Sonnet Book

We have a run of 750 sonnetbooks. Each book signed by William S

Read more...

Archives

Sh and libraries…

…spent more than enough time in ’em looking for him and those about him. So what was his experience of libraries?

Libraries were few and far between. And the Conspiracists use this to their supposed advantage, saying where oh where could a mere Shakespeare browse and study?

Well here’s one probable answer.

The largest library in Elizabethan England wasn’t owned by some Nobleman but by the mathematician and hermeticist John Dee. Follow this link and you will find toc and 3 partial chapters of the book by Peter French – John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus. Click on the link in contents to the chapter obout his library for the lowdown on what it contained.

John Dee, strange man living in a strange time, shrouded in mystery through history and yet advisor to the Queen! her inmost thoughts and fears. She would act on his words. So who he?

Dee was instrumental in applying Euclidean Geometry to navigation and coined the name Brittania. For these reasons alone he should be more revered in history than he is.

As magical as Oxfordian theories go, Mark Anderson in his seminal ‘Sh by Another Name’ makes no mention of Dee, or his house Mortlake where his library was housed, or his connection to Elizabeth 1st, e.g. advising her coronation date.

Dee had suffered for his faith (the opposite of Puritan Protestantism) under Mary you see, and was imprisoned with Princess Elizabeth for a while. He doesn’t mention any teenage pregnancies though. Apparently Dee spoke of an exchange of letters with de Vere in the early 1570’s.

Dee was also friendly with Sir Philip Sidney’s circle of influence. Sidney’s argument with the Earl of Oxford at a tennis match probably shows why Oxfordian biographers don’t mention him perhaps. Dee is a testament to an ordinary man being able to learn, and allowing others to learn smack in the middle of their exclusive Noblesse Oblige club.

More Platonic Academy like, which i feel is how Sh and his fellowes interacted and learned the various skills they undertook, actively pursuing the available knowledge of the time towards the harder questions in life.

Subtlety and sublimity have to enter into the equation when discussing Sh’s artifice. But you can’t deny a guy the idea of an inner life by suggesting his being a country bumpkin excludes him from the game that is everyone, and i mean everyone’s birthright. Will you develop an inner life or not?

Dee had contact with all the great names of the Elizabethan period of the 1570’s and 1580’s, including the Bacon brothers’ father. He had the ear of the Queen. And he was a commoner.

Oh yes and he used an obsidian. Which remains a most beautiful, if not mellifluous word, if not some igneous glass-like kind of stone apparently. Used it for divining ends, Dee did. Rough hew that how you will.

Dee has a bad name in orthodox Sh circles too. At least he is rarely mentioned in serious scholarly tomes. Frances Yates being the ultimate authority on Dee and his connection to theatre design and architecture.

Dee may also have founded the Rosicrucian movement in England: the Protestant answer to the Catholic Jesuit branch.

Baconians like to make their man out to be the founding father of the rosy-cross or rozenkrans: a stern guild. A bad joke. Religion is no laughing matter, when you can be burnt at the stake for making silly jokes.

The reason he has a bad name is because he was an alchemist and actively pursued his analysis of the Enochian language and tried to have discussions with angels. This knowledge in turn is linked to modern day Occultism and Crowley the Beast and the Golden Dawn practioners of Britain’s romantic era.

Hardly fodder for consideration by old-school Catholic or C of E Shakespeareans. Scottish accent required the noo: ‘This prejudice may or may not be but’ .

This table of contents will provide you with a brief outline of Dee’s biography.

It treats of a serious young renaissance scholar who joined at age 15 and graduated at age 18 from Cambridge University; turned polymath; turned charlatan’s apprentice; turned povetry stricken old pantaloon. Model for Lear, Prospero, and Timon perhaps.

And he travelled and had contact with many of the most important Court figures of Renaissance Europe, as well if not better than any Oxford.

Funnily enough we even have Dee’s testimony of attending a Shakespeare play (Macbeth I believe. I’ll find and post his review) at the Globe theatre late in Sh’s career around 1606.

The Oxfordians date Macbeth’s first performance to 1611 and its displeasure and banishment ’til after James death.

Sorry (curses) the person involved was Simon Forman in 1611, another Physician and necromancer, as Andrew Gurr calls him in ‘Playgoing in Sh’s London’.

He (Forman) doesn’t mention who wrote the plays he saw though, just summarises the plot like most commentators and spectators of the time did.

