Is Michael Egan Still Posing as Not an Oxfordian?
42 views
Skip to first unread message
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 2, 2009, 4:58:24 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
According to what he is quoted as saying in the recent BBC article,
it's hard to believe Michael Egan can still be pretending not to be an
Oxfordian. Has anyone seen it? If not, I'll try to find the URL.
--Bob
it's hard to believe Michael Egan can still be pretending not to be an
Oxfordian. Has anyone seen it? If not, I'll try to find the URL.
--Bob
Mouse
Dec 2, 2009, 5:21:47 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
John H
Dec 2, 2009, 5:55:06 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
On Dec 3, 7:58 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
agreement with his rigid views about authorship must be a closet anti-
Stratfordian.
JH
John H
Dec 2, 2009, 6:03:15 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
Notwithstanding that Vickers, a prominent Shakespearean scholar, is on
record as saying that anyone who seriously doubts the Shakespeare
authorship of Hamlet is akin to a holocaust denier!
JH
sasheargold
Dec 2, 2009, 6:18:08 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
On 2 Dec, 21:58, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net>
wrote:
Bob?
SB.
Mouse
Dec 2, 2009, 6:57:14 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
him, I too probably would have thought he was an Oxfordian.
Mouse
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 2, 2009, 7:09:53 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
Okay, here's the article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/oxford/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8380000/8380564.stm
The Earl of Oxford's big secret
By Dave Gilyeat
BBC Oxford
Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was one of the leading
patrons of the Elizabethan age, but was he also William Shakespeare?
Kurt Kreiler's new book, The Man Who Invented Shakespeare, is the
latest work to subscribe to this theory.
The Earl gave himself the penname 'Spear-shaker' due to his ability at
tournaments, the author points out. He was part of one of the premier
bloodlines in England, second only to the monarchy. It is said that
he had a prominent political career in court and was a well-regarded
poet and sportsman. He was also a sponsor of acting companies such as
the Oxford's Boys and a flamboyant nobleman. Mr Kreiler argues that it
is Oxford's upper class upbringing, status and education as well as
his reputation as a well-travelled man that makes him a more likely
candidate as the author of Shakespeare's plays, which he composed
under a pseudonym. Shakespeare, by contrast, was born in Stratford-
Upon-Avon to a family of unremarkable status and long stretches of his
life remain undocumented.
William of Stratford could not have written the plays. He had
difficulty enough writing his own name.
Mr Kreiler told BBC Oxford: "William 'Shakspere' or 'Shaxpere' was an
unimportant actor. "He owned 10% of the revenues of the Globe, lending
money, hoarding up illegal malt in 'New Place', carrying on lawsuits
against his neighbours and leaving his second-best bed to his wife.
"William of Stratford could not have written the plays "He was 15
years old when The Merchant of Venice was penned.
I LIKE THIS QUOTE.
"He had difficulty enough writing his own name. "It was William
Beeston, son of the Chamberlain's actor Christopher Beeston who
uttered during a conversation with John Aubrey: "If invited to writ:
he was in paine."
WONDERFULLY PROPAGANDISTIC QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT.
This school of thought is not a new one. Proponents of the
"Oxfordian" view over the years include heavyweights such as Mark
Twain, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles. Even the likes of RSC alumni
Sir Derek Jacobi and Sir John Gielgud have expressed interest in the
theory and the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition boasts an impressive
list of signatories in its Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
Oxfordians support the idea of a conspiracy of silence over the
authorship of The Bard's plays, whereas supporters of the mainstream
view, or 'Stratfordians', often see this as little more than
paranoia. "One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole debate is
the way the anti-Stratfordians are silenced," claimed Dr Michael Egan,
editor of The Oxfordian. "There isn't any real attempt to confront
the arguments.
OKAY, I';LL ADMIT THAT THIS IS WHAT GOT ME DEFAMING THIS . . . I CAN'T
SAY WHAT HE IS HERE BECAUSE THIS IS . . . OOOPS, CAN'T SAY THAT,
EITHER. ANYWAY, AS ONE WHO WROTE AND PUBLISHED A 360-PAGE BOOK
CONFRONTING JUST ABOUT EVERY ANTI-STRATFORDIAN ARGUMENT I COULD FIND,
I RESENTED THIS REMARK. OTHERS CERTAINLY HAVE CONFRONTED AND ARE
STILL CONFRONTING ALL THE "ARGUMENTS."
"There's just a general mocking and ridiculing strategy - what I call
arguing by adjective... "ridiculous, absurd" and so on... whereas in
fact there's some very suggestive and interesting pieces of
information that need to be factored in there.
"It's a little like the Copernican theory of the universe. "What
seems obvious at first turns out to be not so when you try to
reconcile the obvious with the anomalies and the anomalies are great."
HOW CAN SOMEONE NOT AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN SAY SUCH A THING? OKAY, I'M
QUITE AWARE OF HOW HE COULD, SO I AM NOT CLAIMING EGAN IS DEFINITELY
AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN, JUST THAT HE EITHER IS OR OUGHT TO BE.
Emma Smith, Lecturer in English at Hertford College, said: "In some
ways I think the Shakespeare authorship question is a really brilliant
example of a conspiracy theory where there's an absolute intellectual
pleasure for people who are conspiracy theorists in finding something
that goes contrary to all the existing evidence. "They want to
believe that it has been made up or planted in order to hide something
more interesting or that we're not supposed to know about.
