Nature Fakers…

…Yesterday’s wikipedia homepage carried a section on the Nature Faker controversy.

The nature fakers controversy was an early 20th-century American literary debate highlighting the conflict between science and sentiment in popular nature writing…Dubbed the “War of the Naturalists” by the New York Times, it showcased seemingly irreconcilable contemporary views of the natural world; while some popular nature writers of the day argued as to the veracity of their examples of wild animals displaying specific, human-like behaviors and individuality, others questioned an animal’s ability to adapt, learn, teach, and reason.

I draw an analogy between this Nature faker phenomenon and the Shakespeare Faker phenomenon. Every time a cover-upist chooses a candidate he also writes an alternative history for that candidate.

Very quickly this alternative history takes on the scale of conspiracy, a pejorative term associated with cranks and loonies. (this is NOT a reference to Thomas Looney pron Lowney). The established thinking of our post-modern reality combats conspiracists with certain checks.

Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

* Occam’s razor – does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?
* Logic – do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ fallacies of logic?
* Methodology – are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
* Whistleblowers – how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators? The more wide-ranging and pervasive the conspiracy is alleged to be, the greater the number of people would have to be involved in perpetrating it – is it credible that nobody involved has brought the affair to light?
* Falsifiability – is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false, or are they “unfalsifiable”?

I have found all of these categories being used in the Sh. controversy. The problem for somebody new to the controversy is knowing when they are being used.

Let’s take the life of Oxford as an example. He has a bad press in the history books, so the cover-upists spin his bad traits and point to the good traits you can find in Shakespeare’s works. Also you will find events that happen in the plays mirrored in Oxford’s biography. eg captured by pirates, the bed-trick his wife played on him to conceive etcetera. Ergo it happened to him therefore he is Shakespeare. (logical fallacy anyone)?

Now here is a biography of Edward de Vere by someone who records what mark he left on history. Notice there is no mention of him being Shakespeare, though there is recognition of him being a writer of comedies and poetry. As well as being a patron to writers.

The Earl started his poetry writing and theatre career somewhere in the 1570’s through the 1580’s. And the Oxfordians will tell you continued through the 1590’s until his death in 1604.

Public theatres came into being in 1576 when James Burbage built the Theatre in Shoreditch. James had been the principal player of the Earl of Leicester’s Men. The Oxfordians will tell you that naturally Oxford helped Burbage to build his business venture and exploit it using the plays Oxford had written.

James’ son Richard Burbage became a popular actor of the Elizabethan stage, chiefly remembered for those roles Shakespeare wrote for him. Shakespeare’s character is described by those who knew him as honest open and witty.

Oxford’s on the other hand is described by his contemporaries as vainglorious, lusty and depraved. The Earl of Oxford, you will read, (and I urge you to read the biography supplied in this link) had some mighty powerful enemies.

Why would they not blow his cover? Or did they respect his intelligence like Sir George Buc and forgive his foibles?

If Oxford were Shakespeare this would be his dad’s Will and Testament. You can read about his character here.

I don’t know if we have Oxford Jnr’s last Will and Testament. But there wasn’t really even a second best bed worth leaving out of his patrimony. His 2nd wife took care of the bills and I assume provided their son with his wherewithals. He too, as the 18th Earl of Oxford, carried on the family tradition of debauched living. He died of wounds inflicted at the Siege of Breda.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not averse to debauchery, I just don’t think it’s conducive to writing Shakespeare, who embodies all the greatest virtues and vices of humanity for all time. Someone who is witty and writing for a group of actors playing the works he wrote to public acclaim, steeped in stage craft and soaked in printer’s ink does.

Oxford’s biography is primarily steeped in vice, which for some makes him more attractive metal. Shakespeare’s biography is practically non-existent. A fact consistent with Oxford being a premier noble of the realm and Shakspere being a nobody from Stratford.

But then I can’t prove that can I? Then again neither can they. There is no proof except the wanting it to be so. And if that doesn’t work, let’s assassinate the character of the Stratford bupkes.

See-saw magery daw, WIllie has got a new master.
He shall earn but a penny a play, if he can’t work any faster.

So learn how 37 plays changed the course of history.
Or see how those 37 plays fit into history.

I’ll take the ghost’s words for a thousand pounds please.