New Oliver Kamm article: Where there's a Will, there's a wacky conspiracy theory

[Sabrina Feldman]

Oliver Kamm has a new article on the Shakespeare authorship controversy, included in The Times' 4/23/16 edition (commissioned to commemorate the 400th anniversary of William Shakespeare's death).

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/where-theres-a-will-theres-a-wacky-conspiracy-theory-25lgn9g06

Kamm leads his article with a brief nod to my own theory that Thomas Sackville was the main author of the Shakespeare canon (without mentioning the other half of my theory, which is that William Shakespeare was the main author of the Shakespeare apocrypha and Shakespearean 'bad quartos'). Unfortunately, Kamm declares his opinion that my two books on the subject are "without literary merit whatever" but fails to inform his readers that he reached this conclusion without having read so much as the opening paragraphs of either of my books. So much for journalistic integrity.

[freeru...@gmail.com]

Muhahaha, there is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. Did you try William Leahy? He strikes me as someone who might be open to the idea.

Anyway, Wikipedia tells me he was a prominent supporter of Tony Blair, so I am not sure why you got the idea he might have some degree of integrity - journalistic or otherwise. And that's leaving aside the News Limited affiliation.

You wouldn't be able to post the full article, by any chance? Since it is paywalled. And I do love reading a full blown sneer.

Have you ever considered the possibility of the Stratford man as the author of Satiromastix, falsely published under the name Thomas Dekker to try and estrange Jonson from one of his friends? Because Johson and Dekker certainly seemed to have patched up their differences quickly?


BTW, I don't agree with Sackville as a sole author, but I think he made a contribution and if there is ever a non-Stratford solution to the authorship question (and it looks rather unlikely) then I think your introducing Sackville into the discussion will be an important step. A bit like a jigsaw, if someone solves a tricky corner then the other pieces begin to fall into place - just my opinion, of course. Whereas all Oliver Kamm will be remembered for is never seeing a bombing campaign he didn't like.

[poor tom]

=========================
Where might one read your theory?

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

Sabrina Feldman wrote:

<<Oliver Kamm has a new article on the Shakespeare authorship controversy, included in The Times' 4/23/16 edition (commissioned to commemorate the 400th anniversary of William Shakespeare's death).

Join today, £12 for 12 weeks: http://tinyurl.com/hkrve3d

Kamm leads his article with a brief nod to my own theory that Thomas Sackville was the main author of the Shakespeare canon (without mentioning the other half of my theory, which is that William Shakespeare was the main author of the Shakespeare apocrypha and Shakespearean 'bad quartos'). Unfortunately, Kamm declares his opinion that my two books on the subject are "without literary merit whatever" but fails to inform his readers that he reached this conclusion without having read so much as the opening paragraphs of either of my books. So much for journalistic integrity.>>

--------------------------------------------------
Kamm celebrates Shakespeare's birthday: http://tinyurl.com/jf8q6ro

Art Neuendorffer

[Morten St. George]

I would have liked to read that article but, unfortunately, upon arriving there I was informed that to read beyond the first paragraph I would have to make a $36 commitment and pay $12 upfront.

Fortunately, I found your website:

http://www.apocryphalshakespeare.com/the-case-for-sackville.html

As far as I know, publications of Shakespeare's writings occurred over a thirty-year period, from 1593 to 1623. Common sense dictates that this period was the peak of his career, the time that he had the most energy and maximum literary production. But to support Sackville as Shakespeare, you frequently refer to a play that he coauthored in 1561. No, no, no. This cannot be Shakespeare.

I see that you provide many textual correlations between Sackville and Shakespeare and these are impressive. But be aware that Calvin Hoffman, in his book supporting Marlowe, provided thirty pages of similar textual correlations between Marlowe and Shakespeare. All this tells us is that the real Shakespeare, whoever he was, grabbed material from wherever he could.

Still, I do not frown on all these attempts to promote miscellaneous candidates. Each one provides us with new information. For example, you discovered that Giordano Bruno praised Sackville for his translation of certain works into Italian. For me, this helps to affirm something that I already suspected, which is that Sackville was involved in the Shakespeare conspiracy though not the principal author.

