications
sometimes involved relatively complicated arrangements. For
example, Thomas Thorpe was a publisher, but he had neither his
own press nor his own shop. This meant that for every book he
wanted to publish, he had to find the money to get somebody else to
print it and then had to get somebody else (not necessarily the same
person) to sell it, with Thorpe taking some part of the proceeds.
Shakespeare's Sonnets was published by Thorpe, but it was printed by
George Eld and sold by John Wright and William Aspley (the same
guy who later was to put up some of the money for the First Folio).
Thorpe owned the rights to the work, so that if it was successful
he would be able to have it printed again and profit; but if it
was unsuccessful, he had to bear the financial brunt. It was
fairly unusual for a publisher to have neither a press nor a shop
(Thorpe was one of the most successful), but nearly all stationers
had some of their books printed and/or sold in other shops,
and nearly all printed and/or sold books for other stationers.
It was all very complicated, and the relationships between the
various stationers can be fascinating to untangle.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
david joseph kathman
Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> Darn. I got them backwards. It was actually Philip Herbert, Earl of
> Montgomery, (the *other* patron of the First Folio) who *married*
> Oxford's daughter: Susan Vere. His brother, William, was merely an
> object of interest for Bridget, but they never married.
Well, Mark, I posted that reply to your mistaken post before I read
this one and saw that you had realized your mistake. But I find
it interesting that you posted that long excerpt from the DNB without,
apparently, actually reading it.
> Sorry about that. How embarrassing that BOTH patrons of the First Folio
> have a connection to Oxford.
And how embarrassing that William Shakespeare's name, and not Oxford's,
appears on the volume.
> And none to Shaksper.
Didn't we go over this last year? William Herbert described Richard
Burbage as "my old acquaintance", and Burbage and Shakespeare were
friends and associates over a period of more than 20 years.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
david joseph kathman
Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> Richard...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > Elsewhere, Mark Alexander wrote that the First Folio was published by
> > Oxford's son-in-law. I asked for evidence, but he hasn't supplied any yet.
> >
> > I know I've heard this argument from Oxfordians before, but I can't remember
> > the details of it.
> >
> > I also remember that this theory is debunked in Matus's book, "SHAKESPEARE,
> > IN FACT," -- but I seem to have misplaced my copy of it.
> >
> > Can anyone here shed any light on the theory that the First Folio was
> > published by Oxford's son-in-law?
> >
>
> Earl of Pembroke who is one of the "patrons" and who was obviously supportive of
> the First Folio project. Since he married Bridget Vere, Oxford's daughter, we have
> an interesting connection between the First Folio and Oxford, one that if
> *Shakspere's* daughter had been the designated spouse, Stratfordians would be all
> over the place theorizing how the manuscripts were left for disposal through her.
>
> In case you think this made up or *disputed* by that famous suppressor of evidence
> Irvin Leigh Matus, here is the Natl Dict. of Biography:
Actually, Mark, Bridget Vere never married William Herbert, as the
excerpt you posted makes perfectly clear. It was Philip Herbert who
married another of Oxford's daughters, Susan Vere, as I noted elsewhere
in this thread. (The marriage did not take place until after
Oxford's death.)
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <3550DBDF...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> It's possible Digges, hearing of plans to publish the *FF*, said to
> H&C, "By the way, I know a guy up in Stratford named 'William
> Shakspere', and H&C said, "Hey, maybe we could avoid trouble by pointing
> at this guy as the author."
Lots of things are possible. Possibilities don't constitute evidence, or
demonstration, or proof. They don't even constitute an argument, unless
there is SOMETHING to show that the possibility is also a probability.
But let's understand Volker's new scenario:
STEP ONE: Digges, hearing of plans to publish the *FF*, said to
H&C, "By the way, I know a guy up in Stratford named 'William
Shakspere'.
STEP TWO: H&C said, "Hey, maybe we could avoid trouble by pointing
at this guy as the author."
STEP THREE: H&C added: "Gee, and what a coincidence. This guy left us
rings in his will, and we don't even know him !"
STEP FOUR: H threw in: "Yeah -- but here's a bigger coincidence for you.
This same guy and I were associated in a little property deal over the
Blackfriars' Gatehouse, even though I don't know him."
STEP FIVE: Digges commented: "That's great. And I know a few blokes who
will help us out. There's old Ben Jonson - he'll be quite cheap to buy
off. Thomas Heywood, of course, is so stupid that he can't even remember
whether the Oxford (whom we know to be the real playwrite) is dead or
alive. Of course, Basse is such a sacreligious character, he wouldn't be
troubled about doing a fake eulogy."
STEP SIX: C remarked: "Yes, but to make it plausible, we'll need a
monument to this great author (laughs). I know Willy Shake-spittle's
family will go along with the game -- they hate the old bastard, since
all he left his poor dear widow in his will was his decrepit old "second
best" bed. But we may run into trouble with the Stratford vicar and
townsfolk, who probably won't like having their town desecrated with a
false monument. We'd better explain to them that, if they conspire to
help us, and it they're VERY careful to ensure that there is no written
record whatsoever of the conspiracy, in centuries to come their wretched
little town will become a world tourism centre -- the Royal Shakespeare
Theatre may even build an ugly great playhouse on the banks of the Avon."
STEP SEVEN: D, H & C (in unison): "You know, there's a chance that we'll
get away with this, unless in a few centuries' time a smart chap like
Volker works out the details of this wide-ranging conspiracy and, without
any evidence at all, manages to piece together what we've done."
Richard J Kennedy
For jpwearing. First of all, to his last statement, the will does
in no way establish that the Stratford man wrote the plays. It
would establish that he was connected to the theater, and which we
knew already. But nothing to make him the author of anything.
As to conspiracies, it would seem to be a conspiracy that kept
this Stratford man entirely unknown as a writer during his lifetime.
Why would anyone want to do this? What silence fell upon everyone
to keep this great secret until he was dead for seven years?
Either a great conspiracy was working that out, or maybe there was
no conspiracy at all, but it all came about in the natural order
of things, a practically unknown man going about his practically
insignificant affairs.
--
morr...@thehub.com.au
In article <35510AA2...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
> A model must be able to bridge such gaps
> without straining credulity too much-- but the bridge cannot be proved,
> only speculated.
And your so-called "model", Volker, strains not only credulity, but
credibility too. The credulity ("a tendency, through ignorance or
weakness, to believe too readily") is yours.
> > STEP THREE: H&C added: "Gee, and what a coincidence. This guy left us
> > rings in his will, and we don't even know him !"
>
> No, no, no. The rings were forged into the will.
Okay, friend Volker. Is this how you would prefer your soi-dissant
"model" to be understood:
STEP ONE: Digges, hearing of plans to publish the *FF*, said to
H&C, "By the way, I know a guy up in Stratford named 'William
Shakspere'.
STEP TWO: H&C said, "Hey, maybe we could avoid trouble by pointing
at this guy as the author."
STEP THREE: H added: "Gee, and what a coincidence. This same guy and I
were associated in a little property deal over the Blackfriars'
Gatehouse, even though I don't know him. The Blackfriars' gatehouse is
even mentioned in his will."
STEP FOUR: C threw in: "Yeah -- but to add credibility to the story, we
need some hard evidence. Maybe if we could break into the court-house,
steal Shakey's will, get a lawyer to cobble together some plausible
interlineations describing us as his "fellowes", and then restore it to
the court-house, that will do. Of course, there's every probability that
nobody will attach any significance to it for decades to come."
STEP FIVE: Digges said: "Hang on guys, this is serious stuff. Do you
realize you can be hanged for doing something like that ?"
STEP SIX: H&C said: "That's okay, Digges. I know this bloke ... he's not
really a lawyer ... in fact, he doesn't even claim to have any specialist
knowledge about the law. But he's read an article in Encyclopaedia
Britannica about wills, and he reckons that if the will is "executed" (he
means, "if it has been fully carried out") we're less likely to be
hanged."
STEP SEVEN: Digges said: "Okay, we're agreed then. You guys look after
forging the will. I'll give you an advance from the proceeds of the
First Folio to pay off a corrupt lawyer to help you 'fix up' the will."
STEP EIGHT: Digges added: "I also know a few blokes who will help us out.
There's old Ben Jonson - he'll be quite cheap to buy off. Thomas Heywood,
of course, is so stupid that he can't even remember whether the Oxford
(whom we know to be the real playwrite) is dead or alive. Of course,
Basse is such a sacreligious character, he wouldn't be troubled about
doing a fake eulogy."
STEP NINE: C remarked: "Yes, but to make it plausible, we'll also need a
monument to this great author (laughs). I know Willy Shake-spittle's
family will go along with the game -- they hate the old bastard, since
all he left his poor dear widow in his will was his decrepit old "second
best" bed. But we may run into trouble with the Stratford vicar and
townsfolk, who probably won't like having their town desecrated with a
false monument. We'd better explain to them that, if they conspire to
help us, and it they're VERY careful to ensure that there is no written
record whatsoever of the conspiracy, in centuries to come their wretched
little town will become a world tourism centre -- the Royal Shakespeare
Theatre may even build an ugly great playhouse on the banks of the Avon."
STEP TEN: D, H & C (in unison): "You know, there's a chance that we'll
Tony Morris
On 7 May 1998 01:26:25 GMT, rken...@orednet.org (Richard J Kennedy)
said:
>For jpwearing. First of all, to his last statement, the will does
>in no way establish that the Stratford man wrote the plays. It
>would establish that he was connected to the theater, and which we
>knew already. But nothing to make him the author of anything.
