tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post5998959266125369613..comments2024-03-04T11:22:53.502-05:00Comments on Fifty Books Project 2023: Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James ShapiroFifty Books Projecthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640286429668778869noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-14931009361118546072014-07-27T19:46:23.316-04:002014-07-27T19:46:23.316-04:00Brittany,
As far as I'm concerned, there'...Brittany,<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing really else to delve into. There are plenty of actually interesting authorship questions regarding Shakespeare though, including the question of who, and to what extent, his later plays are collaborations with other playwrights. You should read The Shakespeare Wars if you haven't.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12500451355263180972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-68223784282351247372014-07-21T19:47:08.233-04:002014-07-21T19:47:08.233-04:00"Mikael"
I tried the link and had no pr..."Mikael"<br /><br />I tried the link and had no problems. You can also google the monograph yourself. It's only 60 pages. I suspect you didn't try very hard, or if you did, but didn't like what you found. Too bad. I had hoped you were better than the average close-minded Oxie.Ben Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463475213955149406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-3433519046423870462014-07-21T12:42:24.332-04:002014-07-21T12:42:24.332-04:00Mikael: If you are interested in pursuing the case...Mikael: If you are interested in pursuing the case for Hand D, you really ought to review all of the material at: <br />http://oxfraud.com/HND-Hand-D-home<br />Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587779351421178221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-14964105685085983732014-07-21T12:39:38.106-04:002014-07-21T12:39:38.106-04:00"Only the closed-minded have certainty."..."Only the closed-minded have certainty." -- Howard Schumann<br /><br />Speaking of myths that have outlived their usefulness. ahem. This article is bs. Of course, since Will is so obviously a fraud, we have to dumb him down. positing that he was a plagiarist without any new ideas, a collaborationist who couldn't write a play without the help of geniuses like Fletcher. Shakespeare was without doubt a genius and his name was Edward de Vere, his genius carefully nurtured by education, travel, and experience. -- Howard SchumannMark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587779351421178221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-63429654656115672782014-07-21T01:18:24.605-04:002014-07-21T01:18:24.605-04:00Benjamin: thanks for the link, unfortunately I cou...Benjamin: thanks for the link, unfortunately I could only read samples from the article, though. Maybe it was enough though.<br /><br />My impression in short is in line with Dr Wilson R Harrison's comment on the strained efforts to link the long-spurred 'a' on the Blackfriars mortgage to hand D; "It is simply one of the variant methods of writing 'a' in the Secretary hand, and in Schoenbaum's illustration of the Secretary hand it can be sen along with other equally bizarre formations. As evidence of common authorship, it is lightweight indeed".<br /><br />Thompson makes the rather amusing speculation that WS in his later years suffered some kind of nervous condition so that he could not write his name properly when he was under stress, but to write hand D was obviously much easier and not so 'embarrassing'. So much for 'paleography'. Quote:<br /><br />"Now I think that there can be little doubt that this sudden failure was due to something more than weakness of health, and moreover, that Shakespeare was himself conscious of inability to control his hand when attempting a curve in reverse action, as just described, under embarrassing conditions, as in the present execution of his will; and hence that failure was inevitable"<br /><br />All in all, as I see it: wishful thinking that somehow is raised to the level of proof. The usual Stratfordian method, in other words.Mikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12708930624195946172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-10929078428437835052014-07-20T12:19:19.238-04:002014-07-20T12:19:19.238-04:00Mikael,
You really need to see Thompson’s analy...Mikael, <br /><br />You really need to see Thompson’s analysis comparing signatures to Hand D. (BTW, did you know there is only one surviving signature for Marlowe, made on a will in 1585 that he witnessed?) <br /><br />I offer this recommendation in hopes that you’ll not be like the many Oxfordians who too willingly accept the type of shallow refutation of the handwriting such as that proffered by Tony Pointon (App E of his book). For example, minimizing Pollard's collection of articles (1923) with a dismissive "he [Pollard] and his collaborators got through a mountain of detail." <br /><br />Apparently a mountain of detail that Tony preferred not to dig into.