"There is a conspiracy theory paranoia about it."
I SUSPECT SMITH AND OTHERS GAVE THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CONSPIRATORS BUT THE AUTHOR MISREPRESENTED THEM
BY LEAVING ALL OR MOST OF THAT EVIDENCE OUT, AND QUOTING THEM IN A WAY
SO AS TO VERIFY EGAN'S MISREPRESENTATION.
Edward de Vere was born on 12 April 1550 at Castle Hedingham, the seat
of the Earls of Oxford. He was made a royal ward and sent to study at
Queen's College, Cambridge after the death of his father. He then
received legal training at Gray's Inn. Later he was a part of Queen
Elizabeth's entourage on a royal visit to Oxford in 1666 and was
awarded a degree from the university. He received one from Cambridge
in similar circumstances. "He didn't get either of his degrees by the
normal academic process," claimed Professor Alan H. Nelson, author of
Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
"Any visiting noblemen attending a commencement could just walk up and
ask for a degree and he'd be given one." In 1571 he married Anne
Cecil, daughter of Lord Burghley, Principal Secretary of State to the
Queen. "He had a very prominent political career at court," Dr Egan
said. "He was one of the jurists who sat in judgement on the Earl of
Essex at his treason trial."
BECAUSE HE WAS THE TOP NOBLE IN THE LAND. WHY IS EGAN SPOUTING HALF-
TRUTHS LIKE THIS IF HE IS NOT AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN?
The young Earl then spent 16 months on a tour of France, Germany and
Italy in 1575 and Oxfordians believe the detail in some of the
Shakespeare plays benefited from these travels abroad. American
journalist Mark Anderson, author of Shakespeare By Another Name, made
this case: "You look at the Italian cities and locations that
Shakespeare refers to. "They're basically the ports of call on de
Vere's Italian itinerary in 1575 and '76. "If you take a map of Italy
and grab ten push pins and put them in ten cities - Venice, Padua,
Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Florence, Siena, Naples, Verona and Messina -
that's essentially Shakespeare's Italy.
AND FEW OTHERS VISITED THEM, AND NO ONE WHO DIDN'T VISIT THEM KNEW
ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.
"That to me is quite a remarkable happenstance."
Dr Egan added his own thoughts to this: "There are details that
obviously reflect first hand information, for example knowledge of the
paintings of Giulio Romano, who is generally known as a sculptor but
who was known as a painter in his day and Shakespeare shows knowledge
of that. "There is also information about the canal system in
Northern Italy, no longer extant, but which would have required first
hand knowledge to gain that information."
AGAIN, EGAN ACTING AS A PROPAGANDIST FOR OXFORDIANISM, NOT AS A
SCHOLAR. "*REQUIRED* FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE?" HOGWASH.
The Earl of Oxford ran two theatre companies and was a patron in the
fields of religion, philosophy, music, medicine and literature. "He
was very interested in the theatre," said Dr Egan. "He was often
mentioned by contemporaries as being the finest writer of comedy in
his day."
NO HE WASN'T. HE WAS MENTIONED TWICE (I BELIEVE) AS *AMONG* THE
FINEST WRITERS OF COMEDY OF HIS DAY.
Some believe the similarities between the life of de Vere and the
adventures in the Shakespeare canon bear further proof of their true
author. "There are aspects of Oxford's life which are reflected
otherwise in the plays," Dr Egan continued.
"For example he was captured by pirates at one point, which is also a
mysterious moment in Hamlet.
AND MADE THIS DRAMATIC OCCURENCE AN OFF-STAGE EVENT IN THE PLAY.
EGAN'S MENTIONING IT DOESN'T SUGGEST WHAT SIDE HE'S ON?
"There are lots of suggestive hints and details which should make a
thoughtful person reflect a little bit on the question."
Lord Burghley's words and mannerisms are said to have inspired the
character of Polonius. Like the character in Hamlet, Burghley sent
spies to France to keep watch on his son. Similarly it has been
suggested that the character of Gertrude was inspired by none other
than Queen Elizabeth herself. Mark Anderson also drew on this: "Hamlet
is a work of immortal genius no matter who wrote it and no matter
where it came from. "But the autobiographical elements of Hamlet add
these entirely new dimensions to it. "The problem is that when you
start investigating the life story and try to put the works with the
life it just turns out that there's such a tremendous fit with de Vere
and there's nothing with Shakespeare of Stratford. "25% of the
markings in de Vere's bible turn out to be Shakespeare biblical
references."
"The entire Shakespeare canon is a highly autobiographical work of
literature if only we can refocus the lens on de Vere."
It was also a life that ended in major debt and illness. Edward de
Vere's death in 1604 seems the most difficult part of the Oxford
theory to reconcile with received wisdom. Plays such as The Winter's
Tale and The Tempest came after this date.
"The chronology is ironically a solid piece of evidence for de Vere,"
insisted Mark Anderson. "In fact the proponents of the evidence
actually suggest that the Shakespeare factory shut down in 1604.
"There are no new Shakespeare plays that appear in print after 1604
with two exceptions. "There's a brief period in 1608 and '09 when de
Vere's widow sold the house where they lived and I think it stands to
reason there was some house cleaning going on. "An orthodox scholar
would say there was a shipwreck in 1609 that The Tempest refers to.