You seem to have missed the fact, Mr Kennedy, that this is a "Volker
answered" thread, and at the moment we are focussing on friend
Volker's "model" of a Stratford gentleman who had no connection
whatsoever with the theatre, probably was illiterate, and certainly
did not write the plays attributed to him.
For this purpose, one of the points we have to address is Volker's
insistence that there is nothing to connect the Stratford man with the
theatre.
You may accept that the will is cogent proof that the Stratford
gentleman "was connected to the theater, ... which we
knew already". Unfortunately - unlike you, me, and all intelligent
people who have reviewed the evidence - friend Volker does NOT accept
these facts.
Yes ... it is tedious, I know. But even friend Volker is entitled to
have is views debated, however bizzare they may seem to you, me, and
most other subscriobers to this newsgroup.
Cheers,
Tony Morris
Mark Alexander
david joseph kathman wrote:
> Mark Alexander wrote:
> >
> > Darn. I got them backwards. It was actually Philip Herbert, Earl of
> > Montgomery, (the *other* patron of the First Folio) who *married*
> > Oxford's daughter: Susan Vere. His brother, William, was merely an
> > object of interest for Bridget, but they never married.
>
> Well, Mark, I posted that reply to your mistaken post before I read
> this one and saw that you had realized your mistake. But I find
> it interesting that you posted that long excerpt from the DNB without,
> apparently, actually reading it.
In a hurry to continue with that "offer" web site. Glad to hear you never
make mistakes.
>
>
> > Sorry about that. How embarrassing that BOTH patrons of the First Folio
> > have a connection to Oxford.
>
> And how embarrassing that William Shakespeare's name, and not Oxford's,
> appears on the volume.
But it's a grand pseudonym!
>
>
> > And none to Shaksper.
>
> Didn't we go over this last year? William Herbert described Richard
> Burbage as "my old acquaintance", and Burbage and Shakespeare were
> friends and associates over a period of more than 20 years.
>
> Dave Kathman
> dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Oh, that's right: William Herbert would only be acquainted with ONE actor.
Tom Reedy
In article <35510AA2...@erols.com>,
vol...@erols.com wrote:
>
> morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
>
<snip>
> > STEP THREE: H&C added: "Gee, and what a coincidence. This guy left us
> > rings in his will, and we don't even know him !"
>
> No, no, no. The rings were forged into the will.
>
>
Then so was the second-best bed bequest, since they are in the same
handwriting & the same ink!
So you're faced with a dilemma, Volker. If the rings were forged into the
will, the second-best bed bequest is a forgery designed to impugn
Shakespeare's character; if the second-best bed bequest is genuine, then the
rings bequest is genuine also, thereby connection WS with H & C.
Oh, what's an Oxfordian to do when confronted with contradictory evidence that
doesn't fit with his paranoic conspiracy world-view? For some reason I don't
think you'll have any trouble rationalizing this troublesome evidence, at
least in your own mind.
TR
Tom Reedy
In article <6ir2k1$b...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
rken...@orednet.org (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
>
>
> For jpwearing. First of all, to his last statement, the will does
> in no way establish that the Stratford man wrote the plays. It
> would establish that he was connected to the theater, and which we
> knew already. But nothing to make him the author of anything.
>
> this Stratford man entirely unknown as a writer during his lifetime.
> Why would anyone want to do this? What silence fell upon everyone
> to keep this great secret until he was dead for seven years?
> Either a great conspiracy was working that out, or maybe there was
> no conspiracy at all, but it all came about in the natural order
> of things, a practically unknown man going about his practically
> insignificant affairs.
>
> --
>
I know this is an exercise in futility, since Kennedy is either too wet-brain
or senile (or maybe both) to connect with reality, & that the words "by
William Shakespeare" mean nothing to him, but I thought I'd re-post this
segment from my post which listed ONLY contemporaneous references to William
Shakespeare, gentleman, of Stratford-upon-Avon:
POINT #4
That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund Howe's
1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists the poets
"according to their priorities as neere I could," (in other words, social
rank) and in the middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare
gentleman," thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
Tom Reedy
In article <35518c60...@news.supernews.com>,
morr...@thehub.com.au (Tony Morris) wrote:
>
<snip>
> You seem to have missed the fact, Mr Kennedy, that this is a "Volker
> answered" thread, and at the moment we are focussing on friend
> Volker's "model" of a Stratford gentleman who had no connection
> whatsoever with the theatre, probably was illiterate, and certainly
> did not write the plays attributed to him.
>
> For this purpose, one of the points we have to address is Volker's
> insistence that there is nothing to connect the Stratford man with the
> theatre.
>
> You may accept that the will is cogent proof that the Stratford
> gentleman "was connected to the theater, ... which we
> knew already". Unfortunately - unlike you, me, and all intelligent
> people who have reviewed the evidence - friend Volker does NOT accept
> these facts.
>
> Yes ... it is tedious, I know. But even friend Volker is entitled to
> have is views debated, however bizzare they may seem to you, me, and
> most other subscriobers to this newsgroup.
>
> Cheers,
> Tony Morris
>
Kennedy "seems to have missed" a lot of things, Tony, one of which is a brain.
Volker doesn't deny that the actor/Globe owner is the author; he thinks
they are all Oxford or confederates hired after Oxford's death to keep up the
pretense (& you wondered how OJ got away with it! The jury was full of
Volkers.). He denies that the Stratford man is the actor, the Globe-owner, or
the author. I posted these facts earlier, & the only response from him was
"forgeries."
It's funny that you think Volker is entitled to have his views debated, but he
is unwilling to debate the historical record. Volker is an "arm-chair"
historian, that is, he sits in a chair & dreams up what history "could have
been" or history that "is possible." You no doubt have noticed the repetition
of these phrases in his posts. Hampered by a dislike of research and a basic
misunderstanding of the subject, he resorts to the most transparent of
rhetorical ploys to divert the attention of the HLAS reader from his dearth of
hard fact or even likely suppositions.
For the benefit of others on the ng who may have missed it, this is a repost
of evidence from the lifetime of William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon
which specifically ties him to the works. Volker (& others) claim that there
is nothing that tied the Stratford man to the works until the publication of
the First Folio, 7 years after his death. This is an obvious
misrepresentation of the facts (read: lie), as shown below.
POINT #1
Volker has said that he accepts that the writer Shakespeare & the actor
Shakespeare were the same man. Given this, it can be shown with two legal
documents that Oxford logically could not have been the writer of the plays.
Consider:
A. May 19, 1603, on the license for the King's Men - "Wee . . . doe licence
. . . Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne
Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard
Cowly . . . ."
B. Oxford died June 24, 1604.
C. Will of Augustine Phillips, written May 4, 1605, proved May 16, 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 comes
11 months after Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips would
have known that he was dead. Therefore, Shakespeare and Oxford cannot be the
same person. Since Volker admits that the actor and the writer were the same
man, Oxford could not be the writer.
POINT #2
William Shakespeare is connected with John Heminge through several
contemporary documents. Not only in the license for the King's Men (above),
but from the lease of the grounds upon which the Globe was built (Feb 21,
1599, in which the name is spelled Heminges) & the indenture between the
shareholders of the Globe (Feb 20, 1599, spelled Hemynges). These are known
through a court record of April 28, 1619, so they are not strictly
contemporary. However, the lease for the Blackfriers Theater, Aug 9, 1608, is
recounted in a court document dated May 20, 1611. The Latin document lists
Ricardus Burbadge, Johannia Hemynges, & Willo Shakespeare.
Now in the deed for the Blackfrier's Gate House, March 10, 1613, John Hemmyng
(also spelled Hemming) acts as trustee for the buyer, "William Shakespeare of
Stratford upon Avon."
The indenture for the Blackfriers Gate House effectively ties William
Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to John Heminge, ten years before the
publication of the First Folio.
POINT #3
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, since he accepted
the social order as it was and was ambitious to rise.
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.
POINT #4
That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund Howe's
1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists the poets
"according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the middle of the 27
listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman," thus effectively
naming the Stratford man as the poet.
POINT #5
Volker has also conceded that the William Shakespeare, sharer in the Globe
theater, was also the playwright. That this playwright was the man from
Stratford is shown by three documents contemporary to him.
1. Oct 7, 1601 - mortgage deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, John
Collet, & Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given contol of the Globe
playhouse, tenented by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
2. Oct 10, 1601 - deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, legally
tightening up the control of Bodley. Again the Globe is described as being
tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
3. 1608 - deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley. The Globe is
once more described, and the tenants listed as "Richard Burbage and William
Shakespeare, gentlemen."
A. "William Shakespeare, gentleman" is the Stratford man (Point #3 above).
B. The Globe tenant mentioned in the above deeds specifically names "William
Shakespeare (or Shackspeare), gent."
C. Therefore, the Stratford man is the Globe-sharer.
D. Volker has conceded that the Globe-sharer is the playwright.
E. Therefore, the Stratford man is the playwright.
POINT #6 - A WORD ABOUT THE INTERLINEATIONS
I know Volker doesn't accept the interlineations of the will as authentic,
saying "signatures at ends or bottoms cannot prove cognizance of
interlineations--only accompanying signatures or initials can do that,"
without giving any proof but his own opinion, as usual, but I would like more
than his word for it.
If the interlineations were forged to show a connection between Shakespeare
and Heminge & Condell, why are all the other interlineations in the will in
the same hand? On sheet one the forgers changed the month from Januarij to
Martij, inserted the phrases "in discharge of her marriage porcion," "that
shee," "by my executours & overseers," "the stock," "to be," and "the house."
On sheet two they forged not only "& to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard
Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes," but they
inserted six more phrases that could not be of any benefit to the hoaxers. On
sheet three, in addition to the famous second-best bed bequest, they inserted
"the saied" to legally tighten up the appointment of the overseers of the
will, and struck out "Seale" and wrote "hand" to make the circumstances of the
publishing accurate.
