Are you spacing out? You seem to suggest you know more than we do. Show us ocular for the aural proof, I say. Show it, don”t suggest it.
I know of no trusted prompter or two we can pinpoint as having committed this deed. These willing stooges who assist in your conspiracy. Who dey? Conveniently, namelessly, lost in the mists of time and bad bibliography.
BTW who do you think served and prepared meals for the priviliged? Packed their bags? Looked after their hawks and falcons?
The distance you project belies the need for interaction between the classes. You suppose some feudal idyll where a peasant doffs his cap, and an Earl ruthlessly ignores them or snubs them to the ground.
One day Oxford the 17th earl of that name, after embarassingly farting in front of the queen, (his mother) travels to Europe, where he documents his travels and dallyings with choir boys and hookers. Even brought the boy back to England with him. And no they would never show Shakesqueer in Anonymous. The story ends when queenie reminds him she”d forgotten the fartte.
You cited Rowe as a source for a comment above. So I see your Rowe and raise you an Aubrey. I’ll link those two tidbits.
Home alone cruising Anonymous comment threads. Obsessive compulsive behaviour at best. Who am I? Some Shakespearean superhero come to right the wrongs being said about his name?
Put down that blessed name or you shall perish!
Honour as Falstaff says is for idiots. And Kickass.
There is a small group of vigilantes doing the rounds on Shakespeare related materials on the web. Maybe I ‘m playing Sheriff. ‘Fug the judge and jury, if he looks guilty, shoot im’.
No I’m not playing sheriff.
Who cares? Or rather why should I care?
Professional scholars have to care. They hate this authorship question because it means distraction away from the real investigation. And that is NOT determinng who the author really was. Let’s say we all agree. Oxford wow. I see now.
Then how much more WHAT do the plays and poems become than what they already are?
I know this thread is 3 months old. And I’m talking to empty cyberspace. But is cyberspace ever too full? It’s infinite right? Does text age on the internet? (we might).
My problem is I’m addicted to comment threads. And the tug of war with gnarly Orksfordians and their disdain for me, and others as incredulous, as an opponent. We have to see the light. Or we have seen illumination and are too ashamed, scared, embarassed to admit it. Delicious!
Luckily I got some great wingmen that pile in when the going gets tough. Not that this is co-ordinated and agreed upon. One of them Bobby G has a whole theory to describe them. Rigidniks he calls them. Bloody slippery I call them.
Just when you pin down one argument they involve six others involving required reading. Usually a pdf or blog post. Sometimes an expensive vanity press purchase. And the same logic has gone into their books, and plausible they are; for a sentence or two, before you’re swallowing fiction, as often as they say the Orthodoxians do in their biogs. What’s good for the goose, I guess.
Anonymous has still to come out here in Amsterdam. Can”t wait! The Orthodoxians have set fire to the Emmerich camp and decisively dampened the jubilation with this bucket of cold water. Love the 5 biogs: anonymous review at blogshakespeare.
For those that are dealing with Authorship questions, one can”t just tell them to read the standard works or biographies. That too was their starting point, which they consciously rejected in favour of a fantasy of who they’d prefer it to be.
I feel like Harry Potter in the Order of the Phoenix, (some actors from Anonymous). The best defence is to give a patronum for yourself mentally before you begin. They can read your thoughts, like you know who). Then just null and void them with the
‘it makes no difference to the appreciation of the works who wrote them’ argument.
Follow with a cold shoulder.
NB This could lead to a whole other argument on whether biography is necessary to understanding the genesis of an author”s work.
But psychology and philosophy do have their place in understanding the author. And without any more enlightening evidence than what we have fantasy takes hold. And evidence is easy to find for the obvious fit.
For THEM, their first tactic is to take every biographical point of Sh”s life and family and subject it to scorn and derision. Possibilities become impossibilities. For us.
For THEM imagination land is the limit.Plausibility turns to fiction. But they”ll turn again tell you that”s what you do as a Stratfordian. You are a robot buying into the scholars orthodoxy.
Ad hominem slanders must flow off you like water from a lotus leaf. It”s a give and take exercise. Mud slinging always becomes a mud fight, where both contestants end up indistinguishable from the other.
Your intelligence and breadth of reading will be questioned.
How is it possible? Some rube conquered the London stage? From nothing to Shakespeare? It wasn”t. It”s obvious he”s a stooge. Well the good news for us is this stooge had friends, who liked him. And loved what he did.
And yes I wish one of them had recorded one single solitary conversation with him and copied it down. But they didn”t. Sir Aston Cockaine (not a friend per se and yes funny name) threatened he could have done it. In reality, ie the historical record we have. They seemed certain of who they were and recorded instead the plays and poems we”d expect them to leave.
