A few facts about Shakespeare aka Edward de Vere

[Azariaadele]

I agree that the knee-jerk opposition to a legitimate research question is silly. However, "circumstantial evidence" does not meet academic standards - no matter what question you apply it to. More, the authorship position is based upon the false assumption that a particular "author" will provide a skeleton key to Shakespeare's plays. This fundamentally misunderstands the plays (whoever the candidate). The plays are multi-vocal.They yield innumerable, often contradictory interpretations.

[Azariaadele]

When I say the plays give rise to "contradictory interpretations", let me just offer one example. Is 'Henry V' war propaganda or is it a satirical anti-war play? The play contains seven or eight specific damning objections to the war - including a hints of Henry's illegitimacy - and an attack on the rationale for the war against France that has been pointed out since Hazlitt. If I "knew" the author was noble, it would not alter the fact that HV can be read as an anti-war play.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Isn't the "anti-war" aspect of Henry V primarily the bellicose goading and deception of the Catholic Church? If it was anti-war, why would the British govt. subsidize its production during WWII?

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell The answer is that the Laurence Olivier production cut out most of the scenes that focus on Harry's cruelty (the massacre of all the French prisoners [H5 IV. vi. 37] BEFORE the French murder the English boys and the famous "Your naked infants spitted upon pikes" [H5 III. iii. 3] speech); the question about Harry's legitimacy that arises with Cambridge's betrayal and rival claim to the throne - [H5 II. ii. 155-60] through the mother (!); the epilogue, etc..

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I disagree on standards of circumstantial evidence. I have found few leaps of faith in the Oxfordian position, while the Stratfordian case is entirely built on suppostion. His education? No proof Letters to or from this famous person? None Books owned by him? None His links to the 3rd Earl of Southampton. NONE, Yet he is listed as Shakespeare's patron? How can that be? If WS know Italy so well, why assume he didn't travel there? That's common sense, really. Oxford solves it

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Oxfordians, though, also pick and choose which circumstantial evidence they accept / discount. For example, they discount the references to the Gunpowder Plot in the Porter's speech in 'Macbeth' ("who committed treason enough for God's sake" [Mac II. iii. 9]) because their candidate was already dead in 1605; and the references to the shipwreck of the Sea-Venture from 1609 in 'The Tempest' ("the still-vexed Bermoothes" [Tem I.ii.229], etc.). We all do this.

[Azariaadele]

Thanks, again, for the challenging and stimulating discussion. I will, hopefully, get some time to read some additional material. I appreciate your questions - and responses.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele When the hardbacks went into "remainder" status, I purchased around 20 of Mark Anderson's Book, "Shakespeare by Another Name". Give me an address, and I'll send you a copy as a gesture of goodwill, based upon your civility. There is an article online by Richard Waugamon, a PHD in Psychology who wrote about the cognitive dissonance exhibited by those who have believed, (as we all initially did) the Stratford Myth. I must say, I smelled something fishy from the start,

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I do appreciate your careful and courteous replies to my posts. I have just departed on an Xmas vacation to visit family. I have already studied your most recent responses - and will examine them more closely when I return home in about a week. I will search for the books you have referred to. I only hesitate to take advantage of your kindness - because I may be able easily to access those books in a local library. I will see! Thanks again!

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I would be keenly interested in your thoughts as you read Anderson's book. He had a master's in physics, and his thesis was on the overturning of theories. He noticed the same pattern took place over and over again, and that men of high caliber and intelligence would fight unfairly, and like badgers, to protect their life's work. When he came across the "authorship question", he noticed an exact repeat of that behavior pattern. He spent 10 years on the book.

[Azariaadele]

If I haven't done so, I want to make it clear that I celebrate the inquiry into history - and the close engagement with the plays. I am willing to learn. My quibble is the "truth claim" that is made. One must respect the facts that have more weight (such as the dedications in the First Folio giving specifics about Shakespeare's name, picture - specifically matching the picture with the name as one would not do with a ghost writer - and his place of birth) - even if one doesn't believe them.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele The dedications say not to look at the man, to separate them, and to rely simply on the works themselves. How odd? Jonson wrote the words of of Will's pals, it has been determined. Boswell the Younger said there was "something fishy" about the First Folio, and I believe that to be correct. Pamphleteers of the time talked about a Poet-Ape who claimed the work of others, and they wrote of some great writer who was writing behind a mask. Jonson parodied the Stratford Man as Sogliardo

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell The exhortation to look on the work, but not the picture is a conventional one. There is no reason to believe a double meaning exists in the words. Shakespeare is named in the dedication, his "Stratford monument" is referred to (which still exists both as a monument and a Latin inscription); Jonson also refers to the "Swan of Avon". This is unambiguous - and it is supported by the undisputed existence of the monument and inscription in Holy Trinity Church in Stratford.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Surely you've seen the original drawing of the Statue, by Dugdale in the 1630's? It shows a man with a drooping mustache holding a bag of grain. Ever seen anyone using a pillow to write on? I haven't. It seems to be a redo for the emerging tourist industry. Have you ever wondered why WS only writes of royal pursuits? Hawking was codified by law as a royal sport, same with bowling, and the hunt. Ever wonder why fishing is never mentioned, or why commoners are used as comic relief?