<br /><br />Instead, Pointon dismisses Thompson’s analysis (in Pollard) as work a "supposed expert," and then boldly, and with not the least bit of circumspection, declares: "There are, in total, seventy-six letters in the "signatures" and none of them looks [sic] like any of the others." For this bold pronouncement Tony offers no analysis, no support. Instead he simply says the ‘a’s don't look alike (no reason, just that Tony thinks so), the ‘h’s are different, "and so on." Tony simply waves off the ‘a’s and ‘h’s and then summarily dismisses the other letters with flippant "and so on."<br /><br />So I recommend you do some homework of your own and consult Thompson's original work, if only to see pp. 20-25 where he rigorously, painstakingly, analyzes the individual letters (where Tony never made it past "a" and "h"). BTW, the whole article only 63 pages long.<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=UdFAAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />Let me know what you find. And remember, this is the old stuff. There’s much more recent analysis of the handwriting that I can direct you to, if interested.Ben Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463475213955149406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-19140650074731616812014-07-20T01:35:22.783-04:002014-07-20T01:35:22.783-04:00The "Hand D" theory is really something ...The "Hand D" theory is really something extra. Here is the Stratford man's (collected) hand writing:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare's_handwriting#mediaviewer/File:Shakespeare_sigs_collected.png<br /><br />And here is Hand D:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_More_(play)#mediaviewer/File:Sir_Thomas_More_Hand_D.jpg<br /><br />To claim that they were written by the same hand not only takes great imagination, a certain dose of wishful thinking has to be added as well. But in the world of Stratfordia, where evidence are practically non-existing, such obstacles are easy to overcome. Thus Alfa here proclaims it as a full proof of authorship: "the man who wrote the Hand D additions was unquestionably the Bard and paleography welds the two together". With Henry James' words we have here another example how the biggest and most successful fraud ever is again practiced on a patient world.Mikaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12708930624195946172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-2571794793191995172014-07-17T12:37:42.687-04:002014-07-17T12:37:42.687-04:00Gosh. York University lets students vote on matter...Gosh. York University lets students vote on matters of historical fact? How about science?<br /><br />"For the record, in a final straw vote, Adam and Eve’s candidacy had the most support though the idea that the earth could have been colonized by aliens finished a strong second. Needless to say, the candidacy of evolutionary biology finished near the bottom of the pack."Nat Whilkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06128783557722822596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-20679439821660620972014-07-15T09:56:04.265-04:002014-07-15T09:56:04.265-04:00What's worse about Howie's last post is ho...What's worse about Howie's last post is how Oxie's insist on comparing themselves to the true paradigm breakers across the ages. For them, establishing Ox as author of the canon would be at least equal, if not surpass, Galileo's truth. And, of course, each Oxie fancies himself a Little Galileo, pursuing truth in the face of great adversity, as they bravely stand up against a malevolent cabal of omnipotent college professors set on enriching themselves at the expense of truth. Oh brave new world that hath such Oxies in it. So heroic, so selfless, so wise that only they can see the truths concealed from all other mortals who linger, sadly unblessed, by the vision miraculously endowed unto only the happy few who call themselves Oxfordians.Ben Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463475213955149406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-85362642810676763292014-07-15T04:23:00.290-04:002014-07-15T04:23:00.290-04:00>>Remember when folks were talking about how...>>Remember when folks were talking about how the world was round when everyone knew it was flat. <br /><br />Ironically, this is yet another myth from the list of myths that Oxfordians cite in an attempt to support the idea that crackpot theory can be metamorphosed into fact. No one ever really believed the earth was flat for the simple reason that if you climb to 500' near the sea and look at the far horizon, you can see it isn't.<br /><br />Oxford died before a third of the work was written. Oxfordians have no satisfactory explanation of the <b>fact </b>that Shakespeare's work continued to develop and reflect trends in Jacobean theatre as its language, focus and genre diverged from the Elizabethan theatre which preceded it.<br /><br />Almost all English Faculty academics accept that the Hand D additions to the manuscript copy of Sir Thomas More, held in The British Library, were written by the canon playwright. Closing the loop, professional handwriting ties it to the witnessed signatures of William Shakespeare on documents which include a will containing bequests to his fellow players. The man who signed the will was unquestionably Will from Stratford, the man who wrote the Hand D additions was unquestionably the Bard and paleography <a href="http://oxfraud.com/HND-Hand-D-home" rel="nofollow"> welds the two together.