Here’s an interesting speculation on how Dee may have helped develop
the special effects necessary for floating a dagger. But if that had happened surely an account of it would exist. That’s sfx of the first order back then.

Oh yes, and the name of his house was Mortlake. Now if that doesn’t conjure up Arthurian legend what will? Every Londoner from Court or City knew where it was, and could find or avoid it at Will.

Many found it and studied the latest ideas of the time whether it be geometry, or cartography, or geography, or history, or philosophy, A perfect place for a young provincial trying to learn his way in the world.

The Humanist way. My Shakespeare was human, not super-human. One researcher has tied Shakespeare to Dee in the form of Francis Garland. And anon anon yetanother take on the same subject here.

Just because we cannot prove exactly what, when, how, why, and where Sh learned and acquired his materials for his plays,

doesn’t mean he couldn’t learn it by not being a member of the priviliged classes.

Those classes whose biographies we have in abundance. Letters and accounts, and whose influence in the world of arts and letters is well-documented. And centuries later manipulated by eager conspiracists and their over-eager acolytes.

Because of course Oxford must have known of Dee, unless he were an absolute galoose. And he did they communicated in letters that are now lost! I suspect Cecil of course. They date to 1570 when Oxenforde was getting into the esoteric side of life. Dee was your man for a dose of magic.

And wouldn’t Dee have noted if Oxford were Elizabeth’s love-child and their incest-child, the Earl of Southampton? (You ever see a portrait of him and his mother side by side btw? He, her mirror.)

What was she saying, while all that trash was talking? Well of course she couldn’t say nothing coz the mother fugger is fugging the Queen. And she Queenie had the FINAL say.

And yes she was human and may have been sexually active, despite her claims to the contrary. And the story from Ben Jonson that she was all impenetrable down there.

SO the question remains Occam’s razor-like to shave us stalwarts of the Stratfordian faith:

were there other ways to research the same materials from which the plays are made?

Yes is the obvious answer. e.g. Dee had 3 copies of Metamorphoses. Just saying, it proves nothing. (sonnnet fans read the section of sonnets from 55 up to 65 for some Ovidian fun).

Dee had objects as well, as did all adequate antiquaires of the time. People collected the past. a roman coin here, a lock of Mary’s hair there.

I believe the Palace at Nonsuch also had a huge collection of curiosa and antique objects, as well as paintings and tapestries. I’ll try to find a better description than that. If possible from a contemporary.

Dee was Elizabeth 1sts Karl Rove. Need a good reason to invade a sovereign country? His work on British history had uncovered Welsh Prince Madoc, who discovered USA long before Christopher who? And through Madoc found the Queen’s favour to claim this foreign land under her legitimate sovereignty.

Like WMD’s, we ain’t heard that one much in the media lately. The topic is still under discussion about the Welsh claim to have found America in the mid 6thC. It convinced Elizabeth. She should have founded New York, but instead Virginia and the lost colony at Roanoke Island.

So explain him, our John Dee away. Focus on the angels and magic and dark forces his inquiry awakens, and unleash the truth that Satan wrote Shakespeare, to stop you thinking about God. To focus instead on this devilishly divine creation, humanity.

Al Pacino’s character in the Devil’s Advocate had it right when he tells his own incestuous love-spawn: ‘I’m a humanist, maybe the last humanist’.

Maybe the first.

ADDENDA

You can download a PDF of John Dee’s Private Diary here.

In the interest of the full story. Dee’s library was plundered during his absence fom Mortlake. This site gives you the lurid details from the Lost Dutchman. Dee’s diary has some disturbing stuff in it, which obviously you can read above.

Plus you can see the contents of his library is as significant a body of works as any, in all genres. Not only History Geneaology Geography Astronomy Mathematics Philosophy but theatre design and curiosa of the Natural world and former civilizations. A frickin mini-museum eh?

All I’m trying to prove here is that it was possible for numbnuts Shakespeare to have been in the right circumstances, in the right place, at the right time. There were books available to be read. The books at Richard Field’s printing press are documented, including source materials for the plays and poems.

Don’t forget he didn’t work 9-5. he was his own boss, his own petty kingdom. His ties to other obligation obliged only as money needed to fund his Art and have place to study it and write it.

If all he was doing was gagging on Noble worst, puking his soul away from his family, as much as himself. Then ‘Shame on you Sir!’

