Oxfordian test

Eric Ingman

unread,

Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99

to

One problem that saturates the Shakespeare authorship question is the lack
of a scientific way to test the evidence. Both sides tend to view the
documents with a bias despite their best efforts to avoid it. Oxford's
Geneva bible is subject to multiple interpretations and everyone seems to
think it demonstrates that they are correct.

To avoid this problem it would be useful for both sides to state in advance
of the discovery of a document what should be found there. For
Stratfordians, what kind of new evidence would cause them to change their
mind? For Oxfordians, what could be found that would move them to the
Stratfordian camp?

There is an undiscovered trove of relevant documentary evidence in the form
of the books owned by Edward de Vere. His bible was only one. Other books
that were once in his hands were, I understand, sold at auction and the
names of their new owners preserved.

What would each side need to find in these books to make a difference? What
kind of marking would be persuasive enough to alter a diehard's opinion on
the question? Apparently we're all interested in the fact of the matter
about the author of the plays. All of us should be prepared to change our
minds if the evidence warrants it. Under what conditions are the books of
the 17th Earl of Oxford good evidence?

Eric Ingman

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99

to

I'm a reasonable person. Any of the following would make me believe there
is a legitimate authorship question.

1. Any statement from anyone prior to 1650 clearly stating that William
Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the works which are currently
attributed to William Shakespeare.

2. Any statement from anyone prior to 1650 clearly stating that the name
"William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym.

3. Any statement from anyone prior to 1650 clearly expressing any doubt
or curiousity as to whoe wrote the works which are currently attributed to
William Shakespeare.

4. Any statement from anyone prior to 1650 clearly stating that William
Shakespeare the member of the acting company at the Globe Theater was
anyone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford.

5. Any statement from anyone prior to 1650 clearly stating that the
William Shakespeare who wrote the works currently attributed to
William Shakespeare was not a member of the acting company at the
Globe Theater.

I honestly don't think that is too much to ask. Until any of the
foregoing shows up, I see no reason for the slightest doubt that
William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works.

I've said that any of the above 5 pieces of evidence would convince me
that there is a legitimate authorship question. As to what it would take
me to believe that it is remotely possible that the Earl of Oxford wrote
the works -- I would require a statement from anyone prior to 1650 clearly
stating that the Earl of Oxford wrote any of the works currently
attributed to William Shakespeare.

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99

to

In article <7q6ck1$qcq$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>, "Eric Ingman" <ein...@lamb.com>
writes:

> Oxford's
>Geneva bible is subject to multiple interpretations and everyone seems to
>think it demonstrates that they are correct.

It isn't subject to multiple interpretations. Just because some
Oxfordian invents an association between Oxford's bible
and the works of Shakespeare doesn't automatically make
that opinion of equal validity to the actual interpretation.
Oxford's bible has about 1000 underlined passages, and
Shakespeare alludes to about 2000 passages in his works.
Only 10 percent of Shakespeare's allusions are found in
that bible, and only 20 percent of the passages underlined
in the bible are found in Shakespeare (and the actual
numbers are less, because Stritmatter is being given full
credit for his more dubious 'parallels') Those numbers are
the result of chance, and similar quantities of parallels to
passages underlined in the bible can be found in the works
of other authors of the time, such as Spenser. Oxford's
bible means absolutely nothing to the authorship question,
or, I should say, actually refutes the idea that Oxford was
Shakespeare.

More detailed information can be found at the Shakespeare
Authorship Home Page:
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html

Jim

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99

to

In article <7q6u08$f86$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

I would agree with all of this. I think what this Oxfordian is looking for
is for us to narrow our sights on books that Oxford owned, and to
say what scribbling or underlined quotes in those books would
convince us that Oxford wrote the works. The answer is, of course,
nothing, since there is no external evidence to connect Oxford
to the works. All the underlined quotes in the world will do nothing
for the case unless there is some external corroborating evidence,
and there would have to be a lot of it to overturn the massive amount
of evidence, of many kinds, that exist to corroborate the fact that
William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon wrote the works.
In the case of Oxford's bible, they don't even have enough underlined
quotes, because what connections there are, are due to chance only.

Jim

Richard Kennedy

unread,

Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99

to

For myself, I would count it as good evidence for the Stratford man if he
could be placed in some literary context in his entire life, which has not
yet happened. The best that the Stratfordians can do is to point at
"Greene's Groatsworth of Wit," wherein a man called "Shake-scene"
is mentioned.

But what are we to do with that? "Groatsworth" was written in 1592 by
an anonymous writer, and in a single paragraph that anon. writer addresses
several other unknown people to inform them about the activity of some
person whose identity rests on the supposition of a pun.

If you've even been in London, you'll know what kind of a fog we're in
here with Groatsworth. The Stratfordians think the mentioned passage is
clear water, but they are bathing in pea soup on this one.

Eric Ingman wrote:

> One problem that saturates the Shakespeare authorship question is the lack
> of a scientific way to test the evidence. Both sides tend to view the

> documents with a bias despite their best efforts to avoid it. Oxford's

> Geneva bible is subject to multiple interpretations and everyone seems to
> think it demonstrates that they are correct.
>

> To avoid this problem it would be useful for both sides to state in advance
> of the discovery of a document what should be found there. For
> Stratfordians, what kind of new evidence would cause them to change their
> mind? For Oxfordians, what could be found that would move them to the
> Stratfordian camp?
>
> There is an undiscovered trove of relevant documentary evidence in the form
> of the books owned by Edward de Vere. His bible was only one. Other books
> that were once in his hands were, I understand, sold at auction and the
> names of their new owners preserved.
>
> What would each side need to find in these books to make a difference? What
> kind of marking would be persuasive enough to alter a diehard's opinion on
> the question? Apparently we're all interested in the fact of the matter
> about the author of the plays. All of us should be prepared to change our
> minds if the evidence warrants it. Under what conditions are the books of
> the 17th Earl of Oxford good evidence?
>
> Eric Ingman

--
MZ

Richard Kennedy

unread,

Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99

to

I believe that the first notice that the name "Shake-speare" was a front,
was the first time it was hyphenated. An Elizabethan would wink at this,
and know that someone was hiding out in that name. The hyphen nowhere
anywhere else appears in all the 83 spellings of Shakespeare that were
collected by Chambers. It's like Mar-prelate in this sense of a disguise,
and such as Smell-knave, Hocus-Pocus, Good-Fellow, Tom Tell-Truth,
and other such Elizabethan authorship foolery. This is title page stuff,
and we know that someone is messing about when we see that hyphen,
the same today as it was back then.

Now don't anyone come back with the hyphen in Fitz-Hugh, and other
such family names. Nor give us the name of Walde-grave the printer,
for everyone knew who he was. But Shake-speare we don't know yet
who he was.

Then in 1640 when Shakespeare's "Poems" were published, the words
under his picture begin: "This shadow is renowned Shakepeare's?
Soul of the age The applause? delight? The wonder of the stage...."

Why all the question marks? There's plenty of doubt about who this
Shake-speare was, and it's not going to go away until it can be proved
that he was the man from Stratford, which would be a relief for
everyone.

Richard Nathan wrote:

--
MZ

Gary Kosinsky

unread,

Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99

to

In article <7q6u08$f86$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,

Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'm a reasonable person. Any of the following would make me believe there
>is a legitimate authorship question.

<SNIP>

I pretend to be a reasonable person, and I'd like to see
some evidence of 'THE CONSPIRACY'. Perhaps a letter (written
in French, Italian, English - I don't care) from Oxford
to someone or another saying: "Hell, this Stratford rube is
breaking me! Now he wants more money to buy a house back home
or he's going to spill the beans to Liz!"
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kosinsky gk...@vcn.bc.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

> What would each side need to find in (Oxford's) books to make a

> difference? What kind of marking would be persuasive enough to

> alter a diehard's opinion on the question? (snip) Under what

> conditions are the books of the 17th Earl of Oxford good evidence?
>
> Eric Ingman
>

It's hard for me to imagine anything that could be in Ed's books that
would change my mind, for anything large-scale would surely already
have been found. But the kind of marking I would find persuasive
would be notations next to passages taken almost verbatim into
plays of Shakespeare's with annotations like: "use this in second scene
between Othello and D." and maybe with words and phrases crossed out
that were dropped from the re-use. Or, "Richard, I like this for
Lear. What do you think?" Better--a note on a known source for a
Shakespeare play saying, "Dick, I'm considering working this up for our
company. What do you think of the main character? If I do him, I'll
give him a b and c, which aren't in the possible source, and take out
d e and f, which are. And, of course, I'll drop his seven cousins."
And, needless to say, the resulting play has a b c but not d e f and
the seven cousins.

--Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Clark

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Eric Ingman wrote

>What would each side need to find in these books to make a difference?

What
>kind of marking would be persuasive enough to alter a diehard's opinion on
>the question?

Perhaps an inscription in one of the books, that can be verified to be in
Oxenforde's own hand, stating that he was the true author of Shakespeare's
plays.

- Clark

Visit my Shakespeare website at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801/Shakespeare.htm

Greg Reynolds

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Richard Kennedy wrote:

> I believe that the first notice that the name "Shake-speare" was a front,
> was the first time it was hyphenated. An Elizabethan would wink at this,
> and know that someone was hiding out in that name.

Who are these winking Elizabethans keeping the secret from?

> The hyphen nowhere
> anywhere else appears in all the 83 spellings of Shakespeare that were
> collected by Chambers. It's like Mar-prelate in this sense of a disguise,
> and such as Smell-knave, Hocus-Pocus, Good-Fellow, Tom Tell-Truth,
> and other such Elizabethan authorship foolery. This is title page stuff,
> and we know that someone is messing about when we see that hyphen,
> the same today as it was back then.

Except that these other hyphenated names were not phonetically identical to
living people in the theatre and in the court. How do you continue to live with
that?

We just had an idiotic young woman in Chicago change her name to Carole
Mosely-Braun (same name as the Illinois US Senator last term) in order to
launch her political campaign. Well, it fizzled. The parties, the courts, and
the community were not fooled. Taking the pseudonym of a living person in the
same field is a bad idea--it doesn't work. But at least in her scenario, she
chose an achiever, In yours, you select a bumpkin. I don't what strength
aspirin you need to believe that, but it would give most people a headache
trying.

Of all the contortions you put logic through, this one is extreme. Next you
have to show why the illiterate theatre owner and actor with the same name was
the perfect front for your winkathon which deprived your genius of his rightful
place in history.

His persona alone ought to dictate to you that deVere took any credit or income
that he could. But instead you ignore his persona to believe he wrote 37 plays
(many hugely successful) and died broke and disgraced.

Really, quit it.

> Now don't anyone come back with the hyphen in Fitz-Hugh, and other
> such family names. Nor give us the name of Walde-grave the printer,
> for everyone knew who he was. But Shake-speare we don't know yet
> who he was.

We know unless we choose not to, for some reason.

> Then in 1640 when Shakespeare's "Poems" were published, the words
> under his picture begin: "This shadow is renowned Shakepeare's?
> Soul of the age The applause? delight? The wonder of the stage...."
>
> Why all the question marks?

Why all the answers? Heard of rhetoric?