"In fact there's some really good scholarship published that suggests
that it was a different shipwreck that was referenced in a couple of
16th century books that were in de Vere's father-in-law's library."
"Nature and intellectual life abhor a vacuum," added Dr Egan. "We
don't know enough about Shakespeare's biography. There are huge gaps
and because we know so little about him - despite his being one of the
most researched lives in literary history - the situation calls for
alternative explanations."
IT CALLS FOR ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS? DOESN'T THAT MEAN THE STANDARD
EXPLANATION DOESN'T SATISFY THIS MAN?
"The real key to the authorship debate is the mismatch between what we
know of Shakespeare of Stratford and what we can infer about the
author of the plays when we read them. "When you look at the plays
without preconceptions of the author we'd have to say this is a highly
educated person, well travelled, with intricate knowledge of the
courts and aristocratic life.
ONLY IF YOU'RE AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN.
"So the question is where did an obscure provincial boy gain all this
information and knowledge?"
THESE ARE THE WORDS OF A NEUTRAL OBSERVER?
"If you believe great writers have to be blue blooded then you would
think that somebody who was born in a market town outside London of
ordinary parents isn't going to be a good writer," said Emma Smith.
"But most people don't believe that it's something to do with social
status or wealth, it's to do with imaginative resources. "Shakespeare
clearly is an exceptional figure but he would be exceptional wherever
he was born.
"I find the idea that he couldn't learn about people and places in the
atmosphere of Stratford-upon-Avon a bit strange." And she insisted
the Bard is far from a mysterious figure. "We know a lot about
Shakespeare. "We know church records of his birth and marriage and
death.
"We know from legal records about where he lived in London.
"We know from accounts by people at the time of his rising status as a
poet and a dramatist.
"Ben Jonson writes a prefatory poem to the posthumous collected
edition of Shakespeare's works.
"He obviously knows Shakespeare, talks about him as a 'Swan of Avon' -
and so makes the link with Stratford - and gives his stamp to this
collection being by Shakespeare."
EMMA HERE MANAGES TO MAKE A FEW MINOR ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF
SHAKESPEARE, BUT THESE ARTICLES NEVER QUOTE THE BEST OPPONENTS OF ANTI-
STRATFORDIANISM, ONLY ACADEMICS.
Emma Smith also said there was little to commend the writings of de
Vere that are credited to him: "I don't think it compares to
Shakespeare at all. "I think that the Earl of Oxford is a competent
high status poet.
"Poetry was a high status thing for noblemen to be versed in.
"He does that well, he does that competently, but he doesn't seem to
have any relevance to Shakespeare."
Professor Nelson was much more dismissive: "They range from okay-
middle-of-the-road standard for the time to downright execrable."
"Comparison is odious and difficult," countered Dr Egan. "What we
have of the Earl of Oxford is clearly juvenilia and a lot of it is
songs and not necessarily poetry so it's very hard to compare the
apples and the oranges.
"A writer's early work doesn't necessarily bear a strong relationship
to his later work - I cite Henry James as an example - and many other
writers.
"It is credible that what we have of Oxford could be Shakespeare's
juvenilia.
"One only has to compare early Mozart with late Mozart.
"One can look at the early works of Michelangelo."
But Professor Nelson said: "The very worst poem that he wrote is
clearly dated to 1572 when he was 22 years old."
There remains the question of why Edward de Vere did not take credit
for the popular works of Shakespeare, but Mark Anderson felt the
content of the works was simply too contentious. "I think it's about
sex and politics.
"There's too much involving too many powerful people in these works
that really reveals them in some ways that are not entirely
flattering.
"De Vere was in the inner circle of Queen Elizabeth's court and
amongst her courtiers."
Kurt Kreiler quoted 17th century scholar John Selden in his book:
"'Tis ridiculous for a Lord to print verses, 'tis well enough to make
them to please himself but to make them publick is foolish."
"It's interesting that there's no question that Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare in Shakespeare's lifetime and immediately afterwards,"
stated Emma Smith.
"No-one's questioning that, it doesn't really begin until the
nineteenth century.
"There seems to be absolutely no evidence that the Earl of Oxford was
a literary genius and had the ability to write and that seems a much
more important criterion for writing Shakespeare's works."
The Oxfordian vs Stratfordian debate will continue to rage and in the
meantime we are left to consider... was de Vere born great? Did
Shakespeare achieve Greatness? Or did de Vere have greatness thrust
upon him? That is the question.
NOT FOR ANYONE NOT MENTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
--Bob G
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/oxford/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8380000/8380564.stm
The Earl of Oxford's big secret
By Dave Gilyeat
BBC Oxford
Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was one of the leading
patrons of the Elizabethan age, but was he also William Shakespeare?
Kurt Kreiler's new book, The Man Who Invented Shakespeare, is the
latest work to subscribe to this theory.
The Earl gave himself the penname 'Spear-shaker' due to his ability at
tournaments, the author points out. He was part of one of the premier
bloodlines in England, second only to the monarchy. It is said that
he had a prominent political career in court and was a well-regarded
poet and sportsman. He was also a sponsor of acting companies such as
the Oxford's Boys and a flamboyant nobleman. Mr Kreiler argues that it
is Oxford's upper class upbringing, status and education as well as
his reputation as a well-travelled man that makes him a more likely
candidate as the author of Shakespeare's plays, which he composed
under a pseudonym. Shakespeare, by contrast, was born in Stratford-
Upon-Avon to a family of unremarkable status and long stretches of his
life remain undocumented.