The forgers would have had to be lawyers to tidy up the will in such a manner.
That the forgers did all this strains credulity, yet the so-called forgeries
are in the same hand as the rest of the interlineations. The only possible
motivation would be to gain more credence for their forgery, yet this is a
conspiracy--according to Volker--in which "H&C weren't trying to build an
iron-clad story; they just wanted to create some plausibility" (post of 5 Mar
98, Re; the Most Wonderful &c).
Richard J Kennedy
Terry Ross must understand sooner or later that the Stratford
man is not identified as a writer until 7 years after his death.
The reference he cites, and all others extant, speak of
Shakespeare to be sure, but the question that has been with
us for 400 years is just who this Shakespeare is. That's the
question, you see, and I can hardly put it more clearly. Who
was "Shakespeare"?
It's unfortunate that Terry Ross must go to the name-calling
again. "Wet brain and senile," he says, as if he has got hold
of a large argument against me that will influence the
authorship debate, wagging his wit as if it is some great
truncheon, but it seems only a puppy dog tail to me.
--
Richard J Kennedy
Tom Reedy has the same problem as Terry Ross in that he doesn't
understand that if the anti-Stratfordians are correct, and
the name "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym, then to prove the
Stratfordian case there must be discovered a man behind this
name. They propose the Stratford man, but I don't find the
evidence compelling because that man was 7 years dead before
he was brought to the question. One would hope that in his
star-studded life there would have been a connection earlier.
I don't think that's asking too much.
Another something Reedy shares with Ross is name-calling. He
puts me up as "missing a brain". Again, and let someone
correct me if I'm wrong, this is no argument against any
position whatsoever, but is to be regarded only as a
convulsive reaction to some internal disorder, like a belch,
a fart, not to be expressed in polite company. If they think
such explosions are ornaments to their prose, then let someone
praise them for it.
--
Richard Nathan
(snip)
>>
>> > Sorry about that. How embarrassing that BOTH patrons of the First Folio
>> > have a connection to Oxford.
>>
>> And how embarrassing that William Shakespeare's name, and not Oxford's,
>> appears on the volume.
>
>But it's a grand pseudonym!
>
>>
>>
>> > And none to Shaksper.
>>
>> Didn't we go over this last year? William Herbert described Richard
>> Burbage as "my old acquaintance", and Burbage and Shakespeare were
>> friends and associates over a period of more than 20 years.
>>
>> Dave Kathman
>> dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
>
> Oh, that's right: William Herbert would only be acquainted with ONE actor.
>
>Mark
I don't know what point you are trying to make with your last comment. I
think the point Dave Kathman was trying to make it that it is logical to
assume that if WIlliam Herbert was acqainted with Burbage, then he would
also have been acquainted with William Shakespeare, the author and actor
from Stratford.
Your statement that the Patrons of the First Folio had no connection with
Shaksper is clearly wrong on several counts. First of all, as Kathman
pointed out, you have presented no evidence that the brothers Herbert were
patrons of the First Folio. You have only presented evidence that the
First Folio was dedicated to them.
Secondly, the biography says, "Pembroke and his brother knew Shakespeare
in his profession capacity of king's servant or member of James I's
company of actors." You yourself have said that you believe Oxford may
have acted privately at court performances, but that Oxford did not appear
as an actor before the public. Hence, I believe you would not think that
Oxford was a member of James KING'S MEN acting company. Therefore,
according to the source you quote, there was a relationship between the
brothers Herbert and Shaksper.
Terry Ross
It's a fair punishment, I suppose. I once confused Mark Alexander with
Mark Anderson, and now I am to be plagued by Kennedy's confusing me with
every TR in the book. For the record: the post Kennedy thinks he is
replying to is by Tom Reedy. I am not now, nor have I ever been Tom Reedy
(not that there's anything wrong with being Tom Reedy). I also am not now
and never have been Theodore Roosevelt, Tim Robbins, Tim Russert,
Torquemada Rasmussen, or a Tootsie Roll.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.bcpl.net/~tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J Kennedy
My apologies to Terry Ross, the puppy is Tom Reedy.
--
Mark Alexander
Richard Nathan wrote:
> Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >david joseph kathman wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >>
> >> > Sorry about that. How embarrassing that BOTH patrons of the First Folio
> >> > have a connection to Oxford.
> >>
> >> And how embarrassing that William Shakespeare's name, and not Oxford's,
> >> appears on the volume.
> >
> >But it's a grand pseudonym!
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > And none to Shaksper.
> >>
> >> Didn't we go over this last year? William Herbert described Richard
> >> Burbage as "my old acquaintance", and Burbage and Shakespeare were
> >> friends and associates over a period of more than 20 years.
> >>
> >> Dave Kathman
> >> dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
> >
> > Oh, that's right: William Herbert would only be acquainted with ONE actor.
> >
> >Mark
>
> I don't know what point you are trying to make with your last comment. I
> think the point Dave Kathman was trying to make it that it is logical to
> assume that if WIlliam Herbert was acqainted with Burbage, then he would
> also have been acquainted with William Shakespeare, the author and actor
> from Stratford.
Perhaps the actor, but he was definitely familiar with the author Oxford. Once
again we have an example where a historical figure is in a position to say
something personal about Will Shakspere and he does not. But he *does* say
something about Burbage. Weird. You would think all kinds of people would be
claiming an "old acquantance" with the great poet/playwright Shakespeare, but
they do not. Why do you think? (And please come up with an answer other than
"They did. All the records are missing.")
> Your statement that the Patrons of the First Folio had no connection with
> Shaksper is clearly wrong on several counts. First of all, as Kathman
> pointed out, you have presented no evidence that the brothers Herbert were
> patrons of the First Folio. You have only presented evidence that the
> First Folio was dedicated to them.
Oh, we are back to calling "circumstantial evidence' no evidence at all. Fair
enough. Kathman's statement that William's acknowledgement of Burbage also means
he was an intimate of Shakspere gets thrown out as well.
You have an interesting definition of "Clearly wrong."
So who do YOU think financed the First Folio?
> Secondly, the biography says, "Pembroke and his brother knew Shakespeare
> in his profession capacity of king's servant or member of James I's
> company of actors." You yourself have said that you believe Oxford may
> have acted privately at court performances, but that Oxford did not appear
> as an actor before the public. Hence, I believe you would not think that
> Oxford was a member of James KING'S MEN acting company. Therefore,
> according to the source you quote, there was a relationship between the
> brothers Herbert and Shaksper.
The bio is clearly speculating on that point. Are we now to stop discrimintating
between what is known and what is supposed?
Mark Alexander
Tom Reedy wrote:
> POINT #1
>
> Volker has said that he accepts that the writer Shakespeare & the actor
> Shakespeare were the same man. Given this, it can be shown with two legal
> documents that Oxford logically could not have been the writer of the plays.
> Consider:
>
> A. May 19, 1603, on the license for the King's Men - "Wee . . . doe licence
> . . . Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne
> Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard
> Cowly . . . ."
>
> B. Oxford died June 24, 1604.
>
> C. Will of Augustine Phillips, written May 4, 1605, proved May 16, 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 comes
> 11 months after Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips would
> have known that he was dead. Therefore, Shakespeare and Oxford cannot be the
> same person. Since Volker admits that the actor and the writer were the same
> man, Oxford could not be the writer.
I am with you up to the last statement. Oxford could still be the writer and
Volker wrong in holding that the actor and the writer are the same.
> POINT #2
>
> William Shakespeare is connected with John Heminge through several
> contemporary documents. Not only in the license for the King's Men (above),
> but from the lease of the grounds upon which the Globe was built (Feb 21,
> 1599, in which the name is spelled Heminges) & the indenture between the
> shareholders of the Globe (Feb 20, 1599, spelled Hemynges). These are known
> through a court record of April 28, 1619, so they are not strictly
> contemporary. However, the lease for the Blackfriers Theater, Aug 9, 1608, is
> recounted in a court document dated May 20, 1611. The Latin document lists
> Ricardus Burbadge, Johannia Hemynges, & Willo Shakespeare.
>
> Now in the deed for the Blackfrier's Gate House, March 10, 1613, John Hemmyng
> (also spelled Hemming) acts as trustee for the buyer, "William Shakespeare of
> Stratford upon Avon."
>
> The indenture for the Blackfriers Gate House effectively ties William
> Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to John Heminge, ten years before the
> publication of the First Folio.
OK. I am with you on this.
> POINT #3
>
> 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, since he accepted
> the social order as it was and was ambitious to rise.
And your last statement is based on what?
> 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.
Unless, of course, Brooke was confused. You know, like the person who wrote
Whateley/Hathaway? Happens all the time, according to Stratfordians.
BTW, do ANY of the title pages of the plays say "Will Shakespeare, Gent"? I have
yet to see one example...I notice that others, like Nashe, make a point of putting
it on theirs. Why does it seem mostly or completely absent from Shakespeare's
plays? I will know more soon. My edition of the Huntington Library Complete
Quartos should arrive any day now.
> POINT #4
>
> That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund Howe's
> 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists the poets
> "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the middle of the 27
> listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman," thus effectively
> naming the Stratford man as the poet.
Your first statement implies that you have previously offered proof that Shakspere
was the Poet. No, you have presented evidence that he was the Actor. You offer no
proof that Edmund Howe knew the man behind the name. Oxfordians can easily point
out that since most people did not know the true author, by 1615 they could create
such a list based on was is *popularly thought*.
You have to dig deeper and demonstrate that Howe was not simply looking at the
title pages of V&A and Lucrece.