Such is the Shakespeare I predict we will see in Anonymous. A drunken yes-man forced into the deal by some homo-erotic hero-worshipping….sorry, the lady doth project too much methinks.
(october 2011: yep.)

I wonder if Sir Fulke Greville is in it?(nope). Did he know Oxenforde the 17th Earl? I’ll bet Cecil will do some spectacular skullduggery. We’re in for his physical opposite with the casting if we are historically correct but hey look at how many different sized Hamlets we’ve had. Rumoured was that Burbage had put on a few pounds when he was playing the part.

What a nerd. Can”t wait for the film to come out. And even then i probably will wait. Til the cinemas open.

A completely rebuilt City of London. Kick ass! If they followed John Stow as they must, they have a gate by gate, parish by parish description of the inhabitants of the area and the type of labour or commerce is done there.

Let me take you by the hand

What if?

What if there were that much more to know about the complexity of the Elizabethan Theatre?

‘As an unperfect actor on the stage’

is practically my motto. I, as an actor, am not without mustard.
I certainly sucked last night at the salon singing an awful rendition of Strauss’ Lied, Die Nacht. Then i ran away before doing my second dismemberment of a classical song, Du bist die ruh. I had an excuse, which a phone-call would have resolved, but I ran away. Blog as confessional.

‘Who calls me coward? Ha!’

Self-doubt is one of the reasons I love Sh’s sonnets. If I project that self-doubt onto a priviliged Nobleman who squandered his birthright I’m not impressed.

But if, (so much virtue in that word) i see a provincial boy turned big city playwright, poet and actor, it gives me hope.

He is no better than me. He is no worse. The equalizing factor is what draws me to Shakespeare. His servants and slaves are no better or worse than his masters and mistresses.

One heart, two eyes and ears, and one soul. What went on in that head and heart of his in any conjectured scenario is impossible to say. Whatever you think he’s telling you.

But Sh was indisputably unique in his time, though seeming the same for his contemporaries. We don’t need an alternative if you give this man an inner life. Which I would we knew more of than we do. But we don’t. So the rest remains conjecture.

We do know that English actors and their acting was not confined to the Theatre world of Elizabethan England. English actors toured Europe, even to Bohemia, all through the time that Sh was writing and acting his plays. And beyond.

It can even be argued that English comedians, as the groups of strolling players were known, ignited the Theatre worlds of Germany, and The Netherlands, which at the time was 7 provinces.

Some English players were seen at Frankfurt’s annual fair in 1592 by Fynes Moryson, the well-known Elizabethan traveller. In his ‘Itinerary’ he left us this account:

Germany hath some fewe wandering Comeydians (he had lived in Ireland), more deserving pity than prayse, for the serious parts are dully penned, and worse acted, and the mirth they make is ridiculous, and nothing less than witty (sounds like my act)…So as I remember that when some of our cast despised stage-players came out of England into Germany, and played at Franckford in the tyme of the Mart, having nether a complete number of Actours (as opposed to Actors who stay at home and don’t have to), nor any good Apparell (‘costly thy habit as thy purse can afford’), nor any ornament of the Stage, yet the Germans, not understanding a word they sayde, both men and women, flocked wonderfully to see theire gesture and action (‘suit the action to the word, the word to the action’),
rather than heare them, speaking English which they understand not.

Jerzy Limon – Gentlemen of a Company English Players in Central and Eastern Europe, 1590-1660. C.U.P. 1985.

Another book (i’m still trying to locate. SO if you know where and how please post it to Facebook or Shaksper) was

an anthology of English Drama in German prose translations called ‘Englische Comoedien und Tragedien’ and published in 1620 and 1624. Altogether about 30 English plays were published at that time, including eight plays by Shakespeare, and by several by other dramatists such as Marlowe, Dekker, Greene, Peele and Kyd.

Funny how no one was asking who wrote this stuff?

Slate slates Anonymous…

so they take a visit to Babelsberg to see the film in production. And sensation it’s going to be. No explosions but implosions of the mind.

Sing:
“Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the murky streets of Elizabethan London. I’ll show you something that’ll make you change your mind”.

They are going to try and make it credible to a large audience that Queen Elizabeth 1st, the Virgin Queen gave birth to Edward De Vere the 17th Earl of Oxenforde. (don’t laugh at the back. this is serious)!