William of Stratford could not have written the plays. He had
difficulty enough writing his own name.
Mr Kreiler told BBC Oxford: "William 'Shakspere' or 'Shaxpere' was an
unimportant actor. "He owned 10% of the revenues of the Globe, lending
money, hoarding up illegal malt in 'New Place', carrying on lawsuits
against his neighbours and leaving his second-best bed to his wife.
"William of Stratford could not have written the plays "He was 15
years old when The Merchant of Venice was penned.
I LIKE THIS QUOTE.
"He had difficulty enough writing his own name. "It was William
Beeston, son of the Chamberlain's actor Christopher Beeston who
uttered during a conversation with John Aubrey: "If invited to writ:
he was in paine."
WONDERFULLY PROPAGANDISTIC QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT.
This school of thought is not a new one. Proponents of the
"Oxfordian" view over the years include heavyweights such as Mark
Twain, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles. Even the likes of RSC alumni
Sir Derek Jacobi and Sir John Gielgud have expressed interest in the
theory and the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition boasts an impressive
list of signatories in its Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
Oxfordians support the idea of a conspiracy of silence over the
authorship of The Bard's plays, whereas supporters of the mainstream
view, or 'Stratfordians', often see this as little more than
paranoia. "One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole debate is
the way the anti-Stratfordians are silenced," claimed Dr Michael Egan,
editor of The Oxfordian. "There isn't any real attempt to confront
the arguments.
OKAY, I';LL ADMIT THAT THIS IS WHAT GOT ME DEFAMING THIS . . . I CAN'T
SAY WHAT HE IS HERE BECAUSE THIS IS . . . OOOPS, CAN'T SAY THAT,
EITHER. ANYWAY, AS ONE WHO WROTE AND PUBLISHED A 360-PAGE BOOK
CONFRONTING JUST ABOUT EVERY ANTI-STRATFORDIAN ARGUMENT I COULD FIND,
I RESENTED THIS REMARK. OTHERS CERTAINLY HAVE CONFRONTED AND ARE
STILL CONFRONTING ALL THE "ARGUMENTS."
"There's just a general mocking and ridiculing strategy - what I call
arguing by adjective... "ridiculous, absurd" and so on... whereas in
fact there's some very suggestive and interesting pieces of
information that need to be factored in there.
"It's a little like the Copernican theory of the universe. "What
seems obvious at first turns out to be not so when you try to
reconcile the obvious with the anomalies and the anomalies are great."
HOW CAN SOMEONE NOT AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN SAY SUCH A THING? OKAY, I'M
QUITE AWARE OF HOW HE COULD, SO I AM NOT CLAIMING EGAN IS DEFINITELY
AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN, JUST THAT HE EITHER IS OR OUGHT TO BE.
Emma Smith, Lecturer in English at Hertford College, said: "In some
ways I think the Shakespeare authorship question is a really brilliant
example of a conspiracy theory where there's an absolute intellectual
pleasure for people who are conspiracy theorists in finding something
that goes contrary to all the existing evidence. "They want to
believe that it has been made up or planted in order to hide something
more interesting or that we're not supposed to know about.
"There is a conspiracy theory paranoia about it."
I SUSPECT SMITH AND OTHERS GAVE THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CONSPIRATORS BUT THE AUTHOR MISREPRESENTED THEM
BY LEAVING ALL OR MOST OF THAT EVIDENCE OUT, AND QUOTING THEM IN A WAY
SO AS TO VERIFY EGAN'S MISREPRESENTATION.
Edward de Vere was born on 12 April 1550 at Castle Hedingham, the seat
of the Earls of Oxford. He was made a royal ward and sent to study at
Queen's College, Cambridge after the death of his father. He then
received legal training at Gray's Inn. Later he was a part of Queen
Elizabeth's entourage on a royal visit to Oxford in 1666 and was
awarded a degree from the university. He received one from Cambridge
in similar circumstances. "He didn't get either of his degrees by the
normal academic process," claimed Professor Alan H. Nelson, author of
Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
"Any visiting noblemen attending a commencement could just walk up and
ask for a degree and he'd be given one." In 1571 he married Anne
Cecil, daughter of Lord Burghley, Principal Secretary of State to the
Queen. "He had a very prominent political career at court," Dr Egan
said. "He was one of the jurists who sat in judgement on the Earl of
Essex at his treason trial."
BECAUSE HE WAS THE TOP NOBLE IN THE LAND. WHY IS EGAN SPOUTING HALF-
TRUTHS LIKE THIS IF HE IS NOT AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN?
The young Earl then spent 16 months on a tour of France, Germany and
Italy in 1575 and Oxfordians believe the detail in some of the
Shakespeare plays benefited from these travels abroad. American
journalist Mark Anderson, author of Shakespeare By Another Name, made
this case: "You look at the Italian cities and locations that
Shakespeare refers to. "They're basically the ports of call on de
Vere's Italian itinerary in 1575 and '76. "If you take a map of Italy
and grab ten push pins and put them in ten cities - Venice, Padua,
Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Florence, Siena, Naples, Verona and Messina -
that's essentially Shakespeare's Italy.