[freeru...@gmail.com]

Here is Ollie on Richard Roe
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/shakespeare_fal.html

"I haven't read Mr Roe's work" - but I will still call him a crank anyway because a bit part in Merchant of Venice said his son had more hairs on his chin that the tail of his plough horse, which definitely proves that whoever wrote Merchant of Venice never left England - QED.

[marco]

.

[Sabrina Feldman]

> Muhahaha, there is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. Did you try William Leahy? He strikes me as someone who might be open to the idea.

I did contact William Leahy to let him known about my two authorship books, but I don't think he read either of them.

> You wouldn't be able to post the full article, by any chance? Since it is paywalled. And I do love reading a full blown sneer.

Sorry, I wish I could -- I do have access and have read the full article, but there really isn't anything new or interesting about Kamm's discussion of the authorship question whatsoever.

> Have you ever considered the possibility of the Stratford man as the author of Satiromastix, falsely published under the name Thomas Dekker to try and estrange Jonson from one of his friends? Because Johson and Dekker certainly seemed to have patched up their differences quickly?

Yes, I have wondered about this -- but I eventually concluded that Dekker played a main role (if not the only role) in writing Satiromastix, and the William Shakespeare may have played the part of (and been partly represented as) Captain Tucca.

> BTW, I don't agree with Sackville as a sole author, but I think he made a contribution and if there is ever a non-Stratford solution to the authorship question (and it looks rather unlikely) then I think your introducing Sackville into the discussion will be an important step. A bit like a jigsaw, if someone solves a tricky corner then the other pieces begin to fall into place - just my opinion, of course. Whereas all Oliver Kamm will be remembered for is never seeing a bombing campaign he didn't like.

Thank you so much for this last comment! My two books on the Shakespeare authorship question, The Apocryphal William Shakespeare, and Thomas Sackville and the Shakespearean Glass slipper, haven't attracted a wide readership yet. However, I do think they introduce some interesting new puzzle pieces, and even if readers don't agree with all of my arguments, they might be able to use some of these puzzle pieces to make progress in solving the complex Shakespeare authorship puzzle.

[Sabrina Feldman]

> Where might one read your theory?

http://apocryphalshakespeare.com/index.html

amazon.com or any of the amazon sites, just search on "Sabrina Feldman Shakespeare"

[Franz Gnaedinger]

She has sent dozens of copies of these books to literary scholars
in an attempt to interest them in her thesis. Only one has replied.

Not quite true. There is one more. Myselferly. Sabrina Feldmann kindly
sent me a copy of her second book, and I like it very much: the clear
structure combined with her flexible writing style. When I (occasionally)
ponder a Shakespeare question, I always consult also her book, recently
about The Tempest, and was pleased with her long explanation of Starchey's
report. Really helpful. And, most importantly, I adopted a part of her
hypothesis: Thomas Sackville played an important role. However, there
is a difference. Feldmann: the man from Stratford was the main author,
Thomas Sackville the helper. Me: Edward de Vere was the main author,
compared to the Olympus in Pericles, and Thomas Sackville the helper,
compared to the Parnassus. Meaning that she really found a piece of
the puzzle, and a most important one (my opinion as the second literary
scholar who replied to her).

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/oxfraud/

Art N

[marco]

.

[freeru...@gmail.com]

Marco, out of curiosity, why do you make zero sized replies?

On the subject of Sackville, I have come round to Dr Feldmann's view that Sackville is the [first] author of Love's Labour's Lost in 1571. But I think the "corrected and augmented" version of the 1590's shows the influence of De Vere.

I am also thinking that Sackville might have had a hand in King Lear, perhaps in collaboration with whoever Hand D was. According to Computers, Shakespeare and the Mystery of Authorship a rare words analysis shows Hand D had the highest hit on Othello. So I would suggest Hand D is the sole author of Othello and I don't think Sackville is Hand D.

But perhaps Sackville and Hand D could have collaborated on King Lear?

Tentatively I would suggest De Vere prefers comedy (except for Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet) while Sackville prefers tragedy.

De Vere prefers the renaissance/humanists themes or plots while Sackville is more likely to seek his story lines from classical literature or Ancient Briton myth history. So King Lear might be Sackvillian in terms of its interest in political questions of stability (ie Gordobuc) and a willingness to depict extreme physical violence on stage (ie Titus Andronicus).

[marco]

.