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I am aware of the drawing that you refer to. I would not call it "the original drawing" - because there is no reason to believe it was used as a plan upon which the monument was built. The fact is, though, that the "Stratford monument" referred to by Digges in the First Folio exists - and a Latin inscription (undisputed even by Oxfordians) comparing Shakespeare to Socrates and Virgil also exists. This is physical evidence that corroborates what is already a primary source.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Excuse me, the 1st known rendering of the Church monument. It clearly shows a sack of grain. How can you explain the wonderful funeral orations of the dramatist, when compared to the doggerel on WS's grave? Or his poem for his friend, the only 2 poems that are directly linked to the Stratford money-lender? It's hard to imagine a wider gap between those verses and Shake-speare's. BTW< Did you know that Oxford's men robbed a Royal Coach on the same road mentioned in Henry IV?

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Shakespeare loves hawking metaphors, but he does not "only write of royal pursuits". Fishing ("angling") is mentioned as a metaphor numerous times as well. Edgar says, famously, that Nero is an "angler in the lake of darkness". (KL III. vi. 6) In 'Much Ado', Ursula exclaims, "The pleasant'st angling is to see the fish / Cut with her golden oars the silver stream" (MA III. i. 26-7), etc., etc..

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele If I am angling for something, it does not mean I'm out fishing somewhere. We both know that. It's not that WS "loves hawking metaphors", it's that he uses them with such expertise, and in over a hundred instances. That's like expecting a person from the suburbs to know the exact usage of terms used only by polo players, w/o a single link between exclusive polo clubs and the suburbanite. It was illegal for WS to engage in the pursuit he uses above all others. It defies logic.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell See 'The Compleat Angler or The Contemplative Man's Recreation' (1653). Most of the "over 100" hawking examples are conventional metaphors - as are most uses of "angling". Is it impossible for an outsider to imitate precise sporting language? No. We see instances everywhere of Shakespeare imitating precise language (just look at the array of dialects he produces) of every conceivable description - that have nothing to do with the nobility.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Many of your astute points are dealt with in the Oxfordian website. The precision and esoteric usage of hawking terms being one of them. The alleged usage of exclusively Warwickshire words has been debunked as well. Being aware of different dialects denotes a well-traveled man, familiar with language. De Vere spoke five languages, and Will Shaksper could barely write his own name, or grace his own grave with anything other than doggerel verse. And that is fact, not supposition.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele The fascinating aspect of the Oxfordian position is that it explains away so many mind-boggling "facts" about WS's "genius". I don't think Conrad could have written what he did w/o going to sea. Or WS writing so precisely about Italy w/o going there, or knowing Ovid so well in Latin and English, or knowing the law, or being so adept at royal pursuits, or knowing how the French royals spoke in casual settings, like an entire scene in Henry V. Only Oxford as WS solves those problems

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell In the play you refer to, 'Henry V', Shakespeare also captures Welsh and Irish accents and cultural traits with precision. So, he must have been Welsh and Irish both? Samuel Johnson was embarrassed by what he regarded as Shakespeare's provincial errors. Shx habitually mixes high / low distinctions that nobles prided themselves on - makes them all as addicted to puns as he is. Now that Shakespeare is distant from us, it all sounds as if it were "noble" - not to Johnson!

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele The notorious prank robbery at Gad's Hill is the first comic incident in both The Famous Victories, and Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Johnson's definition of Oats: A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland appears to support the people.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Shakespeare is not contemptuous of his "commoners". That assertion is simply not born out either by close reading or the theatrical history of the plays. His commoners frequently displace his noble characters - making them seem wooden by comparison. Who is more "alive" in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', Bottom and the mechanicals or the interchangeable nobles? The subplot of AMND was cut out entirely or edited until the twentieth century - because it diminished the nobles.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Go to youtube and watch Brando doing the funeral oration. Notice the crowd, how fickle they are, how easily persuaded they are. I think his commoners are best portrayed in the propaganda histories during the time of the Spanish Armada's impending invasion, which was exactly the time frame that the tightwad Queen put Oxford on a secret 1000p a year stipend. And what did the British govt. pay for in WWII? A film called Henry V. Some things never change,

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Shakespeare often voices the typical position of the nobles towards the "rabble" (mobs / crowds), but, then he humanizes the crowd - expressing their grievances. Examine Act I, scene i of 'Coriolanus'. Examine the mob scene in 'Sir Thomas More'. I agree that 'Julius Caesar' makes the crowd look ridiculous - but, Shakespeare's art is a form of polyphony. He always includes competing voices . . . I have read the entire Oxfordian "declaration of reasonable doubt".

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Have you seen and read about the 1612 book of anagrams by Henry Peacham? The title page shows a hand holding a pen writing from behind a curtain. The latin inscription is grammatically incorrect in 1 small way, which allows for a phrase that leads to Oxford/deVere being the hand behind the curtain. As this is a book of anagrams, I think it is worth looking at, and is not Baconian cyphering at work. How would you explain this? Peacham wrote another book which lists Oxford, not WS.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I have not read Henry Peacham, but would be interested to do so. The book of anagrams sounds fascinating. Closely related to anagrams was the marvelous mania for riddles in the Elizabethan / Jacobean era. Shakespeare adores riddles . . .