AND FEW OTHERS VISITED THEM, AND NO ONE WHO DIDN'T VISIT THEM KNEW
ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.
"That to me is quite a remarkable happenstance."
Dr Egan added his own thoughts to this: "There are details that
obviously reflect first hand information, for example knowledge of the
paintings of Giulio Romano, who is generally known as a sculptor but
who was known as a painter in his day and Shakespeare shows knowledge
of that. "There is also information about the canal system in
Northern Italy, no longer extant, but which would have required first
hand knowledge to gain that information."
AGAIN, EGAN ACTING AS A PROPAGANDIST FOR OXFORDIANISM, NOT AS A
SCHOLAR. "*REQUIRED* FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE?" HOGWASH.
The Earl of Oxford ran two theatre companies and was a patron in the
fields of religion, philosophy, music, medicine and literature. "He
was very interested in the theatre," said Dr Egan. "He was often
mentioned by contemporaries as being the finest writer of comedy in
his day."
NO HE WASN'T. HE WAS MENTIONED TWICE (I BELIEVE) AS *AMONG* THE
FINEST WRITERS OF COMEDY OF HIS DAY.
Some believe the similarities between the life of de Vere and the
adventures in the Shakespeare canon bear further proof of their true
author. "There are aspects of Oxford's life which are reflected
otherwise in the plays," Dr Egan continued.
"For example he was captured by pirates at one point, which is also a
mysterious moment in Hamlet.
AND MADE THIS DRAMATIC OCCURENCE AN OFF-STAGE EVENT IN THE PLAY.
EGAN'S MENTIONING IT DOESN'T SUGGEST WHAT SIDE HE'S ON?
"There are lots of suggestive hints and details which should make a
thoughtful person reflect a little bit on the question."
Lord Burghley's words and mannerisms are said to have inspired the
character of Polonius. Like the character in Hamlet, Burghley sent
spies to France to keep watch on his son. Similarly it has been
suggested that the character of Gertrude was inspired by none other
than Queen Elizabeth herself. Mark Anderson also drew on this: "Hamlet
is a work of immortal genius no matter who wrote it and no matter
where it came from. "But the autobiographical elements of Hamlet add
these entirely new dimensions to it. "The problem is that when you
start investigating the life story and try to put the works with the
life it just turns out that there's such a tremendous fit with de Vere
and there's nothing with Shakespeare of Stratford. "25% of the
markings in de Vere's bible turn out to be Shakespeare biblical
references."
"The entire Shakespeare canon is a highly autobiographical work of
literature if only we can refocus the lens on de Vere."
It was also a life that ended in major debt and illness. Edward de
Vere's death in 1604 seems the most difficult part of the Oxford
theory to reconcile with received wisdom. Plays such as The Winter's
Tale and The Tempest came after this date.
"The chronology is ironically a solid piece of evidence for de Vere,"
insisted Mark Anderson. "In fact the proponents of the evidence
actually suggest that the Shakespeare factory shut down in 1604.
"There are no new Shakespeare plays that appear in print after 1604
with two exceptions. "There's a brief period in 1608 and '09 when de
Vere's widow sold the house where they lived and I think it stands to
reason there was some house cleaning going on. "An orthodox scholar
would say there was a shipwreck in 1609 that The Tempest refers to.
"In fact there's some really good scholarship published that suggests
that it was a different shipwreck that was referenced in a couple of
16th century books that were in de Vere's father-in-law's library."
"Nature and intellectual life abhor a vacuum," added Dr Egan. "We
don't know enough about Shakespeare's biography. There are huge gaps
and because we know so little about him - despite his being one of the
most researched lives in literary history - the situation calls for
alternative explanations."
IT CALLS FOR ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS? DOESN'T THAT MEAN THE STANDARD
EXPLANATION DOESN'T SATISFY THIS MAN?
"The real key to the authorship debate is the mismatch between what we
know of Shakespeare of Stratford and what we can infer about the
author of the plays when we read them. "When you look at the plays
without preconceptions of the author we'd have to say this is a highly
educated person, well travelled, with intricate knowledge of the
courts and aristocratic life.
ONLY IF YOU'RE AN ANTI-STRATFORDIAN.
"So the question is where did an obscure provincial boy gain all this
information and knowledge?"
THESE ARE THE WORDS OF A NEUTRAL OBSERVER?
"If you believe great writers have to be blue blooded then you would
think that somebody who was born in a market town outside London of
ordinary parents isn't going to be a good writer," said Emma Smith.
"But most people don't believe that it's something to do with social
status or wealth, it's to do with imaginative resources. "Shakespeare
clearly is an exceptional figure but he would be exceptional wherever
he was born.
"I find the idea that he couldn't learn about people and places in the
atmosphere of Stratford-upon-Avon a bit strange." And she insisted
the Bard is far from a mysterious figure. "We know a lot about
Shakespeare. "We know church records of his birth and marriage and
death.
"We know from legal records about where he lived in London.
"We know from accounts by people at the time of his rising status as a
poet and a dramatist.
"Ben Jonson writes a prefatory poem to the posthumous collected
edition of Shakespeare's works.
"He obviously knows Shakespeare, talks about him as a 'Swan of Avon' -
and so makes the link with Stratford - and gives his stamp to this
collection being by Shakespeare."