</a>Oxfordians have, laughably, tried to dismiss these witnessed signatures and even gone so far as claiming that they demonstrate the author of them was illiterate. Almost to a man, they base all this analysis on a copy of the signatures, engraved for a book published at the start of the 19th century rather than the signatures themselves.<br /><br />If you follow the relations between the Digges family and the Shakespeare family you will find a tight loop linking Digges' stepfather to Shakespeare and young Leonard's commentary on Will's work and career and it's success. But you won't find his introduction to the <b>Second</b> Folio edition discussed by Oxfordians.<br /><br />The focus in many English Faculties, far from attempting to smother the authorship debate, is now on discriminating between hundreds of different Elizabethan and Jacobean authors, whose work is far more collaborative than previously thought. There is absolutely no place for Oxford's feeble artistic talent in the new genome they are building. He figures nowhere.<br /><br />Oxfordianism is over. Wrong, and not even that wromantic. <br /><br />Almost all of it is reductionist drivel. An attempt to fit Shakespeare's Size 12 feet into Oxford's Size 4 shoes. <br /><br />Far from Cinderella, Edward de Vere, with his mediocre poetry and dull, dull prose, barely qualifies as an Ugly Sister.Alfahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316581409074770646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-53924080677909318812014-07-14T17:48:00.916-04:002014-07-14T17:48:00.916-04:00Some people are really obsessed with having secret...Some people are really obsessed with having secret knowledge. Remember when folks were talking about how the world was round when everyone knew it was flat. <br /><br />Weren't there also some other crazies who were trying to tell people that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the Earth being the center of the universe?<br /><br />Loonies!<br /><br />Speaking of starting a Shakespeare class, Professor Don Rubin of York University conducted a recent course in Authorship studies at York. He did not take a position toward one candidate or another but simply let students discover the facts on their own and do their own research. <br /><br />The students in his class this past year looked closely at both recently published “Doubt” books as well as at the Hope and Holston history of the subject, The Shakespeare Controversy.<br /><br />They also spent time on the First Folio, reading Venus and Adonis and seeing several videos. The centerpiece of the course was attendance at the authorship conference in Toronto. In lieu of a final exam, the students (in small groups) had to conduct an open debate in front of the class arguing for one of the authorship candidates. <br /><br />For the record, in a final straw vote, Oxford’s candidacy had the most support though the idea that the works could have been group-written finished a strong second. Needless to say, the candidacy of William of Stratford finished near the bottom of the pack.Howard Schumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00691406515800937764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-40255521570573718652014-07-14T16:55:25.825-04:002014-07-14T16:55:25.825-04:00Chris,
I think the most intriguing observation i...Chris, <br /><br />I think the most intriguing observation in your review is some people's obsessions with having secret knowledge that the world doesn't or refuses to acknowledge. Once my classroom got derailed into a crazy discussion of the Illuminati, and I watched 30 seniors become enthralled and enchanted with another senior who became the Grand Master of Knowledge of Illuminati. I found it so fascinating that these kids (who were struggling students very much in danger of not graduating from a struggling school) trusted another kid (again, one in danger of not graduating) to tell them the secrets of the world.<br /><br />I checked out the DORD list of notable signatures (https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories), and while there are many impressive people (2 supreme court justices and many professors), there is only one professor of English on the list. If the question really is that important of a question, why aren't English professors (who can argue in crazy minute details about so many different things) in on it or interested in it at all?<br /><br />Are you planning on delving more into this? I'm considering petitioning to start a Shakespeare class and that's the only way I could see myself falling down this rabbit hole. Brittanyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11505849394031450120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-13620175553426397922014-07-13T17:31:30.723-04:002014-07-13T17:31:30.723-04:00Better watch it Chris. Psi is gonna get you, Gangh...Better watch it Chris. Psi is gonna get you, Gangham-style.Brent Waggonerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05121696882391723790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-24049766902254865712014-07-13T11:01:33.208-04:002014-07-13T11:01:33.208-04:00Hi Roger. Nice to see you out and about again.