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele The title of the Peacham anagrams is Minerva Britanna.... Peacham's other book is The compleate Gentelman's guide I believe, where he lists the greatest from the time of Elizabeth, including Oxford, and not mentioning Shakespeare. It went thru more than 1 printing.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Again, the Peacham looks fascinating. Thank you.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I consider it untenable to take the position that Shake-speare was not writing from an interior view of Elizabeth's court. Only 1 of his plays involves commoners w/o royals as main characters. Bismarck commented on his knowledge of back room deals by royals. He'd been in on those deals himself, and knew that Shakespeare was privy to that exclusive world in a way a Stratford money-lender couldn't have been. The language is of the court, not the streets. It comes naturally to WS, no?

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I just can't follow you - when you say that Shakespeare is primarily a court writer. The vast majority of his works were comedies. His earliest critics felt his court scenes were inferior - his comedy superior. His comedy draws on the festive holidays - celebrated most exuberantly in the country: mumming, Morality plays, Mystery plays, festival misrule, Morris dancing, the crowning of the May Queen, etc..

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell There is no evidence, that I know of, to suggest that "Jonson wrote the words of Will's pals" - except the unfortunate presumption that, because they were not university educated, they could not write verse. The fact is that if one ignores the explicit attribution of the First Folio, one is ignoring a primary source - that is corroborated with physical evidence. To do this is to "walk on the wild side" - and one should exercise EXTREME caution when one does so.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Non-Oxfordian research has determined that word usage in the first folio is clearly that of Jonson, not Heminge and Condell. Also, anonymous writing is now known to be much more prevalent in those times. I just read a nice article on Shakespeare's central position among playwrights of the period, and the oddity of not a single eulogy poem for him by any of his peers. Jonson never wrote about him until he was hired to do so. No one did. No links with Stratford at all.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I cannot verify your assertion about the word usage in the First Folio's dedicatory poems because you have not included a citation. I have a strong feeling, though, that this is not an uncontested assertion . . . Payment for writing is not an argument about its authenticity . . . As you must know, Jonson also mentions Shakespeare in his conversations with William Drummond. The account of the conversations was discovered in the Advocates' Library, Edinburgh, in 1842.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele They were made well after 1616. If his parody of Shaksper as Sogliardo is taken at face value, as well as his "poet-ape" reference, then Shaksper was truly a literary thief. Nothing is said about the man from Stratford as dramatist until 1623, that is the problem. We have a poet who had a runaway hit with Venus&Adonis, yet his sonnets were suppressed. The 1st folio changes the name of the Boar's Inn, as it was closely associated with Oxford. Why would they need to do that?

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Regarding the "poet ape" reference: it is suggestive, but, very ambiguous. It is nothing like the Folio - which explicitly names and credits an individual, giving a town and drawing. 'Venus and Adonis', published in 1593 contains a personal dedication that is signed "William Shakespeare". The sonnets were not "suppressed". The form was out of fashion by 1609. They were bowdlerized in 1640 (not suppressed) by John Benson because of their homosexual theme.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell The claim that Jonson's character, Sogliardo, is a parody of Shakespeare has more merit - because it captures the precise wording of his coat of arms. It is amusing, but I'm not sure why it pertains to his authorship. Shakespeare was a "new man" - and, very likely, extremely insecure about it. Jonson was a rival - and had a motive for ridiculing Shakespeare. That doesn't mean he didn't also sincerely respect him . . .

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele So we have someone, after death, bagging on Shakespeare as someone claiming the work of others, beautified with the feathers of others, and that helps the Stratfordian case? The entire passage is enigmatic, and open to different interpretations, just as aught had small latin and little greek could mean, in modern terms, "even if he had little latin or greek, he'd still stand up to the best of antiquity". Of course this puts Orthodox apology in the position that WS was a rustic

[edboswell]