EMMA HERE MANAGES TO MAKE A FEW MINOR ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF
SHAKESPEARE, BUT THESE ARTICLES NEVER QUOTE THE BEST OPPONENTS OF ANTI-
STRATFORDIANISM, ONLY ACADEMICS.
Emma Smith also said there was little to commend the writings of de
Vere that are credited to him: "I don't think it compares to
Shakespeare at all. "I think that the Earl of Oxford is a competent
high status poet.
"Poetry was a high status thing for noblemen to be versed in.
"He does that well, he does that competently, but he doesn't seem to
have any relevance to Shakespeare."
Professor Nelson was much more dismissive: "They range from okay-
middle-of-the-road standard for the time to downright execrable."
"Comparison is odious and difficult," countered Dr Egan. "What we
have of the Earl of Oxford is clearly juvenilia and a lot of it is
songs and not necessarily poetry so it's very hard to compare the
apples and the oranges.
"A writer's early work doesn't necessarily bear a strong relationship
to his later work - I cite Henry James as an example - and many other
writers.
"It is credible that what we have of Oxford could be Shakespeare's
juvenilia.
"One only has to compare early Mozart with late Mozart.
"One can look at the early works of Michelangelo."
But Professor Nelson said: "The very worst poem that he wrote is
clearly dated to 1572 when he was 22 years old."
There remains the question of why Edward de Vere did not take credit
for the popular works of Shakespeare, but Mark Anderson felt the
content of the works was simply too contentious. "I think it's about
sex and politics.
"There's too much involving too many powerful people in these works
that really reveals them in some ways that are not entirely
flattering.
"De Vere was in the inner circle of Queen Elizabeth's court and
amongst her courtiers."
Kurt Kreiler quoted 17th century scholar John Selden in his book:
"'Tis ridiculous for a Lord to print verses, 'tis well enough to make
them to please himself but to make them publick is foolish."
"It's interesting that there's no question that Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare in Shakespeare's lifetime and immediately afterwards,"
stated Emma Smith.
"No-one's questioning that, it doesn't really begin until the
nineteenth century.
"There seems to be absolutely no evidence that the Earl of Oxford was
a literary genius and had the ability to write and that seems a much
more important criterion for writing Shakespeare's works."
The Oxfordian vs Stratfordian debate will continue to rage and in the
meantime we are left to consider... was de Vere born great? Did
Shakespeare achieve Greatness? Or did de Vere have greatness thrust
upon him? That is the question.
NOT FOR ANYONE NOT MENTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL ABOUT THE SUBJECT.
--Bob G
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 2, 2009, 7:10:46 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 2, 2009, 7:16:47 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
>
> According to Bob, Prof Brian Vickers is an anti-Stratfordian.
> Notwithstanding that Vickers, a prominent Shakespearean scholar, is on
> record as saying that anyone who seriously doubts the Shakespeare
> authorship of Hamlet is akin to a holocaust denier!
>
> JH
He accepts Richard Kennedy's insane theory that the Stratford monument
was originally made for Shakespeare's father, and his reasoning when
it comes to taking writings away from Shakespeare is quite similar to
the reasoning of anti-Stratfordians. But I don't believe I can have
said he was an anti-Stratfordian. I'm also not sure he compared anti-
Stratfordians to holocaust deniers. Others have.
But John must say, like most anti-Stratfordians do (and many at the
poetry discussion groups where I spout opinions other don't like),
that I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me insane. A careful
reader of all I've said will soon find which of us is more absolutist.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
Dec 2, 2009, 8:08:16 PM12/2/09
to bobgr...@nut-n-but.net, Forest of Arden
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:16 PM, bobgr...@nut-n-but.net <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
Can you quote what I said? I probably said he might as well be one.
>
> According to Bob, Prof Brian Vickers is an anti-Stratfordian.
> Notwithstanding that Vickers, a prominent Shakespearean scholar, is on
> record as saying that anyone who seriously doubts the Shakespeare
> authorship of Hamlet is akin to a holocaust denier!
>
> JH
He accepts Richard Kennedy's insane theory that the Stratford monument
was originally made for Shakespeare's father, and
That is indeed a mystery, but it illustrates by example that otherwise normal and sane individuals can go off on tangents that don't make sense. Another good example is anti-Stratfordism.
his reasoning when
it comes to taking writings away from Shakespeare is quite similar to
the reasoning of anti-Stratfordians.
Well, no, it isn't. Vickers' attribution work is clearly methodical and based not only on his own research, but the research of those who have gone before him. His method has absolutely nothing in common with that of the anti-Stratfordists. If you think so you obviously either haven't read his work or don't understand it.
But I don't believe I can have
said he was an anti-Stratfordian. I'm also not sure he compared anti-
Stratfordians to holocaust deniers. Others have.
But John must say, like most anti-Stratfordians do (and many at the
poetry discussion groups where I spout opinions other don't like),
that I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me insane. A careful
reader of all I've said will soon find which of us is more absolutist.
Both of you need to back off from throwing personal insults. You have an entire newsgroup to indulge that type of behavior; this is not it.
TR
--Bob G.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest of Arden" group.
To post to this group, send email to ardenm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ardenmanager...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ardenmanagers?hl=en.