I ...Hi Roger. Nice to see you out and about again.<br /><br />I must say this ever-growing chorus of doubters must be made up of extremely quiet people. And judging by the hoary old arguments here, Oxfordian theory seems to have disintegrated into nothing more than a series of unconnected and unsupported assertions.<br /><br />You must have changed things pretty radically to take account of all the work that's being done on Jacobean theatre. Can you direct me at a good summary of where things stand currently on issues like the dating of Shakespeare's Jacobean plays?Alfahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316581409074770646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-74324109872763900172014-07-13T09:41:41.650-04:002014-07-13T09:41:41.650-04:00You might want to check the latest edition of Shap...You might want to check the latest edition of Shapiro's book, the paperback published April 2011. The mistakes you have been ranting about for the past three years have been corrected. Have you corrected your confusion of Mary Tudor with Mary Queen of Scots in your 2001 dissertation yet?Tom Reedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601126300618496629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-70300368471827200432014-07-12T23:41:12.900-04:002014-07-12T23:41:12.900-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.psihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04134579876460211149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-72957669136857214122014-07-12T23:40:53.267-04:002014-07-12T23:40:53.267-04:00The reviewer should be careful about throwing abou...The reviewer should be careful about throwing about insults about people he has never met. If Shapiro's book is the best that mainstream Shakespeareans can come up with to defend their sinking paradigm, then it is no wonder that an ever growing number of Shakespeare lovers have chosen to depart from the popular academic mythologies about the bard. Here are a few useful resources to put Shapiro's factually sloppy and intellectually dishonest book in some larger perspective:<br /><br />Here we see that Shapiro cannot even get the basic facts straight. He invents hyphens were even a fourth grader can see they don't exist and then builds long arguments on his own fantasies:<br /><br />http://shake-speares-bible.com/2010/04/18/james-shapiro-and-the-notorious-hyphen/<br /><br />This review illustrates further instances of Shapiro's rather shocking disregard for reason and casual attitude towards basic factual questions:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Contested-Will-Who-Wrote-Shakespeare/product-reviews/1416541632/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#RERTJ0A73ONJApsihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04134579876460211149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-21495517753679966722014-07-11T20:31:25.166-04:002014-07-11T20:31:25.166-04:00Howard: Ye writ: “A number of these plays soundi...Howard: Ye writ: “A number of these plays sounding suspiciously like Shakespeare supposedly have no author while a known playwright, Oxford , singled out [by] Meres as ‘best for comedy’."<br /><br />There you go again. Ox is default setting, despite zero evidence. That empty mantra, “Must be Oxford.” <br /><br />Think we should set it to music:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42_vCV2_gf0&feature=kp<br /><br />Who is the earl with a wounded name? <br />Ox is the earl with a wounded name! <br />Who is the earl with a walk that’s lame? <br />Ox is the earl with a walk that’s lame! <br /><br />Wounded name!<br />Walk that’s lame!<br /><br />Must be Oxford,<br />Must be Oxford,<br />Must be Oxford, Earl de Vere<br /><br />Laugh track fades . . . . <br /><br />Meanwhile, ‘tis best I not approach your dreadful misreading of H5 just now. Your wretched abuses there deserve a serious response, since you are wrong on so many levels.Ben Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463475213955149406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-56079256028218800132014-07-11T19:37:47.525-04:002014-07-11T19:37:47.525-04:00Howard,
Meres (1598) did not single out Oxford. ...Howard,<br /><br />Meres (1598) did not single out Oxford. Rather, he mentioned Ox once, where he was first, by rank, in very long list:<br /><br />“So the best for Comedy amongst vs bee Edward, Earle of Oxforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Master Rowley, once a rare scholler of learned Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes, one of Her Maiesties Chappell, eloquent and wittie Iohn Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Mundye, our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathway, and Henry Chettle.<br /><br />And guess who else is on the list? I won’t tell you. I’ll let you figure it out for yourself.<br /><br />There’s more, too. But I’ll save for later. I think it’s best I spoon feed you, one bite at a time. (And ya, ya, ya, I broke my promise. But you are so exceptional that I must make exceptions.)<br /><br />BTW, are you just indiscriminately recycling Ox pablum because you don’t know any better? Or are you doing this deliberately. IIRC, I’ve seen you name before elsewhere on the internet, so you’re not a newbie and thus should know better.Ben Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463475213955149406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-38417774068998010182014-07-11T19:15:47.196-04:002014-07-11T19:15:47.196-04:00Mark -