> POINT #5
>
> Volker has also conceded that the William Shakespeare, sharer in the Globe
> theater, was also the playwright. That this playwright was the man from
> Stratford is shown by three documents contemporary to him.
>
> 1. Oct 7, 1601 - mortgage deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, John
> Collet, & Matthew Browne, in which Bodley was given contol of the Globe
> playhouse, tenented by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
> 2. Oct 10, 1601 - deed of trust by Nicholas Brend to John Bodley, legally
> tightening up the control of Bodley. Again the Globe is described as being
> tenanted by "Richard Burbage and William Shackspeare, gent."
>
> 3. 1608 - deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley. The Globe is
> once more described, and the tenants listed as "Richard Burbage and William
> Shakespeare, gentlemen."
>
> A. "William Shakespeare, gentleman" is the Stratford man (Point #3 above).
>
> B. The Globe tenant mentioned in the above deeds specifically names "William
> Shakespeare (or Shackspeare), gent."
>
> C. Therefore, the Stratford man is the Globe-sharer.
>
> D. Volker has conceded that the Globe-sharer is the playwright.
>
> E. Therefore, the Stratford man is the playwright.
Since I have never the idea that the Actor MUST be the playwright, I can only
concede that you have put Volker in an uncomfortable position (although he may
respond in a way that proves effective...I can't see how right now).
You cannot logically, by extension in scenarios outside of Volker's, claim that
your series of proofs prove that "the Stratford man is the playwright."
>
>
> POINT #6 - A WORD ABOUT THE INTERLINEATIONS
>
> I know Volker doesn't accept the interlineations of the will as authentic,
> saying "signatures at ends or bottoms cannot prove cognizance of
> interlineations--only accompanying signatures or initials can do that,"
> without giving any proof but his own opinion, as usual, but I would like more
> than his word for it.
>
> If the interlineations were forged to show a connection between Shakespeare
> and Heminge & Condell, why are all the other interlineations in the will in
> the same hand?
Hey, if you are going to forge, can't make it too obvious. Otherwise you draw too
much attention to what you really want.
I am not convinced that the interlineations are forgeries, BTW.
> On sheet one the forgers changed the month from Januarij to
> Martij, inserted the phrases "in discharge of her marriage porcion," "that
> shee," "by my executours & overseers," "the stock," "to be," and "the house."
> On sheet two they forged not only "& to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard
> Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes," but they
> inserted six more phrases that could not be of any benefit to the hoaxers. On
> sheet three, in addition to the famous second-best bed bequest, they inserted
> "the saied" to legally tighten up the appointment of the overseers of the
> will, and struck out "Seale" and wrote "hand" to make the circumstances of the
> publishing accurate.
>
> The forgers would have had to be lawyers to tidy up the will in such a manner.
> That the forgers did all this strains credulity, yet the so-called forgeries
> are in the same hand as the rest of the interlineations. The only possible
> motivation would be to gain more credence for their forgery, yet this is a
> conspiracy--according to Volker--in which "H&C weren't trying to build an
> iron-clad story; they just wanted to create some plausibility" (post of 5 Mar
> 98, Re; the Most Wonderful &c).
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Interesting presentation. I await Volker's response.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Mr. Kennedy, when Terry Ross and others call you names, they are NOT
doing it in hopes of thereby winning the debate, I assure you; they are
doing it out of frustration with your incredible unwillingness to
modify your STUPIDLY false statement that "the Stratford man is not
identified as a writer until 7 years after his death." As I and
others have pointed out over and over to you, and as you seem to
agree when you say that the question is who was Shakespeare, the
absolute truth is that there is NO RECORD of anyone's ever referring,
before 1623, to the author, Shakespeare, in such a way as ABSOLUTELY to
establish that he was the Stratford man rather than some other William
Shakespeare in the London theatre world of the time of whom there is
no record whatever.
No record exists of anyone's ever referring to the Stratford man before
that time, and well after, as NOT the author, either; nor does any record
exist of anyone's ever referring to anyone not named William Shakespeare
as the author during the Stratford man's lifetime, and well after. For
reasonable people, that is enough to indicate that the Stratford man was
the author.
Nothing will convince people like you of this, but stronger evidence
DOES exist: if we go to the years following the Stratford man's death,
we find that Basse, the First Folio, the Stratford monument, etc., DO
identify the Stratford man as a writer. That in turn provides strong
evidence that when people referred to Shakespeare, the author, during
the Stratford man's lifetime, they meant the Stratford man; that is,
they WERE identifying the latter as a writer.
--Bob G.
(just trying to fine-tune my thoughts, not sway Kennedy, which is
impossible)
Richard...@worldnet.att.net
See my responses below:
In article <355224A2...@earthlink.net>,
Well, Ben Jonson did say things about the Swan of Avon, but you Oxfordians
claim he was talking about Oxford.
As far as why didn't more people record their memories of Shakespeare, I find
it much more significant that not a single person from that era ever indicated
that there was a question as to who the author was. Why do you think that
was?
> > Your statement that the Patrons of the First Folio had no connection with
> > Shaksper is clearly wrong on several counts. First of all, as Kathman
> > pointed out, you have presented no evidence that the brothers Herbert were
> > patrons of the First Folio. You have only presented evidence that the
> > First Folio was dedicated to them.
>
> Oh, we are back to calling "circumstantial evidence' no evidence at all.
Fair
> enough. Kathman's statement that William's acknowledgement of Burbage also
means
> he was an intimate of Shakspere gets thrown out as well.
>
There are different levels of circumstantial evidence. I have NEVER said that
circumstantial evidence is no evidence at all. But you always seem to see
questions of evidence in black and white. You feel that absence of evidence
must ALWAYS be evidence of absence, or it must never be.
Surely you can understand that there are degrees of circumstantial evidence.
If you can provide evidence for me that the publication of large volumes from
the 17th Century were often funded by the men to whom they were dedicated,
then I'll agree that you've got circumstantial evidence that the brothers
Herbert funded the publication of the First Folio. Do you have such evidence?
Otherwise, I'll assume the publication was funded by the publisher.
> You have an interesting definition of "Clearly wrong."
>
Well, you were the one who posted the bios.
You do that a lot. You post something in support of your arguments, and then
when someone points out a flaw in it, you say, "Hey, I didn't write that!"
> So who do YOU think financed the First Folio?
>
The publisher?
> > Secondly, the biography says, "Pembroke and his brother knew Shakespeare
> > in his profession capacity of king's servant or member of James I's
> > company of actors." You yourself have said that you believe Oxford may
> > have acted privately at court performances, but that Oxford did not appear
> > as an actor before the public. Hence, I believe you would not think that
> > Oxford was a member of James KING'S MEN acting company. Therefore,
> > according to the source you quote, there was a relationship between the
> > brothers Herbert and Shaksper.
>
> The bio is clearly speculating on that point. Are we now to stop
discrimintating
> between what is known and what is supposed?
>
As I said, it was you who posted it. If you didn't like it, why post it?
> Mark
>
> --
> _____________________________________
> The Shakespeare Authorship SOURCEBOOK
> http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/
> The Underground Grammarian
> http://members.aol.com/hu4wahz/ug/index.html
>
>
david joseph kathman
Richard Nathan wrote:
>> I don't know what point you are trying to make with your last comment. I
>> think the point Dave Kathman was trying to make it that it is logical to
>> assume that if WIlliam Herbert was acqainted with Burbage, then he would
>> also have been acquainted with William Shakespeare, the author and actor
>> from Stratford.
>
>Perhaps the actor, but he was definitely familiar with the author Oxford. Once
>again we have an example where a historical figure is in a position to say
>something personal about Will Shakspere and he does not. But he *does* say
>something about Burbage. Weird.
Shakespeare had been dead for three years when Pembroke made his
comment, which occurred in a letter written a few months after
Burbage's death.
>You would think all kinds of people would be
>claiming an "old acquantance" with the great poet/playwright Shakespeare, but
>they do not. Why do you think? (And please come up with an answer other than
>"They did. All the records are missing.")
I assume you're just throwing out Ben Jonson's extensive comments in
*Timber* because they're posthumous, or something. And what about John
Davies of Hereford's 1610 poem? That seems pretty familiar, and
it's certainly not written to Oxford. Francis Meres' reference to
Shakespeare's "sugared sonnets among his private friends" implies
a personal acquaintance, and we all know that Meres listed Oxford
separately from Shakespeare. Anthony Skoloker's reference to
"friendly Shakespeare" also implies a personal acquaintance.
There's also John Manningham's famous anecdote about Shakespeare
and Burbage. One of Manningham's fellow Middle Templars at the
time he wrote that anecdote in his diary was Thomas Greene, the
"cosen" of William Shakespeare of Stratford; we know the two men
were acquainted, because Manningham quotes Greene in his diary.
A couple of members of the Combe family from Stratford also entered the
Middle Temple that same year, and there were several other members
of Shakespeare's circle of acquaintances. Manningham certainly
knew at least one of Shakespeare's friends, which makes it seem
pretty likely that the anecdote was based on personal knowledge.
>> Your statement that the Patrons of the First Folio had no connection with
>> Shaksper is clearly wrong on several counts. First of all, as Kathman
>> pointed out, you have presented no evidence that the brothers Herbert were
>> patrons of the First Folio. You have only presented evidence that the
>> First Folio was dedicated to them.
>
>Oh, we are back to calling "circumstantial evidence' no evidence at all. Fair
>enough. Kathman's statement that William's acknowledgement of Burbage also means
>he was an intimate of Shakspere gets thrown out as well.