(His historical mum, Marjory Golding being used to supply the connection to Arthur Golding the translator of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, which would so influence SH’s works)

For Elizabeth so loved her child, she had sex with him when he was a teenager, and duly had his baby, Henry Wriosthesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton. (Southampton’s historical mum, a Catholic, had to swallow this Protestant monarch’s will)

All this makes Edward De vere now:
a son to his mom,
a father to his child,
a brother to his brother who he had by his mother.

And makes Elizabeth now:
his sister by his father,
his mother and mistress,
and grandmother to their son .

And she, is the Queen of England!
(Please use the Chopper Read accent for that last line)

Constantly attended by servants and maids of honour and receiving a steady flow of diplomatic traffic whilst entertaining a Court Life, more than the equivalent of a modern day well-run film set junket to keep up appearances that all is normal and no need to panic. I, the Virgin Queen, am in control.

And like Oprah’s reality, she flucutates up and down the weight of babies, creating her own sexed up family tree. Elizabeth then, not Oprah! Don’t forget Elizabeth too was traumatised at an early age. (mom beheaded etc etc. Like the little girl in any horror film/reality soap you care to imagine, you can identify with her pain).

So once again for clarity’s sake:

Queen Elizabeth has sex with De Vere’s dad the 16th Earl of Oxenforde and gives birth to Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl. (Correction: having just taken possession of a signed copy of Beauclerk’s book ‘Sh’s Lost Kingdom’ I must amend this grievous miscarriage of the facts. Actually Elizabeth had Lord Admiral Thomas Seymour’s bastard child. The details are outlined in the blighted rose chapter. Summed up by the phrase, ‘incest is best’
So far the book reads like a VC Andrews novel).

Technically this (still) makes him a bastard son. He can never by right of law inherit what is his birthright as first born male heir of the Queen of the Realm. In turn he will have his own bastard children. (think Lear, my de veres! Never never never never never)

Dad (not real dad) leaves young De Vere swathes of property and land and buckets of incomes. Elizabeth slaps Oxenforde (her son) into wardship; under the tutelage of William Cecil/Polonius, her trusty Igor sidekick. Now no one can say anything about this weird set of circumstances but hey Cecil also has other wards like the young Manners, Earl of Rutland. (cue the Rutles singing Rut a lot)!

Many years later on the level of scuttlebutt:
Edward Oxenforde (as his name is mostly spelt) reputedly farted when bowing to the queen, which so embarassed him he went to the continent. On his return Elizabeth reputedly said,
‘My lord i had forgot the fart’.

Don’t you love how mother’s tease their sons. Medea-like on a social lampooning level. Letting him know who’s in charge. Who’s your mommy then? Coz she had her concerns you know our Eliza.

She whose history, as well as Shakespeare’s, is being destroyed here. How will the Elizabeth scholars react to the upcoming film. Will the Romance writers be up in arms, or precisely wetting their knicks at this potentially best selling Hist-Rom-Com-mind-flock fiction novel filmscript.

Anyhoo back to conspiracy.

They decide to pluck the fruits of young Eddie’s fortune and tie him up in legal frameworks and limited revenue until his coming of age when most of his interests are in turn tied up in legal battles and his own profligate 1st earl of the kingdom bish bosh Captain Flash behaviour is wowing the ladies and pissing off the guys.

‘ i killed my undercook coz he was spying on me. he ran onto my sword and committed suicide. se defendendo! auto da fe kind of thing, without the fire. His widow and babies screwed out of their legacy and thrown out of their positions to fend for themselves.’

(As lurid a prose as graced any miami newspaper. Eddie has his own rent boy story: bringing back a young soprano from Venice to be his catamite in London).

All part of growing up. Important people have important life changing decisions. Others can just barely scrape through Grammar school, whilst Some get the bestest tutelage the peerage has to offer.

So our young Eddie grew up to be the Life of the party, jousting, falconrying, putting it about. Tennis too, and unlike McEnroe calling out the refs mainly, Eddie went for the other player, young SIr Phillip Sidney, who was prettier and smarter and younger and a better writer.

But of course Oxenforde’s tentacles retched, sorry reached into the theatrical world, which he created nonetheless. Especially with Fisher’s Folly, that literary club of greats from the 1570’s, which had to be sold to the crown as payment his mum kept extracting from him.

Eddie hangs out the prodigal earl (Prince Hal and pals of course being soaked up for the future immortal pages) and slobbers and slurps his way though refined living; quarreling at court; refusing the military post offered in the Armada.

Oxford-enforde loved the theatre and lived close to London’s first theatre district. There where the first public theatre named the Theatre rose from joiner hands of James Burbage. A man whose son is destined to sell out poor Willy Shagsbeardes as a foil for our Eddie.

And wouldn’t rumour have it that Oxenforde is also the father of the 3rd Earl of Southampton, to whom he dedicates Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. Yes, he of the Essex rebellion fame, wherein Elizabeth has her son/grandson incarcerated in the tower on pain of death.

The play they watched, these ineffectual effetes and would-be warriors before they started the rebellion? Richard 2nd from WIlliam Shake-speare. And i assume they did it for the deposition scene, which obviously had been excised from its premiere run I’ll bet.

But of course no one spoke about it. Outside of it happening to you. And it could happen to you. The line of social power rose gradually from foreigner, to immigrant, to citizen, to tradesman, to gentleman, to Lord and Lady, to your counts and dukes and earls and finally the King or Queen. And each brought another level of diplomacy.

‘ Know ye not, that I am Richard?’ Elizabeth reputedly said to Camden (sorry that should be) William Lambarde the warden of scrolls (keeper of the records) at the tower. Many a novel and history was writ in an Elizabethan prison, especially the Tower. Perhaps a monument written in Sonnets by a pining Father to his condemned son/brother knowing the little bastard could never have his patrimony/matrimony, to whit the throne of England? (Not a whit, I defy augury). Poor lambikins!

So this new history of Elizabethan England brought to you by Anonymous is a brand new interpretation of the mythical literary 3 in 1, 2 in 1, 1 in 1 philosophy, which the sonnets constantly carp upon.

Think of the symbolism in that incestuous viper-pit. Well worthy of Greek Tragedy and well, you’d think in all fairness somebody would have noticed this state of affairs. Oxenforde’s enemies perhaps? A letter or two disclosing this sluttish behaviour on the part of the monarch? By anyone?

Because being a Queen requires being the captain of the State. Elizabeth embodied her England and was very likely a high level diplomat on the level of our very own, Elizabeth 2nd. Of course this version couldava shouldava wouldava happened. And conventional history will be now re-written because the Truth is out there, and will out!

Will Rafe the one unknown actor playing Shakespeare in this film, be vilifed, or praised as courageous for taking on this role? Or will the portrayal of Shakspere be like Little Nicky in the Brill film. We remember our Rhys with chuckles in that one. (‘Think all but one, and me in that one, Will’).

Good luck selling this one to the cognescenti as anything other than historical fiction. Who knows the masses of groundlings may go for it?

Again, Good luck!

Or as Shakespeare’s mum, Marie Ardenne would say,

‘ Bonne chance, mes amis!’

Here’s another visitor to the same set.

Latest update is from Time Out.

Another reply to a professional doubter…

…ok i admit i’m an idiot. I can’t help myself. It’s funny those on my side of the fence shake their heads and say why waste your time? and those on the other shake their gory locks and shudder at how wrong we all are.
I know where i stand

Hi Howard,

I see you follow these articles and print the same refutations to each.

The ad hominem attacks are based on the increasing ad hominem attacks the conspiracists/cover-upists, what you will, apply to the Stratford man. Whom you all deny an inner life. You focus on the lack of historical record and the consequent impossibility of him ever being able to be Shakespeare.

There will be no collapse of the Stratford monument until you actually arrive with factual evidence any historian of any culture will accept. Your twisting of the historical record and psychological readings will only convince those that doubt.

As Shapiro has shown in his book there is historically no reason for doubt. I have read Diana Price’s book and Mark Anderson’s book and both are filled with the same speculation as fills the Shakespeare biographies you so despise.

Once again the traditional authorship is not collapsing, it is being increasingly attacked by people like yourself, who now have access to a forum (the internet)in which they can attack it. That doesn’t prove your case.

My guy, the Stratford guy, is and remains the ‘author’ until you can conclusively prove otherwise.

Besides the fact that it doesn’t change the writing one little bit. personally I don’t like writing that i have to analyse through the lens of one man’s experience. It defeats the purpose of imagination.

Is Freud’s theory based on his life? Is Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn based on a real boy Twain/Clements knew?

You can doubt all you want but it doesn’t change the historical record until you come up with a better theory than the one you have. Besides that the differences in Oxfordian approaches plus the 50-60-100 other contenders mean i could spend a lifetime examining them all and have no time to read Shakespeare.

Kinda like the teachers in England who have to spend so much time teaching theory and shakespeare that their students never read the plays except through the lens of theory.

I have a direct relationship with Shakespeare by reading and performing his plays. It doesn’t matter to me that you think someone else wrote them. I don’t buy your theory. Why are you so concerned?

Go and convince Scientologists that psychiatry is a good thing. Or racists that all men are equal. We differ in opinion and that after reading ALL the available facts. I’m not being coerced to write this. I formed my own opinion and now it’s time for your reply.

btw great article!

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.

Four hundred and forty six today…

Lang zal ie leven, lang zal ie leven, lang zal ie leven in de gloria, in de glo-ri-a, in de glo-rii-a! Hiepedepiep-HOERA!

‘and that eternity promised’.

Yes folks today the King of Literature and the English language is 446 today.

To celebrate YLS has started a facebook group. Follow the link and send a request to become a member.

And don’t forget to remind yourself all day that our conspiracist friends are all shaking their heads and muttering on their blogs at our stupidity. Fools!

Other Stratfordians…

….here are two replies to reviews of Contested WIll in the Guardian.

Porthos

5 Apr 2010, 8:47PM

Skip the popular biogs – the only motivation any of these writers had (whether defending or challenging Shakespeare’s authorship) was to MAKE MONEY. Shapiro deserves credit for examining the debate itself and not simply picking a side in it.

Why don’t you read some of the academic works that have never made any serious money for the professors and scholars who wrote and researched them?

For the record, most academics and scholars who have an understanding of: HOW these plays were written; edited; stitched together; performed; paid for; how much income they generated; where they were put on and how theaters come into being; what laws the plays and players were subject to; how they were printed; distributed; how the actors companies were formed and operated; how the plays were commented on; judged; and more factors besides – the vast majority of scholars who have researched these things tend to agree the plays were probably written by someone called William Shakespeare.

They agree this, usually over a pint, in the bar, after a hard day researching something MORE IMPORTANT.

AND THIS ONE:

leadballoon

6 Apr 2010, 5:05PM

I’ll advance two fairly recent works.

Shakespeare &Co by Stanley Wells and The Lodger by Charles Nicholl. They are both based entirely on the written details we do have and apply a modern attitude to forensic examination of scraps of evidence to build a bigger picture. They cover the much wider scene of the Elizabethan stage and the hand to mouth living of anyone in the trade.

London was a pretty small place at the time, total population of England not much more than 5 million yet thousands of London citizens would take their entertainment every afternoon in season in the playhouses. A boom economy, the city as a whole was a bustling centre for Huguenot and other immigrants. You could meet anyone in daily life, from translators to part time playwright-innkeepers looking for opportunities.

Written evidence on individuals was for the nobles, their law courts and their clergy. The rest passed their time in the undocumented way that they had for hundreds of years. A tradition that would continue until the Victorians’ love of record keeping industrialised the paper trails.

That someone from a Warwickshire town could make his way in the city, be a jobbing actor and playwright and leave as much or as little evidence as he did is not surprising. That the productivity, by Shakespeare, Marlowe, Fletcher and the rest, and quality that is higher than any period before or since may be harder to explain. It is, however, much more likely to be a happy product of professional writers and the hot house competition of playhouses than the jottings of titled part timers.

Man I’m starting to tire of this authorship question big time. But they won’t go away, and their conclusions are sooo outrageous and egregious, we must fight the fight.

Fan-mail of sorts…

…Hello William,

I am Soledad and I last saw you cycling down Overtoom on your way to De Filosoof Hotel to leave me your two CDs with WS’s sonnets.

I’ve spent much of these last 3 weeks driving up and down Spain listening to your wonderful recitation, enjoying every line, amazed at the perfect match between the Castillian plains or the endless Andalusian olive groves and the WS sonnets. Beauty always matches beauty, I suppose. Thank you for the experience…

Praise for the sonnets indeed. Soledad is a retired English teacher in Spain and related to a Spanish poet.

Muchas Gracias!

Bohemian Storm in a teacup…

…reading James Shapiro’s book and the last chapter is his defence of Shakespeare of Stratford.

I’d like to say yet again the whole argument is beneath the amount of press it’s getting; irrelevant to enjoying and appreciating Shakespeare.

But serendipitously Shapiro supplies in the re-telling of this anecdote, the rebuttal to a commonly used (the last 10-15 years) Oxfordian ‘proof’ that Oxford could have written one of Shakespeare’s stylistically later plays.