> There's plenty of doubt about who this
> Shake-speare was, and it's not going to go away until it can be proved
> that he was the man from Stratford, which would be a relief for
> everyone.
>

> MZ*

Who is MZ*?
wink-wink

Greg Reynolds

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

You're really a moron, Richard. The Groatsworth is NOT
direct evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was the
poet Shakespeare, only that Shakespeare the poet was also
an actor (and certainly not Marlowe and almost certainly not
Oxford). You can't even get evidence right when getting it
right would help your side more than misrepresenting
it would.

As for Shakespeare of Stratford's ever having been placed
in a literary context, why do you consistently ignore
the fact that he clearly knew knew Thomas Combe, a
published writer (by a strange coincidence, Richard
Field published a book of his within a week or so of
his publishing Venus and Adonis)? I've told you this
before. You ignored it then. Will you ignore it now,
and continue to falsely claim that Shakespeare of
Stratford was never documented in a literary context?
I'll disregard all the times he was so documented but
without his addressed coupled to his name.

(Note to Greg: Camden lists "Shake-speare" as a standard
hyphenated English family name with several other
hyphenated family names similarly composed of two words.)

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Richard Kennedy <stai...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I believe that the first notice that the name "Shake-speare" was a front,=
>
>was the first time it was hyphenated. An Elizabethan would wink at this,=
>
>and know that someone was hiding out in that name. The hyphen nowhere

>anywhere else appears in all the 83 spellings of Shakespeare that were

>collected by Chambers. It's like Mar-prelate in this sense of a disguise=

>,
>and such as Smell-knave, Hocus-Pocus, Good-Fellow, Tom Tell-Truth,

>and other such Elizabethan authorship foolery. This is title page stuff,=

>
>and we know that someone is messing about when we see that hyphen,
>the same today as it was back then.
>

>Now don't anyone come back with the hyphen in Fitz-Hugh, and other
>such family names. Nor give us the name of Walde-grave the printer,
>for everyone knew who he was. But Shake-speare we don't know yet
>who he was.

Of course we know who he was. He was an actor on the public stage.
People would have known him.

You're an idiot.

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

In article <7q8qh7$plv$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

Augggh! Richard Kennedy's back, and with same nonsense he spouts
every six months or so. Kennedy's hyphen nonsense has been refuted
soundly on this newgroup before; check out Kathman's responses from
a while back:

<360823...@ix.netcom.com>
and
<360AC1...@ix.netcom.com>

Also check out the section on hyphenation at the Shakespeare
Authorship web page:

http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/name1.html#4

Jim

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

>From: Richard Nathan

>Of course we know who he was. He was an actor on the public stage.
>People would have known him.
>
>You're an idiot.

Richard gets credit for the first occasion of bad discourse. I'd like to
propose in the future that we read 'You're an idiot' as "I, Richard Nathan,
have no argument to answer my interlocutor, so will attempt to discredit his
ideas in a way that may distract from the issue at hand."

Now we're all clear on that.

Carry on.

Eric Ingman

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

>Subject: Re: Oxfordian test
>From: "Clark" <cjh...@home.com>
>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 12:01 AM EDT
>Message-id: <DaJx3.11265$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>

>
>Eric Ingman wrote
>
>>What would each side need to find in these books to make a difference?
>What
>>kind of marking would be persuasive enough to alter a diehard's opinion on
>>the question?
>
>Perhaps an inscription in one of the books, that can be verified to be in
>Oxenforde's own hand, stating that he was the true author of Shakespeare's
>plays.
>
>- Clark

Okay, but that seems like too high a standard. Certainly this is a sufficient
cause to change one's mind, but not necessary.

Oxford's hand would not have to be involved, for sure.

And of course he's not likely to state it in quite this way, since the use of a
pseudonym would likely have served some purpose if he used one.

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Another idiot heard from.

Whenever I insult an idiot, following my insult by an
argument, some idiot Oxfordian is bound to claim that I
have resorted to insults because I had not argument.

Richard Kennedy claimed that a publisher (whose name was
hyphenated) was different from Shakespeare because he
was well known, so know one would mistake his hyphenated
name was a pseudonym.

I pointed out that Shakespeare, as an actor on the
public stage, would be well known.

However, Eric left out what I quoted from Richard
Kennedy, so it is not apparent that I WAS INDEED POSTING AN ARGUMENT TO
KENNEDY.

So maybe Eric isn't an idiot.

Maybe he's just a liar, distorting my post and claiming
I had no argument when I obviously did have an argument.

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Richard, with all due respect, I think you have yielded to the temptation to
answer Strats without offering your own criteria for doubt of your own
position.

That's out of order, dewd!

Eric Ingman

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Richard Nathan (translated)

>Another [I, Richard Nathan,

>have no argument to answer my interlocutor, so will attempt to discredit his

ideas in a way that may distract from the >issue at hand] heard from.

>Whenever I insult an [I, Richard Nathan,

>have no argument to answer my interlocutor, so will attempt to discredit his

ideas in a way that may distract from the >issue at hand], following my insult
by an
argument, some [I, Richard Nathan,

>have no argument to answer my interlocutor, so will attempt to discredit his

ideas in a way that may distract from the >issue at hand] Oxfordian is bound

to >claim that I
>have resorted to insults because I had not >argument.

Unfortunately, an argument plus an insult is still an insult. Your level of
discourse is at a very low level. I'd ask you to elevate it to meet the
requirements of this forum.

Your argument stated a conclusion about something which is known to be in
dispute. Do you think I offer an argument when I state "'William Shakespeare'
is a pseudonym"? That might be an unsophisticated argument, but it's not much
of an argument, so I wouldn't waste anyone's time.

So both of your paragraphs were pretty low on the scale, and I focused on the
more egregious fault.

Eric Ingman

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

In article <19990828125637...@ng-fk1.aol.com>, kingp...@aol.com
(Kingpin444) writes:

>
>Okay, but that seems like too high a standard. Certainly this is a
>sufficient
>cause to change one's mind, but not necessary.
>
>Oxford's hand would not have to be involved, for sure.
>
>And of course he's not likely to state it in quite this way, since the use of
>a
>pseudonym would likely have served some purpose if he used one.
>
>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works of
>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote the
>works of Tennessee Williams? I don't think we do, and even if we did the
>knowledge of their contemporaries would not depend on such documents, so
>they're not likely to be produced.
>
>It seems that the necessary evidence would come in another form.
>

Oooh you're so clever. I think I'm going to fall for this one....
Jim

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

>Oooh you're so clever. I think I'm going to fall for this one....
>Jim

you seem to imply that we might agree on something

is that right?

Eric Ingman

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Once again, Eric Ignman ignores the legitimate arguments
I have made, and falsely claims that I had no argument -
because I used insults.

Once again, I will try to get my legitimate argument through Ingman's
thick head.

Kennedy said that the fact that a hyphenate was sometimes used in William
Shakespeare's name was a tip-off that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym.

(Kennedy ignores the fact that Shakespeare's name as the author was first
spelled WITHOUT a pseudonym, and was more often spelled WITHOUT a
pseudonym.)

Kennedy said the fact that Waldgrave (a publisher) spelled his own name
with a hyphen is NOT evidence that hyphens were not tip-offs that the name
was a pseudonym because the publisher was well known as a real person.

I pointed out that William Shakespeare was well known as a real person
because he was an actor on the public stage.

I challenge Richard Kennedy or Eric Ingman or anyone else to give us any
proof that Waldgrave was more recognized as a real person than William
Shakespeare. Indeed, I challenge any Oxfordian to show that there is more
evidence that Walde-grave was not a pseudonym than there is evidence that
William Shake-speare was a pseudonym.

If anyone wants any more evidence that Eric Ingman is an idiot, let me
tell you about the private e-mail he sent me.

As I have mentioned many times on this newsgroup, Stephanie C. posted the
outrageous lie that there is voluminous evidence that William Shakespeare
of Stratford had no education at all.

I said there was not a shred of evidence that William Shakespeare had no
education at all.

Ingman wrote me an e-mail in which he said that this didn't mean William
Shakespeare actually had any education, because he (Ingman) didn't have
any evidence that I'd been to Mars, but that didn't mean I'd been to Mars.

This should be proof to anyone with an I.Q. in the three digit range that
Ingman is a drooling idiot.

Clark

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Kingpin444 wrote

>>Clark wrote:

>>Perhaps an inscription in one of the books, that can be verified to be in
>>Oxenforde's own hand, stating that he was the true author of Shakespeare's
>>plays.
>

>Okay, but that seems like too high a standard. Certainly this is a
sufficient
>cause to change one's mind, but not necessary.

You asked for my opinion. In my opinion, it *is* necessary, given the
complete lack of evidence from other sources that Oxenforde wrote the plays.

>Oxford's hand would not have to be involved, for sure.

Who's other hand would you expect to inscribe a passage in Oxenforde's
books? It wouldn't convince me that Oxenforde wrote Shakespeare if Streitz
or Volker inscribed the passage in one of Oxenforde's books.

>And of course he's not likely to state it in quite this way, since the use
of a
>pseudonym would likely have served some purpose if he used one.
>
>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works
of
>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote
the
>works of Tennessee Williams? I don't think we do, and even if we did the
>knowledge of their contemporaries would not depend on such documents, so
>they're not likely to be produced.

I don't know if such letters exist, but the difference is that neither Sam
Clemens nor Williams kept their pseudonym a secret. There are countless
contemporary references to who Mark Twain really was. There is nothing in
the contemporary record saying Oxenforde wrote Shakespeare. If you want to
fantasize about evidence within the books (and no where else), then a much
higher standard of proof must be expected.

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:

(snip)

>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works of
>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote the
>works of Tennessee Williams? I don't think we do, and even if we did the
>knowledge of their contemporaries would not depend on such documents, so
>they're not likely to be produced.
>

>It seems that the necessary evidence would come in another form.
>

>Eric Ingman
>

Ingman, would it surprise you to learn that we have autobiographies of
Mark Twain and Tennessee Williams in which they uniequivocally state who
they really were?

Why is it unreasonable to ask that we be give ONE unequivocal statment
from De Vere or any of his contemporaries stating that he wrote any of the
works attributed to William Shakespeare.

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Hey great you make some nice points.

>Subject: Re: Oxfordian test
>From: "Clark" <cjh...@home.com>
>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 02:40 PM EDT
>Message-id: <T2Wx3.11558$Hu6....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>
>
>Kingpin444 wrote

Clark's criterion for doubt:

Perhaps an inscription in one of the books, that can be verified to be in
Oxenforde's own hand, stating that he was the true author of Shakespeare's
plays.

>>Okay, but that seems like too high a standard. Certainly this is a
>sufficient
>>cause to change one's mind, but not necessary.
>
>
>You asked for my opinion. In my opinion, it *is* necessary, given the
>complete lack of evidence from other sources that Oxenforde wrote the plays.

I'm not sure how you use the word 'complete'. There is evidence that Oxford
wrote the plays, and certainly you'd look at that evidence differently if your
criterion was met. I think the anti-Strat case is weak, but I dont say there's
no evidence. (Who the hell is the "Sweet Swan of Avon"?) So perhaps we can
stipulate that neither side can toss aside the others' evidence as
non-existent. A quick example: apparently no sources for Shakespeare the
voracious reader after the year of Oxford's death...? Now you can be a
Stratfordian, but that fact requires some explaining that I've never even seen
an attempt at. Yes you mention the Tempest letter but that's got its etiology
in a bunch.