@edboswell  And remember that De Vere was known as the Italianate Earl, as he adored the new Italian plays staged during his tour, and Italian fashion. BTW, have you read the 23 y.o. Earl's letter to Thomas Bedingfield refusing his request to not publish Cardenas Comforte in Bedingfield's English translation? It echos the themes of Shake-speare in so many ways.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Again, I think the Italian angle is a very intriguing one - if only because it illuminates the plays in a new way. This is an example of the Oxfordian position opening up a new angle on research. This angle has value - no matter who authored the plays. I have not read the Earl's letter to Thomas Bedingfield, but would be interested to.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele You've touched on an important point. Oxfordian research has come up with some amazing facts, and answers to the most perplexing mysteries in the canon, all by intelligent free-lancers, mostly retired professionals, many of them lawyers. If research was made to search letters and records looking for Oxford/Shakespeare, we might very well find what would be impossible to discount. Instead we keep looking for links to Stratford, and find worthless info. at best.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Oxfordian research can be important - because it is based upon a set of assumptions that will necessarily yield an unusual angle of light upon the plays. There are two well funded university graduate programs now, one in the UK and one in America. If the archival material is there, it will be found . . . However, Oxfordians need to beware of special pleading. The resources are there. If you want to make your case, it will require meeting academic standards.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Jonson's references may or may not be about Shakespeare, but the character, Sogliardo, looks to me comic - simply pocking fun at a "new man". It was a common jibe (see Malvolio in 'Twelfth Night') - and must have been irresistible. Robert Greene's health was declining; his work neglected - and he was envious that university writers were being upstaged by a grammar school boy. Henry VI p. 1-3 is an imitative apprentice work - and would deserve some of Greene's criticism.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell The point is that Jonson's character, Sogliardo (as I read him - unless there is something more), is consistent with what we would expect. It is (perhaps!) a parody of a rival for being a pretentious "new man" who is buying a coat of arms . . . Upward mobility was new in the Renaissance - and it opened one to envy and attack - even from other "new men". Note that Jonson gives Shakespeare credit as the greatest writer of "comedy" (a genre with less prestige) not tragedy.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Any credible explanation for his fellow poets and dramatists ignoring his death? Again, that is against human nature and social protocol. And it is worth pointing out that in 1604, and again upon his widows death, that a large amount of Shakespeare plays were staged for the King. Isn't that how it is? When Elvis dies, or Sinatra, we see their movies, and hear their music. It's a primal urge, exhibited clearly for De Vere/Shakespeare and absent if you believe the Stratford Myth.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Shakespeare's "life" is deeply unsatisfying in many respects . . . Nothing that I have read, though, suggests that he was regarded, during his lifetime, as an "Elvis" figure. When Shakespeare is mentioned by Francies Meres in 1598, for example, he is not given pride of place, but listed sixth out of eight, in a series that includes Sidney, Spencer, Daniel, and Warner, first. Marlowe and Chapman come after him. This suggests success, but not celebrity.

[Azariaadele]

Sorry . . . Mere's list from 'Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury' (1598) is: "Sidney, Spencer, Daniel, Drayton [I missed this name in my first quote], Warner" . . . then "Shakespeare, Marlow, and Chapman".

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Greene's passage is, in my view, not enigmatic. It is a venomous, witty attack. Greene is not using metaphor to hide meanings - because he wants to inflict as much damage as possible on an envied rival. I have read, with an open mind, a number of attempts to debunk Greene (one on the Oxfordian site with the "declaration of reasonable doubt"), but none of them are in the least persuasive. The man is on his death bed - clearly infuriated - and he wants to be understood.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Again, if Greene is saying there's someone wearing the feathers of others, it could be that he's pissed off at Oxford for hiring secretaries to assist his projects. You do remember that Chettle? was forced to issue a Mea Culpa, which might lead one to believe that a royal had been offended. And it's the ONLY reference, and it doesn't link to Stratford anyway. HOW WEAK CAN IT GET? No one in London writes of Shakespeare? Not even a rumor of a letter coming or going? How ODD.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell As you know, Robert Greene mentions Shakespeare in 1592 - well before 1623. His reference offers several distinct mutually corroborating allusions at once. It references Henry VI, "tiger's heart wrapped in a ["players" for "woman's"] hide" (3H6 I. iv. 137); it calls Shakespeare a playwright "bombast out a blanke verse"; it calls him a "player"; and it wittily parodies his name "Shake-scene" . . . This is not as precise as the Folio, but it is quite substantial.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele How do you account for WS staging of 10 plays in Italy, with precise descriptions of exact locations, all of them on de Vere's grand tour of Italy? The details included in the plays are often esoteric, and spot on, in spite of Stratfordian attempts to prove otherwise, exposing their lack of expertise on Italy customs and locales, How else a man who never set foot on Italian soil, yet is known as the person who captured the spirit of Italy better than Italians themselves.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I am trying to keep up with all of the assertions you are making, but I can't address all of them. Your last post had at least three - that should be treated separately . . . I have not studied closely Shakespeare's Italian references. This is an area where Oxfordian research - and the connection to Italian geography - might be extremely interesting and exciting to read.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele There is a new book out by a retired attorney who spent 10 years using only the plays to locate exact locales. All of them were visited by de Vere. Canals between areas, and distances exactly matching time and place in the Italian set plays. It pushes logic to the breaking point to think someone could be so accurate in detail w/o being there, and absorbing it, savoring it, and re-living it in his plays. Talking to tourists at the Mermaid Inn? HA. Why not just say GENIUS again?

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I have not researched the Italian plays, so I cannot offer a definitive answer on this point. As I said, I think that this research is fruitful - though, personally, I would not say that a precise knowledge of geography necessarily means anything in particular . . . I understand you regard it as circumstantial evidence. There is a great deal to learn about Shakespeare's understanding of foreign geography and sources.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele There is a review in the Brooklyn Rail of the book on Shakespeare's travels through Italy. it is online now. The Shakespeare Guide to Italy retracing the bard's unknown travels The Author's name is Richard Paul Roe. "Exciting and convincing;; This book is essential reading for all concerned with who really wrote the works of Shakespeare. A thrilling journey of discovery" Sir Derek Jacobi