Between the mid 1560s through 1588 many or...Mark - <br />Between the mid 1560s through 1588 many original plays are recognized by scholars as "source material"for the Shakspeare plays. But they are either anonymous or written by an unknown who produced one or two works then sank into oblivion.<br /><br />Eva Turner Clark did a comprehensive study, looking at the titles of all the plays recorded by the Court Revels, then compared them to the titles of of the Shakespeare canon. Her study lists hundreds of such titles.<br /><br />A number of these plays sounding suspiciously like Shakespeare supposedly have no author while a known playwright, Oxford , singled out my Meres as "best for comedy."<br /><br />A few of them are:<br /><br />A History of the Duke of Millayn and the Marquis of Mantus - Two Gentlemen of Verona<br /><br />The Jew - The Merchant of Venice<br />Portio and Demonrates - The Merchant of Venice<br /><br />Ptoleme - Antony and Cleopatra<br /><br />There are much more but I cannot spend the time to list more than a few.<br /><br />Howard Schumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00691406515800937764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-75922405543113192762014-07-11T19:00:31.852-04:002014-07-11T19:00:31.852-04:00Howard...sorry, but I don't see any of that as...Howard...sorry, but I don't see any of that as being circumstantial evidence tending to prove the proposition that Oxenforde was Shakespeare. If the circumstances of the play parallel Oxenforde's life [which I doubt, as the purported bed trick scenario isn't reported until years after his death*], there is nothing that shows that it is necessarily autobiographical rather than biographical.<br /><br />As for the settings of the plays and the status of the characters therein, other playwrights of the day wrote similarly. Are you one of those Oxenfordians who think that de Vere wrote under multiple pseudonyms.<br /><br />* The first mention of the bed trick is as follows: “…the last great Earle of Oxford, whose lady [Anne Cecil] was brought to his Bed under the notion of his Mistris, and from such a virtuous deceit she [Susan Vere, Countess of Montgomery] is said to proceed.” – Traditional Memoirs of the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth & King James by Francis Osborne, Esq., 1658. So, there was some gossip reported for the first time in 1658,which said that the alleged bed trick resulted in the birth of a daughter, not a son. Posthumous gossip, and yet Oxenfordians treat this as if it were proven fact...another neat double standard they are practicing.Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587779351421178221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-2743082963646989072014-07-11T18:23:46.634-04:002014-07-11T18:23:46.634-04:00Howard,
Mark Johnson asked you for some specific ...Howard,<br /><br />Mark Johnson asked you for some specific evidence to support your contention that "that many Shakespeare-like plays were written in the 70s and 80s and performed at court without attribution."<br /><br />I’d also like you to address the rest of what you said, “The Hamlet referred to by Nashe was most likely an earlier version of the play written by Oxford.” Based on what? (Let me guess, because it’s so autobiogtraphical? But I thought Ox got the story came from Belleforest—when he read it in the original French. So how could it be autobiographical if Ox copied the story from Belleforest?)<br /><br />And BTW, I’m, perfectly happy to agree with you that there’s no proof of an “Ur-Hamlet” by Kyd. BUT, something Hamletesque existed in 1590s, and likely more than one, per Nashe, and that Henslowe recorded seeing at least one of them in his diary, and that Lodge described the infamous Hamlet ghost scene. So plenty of raw material for Shakes to work with.<br /><br />And, again, what is your basis for claiming Nashe was referring to Oxford’s Hamlet(s)?Ben Hackmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463475213955149406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-59244482668006259252014-07-11T18:06:06.403-04:002014-07-11T18:06:06.403-04:00Mark - I think the following qualifies as circumst...Mark - I think the following qualifies as circumstantial evidence. references to events that are paralleled in Oxford's life. <br /><br />For example, in ALL’S WELL THAT ENDS WELL<br /><br />Oxford became a ward of court in Lord Burghley's household at the age of twelve. Oxford left his widowed mother to become a royal ward. <br /><br />Bertram left his widowed mother to become a royal ward. <br /><br />Oxford’s guardian's daughter fell in love with him and wanted to be married. <br /><br />Bertram’s foster-sister fell in love with him and wanted to be married. <br /><br />Oxford was of more noble birth than Anne and did not favor marriage. <br /><br />Bertram argued he was of too high birth for marriage. <br /><br />Following an ailment, marriage was agreed and the Queen consented to Oxford’s marriage. <br /><br />Following an illness, the King consented to the marriage. <br /><br />The wedding was at first postponed, no reason was given. <br /><br />Bertram attempted to change the King's mind regarding his marriage. <br /><br />After the wedding, Oxford suddenly left the country. <br /><br />After the wedding, Bertram suddenly left the country. <br /><br />A reconciliation between Oxford and Anne is contrived by switching his bed companion for his wife. As a result, a son is born. Confirmation of this reconciliation appears in The Histories of Essex by Morant and Wright: 1836. <br /><br />A reconciliation between Bertram and Helena is contrived by switching his bed companion for his wife. As a result, a son is born.