>>Oxford's hand would not have to be involved, for sure.
>
>Who's other hand would you expect to inscribe a passage in Oxenforde's
>books? It wouldn't convince me that Oxenforde wrote Shakespeare if Streitz
>or Volker inscribed the passage in one of Oxenforde's books.

Might be a contemporary, in which case it would be excellent evidence.

>>And of course he's not likely to state it in quite this way, since the use
>of a
>>pseudonym would likely have served some purpose if he used one.
>>

>>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works
>of
>>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote
>the
>>works of Tennessee Williams? I don't think we do, and even if we did the
>>knowledge of their contemporaries would not depend on such documents, so
>>they're not likely to be produced.
>
>

>I don't know if such letters exist, but the difference is that neither Sam
>Clemens nor Williams kept their pseudonym a secret.
>There are countless
>contemporary references to who Mark Twain really was. There is nothing in
>the contemporary record saying Oxenforde wrote Shakespeare. If you want to
>fantasize about evidence within the books (and no where else), then a much
>higher standard of proof must be expected.

Yes, well, our authors are better documented than those of Elizabethan England.
It's not shocking that such documentation is lacking for Oxford, although
obviously it would be welcome. I would compare again: most people don't really
care what Tennessee Williams real name was, they don't mention it, and the same
for Mark Twain. Given that authors were punished for their writing, some
effective secrecy for a power like Oxford seems well within the realm of
possibility.

Really, your whole case on this particular comes down to Jonson's dedication to
the "Sweet Swan of Avon" On reflection, perhaps we can agree that Shakspere
could not meet the standard you set for Oxford, since nothing specifically
mentions him as an author in his lifetime.

I think this implies that your criterion requires some modification, since the
standard should be met by at least one of the candidates unless you are
agnostic to the question.

Eric Ingman

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

>Subject: I Can't Believe Ingman Actually Posted This!!!!
>From: Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 02:51 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7q9b4c$9f$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>
>kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>
>(snip)

>
>>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works of
>>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote
>the
>>works of Tennessee Williams? I don't think we do, and even if we did the
>>knowledge of their contemporaries would not depend on such documents, so
>>they're not likely to be produced.
>>

>>It seems that the necessary evidence would come in another form.
>>
>>Eric Ingman
>>
>
>
>Ingman, would it surprise you to learn that we have autobiographies of
>Mark Twain and Tennessee Williams in which they uniequivocally state who
>they really were?
>
>Why is it unreasonable to ask that we be give ONE unequivocal statment
>from De Vere or any of his contemporaries stating that he wrote any of the
>works attributed to William Shakespeare.

Right, and let's have the same for Shakspere. "Sweet Swan of Avon" is as close
as you can come, and that's rather oblique for a slam dunk argument.

Eric Ingman

Richard Kennedy

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Grumman barks a while about my ignorance of Groatsworth,
and let's be certain what we're talking about. It is Groatsworth
and Groatsworth alone that puts a "supposed" Shakespeare
(his name is not given, but rests on a pun) in some sort of
literary context, coupled with three other men of disputed
identity, and the collection of these masked men written up by
someone whose identity is unknown for sure.

This is the bedrock for Stratfordians when they claim that their
man was some sort of writer. Otherwise, in all documents and
reports, the man appears only as a name on a piece of paper.
It would seem that no one knew him, no one saw him, and he
remains as a sort of ghost (as 50% of all Elizabethan writers
were unknown - Shakespeare is only another) whose identity
has been searched for these 200 years and more. And
Groatsworth is the best evidence of a flesh and blood man that
the Stratfordians can offer, and as you see it is a mud puddle
they are splashing about in.

robert...@my-deja.com wrote:

--
MZ

Dave Kathman

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

Kingpin444 wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Oxfordian test

> >From: marl...@aol.com (Marlovian)
> >Date: Fri, 27 August 1999 04:01 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <19990827160115...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
> >
> >Eric asks
> >
> >>2. What would make you Oxfordian?
> >
> >May I ask Eric: what would make you a Marlovian or Baconian?
> >
> >>I think everyone would admire your courage, particularly if you avoid
> >>disingenuous misstatements or "misunderstandings" that I'm sure we agree are
> >>too common in this forum.
> >
> >David More
>
> I am relatively unschooled in these waters, but I know I'd look carefully at
> evidence of the following form:
>
> Shakespearean Source A is published in year Y, which is after 1604, the year of
> Oxford's death.. Author X is alive in year Y.
>
> That would be worth a very careful look.

Have you read my article "Dating the Tempest" on the
Shakespeare Authorship Page? It's at:

http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/tempest.html

I'd be interested to hear your reaction to it.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

>Have you read my article "Dating the Tempest" on the
>Shakespeare Authorship Page? It's at:
>
>http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/tempest.html
>
>I'd be interested to hear your reaction to it.
>
>Dave Kathman

Yes, David, I have. I think the letter's source is the play, rather than the
other way around. The dating of the documents supports this.

Your examples of verbal parallels is anyway rather weak, so the connection
between the two is might tenuous.

I agree that it's your best bet for a post-1604 dating, but it really does not
stand up. In all honesty, I expected a stronger case, but I appreciated the
work that went into your article.

Eric Ingman

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/28/99

to

No, we don't just have "Sweet Swan of Avon."

We have Hemminge and Condell saying Shakespeare was their fellow.

We have the first folio saying that William Shakespeare was the author and
that William Shakespeare was the name of one of the PRINCIPAL actors in
all these plays.

We have Digges referring to the Stratford monument.

We have Jonson referring to Shakespeare's buskin (a shoe that actors
wore).

We have the Stratford monument referring to what Shakespeare wrote and
referring to him as a Virgil in art.

We have John Davies saying that Shakespeare the writer played kingly parts
in sport.

We have legal documents showing that there was a member of the King's Men
who was named William Shakespeare.

We know this William Shakespeare, who was a member of the King's Men, was
the same William Shakespeare of Stratford, because of the Stratford
Monument, and the fact that he left money in his will to other members of
the company, and because he bought the Blackfriar's gate house with the
help of Heminge, another member of the company.

Your statement that "Sweet swan of Avon" is as close as we can come to a
statement that Shakespeare of Stratford was the author is just another old
Oxfordian lie.

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <19990828191618...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, kingp...@aol.com
(Kingpin444) writes:

>Yes, David, I have. I think the letter's source is the play, rather than the
>other way around. The dating of the documents supports this.
>
>Your examples of verbal parallels is anyway rather weak, so the connection
>between the two is might tenuous.
>
>I agree that it's your best bet for a post-1604 dating, but it really does
>not
>stand up. In all honesty, I expected a stronger case, but I appreciated the
>work that went into your article.
>
>Eric Ingman
>

Care to give any examples or reasons for your belief,
or are you just making it all up?

Jim

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <7q9rn1$okk$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>
>We have the first folio saying that William Shakespeare was the author and
>that William Shakespeare was the name of one of the PRINCIPAL actors in
>all these plays.
>

You've forgotten that in the same poem that Jonson refers to
Shakespeare as the sweet swan of Avon, he also calls him
"Shakespeare" in several places, thus cementing the identification.
Jonson also calls him "Shakespeare" in the poem just before
the picture of Shakespeare, where he says that if the engraver
had been able to capture Shakespeare's wit as well as his face,
there would be no need to read the book, but since he couldn't,
don't look at the picture, look at the book.

This Ingram is a transparent liar.

Jim

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <19990828141121...@ng-bh1.aol.com>, kingp...@aol.com
(Kingpin444) writes:

No.
Jim

Dave Kathman

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Kingpin444 wrote:
>
> >Have you read my article "Dating the Tempest" on the
> >Shakespeare Authorship Page? It's at:
> >
> >http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/tempest.html
> >
> >I'd be interested to hear your reaction to it.
> >
> >Dave Kathman
>

> Yes, David, I have. I think the letter's source is the play, rather than the
> other way around. The dating of the documents supports this.

In what way? The letter is dated July 15, 1610, and the first
record of The Tempest being performed is on November 1, 1611.

As for your belief that the play is the source of the letter
rather than the other way around: I realize that your beliefs
force you to that conclusion, but let me remind you of a
few things, which I've also pointed out to Volker when he tried
to claim the same thing.

Strachey's letter is based on real events which occurred six years
after Oxford's death, so it's much harder, virtually impossible,
for you to argue rationally that the letter was based on the play.
Many of the parallels between the letter and Shakespeare's play
involve similarities of plot and background, rather than just
the verbal parallels you find so unconvincing. For example,
the Sea Venture (the ship carrying Strachey which wrecked
in Bermuda) was one of a fleet of nine ships going to Virginia;
it carried Sir Thomas Gates, the newly appointed governor
of Virginia, and his entourage. The ship in the Tempest is
one of a fleet going to Naples; it carries Alonso, King of
Naples, and his entourage. A storm separated the Sea-Venture
from the other ships, and the rest of the fleet continued on
to Virginia, assuming that Gates had drowned; however, the
ship had run aground near Bermuda, with everybody miraculously
making it ashore safely. In the Tempest, a storm separates
the ship from the rest of the fleet, which continues on to
Naples, assuming the King has drowned; however, the ship
had run aground near shore, and everybody on board mirculously
makes it ashore safely (through the magic of Prospero).
Bermuda had been thought to be an island of devils, but the
Englishmen found it to be full of abundance. The crew in
the Tempest fears the island to be inhabited by devils
(Ferdinand says "Hell is empty, and all the devils are here"),
but they find it to be full of abundance. Much more is
detailed in my article.

Furthermore, there were several
independent accounts of the wreck of the Sea Venture, most
notably that of Sylvester Jourdain; Jourdain's account,
printed in October 1610, also demonstrates structural and
verbal parallels with Shakespeare's play, indicating that
Shakespeare had also read it. Under your scenario, both
Strachey and Jourdain would have had to independently
use Shakespeare's play as a source, even though it had
not been printed yet. The anonymous *True Declaration of
the Estate of the Colony in Virginia*, also published in
the fall of 1610, shows some further similarities with
Shakespeare's play, so you would have to have this third
author also drawing on Shakespeare's unpublished play as
a source.

> Your examples of verbal parallels is anyway rather weak, so the connection
> between the two is might tenuous.

As I have pointed out many times, and as others have pointed
out on my behalf, focusing on the verbal parallels alone
misses the point. It is the combination of structural/plot
parallels with corresponding verbal parallels which makes
Shakespeare's use of Strachey as a source virtually certain.

> I agree that it's your best bet for a post-1604 dating, but it really does not
> stand up. In all honesty, I expected a stronger case, but I appreciated the
> work that went into your article.

In all honesty, I expected you to find some way to reconcile your
Oxfordian beliefs with the evidence of the Strachey letter, even
if it involved ignoring most of my argument and creating an
arbitrary and irrational scenario to replace it. I appreciate
your condescension.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

Symposium1

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <19990828134806...@ngol04.aol.com>,
kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) writes:

>>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works of
>>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote
>>the works of Tennessee Williams?

No, but we probably have the matter of some cancelled checks from publishers.
We can't say the same for Oxford or any of his contemporaries for the words of
Shakespeare, can we?