John H
Dec 2, 2009, 8:10:39 PM12/2/09
to Forest of Arden
On Dec 3, 10:16 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
" I would love it if Vickers revealed himself, finally, to be an
anti-
Stratfordian. He at times certainly thinks as badly as they do. I
do
consider him a rigidnik, which means he ought to be an anti-
Stratfordian according to my theory of temperament types. I have to
strain to show how it's possible for him not to be one. His views
don't make him not a scholar, just a frequently highly unsound one.
of his position Bob. He is talking about co-authorship, something
common at the time. And his position is very far from being anti-
Stratfordian, actually much more in line with contemporary scholarly
thinking. The fact that you cannot appreciate the difference reveals
much about the rigidity of your own thinking.
intended, then you should be more careful in your choice of words.
in the UK Times Literary Supplement.
issues is from your own mouth Bob, and it speaks for itself. Moreover
your implication that I am also an anti-Stratfordian bears out my
point. As I have said on many occasions, I do not accept the three
central propositions made by anti-Stratfordians, namely that (a)
William had no, or very little, hand in the works which bear his name,
(b) he was a front for another author (or other authors), and (c)
there was an organised conspiracy to cover up (a) and (b).
>
JH
but.net> wrote:
> > According to Bob, Prof Brian Vickers is an anti-Stratfordian.
> > Notwithstanding that Vickers, a prominent Shakespearean scholar, is on
> > record as saying that anyone who seriously doubts the Shakespeare
> > authorship of Hamlet is akin to a holocaust denier!
>
> > JH
>
> Can you quote what I said? I probably said he might as well be one.
Quote:
> > According to Bob, Prof Brian Vickers is an anti-Stratfordian.
> > Notwithstanding that Vickers, a prominent Shakespearean scholar, is on
> > record as saying that anyone who seriously doubts the Shakespeare
> > authorship of Hamlet is akin to a holocaust denier!
>
> > JH
>
> Can you quote what I said? I probably said he might as well be one.
" I would love it if Vickers revealed himself, finally, to be an
anti-
Stratfordian. He at times certainly thinks as badly as they do. I
do
consider him a rigidnik, which means he ought to be an anti-
Stratfordian according to my theory of temperament types. I have to
strain to show how it's possible for him not to be one. His views
don't make him not a scholar, just a frequently highly unsound one.
"
> He accepts Richard Kennedy's insane theory that the Stratford monument
> was originally made for Shakespeare's father, and his reasoning when
> it comes to taking writings away from Shakespeare is quite similar to
> the reasoning of anti-Stratfordians.
>
Unfortunately "taking writings away from Shakespeare" is a distortion
> He accepts Richard Kennedy's insane theory that the Stratford monument
> was originally made for Shakespeare's father, and his reasoning when
> it comes to taking writings away from Shakespeare is quite similar to
> the reasoning of anti-Stratfordians.
>
of his position Bob. He is talking about co-authorship, something
common at the time. And his position is very far from being anti-
Stratfordian, actually much more in line with contemporary scholarly
thinking. The fact that you cannot appreciate the difference reveals
much about the rigidity of your own thinking.
>
> But I don't believe I can have
> said he was an anti-Stratfordian.
<
You came very close to saying precisely that. If it is not what you
> But I don't believe I can have
> said he was an anti-Stratfordian.
<
intended, then you should be more careful in your choice of words.
>
> I'm also not sure he compared anti-
> Stratfordians to holocaust deniers. Others have.
>
The statement was made in a book review by Vickers on the authorship
> I'm also not sure he compared anti-
> Stratfordians to holocaust deniers. Others have.
>
in the UK Times Literary Supplement.
>
> But John must say, like most anti-Stratfordians do (and many at the
> poetry discussion groups where I spout opinions other don't like),
> that I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me insane. A careful
> reader of all I've said will soon find which of us is more absolutist.
>
The evidence of your conservative and rigid approach to authorship
> But John must say, like most anti-Stratfordians do (and many at the
> poetry discussion groups where I spout opinions other don't like),
> that I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me insane. A careful
> reader of all I've said will soon find which of us is more absolutist.
>
issues is from your own mouth Bob, and it speaks for itself. Moreover
your implication that I am also an anti-Stratfordian bears out my
point. As I have said on many occasions, I do not accept the three
central propositions made by anti-Stratfordians, namely that (a)
William had no, or very little, hand in the works which bear his name,
(b) he was a front for another author (or other authors), and (c)
there was an organised conspiracy to cover up (a) and (b).
>
JH
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 3, 2009, 7:24:30 AM12/3/09
to Forest of Arden
On Dec 2, 8:08 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:16 PM, bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net <
>
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > > According to Bob, Prof Brian Vickers is an anti-Stratfordian.
> > > Notwithstanding that Vickers, a prominent Shakespearean scholar, is on
> > > record as saying that anyone who seriously doubts the Shakespeare
> > > authorship of Hamlet is akin to a holocaust denier!
>
> > > JH
>
> > Can you quote what I said? I probably said he might as well be one.
> > He accepts Richard Kennedy's insane theory that the Stratford monument
> > was originally made for Shakespeare's father, and
>
> That is indeed a mystery, but it illustrates by example that otherwise
> normal and sane individuals can go off on tangents that don't make sense.
> Another good example is anti-Stratfordism.
>
> > his reasoning when
> > it comes to taking writings away from Shakespeare is quite similar to
> > the reasoning of anti-Stratfordians.