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I'm sure that this book is intriguing. It is an example of a book I would read - because it has wider relevance for Shakespeare / Renaissance studies.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Have you read about the links between Hamlet and de Vere's life? How his b-in-law was sent to Elsinore by the Queen, how DV was captured by pirates, how he angrily wrote to Cecil about being spied upon? How private writings by Cecil giving advice mirror those given to Laertes? How both Anne Cecil and Ophelia were tormented? How de Vere killed someone behind a curtain? Or Leicester being accused of poisoning deVere's uncle? How his mother re-married so soon? Fits like a glove.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I can honestly say I entered this mystery with, EXTREME caution. I would love to punch a hole in the Oxfordian position. Heck, I'd be famous as a result. But the more I read, the stronger the position of Oxford becomes. The more I hear of the Stratford industries hysterical attacks, the more I doubt their posiition. It is self-serving, and uses fear tactics to stifle inquiry. The "snobbery" tactic is lame, and exposes their own ingrained superiority complexes, in my view.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell We have established that the Oxfordians feel that Shakespeareans are "hysterical" and "self-serving" - while the Shakespeareans feel the Oxfordians are "snobs" . . . "Extreme caution", to me, means "the sky is the limit" when one is conducting research, but, when one draws one's final conclusions, one acknowledges the priority of primary source material. Oxfordians, instead, discredit primary source material - in a way that is not warranted. This is cause for concern.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele You should read about de Vere. I think you'd like that. It's online. Mark Anderson's book is available and inexpensive. J.Thomas Looney's 1920 book is online. There is a new book detailing all of the exact locations in his Italian plays, proving beyond reasonable doubt that Shakespeare took the same tour of Italy as did De Vere. That's the rub, that Oxford as author opens up legit research, and does not rely on "inconceivable genius" to explain away logical impossibilities.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell I will read the books on de Vere . . . though I am, unfortunately, too busy to right now. I have closely studied the arguments for "reasonable doubt" - and I am not convinced. If another candidate wrote the plays, direct, explicit evidence will exist (somewhere) to support the claim . . . I do appreciate engaging in an intelligent discussion on the matter - and am encouraged that the appreciation for the Elizabethan / Jacobean period flourishes!

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Remember that any side in a debate will have excesses. It is best to reconcile yourself with the most intelligent and open-minded proponents on each side of the debate. I believe beyond a reasonable doubt the Oxford is the voice we hear so clearly in the works. I also believe the mystery contains leeway for the Stratford Man to be somewhat involved, to what extent we might never know. It also allows Bacon, as former employer of Ben Jonson, to be involved in the editing process.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele 1. The artist was 14 at the time of Shaksper's death 2. The Folio only says "sweet swan of avon" and "thy stratford moniment". THAT'S IT. Nothing else to link the man from Stratford with the plays. That seems weak, as though they want to gloss over any autobiographical info. We know that Jonson needed money, and I think this was a job he took on as some sort of favor to the Earls of Montgomery and Pembroke, de Vere's in-laws, btw, and to the de Vere family, as he knew them as well.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Clear the slate, if you will. Don't you think that a person of immense privilege and wealth, who spent it on literary projects, and traveled to Italy, to the exact spots in the plays, and went to law school, is an ideal candidate? Someone who grew up around actors, who was tutored by the best in the realm, who had demons, who was somewhat of an exhibitionist, known for a sharp tongue, (to his discredit) and spendthrift ways, someone who drove his wife crazy fits the bill best?

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Someone tutored by Sir Thomas Smith of Eton, Lawrence Nowell, of Beowolf fame, and his uncle Arthur Golding, of Ovid fame, who knew the best botanist in England, who served on the jury which spared Southampton his life, who is associated with Paul's Boys, Oxford's Boys, and the Boar's Inn? Someone with the lease of Blackfriar's, who had John Lyly & Anthony Munday on his payroll. Someone who totally pissed off the "keepers of the records", his in-laws? No wonder it took until 1920

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I've discussed this with many people, and I've had the most fun interacting with you, Sir. I most humbly and cordially invite you to read about the life of Edward de Vere. He was cloaked to no small degree, and the research of the last 90 years has buttressed his case. Any fair minded person with the ability to shirk off the cognitive dissonance of killing a literary santa claus can see it clearly, but it takes at least 300 hours to know it with conviction. It's been fun~~~

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I assume you know the degree of censorship, and the disdain the Cecils had for dramatists and actors in general. I also think you know the intrigues going on, and the degree of duplicity exhibited by people in delicate positions of power. There were a few references to a royal who was the best writer of the time, if he could step forward to claim that title, and more than a few references to a poet-ape who claimed work that was not his own. You can read about it online.

[Azariaadele]

5) I am not aware of any specific reference to a "book" that Hamlet possesses (though in Act II scene ii lines 193-204, he refers satirically to a book that doesn't exist). However, if one wants to pick references from Shakespeare's work - and call them autobiographical - why go for an obscure dedication? Why not use Occam's razor and go for the most direct: Sonnet 136, the narrator says, "MY NAME IS WILL".

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Cardenas Comforte by Castiglione is the book. It has passages that Hamlet uses when asked by Polonius what he is reading. It also has passages on suicide that mirror the points made in To Be or Not to Be. As to the name WILL, Spenser wrote poems about two rival poets, Sir Philip Sidney and the Earl of Oxford, with Oxford's character being named WILL. William the Shepard was a model for the wandering poet, so the name William denoted a poet like the name James denotes a chauffeur

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Thank you for the book citation. I shall have to read it. My point, though, is that the phrase, "my name is Will" does not stand alone. It matches other first hand testimony - and is supported by physical evidence. A more exotic explanation is worthy of exploration, but it does not possess the same claim to "truth value" that WS does.