--Ann

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

> It seems that perhaps more cryptic markings might be enough to sway
> you.
>
> For example, is it not evidence of the same sort when a source is
> altered to conform to the life of the author? In other words, if a
> source has facts A, B, C, D and the Stratford man's life includes
> A, B, E, F, and the play has A, B, E, F, I would take that as
> evidence for the Strat man. Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Eric Ingman

I would take it as evidence. The question is whether I would take it
as very persuasive evidence. Not likely, certainly not in comparison
to things like names on title-pages. It would not be direct evidence
since it could be (1) a coincidence, (2) obviously changed for narrative
purposes, (3) taken directly from the Stratford man's life but not
therefore written by the Stratford man, and so forth. Plus, there are
the problems of determining just what was in the source, and even what
the sources were (maybe F was in some other source we haven't a record
of, for instance), and what was in the life of the author we're
concerned with (Shakespeare being handicapped in these games because
of lack of documentation).

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

> Richard (Nathan) gets credit for the first occasion of bad discourse.

> I'd like to propose in the future that we read 'You're an idiot' as

> "I, Richard Nathan, have no argument to answer my interlocutor, so
> will attempt to discredit his ideas in a way that may distract

> from the issue at hand."
>
> Now we're all clear on that.
>
> Carry on.
>
> Eric Ingman
>

I'm not clear on it, Eric. Richard Kennedy IS an idiot. Worse,
he is a repetitious idiot. His main argument is the same lie as
yours above, that his opponents call him names rather than refute
him. But they almost always include sound arguments against him
with their understandably annoyed descriptions of his intelligence--
or, as with Richard Nathan's post--tell him and any other interested
party where to go to find such arguments (since constantly telling
Richard why his hyphen-centered delusional system is wrong can get
to be very tiresome after a while).

DaveMore

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Eric says

> I'd look carefully at
>evidence of the following form:
>
>Shakespearean Source A is published in year Y, which is after 1604, the year
>of
>Oxford's death.. Author X is alive in year Y.

So you're suggesting that Oxford didn't die in 1604? Well now, that's TWO
authorship candidates who didn't die when they were supposed to.

Of course, if this is allowed, then EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE must be given a new
life. All we have of Anthony Bacon's death (following the failed Essex coup in
1601) is a burial entry. Same with Thomas Watson (you know, 'Shakespeare,
Watson's heir').

But in The Shakespeare Authorship Parlor Game, there's only ONE "get out of
death free card." Who gets it?

dave

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <19990828125828...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,

Right, just there at the right time--with the right
credentials to be taken as the author by everyone
there at the time and afterwards for at least two
hundred years, as far as we know. That is, no
one ever said Will Shakespeare was not an author,
so far as we know from the records. In any case, at
some point someone consciously made Will a front for
Oxford (again, with no one known to have been
suspicious of it).

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

> >Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the
works
> of
> >Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he
wrote
> the

> >works of Tennessee Williams? I don't think we do, and even if we did
the
> >knowledge of their contemporaries would not depend on such documents,
so
> >they're not likely to be produced.
>

> I don't know if such letters exist, but the difference is that neither
Sam
> Clemens nor Williams kept their pseudonym a secret. There are
countless
> contemporary references to who Mark Twain really was.

There are also no real persons named Mark Twain and Tennessee Williams
with monuments in their home towns praising their writing, pictures of
themselves as authors in the collected works of Twains and Williams,
etc., whom people have for over four hundred years identified as Mark
Twain and Tennessee Williams.

volker multhopp

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Dave Kathman wrote:

> Have you read my article "Dating the Tempest" on the
> Shakespeare Authorship Page? It's at:

> http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/tempest.html

> I'd be interested to hear your reaction to it.

Here we go again. Dave article is clearly refuted by mine at
http://users.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm. Dave (together with
Terry Ross) refuses to acknowledge even the existence of my refutation
of his article at point where one would expect-- at his article.
Instead, their only acknowledgement my article is in a section where
they lump together all sorts of anti-Strat material-- making an absurd
zoo of opponents. (Of course, Terry does much the same as he does not
acknowledge the counterargument to his Puttenham piece.) If this is any
kind of academic argument, it is presented in the very lowest manner.

I can summarize the arguments: *Tempest* and the Strachey letter share
a rich common fund of verbal material and situations, practically all of
which can be found in the preceding Shakespearean canon. Dave insists
that means Shakespeare must have copied his own language and material
for the Tempest from the Strachey letter. I say the simple explanation
is that the Strachey letter gets its Shakespearean material from the
Tempest. While I have shown how almost all the common is found in other
Shakespeare, Dave has not bothered to show that one bit of the common
material was ever present in other Strachey material.

Dave keeps saying he is "too busy" to respond to my argument. He is
never "too busy" to keep marching forward his repudiated article.

--Volker

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Nigel Davies wrote:

> > Here we go again. Dave article is clearly refuted by mine at
> > http://users.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm....

> You flatter yourself to deceive, sir. You have not "refuted" anything.
> Refutation is proving something to be false and you have done no such thing.
> You've presented nothing more than a batty theory achieved by reversing reality.
> The reality is that Shakespeare was inspired by a real storm and shipwreck to
> write a play. Instead, you comically theorise that Strachey was inspired to
> report on a real event by using narrative from a play that hadn't even been
> published, that ever so fortunately, had the exact same "rich common fund of
> verbal material and situations", i.e. fictional material fortuitously correlated
> with yet-to-happen events. Perhaps Oxford was clairvoyant aswell?

Absurd-- I repeat the argument-- neither Dave nor you nor anyone has
shown that one bit the commonality between the Strachey letter and
Tempest otherwise exists in Strachey-- while nearly every bit appears in
the previous canon. You're claiming that Shakespeare copied from
himself, only because he found this Shakespearean material which
miraculously appeaed in the Strachey letter, rather than the simple and
obvious conclusion that the Stachey letter was cribbed from the Tempest.

--Volker

David L. Webb

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <19990828125637...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:

[...]
> Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works of
> Mark Twain"?

In one of Mark Twain's *published works*, he explains the genesis of
his famous pseudonym. There was never any question who "Mark Twain" was.

In one of Vladimir Nabokov's *pulished interviews*, he explains his
reasons for choosing the pseudonym "V. Sirin'", employed by Nabokov during
his emigre period of writing (in Russian) in Berlin and Paris. Nabokov
also acknowledges in print in countless other places the use of his
"Sirin'" pseudonym.

The pseudonymous writer Asa Earl Carter, the Alabama white supremacist,
racist publicist, and probable Ku Klux Klansman who wrote the
highly-acclaimed book _The Education of Little Tree_, tried to mask his
true identity (for obvious reasons) by writing under a pseudonym -- yet a
little scholarly sleuthing by a single investigator led inexorably to the
correct attribution, which was then confirmed by Carter's widow, his
literary agent, and the University of New Mexico Press, the publisher of
Carter's enormously successful book.

Another similar high-profile case (I've forgotten the author's name)
was that of a book published pseudonymously, reputedly the work of an
Aboriginal Australian woman; it was actually written by a white
Australian, and when the imposture was detected, as it was in a short
time, many Aboriginal readers took offense, and a huge stink ensued.

There are countless examples of pseudonymous authors, both those who
made no real effort to keep their true identities secret and those who
did, whose works were correctly attributed, and for which conclusive
evidence established the attribution decisively. In Oxford's case, I've
heard both versions argued -- that Oxford's identity as "Shakespeare" was
an open secret, known to all (in that case, why isn't it still an "open
secret" like Twain's or Sirin''s true identity?), or that Oxford's
pseudonymous authorship was a closely-guarded secret (in that case, an
immense and wildly implausible conspiracy would have been required). Both
scenarios are equally unconvincing.

David Webb

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <37C8F667...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:

> Here we go again. Dave article is clearly refuted by mine at
>http://users.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm.

Your article is a joke. It was refuted by me on the thread
"Demolishing Volker's Demolition" which can be found on
dejanews.
Jim

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

>>Subject: Re: Oxfordian test
>From: robert...@my-deja.com
>Date: Sun, 29 August 1999 08:41 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7qb9qd$sas$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>

>
>In article <19990828125828...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>> I am unclear that the Stratford man was a front for the author. He
>may simply
>> have been in the vicinity adventitiously.
>>
>> Eric Ingman
>>
>Right, just there at the right time--with the right
>credentials to be taken as the author by everyone
>there at the time and afterwards for at least two
>hundred years, as far as we know. That is, no
>one ever said Will Shakespeare was not an author,
>so far as we know from the records. In any case, at
>some point someone consciously made Will a front for
>Oxford (again, with no one known to have been
>suspicious of it).
>
> --Bob G.
>
>

Shakspere was not "accepted" as the author at the time. His status as the
author, as I'm sure you are aware, is a bit more problematic than that.

This is bad logic.

1. William Shakespeare was known to be an author.
2. No one said Will Shakspere was not an author.
3. Your conclusion: Shakspere = Shakespeare.

No one said that you are not the author or that the Queen was not the author
(as far as I know), but that does not make either a candidate. I mean, it's
just not a valid inference.

Eric Ingman

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Yes a good list of evidence, Richard. And I notice you didn't include any
insults, so I'm happy to respond.

First of all, we were discussing a particular category of evidence that you
listed as a requirement to assign authorship. I would call it a "contemporary
attribution." You list a few things that are evidence, but they are not
contemporary attributions of authorship to the Stratford man. So, to my
statement that you too lack CA's, you have not offered a counter-example.
Jonson's "Sweet Swan of Avon" is the closest.

You said your criterion of doubt would be the existence of a CA, yet you only
have Jonson's oblique reference to the river that runs through town (maybe).
The implication of this should not be overlooked. Unless you are agnostic to
the question (ha!), your standard should be one that your own guy passes. The
sweet swan of Avon may not refer to Shakspere at all. I assume then that if
the swan has a referent besides Shakspere that you would doubt Shakspere's
authorship.

As for your other evidence, let me say briefly that I don't doubt that the
author was an actor. The sonnets imply as much, Oxford did that kind of thing,
etc.

Digges you misquote. The reference is to a moniment. The history of this word
would not be a comfort to your argument; it referred at that time to "something
that by its survival commemorates a ... person." Check your OED.

As I'm sure you're aware, there is no content offered when you repeat that
William Shakespeare was the author.

But to repeat: "Sweet Swan of Avon" is still your best try for a contemporary
attribution, and it's oblique at best.

Eric Ingman

>Subject: Re: I Can't Believe Ingman Actually Posted This!!!!
>From: Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 07:34 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7q9rn1$okk$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>

>
>No, we don't just have "Sweet Swan of Avon."

Well you

>
>We have Hemminge and Condell saying Shakespeare was their fellow.
>

>We have the first folio saying that William Shakespeare was the author and
>that William Shakespeare was the name of one of the PRINCIPAL actors in
>all these plays.
>

>We have Digges referring to the Stratford monument.
>
>We have Jonson referring to Shakespeare's buskin (a shoe that actors
>wore).
>
>We have the Stratford monument referring to what Shakespeare wrote and
>referring to him as a Virgil in art.
>
>We have John Davies saying that Shakespeare the writer played kingly parts
>in sport.
>
>We have legal documents showing that there was a member of the King's Men
>who was named William Shakespeare.
>
>We know this William Shakespeare, who was a member of the King's Men, was
>the same William Shakespeare of Stratford, because of the Stratford
>Monument, and the fact that he left money in his will to other members of
>the company, and because he bought the Blackfriar's gate house with the
>help of Heminge, another member of the company.
>
>Your statement that "Sweet swan of Avon" is as close as we can come to a
>statement that Shakespeare of Stratford was the author is just another old
>Oxfordian lie.
>
>
>
>kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>>>Subject: I Can't Believe Ingman Actually Posted This!!!!
>>>From: Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net>
>>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 02:51 PM EDT
>>>Message-id: <7q9b4c$9f$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>>>
>>>kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>

>>>>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works
>of

>>>>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote
>>>the

>>>>works of Tennessee Williams? I don't think we do, and even if we did the
>>>>knowledge of their contemporaries would not depend on such documents, so
>>>>they're not likely to be produced.
>>>>

volker multhopp

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Nonsense. Why don't you just briefly recap your position? Can't do
it?