Btw reading early modern manuscripts is a skill set. Not everyone can. So a little knowledge of what and how people read is required. Another point.
Your opponent in a comment thread may have a good knowledge of the period. Oxford”s conspiracy extends much further than the stooge Shakespeare. Deep into esoteric circles if you wish.
Much printed, much bought Shakespeare? They”ll explain that to you too. In fact every story you try to use to convince them they will twist, distort, or deny by noblesse oblige. A first and textbook fallen Earl, peer of the realm, secretly ekeing out a life in the theatre and poetry scenes of the 1570”s and 1580”s. That much is true.
Then in the 1580”s and 90”s lots of writers dedicated works to him. But of course they did. Patronage though empty-coffered, still has influence.
Evidence and proof for Orthodox biography is for the authorship question limited to the years that Sh lived for some bizarre methodological reason. And of course the printing of the First Folio is 20 years after Oxford”s death but orchestrated by those who still revered him.
Oxford”s death in 1604 is a huge setback to the Oxfordians. They counter by saying Shakespeare didn’t publish after that, demolishing the orthodox dates on the late plays, as well as tying themselves into knots pre-dating those same plays. Or their Jacobean influence!
15-20 years after his death, all the plays not yet in print, are put into the First Foilio. The monument in Stratford too is a botched attempt to big up the Shakespare boy. Put people on the wrong track about the true genius who wrote the works.
Again 20 years after his death. Who was this Oxford? A ninja immortal.
The cgi of London is worth the entry ticket for me.
A quick question though, and I know the declaration of RD, how many scientists have ever declared it to be someone else? How many Nobel prize winners? Only the ones for literature then? Did Samuel Beckett doubt? Did Pablo Neruda? Did Van Gogh?
As I type this post this comment was posted by Jeff Rowe over on the dispositio site.
Jeff Rowe says:
14/10/2011 at 11:21 am
Waste of time. Big picture still stands: Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare is still obvious. Its obviousness still convinced Twain, Whitman, John Adams, Orson Welles…the list is endless of minds far superior to all of yours and mine. I’ll stand behind them. I’m publishing my ebook, called AS YOU DON’T LIKE IT, wherein I reveal the author himself illuminating the penname prank, within the play As You Like It. I’ve dedicated it to Stratfordians and mostly Stratfordian professors. It will stand as my response. You’ll pay 99cents to read it, the day the movie comes out or you’ll be the last to get the prank that the greatest genius in the history of mankind (he beats Einstein to the theory of relativity in the play As You Like It) used the name William to COVER his FOREST. The play takes place in the Forest of ARDEN, the only play in all of Shakespeare, where we meet a character named William, with no last name. Thus, the only chance the author has to identify the prank. Go read the play from an Oxfordian point of view and see if you can decipher it for yourself. It’s very simple. All you do is switch the names to their alternate or original meanings and the final four acts of the play reveal this very discussion. Good luck. I have given Dr. Syme my email address. When you get stuck, get in touch with me and my book will help you.
Not my 99 cents! Back to the famous name argument:
All artists I love and don’t give a damn about the details of their lives. But their works!
Biography is interesting after the fact of having seen heard read the author. But before?!
Oxford as a candidate is the perfect artist nobleman bad guy smack in the middle of the theatre scene in the 1570’s + 80’s. Private theatre of the kind that has always played through history. Then the theatre world changed.
And stress this, a different kind of theatre was born in 1576. Public theatre grew out of the need for less bloody spectacles than torn up bulls and dogs and bears and monkeys. Though in the beginning blood and thunder decked the public stage.
The stories are what made it. For them a whole new generation of writers appeared to join the Nobility already busy penning their way into anonymous immortality.
Have we ever conjectured the nature of a thriving private theatre? i.e. the noblemen entertaining family and friends. What did the Herberts do of an evening, when they weren’t penning Elizabethan plays into literature. Writing plays that only they will appreciate. Oxford was Best at Comedy right, well he ain’t so funny now.
All well and good but an audience cannot just consist of your friends. It has to be unknown, untempered with knowledge of who you are. So you can play the character. You decipher your actor self from the equation. You’re there to make sure you hit your marks and pick up your cues. And don’t bump into the furniture. Unless required.
But then 2 very famous actors know this and yet, let me not think on’t, my gall doth rise at the thought. Their pulses keep as temporally as ours. If you tickle them surely they will laugh.
An artist needs to move something in his audience. That essence is what theatre-practioners are seeking. The dead silence of a packed house,
If this whole debate were considered a chemistry experiment. You wouldn’t get past, ‘Yes we have the evidence and proof we would like to hold up to the light’. Stage one.
Stage one for ANonymous is the film. This pdf is being sent to educators all over America. Un be frikkin believalable!