They will tell you that it is possible Oxenforde wrote A WInter’s Tale replete with geographical mistake (ie Bohemia never had a coastline) because Bohemia did hold territory that bordered on the Sea at one point in its history .

Then why?

(And here i feel like Michael Palin in the Argument sketch asking,
‘Ahh! Then why are you still arguing?’).

Why did Ben Jonson remark to Drummond of Hawthornden on Bohemia’s lack of a coastline and Sh’s lack of knowledge that it didn’t?

Did Oxford/Bacon/Marlowe know that Drummond was collecting his plays and attributing them in his own hand to Schaksp.? Or Will. Sha.?

Did Ben walk all the way to Scotland from London just to tell him this misleading fact he knew about Shakspere? Knowing full well the goodly Earl, or sly Christopher had written the plays?

Surely he can have no axe to grind for Oxford, Marlowe or Bacon? Or Neville, or Greville? Nor Eliza, poor soul. Not the Pembroke’s neither; man nor woman.

His world is/was the literary/dramatic scene as seen from Scotland, not the world of Court and intrigue at the highest levels of English society. The same world Shakespeare inhabited in London, and that Ben had shared with him, and was now/then sharing with Drummond.

Drummond, like Shakespeare, a William.

Ask yourself, what reason would Drummond have for writing this bit of hearsay in his notes on his conversations with Ben?

Interestingly, Drummond also corresponded with Michael Drayton, Sh’s lifelong poet friend. The National Library of Scotland holds the autographed correspondence.

And he wrote sonnets!

The links in this post illuminate Drummond and his relationship to books and poetry in ever-increasing depth. And so we wash up on a similar literary shore as our Will.

Certainly with connection to Will. And that with two people he knew well, and called friend. (remember that ‘ grapple them to you with hoops of steel’ stuff)?

OK it’s not a proof, but it tones down the incestuous rhetoric a notch,
as to why would Drummond be ignorant of any conspiracy?

Bohemia or not. Existent or not.

Who cares when it doesn’t touch the matter?

Criolla-lanza…

…hey Tony, Vito, Joey.
This guy says Shakespeare was a Protestant Italian.
And this guy says he was a Catholic from England. WTF?

This proposition must be very confusing to members of the mob (ie the Mafia not the RAF). A non-catholic Italian?! A catholic Engl;ishman? The mob of course are used to people’s identities being changed. As well as being involved with conspiracies at the highest and lowest levels of power.

But so far the only mafia interested in Shakespeare is a bunch of doubters, numbering some 1700 names of the living and several prominent deceased dissenters. Out of those 1700 doubters at least a hundred have differing candidates for who did write Shakespeare. So no real agreeement, except to doubt.

One of the biggest bugbears of reading the doubters claims is that there is nothing to link Shakspere of Stratford with the writing of his plays. Read the essential facts here. No frills, no explanations, just the facts!

Yet every last one of them systematically fine-toothcombs the available evidence and refutes it with arguments for their candidate. And twists it to prove my candidate is an illiterate moron hired and employed by the leading Jacobethan Acting company. Always in other words using the Shakspere from Stratford person as the dupe or foil for their particular candidate.

If you are a doubter on the cusp or a Stratfrodian looking to defend your burrow i highly recommend ‘The Shakspere Allusion Book’. This link takes you to a version you can partially read and thankfully the index and introduction are included. Read them and weep for your ‘nobody mentioned Shakespeare as a playwright and poet’ proposition.

Selective, special-pleading alone does not a Shakespeare make. As John Klause makes clear in his ‘Shakespeare, the Earl (Southampton), and the Jesuit (Robert Southwell). ‘Nemo solus satis sapit’ or in English
‘No one is sufficiently wise on one’s own’. His introduction is entitled ‘Biographical Heresy’ and covers the latest scholarship into Shakespeare’s life that is worth pursuing.

The idea that he was a Catholic by association and that his hidden biography belongs to the realm of self-preservation. My conclusion not necessarily that of Klause. This book is not even 2 years old and this is the first i hear of it. ‘Conetested Will’, which arrived in my mailbox today (thanks Ben), is not yet 2 months old and everybody has heard of it.

Something is rotten in the state of biography. And it starts with a C…
(and ends in a Y not another C)

BTW Just what is the added value of another candidate for Shakespeare’s name. Say for argument’s sake it is proven, how do I benefit as a reader of his works?