--Volker

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

I detect some confusion. I hope it's not mine. :-)

Your standard is too high because, for example, the Stratford man cannot pass
this test. Or do you mean to say that you doubt his authorship too?

Eric Ingman

><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Oxfordian test
>From: Nigel Davies <nda...@emirates.net.ae>
>Date: Sun, 29 August 1999 06:56 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37C911E8...@emirates.net.ae>

>
>Kingpin444 wrote:
>
>> >Eric Ingman wrote
>> >
>> >>What would each side need to find in these books to make a difference?
>> >What
>> >>kind of marking would be persuasive enough to alter a diehard's opinion
>on
>> >>the question?
>> >
>> >Perhaps an inscription in one of the books, that can be verified to be in
>> >Oxenforde's own hand, stating that he was the true author of Shakespeare's
>> >plays.
>> >
>> >- Clark
>>
>> Okay, but that seems like too high a standard. Certainly this is a
>sufficient
>> cause to change one's mind, but not necessary.
>

>A high standard? So if I leave papers claiming that I wrote the works of

>Stephen
>King that would be acceptable "high standard" proof of being the author?
>______________________________________________________________________
>nda...@emirates.net.ae
>
>

></PRE></HTML>

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

David,
Thank you for your excellent thoughts on this. I agree that an Oxfordian has a
problem explaining the reason for the enduring secrecy about the pseudonym.
Personally, I tend to lean to the "open secret" theory, but it's not a settled
issue.

First of all, it's interesting that you mention other cases where a secret pen
name was unmasked because people asked some questions about it. Perhaps that
is what we witness here, as well.

But your point I believe is that pseudonyms cannot be protected. Hmmmmm......

Does this not beg the question (in the logical sense of assuming your
conclusion as a premise)? Sure, if it's not a pen name, the effort to "unmask"
the author is otiose. But if it is a pen name, we witness its unmasking.

So we're left with the situation where we have to balance the evidence.

My original point to which you responded, though, was more about the fact that
a first person attribution is not forthcoming on either side of the debate, so
as a practical matter that can't be the standard by which we judge the issue.

Eric Ingman

><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Oxfordian test

>From: David....@Dartmouth.edu (David L. Webb)
>Date: Sun, 29 August 1999 10:39 AM EDT
>Message-id: <David.L.Webb-2...@ka3-100.dartmouth.edu>

>
>In article <19990828125637...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
>kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>
>[...]

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

David, you didn't understand what I wrote. Please reread.

Eric Ingman

Clark

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Kingpin444 wrote

>Your standard is too high because, for example, the Stratford man cannot
pass
>this test. Or do you mean to say that you doubt his authorship too?

Your whole "test" is a fantasy. You're asking for convincing evidence in
books that don't exist. If you can fantasize evidence within Oxenforde's
phantom books, how can you deny that Shakespeare of Stratford might have had
books with notes in them regarding the composition of the plays?

If you're going to require Shakespeare to "pass" the test, then let's use
something that actually exists for both Shakespeare and Oxenforde. Such as
contemporary attribution of their respective works. Or do you consider this
an "unfair" test because Oxenforde is unable to "pass" it based on every
scrap of existing evidence?

- Clark

Visit my Shakespeare website at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801/Shakespeare.htm

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <19990829131448...@ng-fz1.aol.com>, kingp...@aol.com
(Kingpin444) writes:

>Jim--
>I'm sorry that you resort to insult when you also make a bad logical mistake.
>I
>guess everyone sees it though.
>
>Ah, well, better luck next time.
>
>Eric Ingman
>

Ingram, I'm sorry that you resort to lies when you are caught
in a lie. Care to point out what this alleged logical mistake is?
Of course not, because you are all propaganda, and no substance.

Jim

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <37C961BE...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:

Nonsense. My posts in the "Demolishing Volker's Demolition" thread,
and there are many, go over each of your comments in your article
in detail. I am not going to repost every one of them. Anyone who
is interested can see for themselves.

Jim

Nigel Davies

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

volker multhopp wrote:

> Nigel Davies wrote:
>
> > > Here we go again. Dave article is clearly refuted by mine at

> > > http://users.erols.com/volker/Shakes/DatgTmpt.htm....
>
> > You flatter yourself to deceive, sir. You have not "refuted" anything.
> > Refutation is proving something to be false and you have done no such thing.
> > You've presented nothing more than a batty theory achieved by reversing reality.
> > The reality is that Shakespeare was inspired by a real storm and shipwreck to
> > write a play. Instead, you comically theorise that Strachey was inspired to
> > report on a real event by using narrative from a play that hadn't even been
> > published, that ever so fortunately, had the exact same "rich common fund of
> > verbal material and situations", i.e. fictional material fortuitously correlated
> > with yet-to-happen events. Perhaps Oxford was clairvoyant aswell?
>
> Absurd

I agree. Your "Strachey copied Shakespeare" theory is completely absurd.

> -- I repeat the argument-- neither Dave nor you nor anyone has
> shown that one bit the commonality between the Strachey letter and
> Tempest otherwise exists in Strachey

Why should it exist "otherwise" in Strachey? Strachey reported on an event that
actually occurred. That he actually experienced. It was a unique event to him.
Why do you expect the imagery in this unique event to Strachey to be replicated
elsewhere in respect of Strachey?

> -- while nearly every bit appears in the previous canon.

Of no significance

> You're claiming that Shakespeare copied from
> himself,

No, no, no. He was inspired by a real shipwreck that happened in 1610. The event
parallels of that shipwreck that Dave K has pointed out, not just the words that
you blinker your vision on, are very significant corroborative evidence. Your
theory merely kicks around the commonplace presence of "leaks" and "luggage" in
the prior canon, conspicuously ignoring the parallel events that those words
describe. You have done nothing to explain how a play could have been written
prior to 1604 that extraordinarily describes events that don't happen until
1610. You'll be doing a Stephanie next by offering "the", "a" and "of" as
evidence of Strachey cribbing from Shakespeare.

> only because he found this Shakespearean material which
> miraculously appeaed in the Strachey letter,

It's not Shakespeare material. It's Strachey material describing a Strachey
event. You just cherry-pick words from the canon to fabricate a patchwork quilt
that you call The Tempest.

> rather than the simple and
> obvious conclusion that the Stachey letter was cribbed from the Tempest.

I'd agree that yours is a simple conclusion, in fact simple-minded, and a theory
that's unique to yourself.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae

Nigel Davies

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Kingpin444 wrote:

> I detect some confusion. I hope it's not mine. :-)
>

> Your standard is too high because, for example, the Stratford man cannot pass
> this test. Or do you mean to say that you doubt his authorship too?
>

> Eric Ingman

>
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Oxfordian test

> >From: Nigel Davies <nda...@emirates.net.ae>
> >Date: Sun, 29 August 1999 06:56 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <37C911E8...@emirates.net.ae>
> >
> >Kingpin444 wrote:
> >
> >> >Eric Ingman wrote
> >> >
> >> >>What would each side need to find in these books to make a difference?
> >> >What
> >> >>kind of marking would be persuasive enough to alter a diehard's opinion
> >on
> >> >>the question?
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps an inscription in one of the books, that can be verified to be in
> >> >Oxenforde's own hand, stating that he was the true author of Shakespeare's
> >> >plays.
> >> >
> >> >- Clark
> >>
> >> Okay, but that seems like too high a standard. Certainly this is a
> >sufficient
> >> cause to change one's mind, but not necessary.
> >
> >A high standard? So if I leave papers claiming that I wrote the works of
> >Stephen
> >King that would be acceptable "high standard" proof of being the author?

I mean "an inscription in one of Oxenforde's books stating that he was the true
author of Shakespeare's plays" is not a high standard of evidence that he was
(besides the fact that no such statement exists in any of his books including
his Geneva Bible because he wasn't the author). If I write in one of my books
that I am the true author of Stephen King's novels it does not make me the
author Stephen King's novels.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae

Symposium1

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <37C9002A...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:

>> No, but we probably have the matter of some cancelled checks from

>publishers.
>> We can't say the same for Oxford or any of his contemporaries for the words
>of
>> Shakespeare, can we?
>

> Perhaps not cancelled checks, but we do have the not-well-explained
>1000£ annuity from Elizabeth to Oxford.

Right, precisely not well explained, and not linked directly to the publishing
of the works or the presentation of the plays. Even if she'd given the amount
to Will Shakespeare, it wouldn't consititute the same level of proof that it
would have if one receipt bore "for plays presented" or more exactly "for Merry
Wives of Windsor, at our command."

--Ann

Terry Ross

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

On 29 Aug 1999, Kingpin444 wrote:

> Me:
> >the letter's source is the play, rather than the
> >> other way around. The dating of the documents supports this.
>
> David Kathman:
> >In what way? The letter is dated July 15, 1610, and the first
> >record of The Tempest being performed is on November 1, 1611.
>
> What an unbelievable deception!!!!

What deception? Or perhaps I should ask, What deception???? In the
funnies, two exclamation points are usually enough; what added meaning is
conveyed by exclamations three and four, I wonder -- or rather, I
wonder!!!!

>
> Are you unaware that the letter was not published until 1625? That's
> 14 years later, David!

Your arithmetic is impeccable (though the problem really wasn't very
hard), but you haven't shown any alleged "deception." Now, if you have
some reason to doubt the accuracy of the date of the Strachey letter,
let's hear it. Even if you could produce some reason, it would still not
be evidence of any "deception" on Dave's part, but I'd be interested in
seeing it, if you have any.

> What a disgusting revelation of your dubious relationship to the
> truth. Apparently you think you "win" by that nonsense.

As you are new to this neck of the words, you perhaps do not understand
that Dave has a well-deserved and hard-earned reputation (even among
Oxfordians) for honesty. Oxfordians disagree with Dave, but when they
want accurate information they come to him. Not a month passes without
some Oxfordian asking Dave to present the straight dope on some matter,
and Dave generally obliges. It's odd, in a way. Since all Oxfordians
presumably think Dave is wrong on the big issue (who wrote Shakespeare's
plays), it's surprising that they trust him to give requested information
fairly and honestly -- but they do. Here is another example: any person
interested in the annotations in Oxford's Geneva Bible can find a complete
list at the Shakespeare Authorship site. This list was Dave's work, and
Oxfordians have yet to produce anything rivaling it for accuracy. Now,
Oxfordians think that since Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works, this is the
actual Bible that "Shakespeare used," while Dave has written an essay
powerfully rebutting that view. Yet if Oxfordians want to know what the
actual annotations in the Bible are, they come to Dave's list, and they
(rightly) trust what they find there. Another example: any person
interested in the spelling of Shakespeare's name can find the most
complete and accurate lists ever assembled in any medium at the
Shakespeare Authorship site. Oxfordians differ with Dave on how to count
the names and how to interpret the data, but when they seek to compile
their own lists (as Mark Alexander, for one, has done) they start with
Dave's lists. One last example: any person seriously interested in
English theater of the late Sixteenth and early Seventeenth Centuries will
find Dave's "Biographical Index to the Elizabethan Theater" not merely
reliable but invaluable.

