Shakespeare by another name…

is a travesty of nature.We have the man with the name wearing the mantle. Fact. The authorship question for the Stratfordians is whether he deserves to wear that mantle. For the truly orthodox Stratfordians the notion that it isn’t he is preposterous. Beneath contempt, infra dig.

All other candidates imho seek to denigrate our true, reigning candidate. He is a puppet being used for others ends. And so they attack all the factual evidence on our parts and fit their particular candidate to that same evidence or reconstrue it in some other light.

From an anti-stratfordian viewpoint, this is their starting bias. Attack what is known about our candidate and play up the bad parts that evidence may suggest. eg shakespeare the successful poet and playwright (as in he received the monies for their success) becomes Shakspere the bad actor and grain merchant.

Our man is conspiring with some other genius who wishes to hide their light under a bushel and keep his genius behind his mask. For whatever reasons that may be?

Immortalising the one’s that he caused physical and mental anguish in the very explosive life he lead, according to Mark Anderson, author of the book, which coincidentally is the title of our post. We are reading Mark’s book and appendix C is hilarious. Argumentation of the iffiest degree. But who does the historical record back up?

Appendix C deals with the chronology of his plays (Oxenforde died in 1604) and Mark defends back-dating Macbeth, by moving its premiere to the Globe Theatre in 1611. Now this alone is bravado of the first degree.

Historical theatrical anecdote has the play first being performed in 1604/5 for the new King, James the First and Sixth of Scotland. Here was a King with traumas worthy of Oxford’s, even if he was Elizabeth’s bastard son. He was also an expert in demonologie and witches and tobacco, having written pamphlets and books on the subjects.

Even Mark’s argument about Robert Garnett’s use of the Doctrine of Equivocation in 1606, strikes me as being too late for Sh to have written Makkers. This play imho cannot have been anything else than a calling card playing to the new King’s interests.

James had even brought his own player Laurence Fletcher from Scotland, who became one of the King’s Men. The troupe Sh had belonged to since they were the Lord Chamberlain’s Men under Elizabeth 1st. What role he played is unknown.

The story goes that Macbeth so displeased James that he ordered it banished from the stage. Apparently theatrical lore has it that the boy actor playing Lady M. succumbed to a fever and Shakespeare himself had to step in. The curse of Macbeth. This information is dealt with best by Henry Paul in his the Royal play of Macbeth.

Besides James interest in withcraft and demons, he liked short plays and his Stuart ancestors were being flattered. He was watching it apparently with his brother in law King Christian of Denmark at Hampton Court August 7th, 1606. James and Christian were quite the pair when they got together.

Surely the Danes or the English have an account of such an event somewhere in their archives. It shouldn’t be too hard to verify or deny should it? The curse of macbeth link is to a conspiracy website, so there’s no telling what little gnome personally told them the secret one trippy day. (Gnomeo and Juliet. Oh Gno! ). The closest we’ve come to historical fact is this argument that it was indeed a compliment to James.

Obviously then in this scenario that it was written for James accession, the King’s Men had soothed his ire bewteen then and 1611, Mark’s date for the premiere. However it didn’t work out because the next recorded playing of it was after the Republican inter-regnum in 1664.

So our immediate question is how many times was it played? Are the Oxfordians correct, or is it just another lacuna in history?

Tomorrow and tomorrow and…the story continues. Off for an audition.

Got it! We film on sunday. But we must post this addendum. Mark states that in appendix C

he hypothesizes that the regicidal anxiety expressed in Macbeth stems from de Vere’s role as a juror who condemned Mary, Queen of Scots, to death in 1586.

And that horrifying little bit of mental equivocation and anxiety anticipated James being crowned King of England. And writing a short play with witches, praising his bloodline. So when do the Oxfordians date Macbeth? Somewhere around 1595? When Robert Southwell was martyred?

Also we ‘thought’ the porter scene may have been written by someone else entirely. Middleton perhaps. Would he have been the ‘other hands’ Mark refers to regarding the performing of Henry 8th?

To the last Oxford was trying to place another candidate for dying Eliza’s crown. He wasn’t taken seriously though. James the SIxth of Scotland became King despite Oxford’s efforts and ruled over bothe countries in peace fora total of 45 years. His divine right of kings lessons to his son Charles weren’t of much use, as the world was changing.

Mark closes his Macbeth arguments highlighting

Burghley’s 1583 and Azpilcueta’s 1584 formulation of the Doctrine of Equivocation the more likely wellspring for the porter’s jesting’ on his equivocation scene.

And that’s it! The proof for dating Macbeth not as plain as the nose on your face that there is really only one common sense proper release date for this play and that is in front of the one it was written for. Anymore than he’s been on the throne for 3 years and it’s pointless.

And to write it before? Why? What on earth suddenly motivated him to write a play that theoretically would scare King James shitless. But of course he wouldn’t have known that. it was just a bit of insurance for if James made it to the throne, that Oxford may be in his majesty’s favour. James would have known who Oxford was one assumes. (I know)!

But no, an inconsequential scene with a minor but memorable character further proves that the equivocation scene’s sources were: Common knowledge to anyone who had lived through the late 1580’s and 90’s. Jesuits were known to be equivocators, as Jews poison wells. Hatred and slander have a long history.

Next post deals with his dating of Henry 8th. We don’t have the strength to deal with his Tempest stuff. The authorship question is like kryptonite for Shakesperger’s syndrom sufferers. We wake up at night screaming, ‘They keep getting up and coming back for more.’…..

We are not persuaded by such arguments. Please let them bring a conclusive argument, so we can end it all and get back to the works.