[Azariaadele]

4) It is true that Shakespeare's writing shows great proficiency with specific legal terms. It's possible that he was a law clerk. However, I don't understand why he would have been required to have a career in law. Emily Dickinson, for example, demonstrates a powerful and precise knowledge of legal terms, but she rarely left her home. She absorbed it through some conversation with her brother who became a lawyer, but she was intelligent enough to put the rest together on her own.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Law clerks did specific things, namely being witnesses to legal documents. There has been LOTS of research looking for a law clerk named Shakespeare, without a single document witnessed by him. So scratch that supposition. If Shakespeare's brother went to law school, you'd have an explanation akin to that of Dickinson. So, once again, genius/imagination is the reason, which defies logic and common sense.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell Thank you for the information about law clerks. Shakespeare had access to London. He was part of a milieu of highly intelligent playwrights. He also had access to nobles and other professionals. This is far more than Dickinson ever had at her disposal. Mozart transcribed precisely Allegri's 'Miserere' at age fourteen - after hearing it one time. If Mozart hadn't done so, the piece would have been lost to us. Is that impossible? No. It happened.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Mozart was tutored by his father from the age of 3. Music and Literature are distinctly different pursuits, are they not? Fine art as well. WS's work is based upon a mountain of esoteric knowledge, much of it in private libraries. There are ZERO links between the Stratford Man and Royals.No proof that he ever knew the 3rd Earl of Southampton, yet, he's called Shakespeare's "patron". Oxfordians are not required to make such leaps of faith. 3rdEofS was engaged to his daughter, FACT

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell There is no "leap of faith" taken when one relies upon primary sources, mutually corroborated and tested against physical evidence - and, then, attempts to understand a life based upon that information. Shakespeare was a member of The Queen's Men and then The King's Men. According to Stanley Wells, editor of the Oxford Shakespeare, this would have placed him in the company of nobles. Books were not hidden from playwrights who entertained kings and queens.

[Azariaadele]

3) Making oneself a "motley to the view" (sonnet 110) or a "disgrace" (as in "When, in disgrace with Fortune and men's eyes" [sonnet 29]) are such general expressions of humiliation, they could be given as a horoscope reading. More, Shakespeare's sonnets are highly artificial performances in rhetoric and poetry BEFORE the era of autobiographical writing. In our era, it seems natural that someone would pour out their private feelings in sonnets, but that was not true in the Elizabethan era.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I think it is typical to call the sonnets "literary exercises", but I don't buy into that. I take them at face value, namely, a disgraced, highly educated person, over 40, lame, disgraced, someone who was so close to the Queen they "held the canopy", who was VERY fond of the 3rd Earl of Southampton. One person fits that bill, Edward de Vere. Otherwise, the sonnets are pure fiction, and they're too heartfelt and specific to be fiction. And only de Vere fits the bill.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Would you agree that Shake-speare was writing ahead of his time? His empathy for hunted animals was unique, and 150 years ahead of anything similiar. Isn't his honesty in certain matters the reason he's timeless? Why doubt the sonnets? De Vere was disgraced, highly placed enough to render advice to a fellow member of the peerage, and had a reason to do so, as the 3EofS was engaged to his daughter at one time. This mystery requires logic, and not playing favorites, IMO.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell First, you didn't address my point about 'Twelfth Night'. Also, Shakespeare was a dramatist who invented over 1000 distinct characters - each deeply persuasive and passionate. Shakespeare was profoundly innovative, but the sonnets are highly wrought rhetorical performances - both individually and also in their development as a narrative sequence with a love triangle. This should cause red flags to go up - for anyone who wants to imagine they are direct autobiography.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele I will take your 12th Nite point, but I don't see how that eliminates de Vere. I would love to find a single fact that does so. The Stratford argument is hinged on the weakest of arguments to do, such as the use of the word "equivocate" in Macbeth, when the word is used in Hamlet, which precedes the Gunpowder Plot. And the use of the Shipwreck in the Bermuda in the Tempest is flawed, as there was a famous shipwreck there in the 1590's, which was chronicled in London papers.

[edboswell]

@commonberus1 There was a previous case where the same defense by a cleric was used, and it was a famous trial as well. Eliminating de Vere based upon the use of a single word seems pretty weak to me. Now if WS had mentioned events after 1604, like the earthquake that hit London, or an eclipse before 1616, but after 1604, then it would weaken de Vere's position to a certain degree. We can only guess as to what editing took place after 1616.. But all contemporary events cease after 1604.

[commonberus1]

@edboswell You do not seem to be reading my point properly. Its not a single word its the correct context of Jesuits and equivication. As an Oxfordian you might argue that it was added by a later editor but to argue this is not a reference to the gunpowder plot is improbable to say the least. Bear in mind it was performed for James I the near victim of the gunpowder plot.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele BTW, do you think it's noteworthy that de Vere's in-laws received the dedication to the 1st folio? Or that he was called the "Italianate Earl", because of his love of Italy after his grand tour there? Or that he hired Lyly and Monday as secretaries, which enabled him to write such a large body of work? Remember that there were no public libraries, work at night was done by candlelight, there wasn't even an English dictionary until 1604, and only royals had money for $rare$ books.