The point is not that Dave never errs, but rather that there is no person
concerned with the authorship matter who is more trusted, even by those
who disagree with him. So when you accuse him of "deception" and fail to
back up your charge, any reasonable reader of this newsgroup is likely to
conclude that you (whom we have not learned to trust) rather than Dave is
in the wrong.

I haven't seen enough of your posts to have the range on you yet. I
can't tell whether you are seriously interested in discussing authorship
matters, and I cannot tell yet whether you know what you are talking
about. Your completely unsubstantiated attack on Dave as someone who
practices "deception" is so far off the mark as to be of considerable help
to me in learning what sort of person you are.

> Since you would resort to a deception, you must not think your
> argument is sound. And now you're caught out.

Dave would not put up the page if he thought his argument unsound. As for
his being "caught out" in "a deception," you still haven't given us the
least inkling of just wherein this deception lay.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

volker multhopp

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

KQKnave wrote:

> > Nonsense. Why don't you just briefly recap your position? Can't do
> >it?

> Nonsense. My posts in the "Demolishing Volker's Demolition" thread,
> and there are many, go over each of your comments in your article
> in detail. I am not going to repost every one of them. Anyone who
> is interested can see for themselves.

As I thought-- you can't recap your position, because you have none
that you can compress.

--Volker

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

It's patently obvious that David Kathman tried to deceive. I found it shocking,
but anyone can see it.

Eric Ingman

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Just so there's no confusion about David Kathman's deception....

I said that the Strachey letter was published after The Tempest, so there would
be no reason to believe that the play had to come second.

He responded that the letter was dated before the play was seen and averred
that meant the play came second.

In fact, I was correct: publication of the play was before publication of the
letter. Yes, the letter was "dated" before the play, but any date can be
affixed to the letter. It's beneath Kathman's intelligence to suggest that he
couldn't figure out that the letter could be derivative of the play and a false
date affixed.

It seems that he wanted to mislead the reader into thinking that I was mistaken
about the date of publication and that the play had to be derivative of the
letter. That's deception, not a difference of opinion.

If you want to defend him, Terry, I guess you have as little confidence in his
position as he does.

Eric Ingman

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

This is a little confusing because you say

1. you think Oxford's books should say that he is the author for you to doubt
the Stratford man, yet
2. such evidence would not be good if you made the same claim

so, in general terms, you ask us to consider:
X writes in his own books "I, X, wrote the works of Y"
is X's statement true?

if X = you and Y = Stephen King, it's false (this we know)
so why would it be true if X = Oxford and Y = Shakespeare?

Please clarify.

Eric Ingman

Kingpin444

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

>Your whole "test" is a fantasy. You're asking for convincing evidence in
>books that don't exist. If you can fantasize evidence within Oxenforde's
>phantom books, how can you deny that Shakespeare of Stratford might have had
>books with notes in them regarding the composition of the plays?
>
>If you're going to require Shakespeare to "pass" the test, then let's use
>something that actually exists for both Shakespeare and Oxenforde. Such as
>contemporary attribution of their respective works. Or do you consider this
>an "unfair" test because Oxenforde is unable to "pass" it based on every
>scrap of existing evidence?
>
>
>- Clark

No, the books were sold at auction and the owners' names recorded. They'll
likely turn up someday.

If you don't want to discuss the books of Oxford and what we should expect to
find therein, I'm comfortable discussing what your criteria of doubt should be.

However, since you changed the subject, does this mean that you accept that
Shakspere's authorship also should be doubted based on the criterion of doubt
that you already mentioned would be appropriate in the Earl's case?

Eric Ingman

Symposium1

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

In article <19990829134534...@ng-fz1.aol.com>, kingp...@aol.com
(Kingpin444) writes:

>>No, but we probably have the matter of some cancelled checks from publishers.
>>We can't say the same for Oxford or any of his contemporaries for the words
>>of Shakespeare, can we?

>So by this post you wish to signal that we are in agreement that first person

>attibution is not the correct standard for determining authorship?

It's far from up to me to determine the "correct" standard, Eric. I merely
wished to point out that nothing I've seen in regards to determining authorship
has been "absolute." Whether or not one requires a piece of absolute proof is
entirely individual. Examining the matter even further, one could conclude
that even the cancelled checks for the works of Mark Twain, paid to and
received by Mr. Samuel L. Clemens, might not satisfy some inquisitors.

I also wish to point out that however interesting these examples of pen names
are, they are neither contemporary to your case nor do they seem to be
parallel. Is there a tendency to believe that Clemens chose a pen name because
he was hiding his authorship from authority? That it would be socially
unacceptable for him to be published? Was it as likely that records of
publication would be as vague and un-businesslike in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries as it was in the sixteenth and early seventeenth?

--Ann

Dave Kathman

unread,

Aug 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/29/99

to

Kingpin444 wrote:
>
> Just so there's no confusion about David Kathman's deception....
>
> I said that the Strachey letter was published after The Tempest, so there would
> be no reason to believe that the play had to come second.

No, you did not say this. You said, and I quote:

"...I think the letter's source is the play, rather than the

other way around. The dating of the documents supports this."

Now, you may have intended in your own mind to say that the
Strachey was "published" (i.e. printed) after The Tempest,
but that was not in fact what you said. You said that "the
dating of the documents supports this", and the Strachey
letter is dated July 15, 1610, despite the fact that it was
not printed until 1625. It describes events which happened
in 1609-10, and it appears to have been used as the major
source of a pamphlet published in 1610.

> He responded that the letter was dated before the play was seen and averred
> that meant the play came second.

No, I did not say this. I merely said that the date prefixed
to the letter (July 15, 1610) is earlier than the first known
performance of the play (November 1, 1611). Will you please
show me where I said that this fact, by itself, means that
the play came second?

> In fact, I was correct: publication of the play was before publication of the
> letter.

Well, yes, by two years (1623 vs. 1625), but both appear to have
been written years earlier. But I'm not aware of anybody who
has ever denied this simple fact.

> Yes, the letter was "dated" before the play, but any date can be
> affixed to the letter. It's beneath Kathman's intelligence to suggest that he
> couldn't figure out that the letter could be derivative of the play and a false
> date affixed.

Why would somebody want to do that? What possible purpose would it
serve? I've asked Volker the same question, and I don't recall
ever receiving a satisfactory answer. Strachey's letter describes
events which happened in 1609-10, and which Strachey is independently
known to have witnessed. Strachey's account agrees with the other
accounts of the expedition published in 1611 and 1612. Why would
somebody (whether Strachey or somebody else) write this letter
considerably after the fact, and then affix a false date to it
for publication? By the way, Strachey died in 1621, so he couldn't
have been directly involved in the letter's publication. Volker
has suggested that the letter was written in 1623 or 1624 based
on the Folio version of The Tempest, and then published in 1625.
This would have to mean that not just the 1610 date, but the
attribution to Strachey, would have to have been falsified. Do
you find that a plausible scenario? If so, can you explain
to me just what this forger would have to gain from such a plan?
I'm sure many of the survivors of the Sea-Venture wreck were
still alive in 1625 -- wouldn't our forger be afraid that one
of them might read this letter in *Purchas His Pilgrimes* and
say, "Hey, that's not the way it happened!"?

> It seems that he wanted to mislead the reader into thinking that I was mistaken
> about the date of publication and that the play had to be derivative of the
> letter. That's deception, not a difference of opinion.

I did not want to mislead any readers, and I don't think I did.
You seem to be getting awfully worked up over this.

> If you want to defend him, Terry, I guess you have as little confidence in his
> position as he does.

I have every confidence in my position, because I have derived
it from a careful consideration of the evidence. You seem to
have a rather distorted view of what I believe.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

See my responses below.

kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>Yes a good list of evidence, Richard. And I notice you didn't include any
>insults, so I'm happy to respond.
>
>First of all, we were discussing a particular category of evidence that you
>listed as a requirement to assign authorship. I would call it a "contemporary
>attribution." You list a few things that are evidence, but they are not
>contemporary attributions of authorship to the Stratford man.

The Digges monument reference is a contemporary attirbution to the
Stratford man.

> So, to my
>statement that you too lack CA's, you have not offered a counter-example.
>Jonson's "Sweet Swan of Avon" is the closest.
>

No, that's false. The Digges reference is to the Stratford man. The
references to the author being the actor are attributions to the Stratford
man. There is proof the Stratford man was an actor in the King's Men.

>You said your criterion of doubt would be the existence of a CA, yet you only
>have Jonson's oblique reference to the river that runs through town (maybe).

Why are you lying?

>The implication of this should not be overlooked. Unless you are agnostic to
>the question (ha!), your standard should be one that your own guy passes. The
>sweet swan of Avon may not refer to Shakspere at all. I assume then that if
>the swan has a referent besides Shakspere that you would doubt Shakspere's
>authorship.

No, there is much evidence that the man from Stratford was the actor. And
you yourself admit the actor was the author.

>As for your other evidence, let me say briefly that I don't doubt that the
>author was an actor.

I thought that Volker was the only wone who believed the actor on the
public stage was Oxford. How can you possibly believe that Oxford would
be forbidden to have his name appear on the published texts of the plays,
but that he would be allowed to appear on the public stage where
everyone can see him?

How can you believe that his enemies could accuse him of being a child
molestor, but they would not be allowed to disclose that he was acting
on the public stage?

> The sonnets imply as much, Oxford did that kind of thing,
>etc.
>

There is no evidence whatsoever that Oxford appeared as an actor on the
public stage.

>Digges you misquote. The reference is to a moniment. The history of this word
>would not be a comfort to your argument; it referred at that time to "something
>that by its survival commemorates a ... person." Check your OED.
>

How does your definition vary from MONUMENT?

And what did Oxford have in Stratford commemorating HIM?

>As I'm sure you're aware, there is no content offered when you repeat that
>William Shakespeare was the author.
>

What about all the evidence I gave that William Shakespeare of Stratford
was the actor?

What about his will leaving money to his fellows?

What about the Blackfriars gatehouse, purchased with the assistance of
Heminge?

What about the fact that another actor in the company left money in his
will to WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, after Oxford was dead.

What about all the legal documents relating the name William Shakespeare
to the company. legal documents that would not use a pseudonym?

>But to repeat: "Sweet Swan of Avon" is still your best try for a contemporary
>attribution, and it's oblique at best.
>
>Eric Ingman
>

That's a lie, and you know it.

>>Subject: Re: I Can't Believe Ingman Actually Posted This!!!!

>>From: Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net>
>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 07:34 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <7q9rn1$okk$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>No, we don't just have "Sweet Swan of Avon."
>
>Well you
>>
>>We have Hemminge and Condell saying Shakespeare was their fellow.
>>

>>We have the first folio saying that William Shakespeare was the author and
>>that William Shakespeare was the name of one of the PRINCIPAL actors in
>>all these plays.
>>

>>We have Digges referring to the Stratford monument.
>>
>>We have Jonson referring to Shakespeare's buskin (a shoe that actors
>>wore).
>>
>>We have the Stratford monument referring to what Shakespeare wrote and
>>referring to him as a Virgil in art.
>>
>>We have John Davies saying that Shakespeare the writer played kingly parts
>>in sport.
>>
>>We have legal documents showing that there was a member of the King's Men
>>who was named William Shakespeare.
>>
>>We know this William Shakespeare, who was a member of the King's Men, was
>>the same William Shakespeare of Stratford, because of the Stratford
>>Monument, and the fact that he left money in his will to other members of
>>the company, and because he bought the Blackfriar's gate house with the
>>help of Heminge, another member of the company.
>>
>>Your statement that "Sweet swan of Avon" is as close as we can come to a
>>statement that Shakespeare of Stratford was the author is just another old
>>Oxfordian lie.
>>
>>
>>
>>kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>>>>Subject: I Can't Believe Ingman Actually Posted This!!!!
>>>>From: Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net>
>>>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 02:51 PM EDT
>>>>Message-id: <7q9b4c$9f$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>
>>>>kingp...@aol.com (Kingpin444) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>>>

>>>>>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works
>>of

>>>>>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote
>>>>the

Clark

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Kingpin444 wrote

>No, the books were sold at auction and the owners' names recorded. They'll
>likely turn up someday.

And we know that Shakespeare (or perhaps his illiterate father) owned a book
mentioned in a writ of 1596, and that his son-in-law had a library worthy of
note that might have contained some of Shakespeare's books (since Dr. Hall
was married to Shakespeare's daughter, who the prime heir in Shakespeare's
will). Perhaps William's books will "likely turn up someday."

>If you don't want to discuss the books of Oxford and what we should expect
to
>find therein, I'm comfortable discussing what your criteria of doubt should
be.
>
>However, since you changed the subject, does this mean that you accept that
>Shakspere's authorship also should be doubted based on the criterion of
doubt
>that you already mentioned would be appropriate in the Earl's case?

Are you from another planet? We're talking about alleged books. I have
every reason to believe Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. Everyone
said so, and his name is in all the books. No one ever said Oxenforde wrote
the plays (until Oxenforders started having fantasies about it centuries
later), including Oxenforde. I'd say that any amount of doubt would be
appropriate and reasonable in the Earl's case.

volker multhopp

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Dave Kathman wrote:

> Volker
> has suggested that the letter was written in 1623 or 1624 based
> on the Folio version of The Tempest, and then published in 1625.
> This would have to mean that not just the 1610 date, but the
> attribution to Strachey, would have to have been falsified. Do
> you find that a plausible scenario? If so, can you explain
> to me just what this forger would have to gain from such a plan?

Publication in Hakylut's *Navigations*. Even today, with our enormous
information capabilities, people totally falsify accounts in order to
try to pass them as true reports.

--Volker

Terry Ross

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

On 29 Aug 1999, Kingpin444 wrote:

> Just so there's no confusion about David Kathman's deception....
>
> I said that the Strachey letter was published after The Tempest, so
> there would be no reason to believe that the play had to come second.

Excuse me? Are you under the misapprehension that letters in this period
were routinely printed? Some of the Oxford's letters weren't "printed"
before Alan Nelson put them online a couple of years ago; does that mean
you would date them "1997" rather than, say, "1597"? In any event, as
Dave has noted, this is NOT what you said.

> He responded that the letter was dated before the play was seen and
> averred that meant the play came second.

That's not what Dave said. I wonder why you don't quote his exact words
when you wish to take issue with him. The usenet is set up to make this
very easy to do, and by using this feature, you will have before you the
statements you are responding to. You might even find (as seems to be the
case here) that what somebody said and what you THINK he said are
different things.

> In fact, I was correct: publication of the play was before publication
> of the letter.

If by publication you mean "printing," that's a different question.
Many texts from the period appeared in print well after they were written;
that does not mean they were written on the day they were printed. The
poems of Surrey appeared in print after he died; does that mean he wrote
them after he died? Does that mean he didn't write them? The great
majority of letters in the period (as in every period) were not printed
the day they were written. Both *The Tempest* and Strachey's letter
appeared in print after their authors died, but Strachey's letter appears
to have circulated, and *The Tempest* was performed before either text
appeared in print. There are poems by Oxford that circulated in
manuscript but which can be approximately dated because they were quoted
in a book whose date is known. By your reasoning, Oxford's poems must
derive from the book that quotes them, rather than the other way around.

> Yes, the letter was "dated" before the play, but any date can be
> affixed to the letter.

And just what "evidence" that the letter was falsely back-dated do you
have? It's not enough to imagine that some unknown figure for some
unknown reason sneakily added details from *The Tempest* to Strachey's
letter before having it published merely in order to make life difficult
four centuries later for Oxfordians, a group whose very existence could
not have been predicted. The inconvenience of the Strachey letter for
Oxfordians is NOT an argument for its having been rewritten with bits of
Shakespeare's play before it was printed.

> It's beneath Kathman's intelligence to suggest that he couldn't figure
> out that the letter could be derivative of the play and a false date
> affixed.

And the evidence for this allegedly false date is what, exactly? I am not
willing to take your word for it. What, exactly, is the evidence that the
letter is derivative of the play?

> It seems that he wanted to mislead the reader into thinking that I was
> mistaken about the date of publication and that the play had to be
> derivative of the letter. That's deception, not a difference of
> opinion.

Your charge of "deception" is completely baseless. Now that you have
explained yourself, it seems clear that you are operating on the basis of
special rules of evidence that you would not apply generally. Are there
any attributions in the period that you accept? Do you, for instance,
accept that Spenser and Sidney wrote the works generally attributed to
them, or do you believe that all attributions are suspect?

> If you want to defend him, Terry, I guess you have as little
> confidence in his position as he does.

I don't sense any lack of confidence on Dave's part. As for me, you
advance a pretty bizarre notion: if I want to defend Dave then I must
think he is wrong. Do you also think that when I point out somebody's
errors I only do so because I think that person is correct?

Eric Ingman

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

David--

You seem to ask us to accept that your inclusion of the date affixed to the
Strachey letter and exclusion of the date of publication was an innocent
case of filling in blanks provided by others. However, some might believe
that you slanted the evidence (e.g. took a narrow interpretation of "dating
of the documents") for the purpose of refuting my sound argument.

I'd love to hear what other motivation you might have had for responding to
my post. Can you offer a credible alternative? Otherwise, it appears without
much ambiguity that you omitted crucial facts for the purpose of "winning"
instead of admitting the truth that there was ample time to produce a
Strachey letter after the publication of the play.

Was there motivation for deceit in the dating of the letter? Perhaps if the
letter was cribbed from others, they wished to provide the appearance that
the letter predated the performance of the play. That's not hard to figure.

It's sad that you also include another example in this unfortunate form: now
there were only two years available for incorporation of Shakespearean
material in the Strachey letter? But we know from your previous post that
The Tempest was available in 1611, and that's 14 years before the letter's
publication. True, they would have an easier time with a written copy of
the play, but you're not being straight with the facts.

You lose credibility by pretending to be certain of something that's in
doubt.

Eric Ingman

Dave Kathman wrote in message <37CA13...@ix.netcom.com>...

[text deleted to get past server]

Xr...@xpcr8.pcr.com

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, volker multhopp wrote:

> Symposium1 wrote:
>
> > >>Do we have a letter in Samuel Clemens's hand that says "I wrote the works of
> > >>Mark Twain"? Is there one in Tom Williams's hand that says that he wrote
> > >>the works of Tennessee Williams?
>

> > No, but we probably have the matter of some cancelled checks from publishers.
> > We can't say the same for Oxford or any of his contemporaries for the words of
> > Shakespeare, can we?
>

> Perhaps not cancelled checks, but we do have the not-well-explained
> 1000£ annuity from Elizabeth to Oxford.

Thomas Wilson in *The State of England* (pub. 1600)

"I have seen divers books which have been collected by secretaries
and counsellors of estate which did exactly show the several
revenues of every nobleman, knights and gentlemen through the
realm..."

"But conferring these books together I find great alterations almost
every year, so mutable are worldly things and worldly men's
affairs; namely the earl of Oxford, who in the year 1575 was rated
at L12,000 a year sterling, within 2 following was vanished and no
name of him found, having in that time prodigally spent and
consumed all, even to the selling of the stones, timber and lead of
his castles and houses. And yet he liveth and hath the first place
amongst earls, but the Queen is his gracious mistress and gives him
maintenance for his nobilities sake, but(to say the truth) out of
the bishopric of Ely, which since his decay could never see other
bishop."

Wilson's explanation was quite explicit. He even told us where the Queen
found the 1000L.

Rob

Remove the Xs to reply.

Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

On 28 Aug 1999, Kingpin444 wrote:

<snip>

> So perhaps we can
> stipulate that neither side can toss aside the others' evidence as
> non-existent. A quick example: apparently no sources for Shakespeare the
> voracious reader after the year of Oxford's death...? Now you can be a
> Stratfordian, but that fact requires some explaining that I've never even seen
> an attempt at. Yes you mention the Tempest letter but that's got its etiology
> in a bunch.

The explanation is simple. If the dates of composition are disputed, it
is not usually possible to determine, beyond all shadow of a doubt, who
was the borrower.

Imagine Oxford died 10 years earlier. Oxfordians would regard any
possible sources published after 1594 as derivative and it would be damn
near impossible to convince them of anything different.

Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

On 29 Aug 1999, Kingpin444 wrote:

<snip>

> Oxford had been through shipwrecks, too, so it's natural that he'd write about
> it.

There seems to be a complete lack of documentation for the claim that
Oxford went through any shipwrecks. (The assertation has been made before
on this newsgroup but no one has ever been able to support it.)

Eric Ingman

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote in message ...

>
>On 28 Aug 1999, Kingpin444 wrote:
>
><snip>
>

The thinking about Oxford's death and my standard of evidence is mistaken,
but I see where you're coming from. Apparently you refer to the take on the
Strachey letter and the dating of The Tempest. However, even an orthodox
volume like The Riverside Shakespeare's sources are those that Oxford could
have
read, so the Strachey letter is an exception in many respects that I'm sure
you appreciate. He wasn't an author like Holinshed, for example, or Ovid.
But your point is well taken that the evidence can't be reconformed to a
candidate without straining credulity.

However, that does not negate a compelling coincidence: Oxford's life and
Shakespeare's reading seem to end at the same time.

How do you explain that?

Eric Ingman

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Hey Richard you seem to be saying that Shakspere needs to be placed in a
literary context. Doesn't the First Folio's "Sweet Swan of Avon" do that
pretty well? How do you handle that one? The river runs right through the
town!

Groatsworth is way too obscure to offer anything about anyone. There's a
theory under every clause, and that's saying a lot.

Eric Ingman

Richard Kennedy wrote in message <37C86A82...@teleport.com>...
Grumman barks a while about my ignorance of Groatsworth,
and let's be certain what we're talking about. It is Groatsworth
and Groatsworth alone that puts a "supposed" Shakespeare
(his name is not given, but rests on a pun) in some sort of
literary context, coupled with three other men of disputed
identity, and the collection of these masked men written up by
someone whose identity is unknown for sure.

This is the bedrock for Stratfordians when they claim that their
man was some sort of writer. Otherwise, in all documents and
reports, the man appears only as a name on a piece of paper.
It would seem that no one knew him, no one saw him, and he
remains as a sort of ghost (as 50% of all Elizabethan writers
were unknown - Shakespeare is only another) whose identity
has been searched for these 200 years and more. And
Groatsworth is the best evidence of a flesh and blood man that
the Stratfordians can offer, and as you see it is a mud puddle
they are splashing about in.

robert...@my-deja.com wrote:

> You're really a moron, Richard. The Groatsworth is NOT
> direct evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was the
> poet Shakespeare, only that Shakespeare the poet was also
> an actor (and certainly not Marlowe and almost certainly not
> Oxford). You can't even get evidence right when getting it
> right would help your side more than misrepresenting
> it would.
>
> As for Shakespeare of Stratford's ever having been placed
> in a literary context, why do you consistently ignore
> the fact that he clearly knew knew Thomas Combe, a
> published writer (by a strange coincidence, Richard
> Field published a book of his within a week or so of
> his publishing Venus and Adonis)? I've told you this
> before. You ignored it then. Will you ignore it now,
> and continue to falsely claim that Shakespeare of
> Stratford was never documented in a literary context?
> I'll disregard all the times he was so documented but
> without his addressed coupled to his name.
>
> (Note to Greg: Camden lists "Shake-speare" as a standard
> hyphenated English family name with several other
> hyphenated family names similarly composed of two words.)
>
> --Bob G.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

--
MZ

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Volkretin:

> > You're claiming that Shakespeare copied from himself,

Nigel:

> No, no, no. He was inspired by a real shipwreck that happened in
> 1610. The event parallels of that shipwreck that Dave K has
> pointed out, not just the words that you blinker your vision
> on, are very significant corroborative evidence.

Even the words that Volkretin blinkers his vision on are very
significicant corroborative evidence because they are CLUSTERED
in Strachey and nowhere CLUSTERED in previous works of Shakespeare.
His bringing in the previous works of Strachey (of which there are
few or none, that I know of) is, of course, a red herring.

robert...@my-deja.com

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

> >> I am unclear that the Stratford man was a front for the author.
> >> He may simply have been in the vicinity adventitiously.
> >>
> >> Eric Ingman

> >Right, just there at the right time--with the right
> >credentials to be taken as the author by everyone
> >there at the time and afterwards for at least two
> >hundred years, as far as we know. That is, no
> >one ever said Will Shakespeare was not an author,
> >so far as we know from the records. In any case, at
> >some point someone consciously made Will a front for
> >Oxford (again, with no one known to have been
> >suspicious of it).
> >

> Shakspere was not "accepted" as the author at the time. His status as
> the author, as I'm sure you are aware, is a bit more problematic than
> that.

No, I'm not aware of that, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

> This is bad logic.
>
> 1. William Shakespeare was known to be an author.
> 2. No one said Will Shakspere was not an author.
> 3. Your conclusion: Shakspere = Shakespeare.

Not quite what I said.

> 1. William Shakespeare was known to be an author.
1a. He was taken to be the author by everyone whose opinion
we have a record of (e.g., whoever wrote the monument inscription,
Ben Jonson, Leonard Digges, William Basse) for at least two hundred
years.
> 2. No one said Will Shakspere was not an author.
> 2a. As they likely would have if he were not qualified to have been
the author--that is, if he were indeed illiterate, or clearly had the
wrong last name, etc.
> 3. My conclusion: if Oxford was Shakespeare, he used the Stratford
man as a front.

And if that is wrong, it is still certain that someone by 1623
consciously made the Stratford man a front for Oxford, as I said.

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Ingman continues to insist that the only thing in the
first folio which points to William Shakespeare of
Stratford as the author is Jonson's line "Sweet Swan of
Avon.

What about Digges' poem?

This is what Inmgan has to say:

(snip)

>
>Digges you misquote. The reference is to a moniment. The history of this word
>would not be a comfort to your argument; it referred at that time to "something
>that by its survival commemorates a ... person." Check your OED.
>

>As I'm sure you're aware, there is no content offered when you repeat that
>William Shakespeare was the author.
>

>But to repeat: "Sweet Swan of Avon" is still your best try for a contemporary
>attribution, and it's oblique at best.
>
>Eric Ingman

Does anyone have a clue as to why Ingman feels his definition of
"moniment" disqualifies it as a reference to William Shakespeare's
Stratford monument?

Here's the beginning of Digges poem, as it appears in the first folio:

TO THE MEMORIE of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare.

SHake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world they Workes: thy Workes, by which , out-live
They Tombe, they name must - when that stone is rent,
And Time sossolves they Stratford Moniment,
Here we alive shall view thee still. This Booke,
When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke
Fresh to all Ages

Clearly, the man is talking about a burial monument in Stratford.

The first line points out, yet again, that the author was a fellow with
Heminge and Condell - i.e., a member of their acting company.

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Excuse me, I should have said that there is nothing to put the Stratford
man in a literary context his whole life. When he was 7 years we have
the first notice of him as a literary figure, the first folio, 1623. In his
life, nothing. And as Ingman agrees, the Groatsworth is opaque of
information except that someone unknown is talking to other unknowns
about someone else who is unknown. The Stratfordians think it is a
wonderful proof of...something or other.

Eric Ingman wrote:

> > --Bob G.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>

> --
> MZ

--
MZ

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

In article <7qeu44$i5j$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>, "Eric Ingman" <ein...@lamb.com>
writes:

>The compelling coincidence is
>Oxford's death with the end of Shakespeare's reading. Do you have a
>counter-example? It would only take one to destroy the Oxfordian case, but I
>haven't seen it.
>
>So my standard for doubt is clear: name a source for the plays written after
>Oxford's death.

Sure, Strachey's letter. Also *The True Declaration of the Estate
of the Colony in Virginia*, 1610. Also Camden's *Remains of a Greater Work
Concerning Britain*, 1605, which was a source for Coriolanus.
A source for Two Noble Kinsman is *Inner Temple and Gray's Inn
Mask* by Beaumont, 1613. I believe Donald Foster has also tracked
Shakespeare's reading using the Shaxicon database through about
1612.

Jim

Greg Reynolds

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

Eric Ingman wrote:

> I'm sorry, you completely misunderstood. The compelling coincidence is

> Oxford's death with the end of Shakespeare's reading. Do you have a
> counter-example? It would only take one to destroy the Oxfordian case, but I
> haven't seen it.
>
> So my standard for doubt is clear: name a source for the plays written after
> Oxford's death.
>

> Eric Ingman

But, Eric, after a book is published, it can still be read. I can't fathom if
you're saying Oxford wrote Shakespeare's source material, or that books can
only be read until they are published. You have gone nowhere substantiating
that Shakespeare stopped reading in 1604, but Strats may enjoy the literacy you
give him--not all Oxfordians do that.
Greg Reynolds

Dave Kathman

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

So in other words, even though someone in Oxford's lifetime
explicitly said that the grant is to "give him maintenance for
his nobilities sake", they could have been lying. Great.

Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com

Richard Kennedy

unread,

Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99

to

It really makes not much difference is the Stratford man was an actor.
What is needed is to prove he was a writer. That seems easy enough to
understand. Why is that something the Stratfordians can't understand,
and can't accomplish?

Richard Nathan wrote:

> Volker believes that the references to William Shakespeare of
> Stratford being an actor come from Hemminge and Condell and their
> fellow actors - because this would enbable them to profit from the
> publication of the first folio.
>
> This doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Why would it be more profitable for Hemminge and Condell to pretend
> Shakespeare of Stratford was an actor? Why not just publish the plays
> anonymously? Or why not give the author any home town?
>
> Why was it profitable to make him come from Stratford????
>
> And who says Hemminge and Condell profited from the publication? The
> first folio was published at the expense of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, I.
> Smithweeke and W. Aspley. Who said Hemminge and Condell had a piece of
> the action.
>
> It is true that most of the evidence of Shakespeare being an actor
> involves, to some degree, other members of his acting company. But it
> would be damned near impossible for it NOT to involve other members of the
> acting company.
>
> In any event, much of the evidence mentions other members, but
> doesn't directly come from other members.
>
> We have the 1599 record of the Globe theater being in the occupation
> of William Shakespeare and others.
>
> We have the John Manningham lewd reference to Burbage and William
> Shakespeare. This story makes no sense if the man isn't named
> William.
>
> We he the 1603 documents conferring the title of King's Men on a company
> that includes a man named William Shakespeare.
>
> We Shakespeare named as a men who is granted scarlet cloth for King James
> entry into Longond in 1604.
>
> Would King James grant Oxford scarlet cloth to wear with common players?
>
> Volker will no doubt argue that all these references to William
> Shakespeare could be pseudonyms, but would pseudonyms be used on legal
> documents?
>
> And does it make ANY sense that a man with as many enemies as Oxford had
> would appear continually on the public stage, with no one commenting upon
> it?
>
> And what about the 1602 complanint by a member of the College of Heralds
> that the arms granted to the Shakespeare family should not have been
> granted to Shakspeare the player?

--
MZ

KQKnave

unread,

Aug 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/31/99

to

In article <7qeplh$map$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>
>Ingman continues to insist that the only thing in the
>first folio which points to William Shakespeare of
>Stratford as the author is Jonson's line "Sweet Swan of
>Avon.
>

Despite the evidence. The Folio says (all by Ben Jonson):

"This figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;"

Notice that it says "Shakespeare", not
"Oxenford."

Then in the commendatory poem:

"To draw no envy (Shakespeare) on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy Booke, and Fame:"

Again, he uses "Shakespeare", not "Oxenforde"

and

"Soule of the age!
The the applause! delight! the wonder of our stage!
My Shakespeare, rise;"

Again, "Shakespeare", not "Oxinford"

and

"Yet must I not give Nature all: Thy Art,
My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part."

Again, "Shakespeare", not "Oxforde"

and

"Look how the father's face
Lives in his issue, even so, the race
of Shakespeare's minde, and manners brightly shines
In his well-turned and true-filed lines."

Once again, "Shakespeare", not "Ox."

and finally

"Sweet Swan of Avon! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,"

Notice that it says "Sweet Swan of Avon",
not "Buttfucker of Boys".

Notice that "Shakespeare" is much closer
to the phrase "Shakespeare from Stratford upon
Avon" than it is to Oxenforde, Itinerant Tin Miner.

Jim

Richard Nathan

unread,

Aug 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/31/99

to

Volker believes that the references to William Shakespeare of

volker multhopp

unread,

Aug 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/31/99

to

Dave Kathman wrote:

> So in other words, even though someone in Oxford's lifetime
> explicitly said that the grant is to "give him maintenance for
> his nobilities sake", they could have been lying. Great.

You may call a euphemism avoiding embarassment to a public figure
"lying", but it's a common practice. How is giving "him maintenance for
his nobilities sake" even inappropriate, if the queen is rewarding him
for writing which cannot be acknowledged because he is noble?

--Volker

Eric Ingman

unread,

Aug 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/31/99

to

robert...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7qeu1r$ckm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>
>Even the words that Volkretin blinkers his vision on are very
>significicant corroborative evidence because they are CLUSTERED
>in Strachey and nowhere CLUSTERED in previous works of Shakespeare.
>His bringing in the previous works of Strachey (of which there are
>few or none, that I know of) is, of course, a red herring.
>
> --Bob G.
>

I'm not sure that's a good inference, Bob. Mightn't a cluster indicate the
borrower instead of the borrowed? I've not seen this point argued
persuasively either way.

Eric Ingman