Mark, what on earth are you talking about? Richard is reiterating
my point that the patron of a book was not the same as the person
who paid for it, and that the evidence clearly says that somebody
other than the Herbert brothers paid for the First Folio. Did you
even read my post? And who ever said that circumstantial evidence
is "no evidence at all"? I would certainly never say such a thing.
I would say that direct documentary evidence takes precedence over
circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be used in
conjunction with documentary evidence, or in the absence of
documentary evidence (e.g. regarding Shakespeare's schooling),
but it virtually never overrides documentary evidence.
By the way, I never said that Pembroke's comment meant he was
"an intimate of Shakspere". My point was that there is documentary
evidence that Pembroke knew Burbage and was fond of them, and
there is documentary evidence that Shakespeare knew
Burbage for 20 years and was fond of him. This combination of
documentary evidence constitutes circumstantial evidence that
Pembroke may have known Shakespeare as well. See how it works?
>You have an interesting definition of "Clearly wrong."
>
>So who do YOU think financed the First Folio?
Uhhh... William Jaggard, Edward Blount, John Smithweeke, and
William Aspley, like it says in the volume. What reason do
you have to believe they were lying?
>> Secondly, the biography says, "Pembroke and his brother knew Shakespeare
>> in his profession capacity of king's servant or member of James I's
>> company of actors." You yourself have said that you believe Oxford may
>> have acted privately at court performances, but that Oxford did not appear
>> as an actor before the public. Hence, I believe you would not think that
>> Oxford was a member of James KING'S MEN acting company. Therefore,
>> according to the source you quote, there was a relationship between the
>> brothers Herbert and Shaksper.
>
>The bio is clearly speculating on that point. Are we now to stop discrimintating
>between what is known and what is supposed?
Sidney Lee (who wrote that bio of Pembroke) is not "clearly speculating"
that Pembroke and his brother knew Shakespeare; he is basing this on
Heminge and Condell's statment in their dedication that "your L.L.
have beene pleas'd to thinke these trifles some-thing, heeretofore;
and have prosequuted both them, and their Author living, with so
much favour: we hope, that (they out-living him, and he not having
the fate, common with some, to be exequutor to his owne writings) you
will use the like indulgence toward them, you have done unto their
parent." This pretty clearly says that Pembroke and Montgomery
knew and admired Shakespeare, and Lee is just taking this statment
at face value, something I know you're not used to doing.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Richard J Kennedy
Bob Grumman has come out with his opinion that it is perfectly
all right to call names if your fellow debater makes "stupidly
false statements". For example, he has called Patrick Stewart,
Jacobi, Mark Rylance and Michael York "assholes" because they
can't see the light that has Grumman fascinated.
Not much to argue about there, I suppose. If you think
Grumman is wrong about this matter, you're an asshole, and
there's an end to it.
But I think this name-calling is the natural fortune of taking
up the Stratfordian cause, for at nearly every turn they run
into a wall or a great stone in their pathway, so they kick
and struggle and cuss and cannot keep their focus on the
subject or their feces to themselves. So you tell them to
wipe their asses and they say you're stupid and know nothing
about it. But I do. Once I was a Stratfordian, but when I
got as loose as friend Grumman gets, I would hurry to a toilet
with my business, and afterwards not show my turds around the
parlor to the gathered company.
The above, of course, has nothing to do with the Authorship
Question, but is just a comment on style. As to the question, it
remains the same after all the accusations of stupidity and
asshole-ishness. The man from Stratford was never in his lifetime
considered to be a writer of any sort, and we can be certain
>only< of his business affairs. In chess there's an expression
about a certain formation of pawns. One facing that formation
is said to be "biting on iron". And I say that the Stratfordians
are neither stupid nor assholes, and personally we'd probably
get along, but they are certainly biting on iron.
--
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Thanks for the reply, Richard. Its incredibly stupid refusal to
deal with my arguments has finally cured me of any longer bothering
with your posts.
--Bob G.
Tad Davis
Mark Alexander wrote:
> Your first statement implies that you have previously offered proof that Shakspere
> was the Poet. No, you have presented evidence that he was the Actor. You offer no
> proof that Edmund Howe knew the man behind the name. Oxfordians can easily point
> out that since most people did not know the true author, by 1615 they could create
> such a list based on was is *popularly thought*.
Such a typically Oxfordian response: first, demand evidence that someone
identified William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author, during his
lifetime. Second -- when such evidence is presented (Howe's reference to
WS as "gentleman" removes any possibility that he is referring to Oxford
under a pseudonym) -- take refuge in the dodge that Howe didn't know
what he was talking about.
> You have to dig deeper and demonstrate that Howe was not simply looking at the
> title pages of V&A and Lucrece.
The title pages of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece nowhere identify William
Shakespeare as "gentleman."
How much deeper do you need to go?
The whole Oxfordian case is so preposterous, and it's distressing to see
someone of Mark Alexander's intelligence wasting so much time defending
it. I would cite only two points:
[1] There is no documentary evidence from Oxford's lifetime (or even
for, let's say, seven to ten years after his death) connecting Oxford
with the Globe Theater, with the plays of the First Folio, or with
anything else identified in print or by contemporaries as being written
by "William Shakespeare."
[2] The argument that any identification of William Shakespeare as the
author of the plays of the First Folio must date from before his death
is a bogus argument. The recollections and statements, both public and
private, of people who knew him and worked with him, are valid evidence
regardless of when they were written down. Statements made by people who
knew people who knew Shakespeare are also valid evidence, though less
solid. Statements made by people living in 1998 are of no evidentiary
value whatsoever.
The whole Oxfordian case depends on a purely subjective judgement that
the son of a small-town glovemaker and alderman could not possibly have
the intellectual attainments required to write the plays. The evidence,
in typical conspiracy-theory fashion, is twisted to fit the foregone
conclusion. In this frame of mind positive evidence that contradicts the
theory becomes metamorphosed into further evidence that there WAS a
conspiracy -- otherwise how could the evidence exist?
That way madness lies.
--
Tad Davis Senior Systems Analyst
dav...@isc.upenn.edu Information Systems and Computing
voice 215-898-7864 Administrative Information Technologies
fax 215-898-0386 University of Pennsylvania
THopeB
<<<<<if WIlliam Herbert was acqainted with Burbage, then he would
also have been acquainted with William Shakespeare, the author and actor
from Stratford.>>>>>
Hmm....Herbert would have been a candidate for the go-between also. :)
Tracey
Herschel Browne
In article <6itpfp$h...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org
says...
> The man from Stratford was never in his lifetime
>considered to be a writer of any sort, and we can be certain
>>only< of his business affairs.
There are tons of indications that William Shakespeare was
a writer--name on title pages, running heads, comments by
contemporaries, documents linking him to the acting company that
brought out the plays. Your repeated statement can only by considered
true if we assume that all those references to William Shakespeare
refer to someone other than the man whom we know to have
borne that name. I would say that in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, "William Shakespeare" is far more likely to refer
to someone who was named that than to someone who was not
named that. Since there is not a single shred, scrap, iota, or
scintilla of evidence that "William Shakespeare" referred to someone
whose name was really something else, your repeated claim must
be assumed to be false.
Cheers,
H.
Mark Alexander
Tad Davis wrote:
> The whole Oxfordian case depends on a purely subjective judgement that
> the son of a small-town glovemaker and alderman could not possibly have
> the intellectual attainments required to write the plays. The evidence,
> in typical conspiracy-theory fashion, is twisted to fit the foregone
> conclusion. In this frame of mind positive evidence that contradicts the
> theory becomes metamorphosed into further evidence that there WAS a
> conspiracy -- otherwise how could the evidence exist?
>
> That way madness lies.
Sorry. I will no longer waster your time with engagement.
r...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
William Herbert was born in 1580 and wasn't allowed to move to London
until 1597. In 1600, when he needed a tournament impresa, he didn't go to
Shakespeare, he went to Sir Robert Sidney. The implication is that
at that time, Herbert had no close association with Shakespeare. Just
when do you propose that he was used as the go-between?
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
Tom Reedy
In article <35522994...@earthlink.net>,
So you're saying the actor & the writer were two different persons?
> > POINT #2
> >
> > William Shakespeare is connected with John Heminge through several
> > contemporary documents. Not only in the license for the King's Men
> > (above), but from the lease of the grounds upon which the Globe was built
> > (Feb 21, 1599, in which the name is spelled Heminges) & the indenture
> > between the shareholders of the Globe (Feb 20, 1599, spelled Hemynges).
> > These are known through a court record of April 28, 1619, so they are not
> > strictly contemporary. However, the lease for the Blackfriers Theater,
> > Aug 9, 1608, is recounted in a court document dated May 20, 1611. The
> > Latin document lists Ricardus Burbadge, Johannia Hemynges, & Willo
> > Shakespeare.
> >
> > Now in the deed for the Blackfrier's Gate House, March 10, 1613, John
> > Hemmyng (also spelled Hemming) acts as trustee for the buyer, "William
> > Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon."
> >
> > The indenture for the Blackfriers Gate House effectively ties William
> > Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon to John Heminge, ten years before the
> > publication of the First Folio.
>
> OK. I am with you on this.
So you concede that the actor and the Globe shareholder are the same man?
> > POINT #3
> >
> > 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, since he accepted the social order as it was and was ambitious
> > to rise.
>
> And your last statement is based on what?
Since John had previously applied for a coat of arms but abandoned it after he
fell on hard times, it is reasonable to presume (that word again!) that his
son reinstigated the application when he started making money. Rather than
apply for a coat of arms himself, it was much more socially acceptable to go
ahead & get it for his father, especially since the application had already
been made. That way WS would be a gentleman by descent, rather than being
seen as one who bought himself social position.