>
> Well, no, it isn't. Vickers' attribution work is clearly methodical and
> based not only on his own research, but the research of those who have gone
> before him. His method has absolutely nothing in common with that of the
> anti-Stratfordists. If you think so you obviously either haven't read his
> work or don't understand it.
I was speaking of his reasoning, not his method, although I don't have
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > > According to Bob, Prof Brian Vickers is an anti-Stratfordian.
> > > Notwithstanding that Vickers, a prominent Shakespearean scholar, is on
> > > record as saying that anyone who seriously doubts the Shakespeare
> > > authorship of Hamlet is akin to a holocaust denier!
>
> > > JH
>
> > Can you quote what I said? I probably said he might as well be one.
> > He accepts Richard Kennedy's insane theory that the Stratford monument
> > was originally made for Shakespeare's father, and
>
> That is indeed a mystery, but it illustrates by example that otherwise
> normal and sane individuals can go off on tangents that don't make sense.
> Another good example is anti-Stratfordism.
>
> > his reasoning when
> > it comes to taking writings away from Shakespeare is quite similar to
> > the reasoning of anti-Stratfordians.
>
> Well, no, it isn't. Vickers' attribution work is clearly methodical and
> based not only on his own research, but the research of those who have gone
> before him. His method has absolutely nothing in common with that of the
> anti-Stratfordists. If you think so you obviously either haven't read his
> work or don't understand it.
the resepct for his method you do. Going from memory, one of the
things he definitely has in common with the anti-Stratfordians is a
propensity for claiming to have proven an argument that he hasn't.
Don't ask me to cite where he has; haven't time. In any case, this is
a matter of your opinion against mine.
>
> But I don't believe I can have
>
> > said he was an anti-Stratfordian. I'm also not sure he compared anti-
> > Stratfordians to holocaust deniers. Others have.
>
> > But John must say, like most anti-Stratfordians do (and many at the
> > poetry discussion groups where I spout opinions other don't like),
> > that I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me insane. A careful
> > reader of all I've said will soon find which of us is more absolutist.
>
> Both of you need to back off from throwing personal insults. You have an
> entire newsgroup to indulge that type of behavior; this is not it.
>
> TR
more absolutist than one is an insult seems a little more absurd than
I remember the Forest as being. THe use of the term is proper
criticism of an argument, too, it seems to me; it means the argument
is extremistly failing to take into consideration equally valid
alternative positioons.
I might add that I certainly failed to find anything John said about
me insulting, just wrong.
But don't worry, Tom--I will continue to post her very rarely. The
blandness of your little hideaway is safe.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 3, 2009, 7:34:02 AM12/3/09
to Forest of Arden
I will post my reponse to this at the site where boys are allowed to
play, John.
play, John.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 3, 2009, 7:50:23 AM12/3/09
to Forest of Arden
was surprised Egan didn't push his credentials as a neutral observer.
Perhaps he did, but then it would be surprising that the author of the
article didn't mention it, because it would certainly give his attempt
to make anti-Stratfordianism respectable.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 3, 2009, 7:58:51 AM12/3/09
to Forest of Arden
Just had a thought. I pass it on here as a JOKE.
I suddenly recalled (very likely incorrectly) that Egan was a
professor of Roger's, and one of those who okayed his PH.D. thesis.
From this I jumped to the possibility of a modern conspiracy: Egan, a
True Believer in Oxfordianism, stealthily working against the
Establishment while falsely portraying himself as one of
theirs. . . . Using Roger as a front! Writing everything Roger signs
his name to! And all the Mouse has written on the authorship
question, too. Everything, she's written, in fact--to boost her
standing.
He writes Vickers's material, too. Hehehehehehehe.
Proof: that I know for a fact he has written all of my works,
carefully making them just the thing that would turn people, most of
whom go by niceness rather than validity of arguments, against what
the author "Bob Grumman" purports to be siding with.
Okay, I'll leave you peoples alone for now. Unless someone wants to
argue with my claim that Egan sounds like an anti-Stratfordian in the
BBC article.
--Bob
I suddenly recalled (very likely incorrectly) that Egan was a
professor of Roger's, and one of those who okayed his PH.D. thesis.
From this I jumped to the possibility of a modern conspiracy: Egan, a
True Believer in Oxfordianism, stealthily working against the
Establishment while falsely portraying himself as one of
theirs. . . . Using Roger as a front! Writing everything Roger signs
his name to! And all the Mouse has written on the authorship
question, too. Everything, she's written, in fact--to boost her
standing.
He writes Vickers's material, too. Hehehehehehehe.
Proof: that I know for a fact he has written all of my works,
carefully making them just the thing that would turn people, most of
whom go by niceness rather than validity of arguments, against what
the author "Bob Grumman" purports to be siding with.
Okay, I'll leave you peoples alone for now. Unless someone wants to
argue with my claim that Egan sounds like an anti-Stratfordian in the
BBC article.
--Bob
Mouse
Dec 3, 2009, 2:14:06 PM12/3/09
to Forest of Arden
On Dec 3, 7:50 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> --Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Dec 4, 2009, 5:52:50 PM12/4/09
to Forest of Arden
Strange. It would have made the article more exciting to have a
neutral, accredited Shakespeare scholar say the things he said.
--Bob
neutral, accredited Shakespeare scholar say the things he said.
--Bob
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages