Shakes, it is with the the greatest reluctance, indeed, misgivings, that I enlist myself here as a Stratfordian. Reluctance because it's a touchier subject than abortion and it's broken up more marriages than religion. Misgivings because I'm no scholar either. I hate to argue borrowed theses and have nothing original to bring to the plate.
I've been reading some in the references you provided (and I'm going to keep going through them) and the Oxfordians have some remarkable and interesting material to draw from. Some of it (particularly the Hamlet references) are impossible to dismiss. I don't dismiss it, I don't argue it, but I do think 'not enough' for reasons I hope to get into before I run out of space here.
Shakespear's obscurity and lack of education (I use his name assuming him to be the author) doesn't bother me. There seems to be very little to set him apart from his contemporaries in terms of a lack of records. Very turbulent times followed him which i
Hah! Glad I saved it before I posted.
Very turbulent times followed him which included a complete supression of the theatre. I admit I'm put off by the assumption that genius cannot arise from what little we know of his origins. A lot of the argument of the Oxfordians is ad hominum and really bears the odor of condescension. Imagine that litigious little doof from the sticks writing about his betters with comprehension much less penetration much less genius. To me, his genius is so singular it would be hard to imagine coming from a person bred for generations and educated specifically for the purpose. It's inexplicable no matter where it came from. It's hard to imagine an insurance executive sitting in his office and writing some of the best American poetry of the 20th century, but there you have it. Hmm, Wallace Stevens, William Shakespear. WS, WS. Nah, couldn't be.
But the main reason I'm Oxford resistant is the same reason I buy the Warren Report. Three people c
Part 3
But the main reason I'm Oxford resistant is the same reason I buy the Warren Report. Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. For goodness sake, Ben Johnson knew the guy. Worked with the guy. I take his remarks on the man and the writer to be more dispositive than veiled allusions that could as easily be not veiled and merely allusive. Oxford authorship is build around a vast and airtight conspiracy. I worked in the theatre for 25 years and I'm telling you the only thing that's airtight is a producer's wallet. I bet it was no different in the 16th century.
I'm not saying it's impossible. It's not. I just don't believe it.
I was not familiar with this debate.
Until now.
GPAU 
Sluggo
Thanks for your comments. I have also found that this issue is radioactive, similar in intensity to religion and as divisive (luckily I have convinced my wife!). . . I also am uncomfortable in dismissing the Stratford case solely based on Will's apparent lack of higher learning - I am no academic snob, and believe in a broad, holistic view of intelligence. But by the same token, many Stratfordians have invested too much in a romanticized view of Stratford Will as this pure, noble savage who emerges into London as a very young man with a supernatural ability to exquisitely detail a world to which he was, at best, a peripheral outsider. . . next post. . .
. . . after my Oxfordian conversion, I read most of the plays again. And it struck me both how essential the manners of the Court are to drawing out his human insights, and how those characters outside the court are not written about in the same, knowing fashion.
But I realize this is just an impression. The playwright/poet/acting community was incestuous, Oxford had his hand in both production and writing, and I can easily see how those associated with the theater would give a wink and nod to his pseudonym. That being said, the Ben Jonson allusions to the writer have to be proven as "generic" to the author rather than Will-specific. Charlton Ogburn does a good job of this in The Man Who Was Shakespeare - a pamphlet summary of his larger book.
I also think the Sobran book "Alias Shakespeare" is worth a read, as he deconstructs the Sonnets from an Oxfordian perspective.
Sluggo, I am respectful of both sides to this debate, and open to new info, so thanks for plunging i
. . . so thanks for plunging in. SS
Just got back from running around and we're coming up to the sacred hour here, with the Superbowl. So I want to take another look at your source materials tomorrow before I post again on the subject. Too bad we can't get someone with a different claimant in this.
Well, I finished reading the Harpers material and realized I have very little to add. I was reassured by the Stratfordians and troubled by the Oxfordians. While I was swaying this way and that, I was aware I didn't read anything that that moved me from my original prejudice. The evidence of Oxford's authoriship is textual and circumstantial. If you accept that antiquity has hidden any overt references to his authorship, the same applies to Will.
I'd like to read the pamphlet you refer to on Jonsons remarks as my impression of his introduction to the first folio is that they were unambiguous. That and what he had to say in his private diary are pretty conclusive to me as they were friends and collegues in the theatre.
I'll lay my bodkin down with a version of what I had to say the other day. Anything is possible. I admit my prejudice for Will has something to do with the fact that I simply like the story of his authorship better than the alternatives. It also has to do
Part 2
It also has to do with the fact that I Googled and read some of Oxfords attributed verse. I didn't think he was the sweet swan of anywhere. But then I wouldn't.
I enjoy the controversy and I think anything that puts Shakespeare[tm] out there in this debased world is a blessing.
Thanks for opening the can.
Excellent post - Having visited the "Shakspear" mans house at Stratforde several times - I never could get a connect. De Vere provides it - and one does NOT have to be a conspiracy freak to see the clear evidence pointing to Edward de Vere - an Ever reader.
David - thanks for your comments. I too have visited Stratford and found it wanting. Conversely, having visited Hedingham Castle in Essex, where Oxford was born (http://www.hedinghamcastle.co.uk/), you can't help but feel the connection.
Mike - Much of Oxford's verse has been dated to his early teenage years, entirely consistent with a young Shakespeare coming into his own. . . of course, with Stratford Will, there is no early verse, just miraculously producing Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis from whole cloth. . .
. . . also, there isn't a reference anywhere during Will's lifetime that he ever presented himself to have written anything, whereas Oxford was noted in contemporaneous citations (Puttenham, Meres, and Peacham) as "the best in historie and comedie", yet he had no writings under his name. . .
I've been familiar with the debate for 35 years, and never particularly cared. I suspect much of it is elitism; Stratford Will came from the lower classes so of course he could not have produced anything of value.
Triticale - yes, I'm sure there are some that view it solely from that perspective. I see it more in terms of what was the author's experiences; Mark Twain couldn't have written Huck Finn if he hadn't seen the Mississippi, Melville couldn't have written Moby Dick if he hadn't taken to sea. . .
Wow. I've heard of the authorship controversy before, but it always bored me to tears - until now.
A man from humble origins can most certainly prove his unbridled genius to the world when he, by the sheer power of his imagination, illuminates his thoughts through art.
I think of an author who was 18 when she published her first novel about a thirty-ish women, who lived in the countryside of England, coping with the death of her husband.
She had never lost a husband by death, never been married, was never a thirty year old woman and had never been to England. The publishing world was amazed at the authentic vibe her story generated.
There is a lot to be said for imagination.
However, no genius can write about things he can not know, such as intimate, personal facts he is not privy to. That jurisdiction belongs to omniscience, not intellect.
Toodles.
RE: William Shakespeare's true identity
Two more modern books to read on the subject and by far the two best I have found are:
(1) ALIAS SHAKESPEARE
by Joseph Sobran
Amazon.com
The debate over the true authorship of Shakespeare's plays has raged for more than a century, fueled by fans like the National Review's Joseph Sobran, who cannot accept that a country bumpkin like William Shakespeare could ever have written the rich plays full of high literary references, intimate knowledge of court politics, and familiarity with personalities in foreign lands. Like many before him, Sobran fingers Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Where Sobran makes a useful addition to the so-called Oxfordian debate is his sober, Holmes-like laying out of the evidence, especially as found in two useful appendices that contain the full text of the real Shakespeare's flatfooted will, contrasted with specimens of Oxford's own acknowledged poetry, which contains many locutions similar to those f
Here is the second book:
The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality
by Charlton Ogburn
Hardcover: 892 pages
Publisher: EPM Communications, Inc.; 2nd edition (October 1, 1992)
ISBN: 0939009676
Not Scholarly? I Beg to Differ, January 22, 2005
Reviewer:
Mark Alexander (Woodside, CA USA)
It's funny that this book would be described as non-scholarly, when in fact the Foreward is written by one of the great living history scholars, David McCullough, who wrote the best sellers JOHN ADAMS, TRUMAN, and GREAT BRIDGE. And what is McCullough's verdict on this book?
"[T]his brilliant, powerful book is a major event for everyone who cares about Shakespeare. The scholarship is surpassing--brave, orginal, full of surprise--and in the hands of so gifted a writer it fairly lights of the sky."
That is a real scholar's judgment on the scholarship in this book. Enjoy. It is one of the best and addictive mysteries ever written.
Dan - I have read Sobran's book and found it compelling - how Stratfordians explain the autobiographical references to age, lameness, the fair youth, etc has always been very weak. Sobran presents a clear case for Oxford, although he starts off the book somewhat defensively.
As for Ogburn, I read his pamphlet which is a summary of the book you reference, "The Man Who Was Shakespeare".
foundation life insurance company foundation life insurance company foundation life insurance company // principal life insurance co principal life insurance co principal life insurance co
gambling magazine online gambling magazine online gambling magazine online. casino casino gambling game links online online sports casino casino gambling game links online online sports casino casino gambling game links online online sports.
Commenting by HaloScan