The last statement "accepted the social order . . ." is entirely consistent
with the tone of the plays, so it may not be a completely kosher argument. It
seems to me, though, that WS accepted the stratified society of the times &
was aware that limited ambitions to rise in it could be fulfilled.
> > 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.
>
> Unless, of course, Brooke was confused. You know, like the person who wrote
> Whateley/Hathaway? Happens all the time, according to Stratfordians.
>
Brooke was not a clerk hired to copy old court documents. His intention was
to show that persons were granted arms who did not deserve it. The
appellation "Player" was not intended as a compliment. You've already said
that the player & the writer could have been two different people. Do you
think the title was not conferred upon the player, in which case the Stratford
man was not the actor?
> BTW, do ANY of the title pages of the plays say "Will Shakespeare, Gent"? I
> have yet to see one example...I notice that others, like Nashe, make a point
> of putting it on theirs. Why does it seem mostly or completely absent from
> Shakespeare's plays? I will know more soon. My edition of the Huntington
> Library Complete Quartos should arrive any day now.
I've checked that book & I found no reference to WS, gent. on the title pages.
>
> > POINT #4
> >
> > That this William Shakespeare was the poet is further proved by Edmund
> > Howe's 1615 list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets." He lists
> > the poets "according to their priorities as neere I could," and in the
> > middle of the 27 listed, number 13 is "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman,"
> > thus effectively naming the Stratford man as the poet.
>
> Your first statement implies that you have previously offered proof that
> Shakspere was the Poet. No, you have presented evidence that he was the
> Actor. You offer no proof that Edmund Howe knew the man behind the name.
> Oxfordians can easily point out that since most people did not know the true
> author, by 1615 they could create such a list based on was is *popularly
> thought*.
>
You're right, it was an unintended leap, based on Volker's givens. But how
did Howe know that Shakespeare was a gentleman, if not by personal knowledge?
I know, someone *COULD HAVE* mentioned it to him, & they were uninformed as
to the true author.
> You have to dig deeper and demonstrate that Howe was not simply looking at
> the title pages of V&A and Lucrece.
No, you need to dig deeper & read the title pages of V&A & L. Nowhere is
"gent." appended to the name WS. You have to demonstrate why Howe didn't know
what he was talking about, since he certainly seemed to have a grasp on who
the other "moderne, and present excellent Poets" were. If he was wrong, how
can we trust *ANYTHING* any Elizabethan or Jacobean said about *ANYTHING*. It
boggles the mind. Given your standards, you can't even provee that Oxford
existed. His identity could all be made up.
I can to anyone but an Oxfordian.
> > POINT #6 - A WORD ABOUT THE INTERLINEATIONS
> >
> > I know Volker doesn't accept the interlineations of the will as authentic,
> > saying "signatures at ends or bottoms cannot prove cognizance of
> > interlineations--only accompanying signatures or initials can do that,"
> > without giving any proof but his own opinion, as usual, but I would like
> > more than his word for it.
> >
> > If the interlineations were forged to show a connection between
> > Shakespeare and Heminge & Condell, why are all the other interlineations
> > in the will in the same hand?
>
> Hey, if you are going to forge, can't make it too obvious. Otherwise you
> draw too much attention to what you really want.
>
> I am not convinced that the interlineations are forgeries, BTW.
Then the forgers must have been lawyers, & they must have inserted the
"second-best bed" in as yet another red herring. If the interlineations
weren't forged, the will would not have been as tight as it is. Perhaps the
whole will is forged.
> > On sheet one the forgers changed the month from Januarij to
> > Martij, inserted the phrases "in discharge of her marriage porcion," "that
> > shee," "by my executours & overseers," "the stock," "to be," and "the
> > house."
> > On sheet two they forged not only "& to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard
> > Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes," but
> > they inserted six more phrases that could not be of any benefit to the
> > hoaxers.
> > On sheet three, in addition to the famous second-best bed bequest, they
> > inserted "the saied" to legally tighten up the appointment of the
> > overseers of the will, and struck out "Seale" and wrote "hand" to make the
> > circumstances of the publishing accurate.
> >
> > The forgers would have had to be lawyers to tidy up the will in such a
> > manner. That the forgers did all this strains credulity, yet the
> > so-called forgeries are in the same hand as the rest of the
> > interlineations. The only possible motivation would be to gain more
> > credence for their forgery, yet this is a conspiracy--according to
> > Volker--in which "H&C weren't trying to build an iron-clad story; they
> > just wanted to create some plausibility" (post of 5 Mar 98, Re; the Most
> > Wonderful &c).
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
> Interesting presentation. I await Volker's response.
>
> Mark
>
He hasn't responded because he can't except with "forgery." (Let's start
snipping the next response.)
TR (not Terry Ross)
Peter Wilson
In article <35530FAA...@isc.upenn.edu>, Tad Davis
<dav...@isc.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Mark Alexander wrote:
<snip>
>> you have presented evidence that he was the Actor. You offer no
>> proof that Edmund Howe knew the man behind the name.
>>Oxfordians can easily point
>> out that since most people did not know the true author, by 1615 they
>>could create such a list based on was is *popularly thought*.
>
>Such a typically Oxfordian response: first, demand evidence that someone
>identified William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author, during his
>lifetime. Second -- when such evidence is presented (Howe's reference to
>WS as "gentleman" removes any possibility that he is referring to Oxford
>under a pseudonym) -- take refuge in the dodge that Howe didn't know
>what he was talking about.
So if Oxford was the anonymous author, Howe should have said "William
Shakespeare, Earl" ? This wouldn't make sense.
Just what DID Howe know about "William Shakespeare" ? As Mark says:
"You offer no proof that Edmund Howe knew the man behind the name"
>The whole Oxfordian case is so preposterous, and it's distressing to see
>someone of Mark Alexander's intelligence wasting so much time defending
>it.
Yes...indeed "preposterous". Why would Jacobi, Gielgud, or Mark Rylance
waste their time defending it ? Are they just as "intelligent" as Mark ?
Pity.
>I would cite only two points:
>
>[1] There is no documentary evidence from Oxford's lifetime (or even
>for, let's say, seven to ten years after his death) connecting Oxford
>with the Globe Theater, with the plays of the First Folio, or with
>anything else identified in print or by contemporaries as being written
>by "William Shakespeare."
You are mistaken.
There are many connections (circumstantial of course) between Oxford and
the Folio. Ogburn documents many. Oxford's son-in-Law and brother of same,
were the likely publishers of the Folio (the Earls to whoem the Folio was
dedicated). Oxford's daughter was also linked as friend of Ben Jonson,
(who has been described coincidentally as Horatio.. remember Hamlet's plea
to Horatio ?).
Oxford has been acknowledged as THE leading patron of the arts by
a Stratfordian Prof. May ? or Booth ? (I forget). Curiously, although
Oxford has connections by employment (ie. Lyly) or dedications with
many of the leading poets and writers of his time.. there is no known
connection with William Shakespeare the great poet/playwright OR poor Will
of Stratford. Why ? There is a simple answer.
>[2] The argument that any identification of William Shakespeare as the
>author of the plays of the First Folio must date from before his death
>is a bogus argument.
Nope. The seemingly conspicuous absence of evidence linking poor Will
of Stratford to the plays BEFORE his death, is evidence in support of his
>The recollections and statements, both public and
>private, of people who knew him and worked with him, are valid evidence
>regardless of when they were written down. Statements made by people who
>knew people who knew Shakespeare are also valid evidence, though less
>solid. Statements made by people living in 1998 are of no evidentiary
>value whatsoever.
>
>The whole Oxfordian case depends on a purely subjective judgement that
>the son of a small-town glovemaker and alderman could not possibly have
>the intellectual attainments required to write the plays.
As long as you subscibe to some version of the author as "hack fiction
writer" who learned all the classical, geographic, law, language,
courtier slang, and noble pursuits, he needed from books or actors or
his buddies at the tavern, than you will continue to believe in poor Will
as author.
The argument is NOT purely subjective. Legitimate, respectable,
EVEN Stratfordian scholars, have for over a century portrayed the
author as possessing not just a brilliant mind but a tremendous
education. One that simply does not match poor Will's background.
> The evidence,
>in typical conspiracy-theory fashion, is twisted to fit the foregone
>conclusion. In this frame of mind positive evidence that contradicts the
>theory becomes metamorphosed into further evidence that there WAS a
>conspiracy -- otherwise how could the evidence exist?
>
>That way madness lies.
Or truth.
Regards, Peter.
Richard...@worldnet.att.net
In article <6j01gl$5pg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Tom Reedy <aaa...@ramail.angelo.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <35522994...@earthlink.net>,
> Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
(T.R. writing:)
> > > POINT #3
> > >
> > > 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, since he accepted the social order as it was and was ambitious
> > > to rise.
(M.A. writing)
> >
> > And your last statement is based on what?
>
T.R. writing)
> Since John had previously applied for a coat of arms but abandoned it after
> he
> fell on hard times, it is reasonable to presume (that word again!) that his
> son reinstigated the application when he started making money. Rather than
> apply for a coat of arms himself, it was much more socially acceptable to go
> ahead & get it for his father, especially since the application had already
> been made. That way WS would be a gentleman by descent, rather than being
> seen as one who bought himself social position.
>
> The last statement "accepted the social order . . ." is entirely consistent
> with the tone of the plays, so it may not be a completely kosher argument.
> It
> seems to me, though, that WS accepted the stratified society of the times &
> was aware that limited ambitions to rise in it could be fulfilled.
>
In King Lear, when Lear and the others are waiting out the storm in the hovel,
someone asks a riddle, and the answer has something to do with the fact that a
father would be very upset if his son was made a gentleman, rather than the
father being made the gentleman and the son becoming a gentleman by descent.
Terry Ross
Just to correct a few of Peter's current misapprehensions:
On Fri, 8 May 1998, Peter Wilson wrote:
[snip]
>
> There are many connections (circumstantial of course) between Oxford and
> the Folio. Ogburn documents many. Oxford's son-in-Law and brother of same,
> were the likely publishers of the Folio (the Earls to whoem the Folio was
> dedicated).
Why do Oxfordians have so much trouble with dedications? To have a work
dedicated to you does not mean that you wrote it and does not mean that
you published it. As Dave has pointed out, the the last page of the First
Folio caries the statement "Printed at the Charges of W. Jaggard, Ed.
Blount, I. Smithweeke, and W. Aspley." I suppose by Oxfordian reasoning
you should seek the author of the plays among the fathers-in-law of those
men, rather than the fathers-in-law of the earls of Pembroke and
Montgomery. Since Oxford died before his daughter married the earl of
Montgomery, he never was Montgomery's father-in-law. As it happens, there
is no reference anywhere in the dedication to either earl's wife or to
either earl's wife's father. There are references to the author, but he
is named "Shakespeare" and described as Heminge's and Condell's "friend,
and fellow." If you wish to know who wrote the works collected in the
First Folio, a good starting point would be to search among all those who
were H&C's friends and fellows and see if anyone answering such a
description happened to be named Shakespeare.
> Oxford's daughter was also linked as friend of Ben Jonson,
She danced in some of Ben Jonson's masques, and he wrote an epigram to
her, after Oxford died, in which her dead father is never mentioned. Ben
Jonson named, or wrote commendatory verses for, or commented about dozens
of poets, but so far as we can tell he never so much as acknowledged the
existence of Oxford.
> (who has been described coincidentally as Horatio..
Ben Jonson was compared to the Roman poet Horace (who, by the way, didn't
write Shakespeare's works either).
> remember Hamlet's plea to Horatio ?).
This is probably one of the silliest bits of Oxfordiana. If you read
*Hamlet* allegorically, and if you think that Horatio in *Hamlet* is meant
to represent a real person who survives to tell the story, then Horatio,
and not Hamlet must be the author of the play. I don't find this way of
reading *Hamlet* particularly interesting, but if you're going to read the
work allegorically, at least you could do so consistently.
> Oxford has been acknowledged as THE leading patron of the arts
The scholar you are trying to misquote is Stephen May. He never said that
Oxford was "the" leading patron of the arts. Oxford was a notable patron,
it's true, but he wouldn't have made the top ten list for the number of
dedications received. What May says is that a relatively high percentage
of the works dedicated to Oxford were literary:
"Thus forty per-cent of the [thirty-three] books offered to the Earl were
literary, and even if we subtract all seven dedications by the prolific
Munday, this category would still account for almost one fourth of the
total. By contrast, peers of similar means and with some reputation for
cultivating the arts were rather less sought after by Elizabethan men of
letters. The Second Earl of Essex, for example, was a much greater patron
than De Vere, yet only eighteen per-cent of his dedications accompanied
works of literature. A similar pattern obtains for Thomas Sackville, Lord
Buckhurst, with sixteen per-cent, the Earl of Warwick with fourteen
per-cent, and the Earl of Hertford with ten per-cent."
In any event, being a patron meant that you ended up having works
dedicated to you. It does not mean that you wrote the actual works.
> by a Stratfordian Prof. May ? or Booth ? (I forget).
Oxfordians have the odd tic of referring to genuine literary scholars as
"Stratfordian." I suppose we're meant to think that there is some sort of
reluctant concession here: 'even a Stratfordian concedes that there is
merit to at least this part of the Oxfordian case.' As it happens,
professional literary historians are also bipeds. The percentage of
professional Shakespeare scholars who are Oxfordian is quite comparable to
the percentage that is quadruped.
> Curiously, although
> Oxford has connections by employment (ie. Lyly) or dedications with
> many of the leading poets and writers of his time..
What may be curious is that although a number of works were dedicated
to Oxford, nobody in a dedication ever mentioned that he was even a poet,
let alone that he might have been Shakespeare. As I point out in my essay
on Oxford's literary reputation (http://www.bcpl.net/~tross/ws/rep.html):
-----
Of course, one expects a high-born patron to be praised for his high birth
and generosity, but shouldn't a patron who is also a poet be praised for
the excellence of his verses? Thomas Bedingfield in his dedication to
*Cardanus Comfort* (1575) thanks Oxford for his support and
encouragement--but he does not mention Oxford's writings. Anthony Munday's
dedication to Oxford of his *Mirror of Mutability* (1579) praises not
Oxford's skill as a poet but his generosity as a reader, noting his
"courteous and gentle perusing my book entitled *Galien of France*". In
1580, Munday dedicated *Zelauto* to Oxford and mentioned Oxford's
reputation not as a poet but as a patron, referring to "all the brave
books which have been bestowed" upon the earl. In 1580 John Lyly dedicated
*Euphues and His England* to Oxford, who is praised for his high birth and
honor, and for the puissance of his protection--but not his writing.
Thomas Greene's dedication of Greene's *Card of Fancy* (1584) again
refers to Oxford's reputation as a patron.
-----
Other dabblers in poetry who also received dedications were sometimes
praised for their poetry (e.g., King James and Buckhurst) but never
Oxford.
> there is no known
> connection with William Shakespeare the great poet/playwright OR poor Will
> of Stratford.
Why is this any more curious than the lack of an Oxfordian "connection" to
Ben Jonson? One cannot tell from even the closest perusal of Jonson's work
that Edward de Vere ever existed. On the other hand, Jonson had quite a
bit to say about Shakespeare.
> Why ? There is a simple answer.
-- which you neglected to give. Here is a tenuous connection: Shakespeare
seems to have echoed some poems from the *Paradise of Dainty Devices*, a
collection that included some poems by Oxford. Thus it is likely that
Shakespeare read some of Oxford's poems. Here is another connection: both
Shakespeare and Oxford are mentioned by Meres and Bodenham, and works are
attributed to each man in *England's Parnassus* and *England's Helicon*.
There is no hint that anybody at the time thought that Oxford and
Shakespeare were the same person, but quite a few thought clearly thought
that they were different people.
> Tad Davis wrote:
> >[2] The argument that any identification of William Shakespeare as the
> >author of the plays of the First Folio must date from before his death
> >is a bogus argument.
>
> Nope. The seemingly conspicuous absence of evidence linking poor Will
> of Stratford to the plays BEFORE his death, is evidence in support of his
Peter, it is only "conspicuous" if it were common for references to a poet
to include a mention of his or her place of birth. How many literary
references to Samuel Daniel or Christopher Marlowe or George Chapman
mention that they are from Staunton, Canterbury, or someplace near
Hitchin, respectively? This is another instance of special pleading, where
Oxfordians invent a rule that applies on to Shakespeare and not to any
other writer of the time. You mentioned Lyly: are we supposed to doubt
that John Lyly wrote *Euphues* merely because he is not referred to as
"John Lyly, the guy from Kent"?
Tom Reedy
In article <peterw-0805...@47.214.145.231>,
pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
>
> In article <35530FAA...@isc.upenn.edu>, Tad Davis
> <dav...@isc.upenn.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> >[1] There is no documentary evidence from Oxford's lifetime (or even
> >for, let's say, seven to ten years after his death) connecting Oxford
> >with the Globe Theater, with the plays of the First Folio, or with
> >anything else identified in print or by contemporaries as being written
> >by "William Shakespeare."
>
> You are mistaken.
>
> There are many connections (circumstantial of course) between Oxford and
> the Folio. Ogburn documents many. Oxford's son-in-Law and brother of same,
> were the likely publishers of the Folio (the Earls to whoem the Folio was
> dedicated). Oxford's daughter was also linked as friend of Ben Jonson,
> (who has been described coincidentally as Horatio.. remember Hamlet's plea
> to Horatio ?).
First you say Tad is mistaken when he says there is no documentary proof
linking Oxford with the Globe, the plays, or the FF, then you offer
*ADMITTEDLY* circumstantial evidence (wrong & from an unreliable source) to
counter his argument. If this wasn't so typical of your debating style (&
of Oxfordians in general) it would be funny, but we're used to it by now.
<snip>
> >[2] The argument that any identification of William Shakespeare as the
> >author of the plays of the First Folio must date from before his death
> >is a bogus argument.
>
> Nope. The seemingly conspicuous absence of evidence linking poor Will
> of Stratford to the plays BEFORE his death, is evidence in support of his
But the conspicuous absence of evidence linking poor Oxford to the plays both
before & after his death imply a conbspiracy, right? Give me a break! & your
statement is false, to boot. There is plenty of evidence linking Shakespeare
to Shakespeare. But I forget! It's all planted forgeries!
> >The recollections and statements, both public and
> >private, of people who knew him and worked with him, are valid evidence
> >regardless of when they were written down. Statements made by people who
> >knew people who knew Shakespeare are also valid evidence, though less
> >solid. Statements made by people living in 1998 are of no evidentiary
> >value whatsoever.
> >
> >The whole Oxfordian case depends on a purely subjective judgement that
> >the son of a small-town glovemaker and alderman could not possibly have
> >the intellectual attainments required to write the plays.
>
> As long as you subscibe to some version of the author as "hack fiction
> writer" who learned all the classical, geographic, law, language,
> courtier slang, and noble pursuits, he needed from books or actors or
> his buddies at the tavern, than you will continue to believe in poor Will
> as author.
Who wrote Dekker & Middleton, then?