<br /><br />More evidence:<br /><br />Of the 37 plays, 36 are laid in royal courts and the world of the nobility. The principal characters are almost all aristocrats with the exception perhaps of Shylock. From all we can tell, Shakespeare fully shared the outlook of his characters, identifying fully with the courtesies, chivalries, and generosity of aristocratic life. <br /><br />Many lower class characters in Shakespeare are introduced for comic effect and given little development. Their names are indicative of their worth: Snug, Stout, Starveling, Dogberry, Simple, Mouldy, Wart, Feeble, etc. <br /><br />The history plays are concerned mostly with the consolidation and maintenance of royal power and are concerned with righting the wrongs that fall on people of high blood. His comedies are far removed from the practicalities of everyday life or the realistic need to make a living. Shakespeare's vision is a deeply conservative, feudalistic and aristocratic one. <br /><br />When he does show sympathy for the commoners as in Henry V speech to the troops, however, Henry is also shown to be a moralist and a hypocrite. He pretends to be a commoner and mingles with the troops in a disguise and claims that those commoners who fought with the nobility would be treated as brothers. <br /><br />But we know there was no chance of that ever happening in feudal England. What can scarcely be overlooked is a compassionate understanding of the burdens of kingship combined with envy of the carefree lot of the peasant, who free of the "peril" of the "envious court", "sweetly…enjoys his thin cold drink" and his "sleep under a fresh tree's shade" with "no enemy but winter and rough weather". This would come naturally to a privileged nobleman.Howard Schumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00691406515800937764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-7733287699175427542014-07-11T16:49:58.300-04:002014-07-11T16:49:58.300-04:00Howard...what is the specific evidence for your co...Howard...what is the specific evidence for your contention that "that many Shakespeare-like plays were written in the 70s and 80s and performed at court without attribution." Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587779351421178221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-934096967055481899.post-68958866929424349812014-07-11T16:48:16.914-04:002014-07-11T16:48:16.914-04:00Howard....you're welcome, but I beg to differ ...Howard....you're welcome, but I beg to differ with you when you say that all of the evidence at issue is circumstantial in this matter. In fact, the documentary evidence for the orthodox case qualifies as direct evidence. There is also circumstantial evidence for the orthodox case. I'd be interested to see what you can produce that qualifies even as circumstantial evidence for Oxenforde, as I have yet to see any such evidence brought forward.<br /><br />As to the old age of the sonnet author, the literary imagery of "old age/impending death" was a common convention of the time and nothing unique to Shakespeare. First, we should go back to the source and visit Petrarch.<br /><br />Petrarch's Sonnet lxxxi [to Laura after death]<br /><br />Dicemi spesso il mio fidato speglio,'<br />L'animo stanco e la cangiata scorza<br />E la scemata mia distrezza e forza:<br />Non ti nasconder piu: tu se pur veglio.<br /><br />My faithful glass, my weary spirit, and my wrinkled skin, and my decaying wit and strength repeatedly tell me: It cannot longer be hidden from you, you are old. [See also Sonnet cxliii].<br /><br />[As an aside, Shakespeare's Sonnet 22 appears to contain a certain reference to this poem in particular, starting, "My glass shall not persuade me I am old."]<br /><br />Following this traditional Petrarchian source, we have Elizabethan poets calling themselves old when they most decidedly are not. Daniel, in his 'Delia' series (1591), says,<br /><br />"My years draw on my everlasting night,...<br />my days are done [xxiii]. <br /><br />Daniel was 29 at the time.<br /><br />Richard Barnfield, at about age 20, wrote in his 'Affectionate Shepherd' (1594), <br /><br />Behold my gray head, full of silver hairs, <br />My wrinkled skin, deep furrows in my face.<br /><br />Drayton, in the sonnet 'Idea' (1594), says,<br /><br />Looking into the glass of my youth's miseries,<br />I see the ugly face of my deformed cares<br />With withered brows all wrinkled with despair;...<br />Age rules my lines with wrinkles in my face.<br /><br />Drayton was 31 at the time he wrote that.<br /><br />Richard Barnfield presents quite the interesting case. "In the person of the shepherd, Daphnis, Barnfield praises the beauty of the boy Ganymede, warns him that this beauty is perishable, declares his love for him, and laments that he has a rival in a woman whose love is light. Moreover, he advises him to marry, warns him against profligacy, expatiates on the courtier's fawning for his prince's favour, and on change and decay....And he is even more emphatic than Shakespeare in asserting that his own years are past the best....[though he] was about 20...." [Excerpt from Hyder Rollins, Variorum II]<br /><br />So why should literary works that depend on imagery of old age and death be considered unique to Oxenforde, and why must we believe that the poet of the Shakespeare Sonnets was necessarily old?Mark Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587779351421178221noreply@blogger.com