[Azariaadele]

2) Wooing a person by telling them to "procreate" is used by Shakespeare again in 'Twelfth Night'. Viola is wooing Olivia on behalf of Orsino - and says that Olivia is "the cruelest she alive" . . . "If you will lead these graces to the grave / And leave the world no copy." (TN I. v. 230-2) Clearly, in 'Twelfth Night', there is no eligible daughter, but a direct courtship.

[Azariaadele]

1) Why would one need to come up with an exotic theory to explain the phrase "ever living poet" when one of the central themes of the sonnets is the triumph of poetry over time? Just look at sonnet 18: "When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st: / So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee."

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele Kindly show me another example of a living person being described as "ever-living". Just one.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell It is not my burden to show you such an example. It is your burden to prove that "ever-living" (however intriguing) is irrefutable proof of the poet's demise - which, given that the central theme of sonnet sequence, 1-126, is the poet's triumph over time and death - requires no exotic explanation . . . Again, my dispute is not with the innovative research and the historical exploration that you and others are engaging in. It is with the "truth claim" that is made.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele True, we owe each other nothing. I do not claim to know the "truth". I can only say that WS did not ring true to me, as a youth. There was something amiss. If you look at the people who have openly doubted the Stratford myth, they are highly intelligent people in their later years, Twain, Emerson, Henry James, Paul Nitze, Justices Stevens and Scalia, Freud, Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance, Sir George Greenwood, etc. These are not kooks, and are honestly engaged in the mystery.

[edboswell]

@Azariaadele And I must add, you seem to be very intelligent yourself. I find it much more enlightening to engage someone who can state their position well, as opposed to those whose cognitive dissonance over the killing of "Gentle Will" creates anger and distrust. I find this to be a great mental exercise. I have no dog in this fight, on one level. It's like a photograph in the darkroom, slowly showing clarity. Too many "coincidences" to explain away Oxford's links to the works, in my view.

[Azariaadele]

@edboswell One of my good friends is an Oxfordian. I have had this discussion with her on a number of occasions . . . I have no attachment to "Will". I simply feel that, if one is going to ignore primary sources, one must proceed with extreme caution. The physicists at CERN, for example, who may have observed a particle that challenges the speed of light established by Einstein, are not claiming victory: they are headed back to the laboratory to conduct experiments.

[commonberus1]

I have heard no strong reason to suggest Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him.

[commonberus1]

One of the problems with the reasoning in this video is that if Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare it could be almost anyone. The truth of which is shown in the many and proliferating alternative candidates proposed to have written the work, Malowe, Bacon, Lord Derby, Lord Rutland ect. ect. ect... De Vere is only the most prominent because he is the candidate every interested person has heard of. Why favour De Vere? Because he sponsored a translation of the work mentioned in Hamlet?

[edboswell]

@commonberus1 I have come to the conclusion that it is de Vere based upon much circumstantial evidence. The most perplexing problems when IDing the author, in my mind, are solved, ONLY with de Vere. 1. Unusual mastery of Ovid Answer: DeVere's uncle translated Ovid, while tutoring de Vere. 2. Sonnets are not "literary exercises", but painfully autobiographical, yet cloaked. Only de Vere was disgraced, lame, over 40, close to the queen, "Italiante" and with acting troupes in his name

[edboswell]

@commonberus1 Because he and he alone makes the sonnets non-fiction. He's over 40, "tanned with antiquity", and is proposing to have the 3rd Earl of Southampton marry his daughter. He's a trained lawyer, and traveled to every city in Italy that Shake-speare wrote about. He knew of Elsinore, as his brother in law was sent there by the Queen. His in-laws were the "keepers of the records", and were not pleased with him for hanging out with "lewd" people, namely poets and dramatists.

[edboswell]

@commonberus1 Because de Vere fits all of the criteria if one were to clear the slate. He was highly educated, tutored by Nobel Prize winners of the day. Because his uncle translated Ovid, Because he traveled to the cities in WS's Italian set plays. Because his family was portrayed in Hamlet. Because he had acting troupes and employed Lyly and Monday, because he died in disgrace, with pissed off in-laws who were the "keepers of the records", Because he knew hawking, the law, botany, etc.

[commonberus1]

@edboswell It seems all speculation to me with no hard evidence. No one, at the time, said Edward de Vere wrote the plays and poems in question.

[edboswell]

@commonberus1 There is no solid proof that Shaksper did either, hence the open question about authorship. Remember that there is not a single letter to or from him, only an undelivered letter asking for a 30 pound loan. When de Vere died, James I had WS's plays staged, and the same thing happened when his widow died. Nothing happened in 1616, no eulogies at all. All the facts we know of for certain point to de Vere, namely that his in-laws received the dedication to the 1st folio, etc.

[edboswell]

@commonberus1 Why not take the time to read up on the 17th Earl of Oxford? His links to the WS canon are profound, and the most perplexing of Shake-speare's mysteries are answered if one reads up on Oxford. I'm an art publisher, and understand the creative process quite well. I've always felt that something was very wrong about matching the Stratford man with the works. So did many eminent lawyers and literary figures, for good reason. Too many red flags exist w/o Oxford being the author.