> The argument is NOT purely subjective. Legitimate, respectable,
> EVEN Stratfordian scholars, have for over a century portrayed the
> author as possessing not just a brilliant mind but a tremendous
> education. One that simply does not match poor Will's background.
False. Legitimate, respectable, EVEN Stratfordian scholars have for over a
century proven that the plays were written by someone with a
not-all-that-great education.
<snip>
Tom Reedy
In article <6j0eh5$kmk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Richard...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> In article <6j01gl$5pg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Tom Reedy <aaa...@ramail.angelo.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Reedy wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > POINT #3
> > > >
> > > > 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, since he accepted the social order as it was and was
ambitious
> > > > to rise.
>
> > >
> > > And your last statement is based on what?
> >
>
> > Since John had previously applied for a coat of arms but abandoned it
after
> > he
> > fell on hard times, it is reasonable to presume (that word again!) that
his
> > son reinstigated the application when he started making money. Rather
than
> > apply for a coat of arms himself, it was much more socially acceptable to
go
> > ahead & get it for his father, especially since the application had
already
> > been made. That way WS would be a gentleman by descent, rather than being
> > seen as one who bought himself social position.
> >
> > The last statement "accepted the social order . . ." is entirely
consistent
> > with the tone of the plays, so it may not be a completely kosher argument.
> > It
> > seems to me, though, that WS accepted the stratified society of the times
&
> > was aware that limited ambitions to rise in it could be fulfilled.
> >
>
hovel,
> someone asks a riddle, and the answer has something to do with the fact that
a
> father would be very upset if his son was made a gentleman, rather than the
> father being made the gentleman and the son becoming a gentleman by descent.
>
Perhaps, William Shaksper, the illiterate wool-merchant, saw William
Shakspere, the actor, play a part in Oxford's "Lear" when it premiered in the
early 1690s, & he remembered this line, and so applied for a coat of arms in
his father's name to save embarassing the poor, illiterate, former bailiff.
TR
Tad Davis
Mark Alexander (mark...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Sorry. I will no longer waster your time with engagement.
Mark.... it's not my time you're wasting; it's yours.
Tad Davis
Peter Wilson (pet...@nortel.ca) wrote:
: Just what DID Howe know about "William Shakespeare" ? As Mark says:
: "You offer no proof that Edmund Howe knew the man behind the name"
No.... but I did offer proof that he knew more about him than appeared in
the texts of Venus & Adonis and Lucrece.
: Yes...indeed "preposterous". Why would Jacobi, Gielgud, or Mark Rylance
: waste their time defending it ? Are they just as "intelligent" as Mark ?
: Pity.
They may well be as intelligent; they have certainly exposed themselves
as being equally well-trained in the techniques of literary history.
: There are many connections (circumstantial of course) between Oxford and
: the Folio. Ogburn documents many. Oxford's son-in-Law and brother of same,
: were the likely publishers of the Folio (the Earls to whoem the Folio was
: dedicated). Oxford's daughter was also linked as friend of Ben Jonson,
: (who has been described coincidentally as Horatio.. remember Hamlet's plea
: to Horatio ?).
If this is what you consider documentary evidence, I wonder that you
don't let us Stratfordians off the hook -- we can do MUCH better than
that, with one hand tied behind our back.
: Nope. The seemingly conspicuous absence of evidence linking poor Will
: of Stratford to the plays BEFORE his death, is evidence in support of his
Nope. What it demonstrates is the willingness of Oxfordians to change the
rules on the fly, so that all contradictory evidence can be explained
away. It is this very willingness -- NOT the conclusions that are drawn --
that illustrates the sharp distinction between anyone who espouses the
Oxfordian position, and a serious literary scholar. It is not possible to
espouse the Oxfordian position without playing the kind of games with
evidence that mark you out as a rank amateur.
Play fair. Deliver what you demand of others. Show us the documents.
Tony Morris
> >The whole Oxfordian case is so preposterous, and it's distressing to see
> >someone of Mark Alexander's intelligence wasting so much time defending
> >it.
>
> Yes...indeed "preposterous". Why would Jacobi, Gielgud, or Mark Rylance
> waste their time defending it ? Are they just as "intelligent" as Mark ?
> Pity.
Sorry ... where do we find Jacobi or Gielgud "defending" the Oxford case?
I am aware of these actors having expressed sympathy, even agreement,
with the Oxford case. But I should be very interested to seem their
"defence" - i.e., their argued, reasoned, logical, articulation of
evidence supporting Oxford.
--
Anthony Morris QC
Brisbane,
AUSTRALIA
Tom Reedy
In article <MPG.fbb8c026...@news.supernews.com>,
morr...@thehub.com.au wrote:
>
> In article <3550DBDF...@erols.com>, vol...@erols.com says...
>
> > It's possible Digges, hearing of plans to publish the *FF*, said to
> > H&C, "By the way, I know a guy up in Stratford named 'William
> > Shakspere', and H&C said, "Hey, maybe we could avoid trouble by pointing
> > at this guy as the author."
>
> Lots of things are possible. Possibilities don't constitute evidence, or
> demonstration, or proof. They don't even constitute an argument, unless
> there is SOMETHING to show that the possibility is also a probability.
>
> But let's understand Volker's new scenario:
>
> STEP ONE: Digges, hearing of plans to publish the *FF*, said to
> H&C, "By the way, I know a guy up in Stratford named 'William
> Shakspere'.
>
> STEP TWO: H&C said, "Hey, maybe we could avoid trouble by pointing
> at this guy as the author."
>
> STEP THREE: H&C added: "Gee, and what a coincidence. This guy left us
> rings in his will, and we don't even know him !"
>
> STEP FOUR: H threw in: "Yeah -- but here's a bigger coincidence for you.
> This same guy and I were associated in a little property deal over the
> Blackfriars' Gatehouse, even though I don't know him."
>
> STEP FIVE: Digges commented: "That's great. And I know a few blokes who
> will help us out. There's old Ben Jonson - he'll be quite cheap to buy
> off. Thomas Heywood, of course, is so stupid that he can't even remember
> whether the Oxford (whom we know to be the real playwrite) is dead or
> alive. Of course, Basse is such a sacreligious character, he wouldn't be
> troubled about doing a fake eulogy."
>
> STEP SIX: C remarked: "Yes, but to make it plausible, we'll need a
> monument to this great author (laughs). I know Willy Shake-spittle's
> family will go along with the game -- they hate the old bastard, since
> all he left his poor dear widow in his will was his decrepit old "second
> best" bed. But we may run into trouble with the Stratford vicar and
> townsfolk, who probably won't like having their town desecrated with a
> false monument. We'd better explain to them that, if they conspire to
> help us, and it they're VERY careful to ensure that there is no written
> record whatsoever of the conspiracy, in centuries to come their wretched
> little town will become a world tourism centre -- the Royal Shakespeare
> Theatre may even build an ugly great playhouse on the banks of the Avon."
>
H interjects, obviously excited by the possibilities: I've got a great idea!
You know that ugly monument to Shakspere's old man his family put in the
church?
C: You mean that monstrosity holding the wool-sack? Talk about trailer-park
trash! These Stratford hillbillies take the cake!
H: Yeah, but we can hire a sculptor to sneak in at night and change the
wool sack into a cushion! He can re-carve the arm where it looks like
it's holding a pen, then everyone will think it's the author of the plays.
D: I don't know; do we have enough money for that?
H: No problem. We'll start a fund and solicit contributions from Oxford's
friends. We'll probably have to pay off a few people, like the vicar. When
we get enough, we'll have the work done.
C: Sure, with any luck, nobody'll make a drawing of the monument until we get
the changes done in say, 80-100 years. And it will add much more credibility
to the hoax and insure Oxford's anonymity forever.
> STEP SEVEN: D, H & C (in unison): "You know, there's a chance that we'll
> get away with this, unless in a few centuries' time a smart chap like
> Volker works out the details of this wide-ranging conspiracy and, without
> any evidence at all, manages to piece together what we've done."
>
> --
> Anthony Morris QC
> Brisbane
> Australia
Richard Nathan
I'm not convinced that John Gielgud ever was a full-fledged Oxfordian. He
did say that the authorship question deserved investigation, and that the
Oxfordians had a right to be heard. However, I have yet to see the
Oxfordians provide a quote from Gielgud in which says it is his opinion
that Oxford wrote the plays.
The Oxfordians like to quote a magazine or newspaper article, in which the
author of the article says the Gielgud is sympathetic to the Oxfordian
cause. But "sympathetic" in this instance could mean that he is
sympathetic to their right to be heard. It doesn't necessarily mean that
he is convinced they are right.
On the other hand, here is what John Miller says in his introduction to
the book "ACTING SHAKESPEARE," by John Guilgud with John Miller:
"The two seasons of playing the great tragic characters had convinced
him [Gielgud] that their creator must have been an actor, not a member of
the nobility with no practical experience of the stage. In particular he
was struck how the character of Lear tires as the actor himself becomes
physically tired, and blessed the author for the breathing-spaces he
provided in all the big parts."
THopeB
<<<<<Just
when do you propose that he was used as the go-between?>>>>
Hi there Rob,
You're right; it's not a go.
Tracey
Deanna Whitestone
Peter Wilson wrote:
> As long as you subscibe to some version of the author as "hack fiction
>
> writer" who learned all the classical, geographic, law, language,
> courtier slang, and noble pursuits, he needed from books or actors or
> his buddies at the tavern, than you will continue to believe in poor
> Will
> as author.
Just read a piece on the Spanish poet and playwright Federico Garcia
Lorca that's applicable to this point:
"The future poet spent the first 11 years of his life in the vega.
Later he was to say that, without that early immersion in the ways and
speech habits of the Granadine countryside, he could never have written
his rural tragedies."