[BenMAugust]

I think all you have to do is go to the facebook site and give them an email address and password. Please join us at facebook/TrueShakespeare we can use your help. You can also search for Edward de Vere - Shakespeare. Thanks! Ben

[BenMAugust]

Great Job Ed. You are appreciated. I hope you will visit us at facebook/TrueShakespeare - we could use your input. I posted your link! - Ben August

[edboswell]

@BenMAugust THANKS BEN, I went into facebook page. Can I join? Not sure how to. Let me know. I wish I could redo this video. I've been able to render much down of late. I believe the strongest logical tool in the Oxfordian arsenal is the clear reading of the 1609 Sonnets of William Shakespeare, whereby he is declared dead, (The Ever-living poet).... and the sonnets can only connect with the life of De Vere. With any other candidate, they are insane and problematic to an extreme.

[cwhanna]

Yep, I'm steadfastly in the Earl/devere camp, I've read every book on authorship twice . nice post.. good work, but it doesnt matter what you present, the notion that the actor from stratford wrote them won't go away until someone finds manuscipts of shakespeare plays signed by the earl in his own blood and then DNA tested.. but i digress..

[morphybum]

I think you will find that the Earl of Oxford also wrote the Da Vinci Code.

[thinazzabird]

What conventions applied to a DeVere in love with his son? I think sex was reg.d by the church and that it vented this control on it's own people, virtually never people outside the walls. The Prot.s were protesting within a class struggle against the Cat. church. Sexuality at that time was not ordered by reliable conventions- the Bible had yet to be "spun' and had a freshness in the (illegal) shedding of Latin. I bet the power-protestants were eclesiastically reactionary when it suited them.

[thinazzabird]

Shakespeare was the lover to a guardian's charge and so he wished to be the guardian to lovers or something like that. I can't get all the characters worked out and I don't know what predudice i bring to a father who writes love sonnets to his son- but his son was Elizabeth's son too- everything he wrote was digested eventually- everything he did was political and quasi-secret, he was raised by beth's chief of intelligence, a competant one as well, though how close they were I don't know.

[thinazzabird]

Do you think DeVere was close to Percival? I have heard that his natural father tried to kill him. It seems to me that the relationship he wished to set up between his daughter and the young man whom he loved, who is said I think to be his and Elizabeth's son, as a reflection, or sort of inversion, of a relationship complex that he had known in a (Denmark scented) youth? Shakespeare was possibly hetersosexual but his son was an androgynous beauty.

[jjamesg]

The Monument is a book by Hank Whittemore, and the Tudor Rose book was written by Elisabeth Sears, just in case you wanted to look them up, though I'm sure you've already come across those titles at some point... LoL, but for anyone else that stumbles on this page! ;-)

[librarylu]

IMO, the sonnets only make sense in light of de Vere's life.

Wasn't de Vere buried at Hackney Church (according to Parish records)? His first cousin, Percival Golding, wrote he was buried at Westminster Abbey, but the grave hasn't been found (to my knowledge).

The closest town would have been Stratford, now part of the city of London, (not Stratford-upon-Avon) - "thy Stratford moniment"

[edboswell]

Greetings, Yes, de Vere is listed a being buried there, but the location is no longer intact, making de Vere's remains exact whereabouts unknown. The sonnets are intensely personal, and point to de Vere, and away from all other claimants. Thanks

[edboswell]

The man from Stratford's parents were illiterate, as was one of his 2 daughters. He died without a book to his name. He NEVER wrote a letter, nor is there even a rumor that he did. He retired at the HEIGHT of his fame to a backwater town, with none of the 1,500 residents knowing he was a poet or dramatist. WHY HAD THE WORLD'S GREATEST DRAMATIST BEEN UNABLE TO WRITE A LETTER?

[commonberus1]

@edboswell There is an error here we know of 2 people visiting Stratford soon after Shakespeare's death who left a written record they had visited the town of the great poet.

There must have been many that left no record.

[edboswell]

"It is the Stratfordian view, not the Oxfordian, that lacks all literary pertinence. It has proven utterly sterile." "This is most apparent in the Sonnets, whose basic question of factuality has profoundly confused mainstream scholars."

Joseph Sobran from "Alias Shakespeare"

[edboswell]

Books worth reading are AlIAS SHAKESPEARE by Joseph Sobran SHAKESPEARE IDENTIFIED by J. Thomas Looney 1920 The MYSTERIOUS MR. SHAKESPEARE by Charlton Ogburn Jr. and SHAKESPEARE BY ANOTHER NAME by Mark Anderson. ..

Sir George Greenwood, M.P. an eminent lawyer, wrote convincingly of the fact that Shakespeare went to law school, before Oxford was revealed by J.Thomas Looney (rhymes with bony)

[librarylu]

I've read almost three out of four of the books mentioned (not quite through Anderson) and just found the fourth online:

shakespearefellowship . org/etexts/si/00 . htm

I don't see why the other candidates are even in the running.

I think it's possible there were contributions (by Derby, perhaps) and unfinished plays finished after his death by his friends, but I don't think anyone else could have written the sonnets. It may have been aught to him he bore the canopy, but it's a lot to me.

[jjamesg]

Another killer book is Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose, if you've not read that one yet... It's a good companion to The Monument... Those together with the Anderson book round out the whole picture in my opinion...