Talk:Baconian theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The page is presently being built so it is not yet in a state ready for evaluation. (Puzzle Master 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Hi The Singing Badger! Your help building this page is welcome! (Puzzle Master 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Still much work to be done but it's getting there. (Puzzle Master 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

In case anyone thinks that I'm only giving the pro-Bacon case, well yes I am to start with. But once I have done that, I intend to point out that no noteworthy poem of his has been found, etc. (Puzzle Master 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Thanks to QBrute for useful contributions. (Puzzle Master 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC))


Contents

[edit] The Shakespeare Puzzle not reliable

This comment is about QBrute's use of The Shakespeare Puzzle by Barry Clarke. QBrute has been using this book to make his arguements about changes to this article and others. While QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes, The Shakespeare Puzzle is not considered a reliable source based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, specifically the self-published sources section. In short, this book was self published by the author at Lulu.com and as a result "has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking (and) no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The only exception to this rule is for "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" but since Clarke's field of expertise is puzzles, this exception doesn't count.

As said before, QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes. Any use of this book, though, should not be permitted. In addition, QBrute, I don't think you are the devil. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Use of sockpuppets

Unfortunately, it also appears User:Barryispuzzled has been using sock puppets in this discussion and Shakespearean authorship. In short, the evidence suggests that QBrute and other anonymous editors here are also User:Barryispuzzled, who is Barryispuzzled admits on his user page, Barry Clarke, author of The Shakespeare Puzzle. The use of sock puppets to try and influence discussions and edits around articles is not permitted. User:Barryispuzzled is free to try and seek consensus on these proposed changes but he can not promote his own book in so doing. In addition, he should stop using sock puppets to seek these changes.

I should add, though, that overall I really like this article and think it is a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Just don't use it for self promotion. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(Shaking head in disbelief) Look, all I care about is the quality of these articles and I'm not interested in other people trying to get me involved in their personal issues by a projection onto me of bad intent. The Baconian theory article is constructed from my book and the quality of the arguments throughout the book are consistent with the Baconian article. What do you want me to do, write out the whole book here with its citations? Really? So why not let people have the gift of being able to check all the facts themselves in a free download? Do you really think that after years of researching this issue, giving a free download gives me some kind of personal reward? What is the difference anyway between say David Kathman sending people to a website containing all his research and interpretations and me sending people to a document? (Puzzle Master 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Most of your citations are to verifiable sources so it's not really a huge deal. The only concern is that you may be presenting a skewed version of Baconian theory. For example, you write "Contrary to the popular view, codes and ciphers play no prominent role in the most recent Baconian theories". Does 'the most recent theories' refer to your book? Many Baconians are still in thrall to codes and anagrams as far as I can tell, and ignoring that side of Baconianism is potentially misleading. Also, are the theories presented on this page common Baconian arguments, or are they your own discoveries? It's not clear. You should really cite from a wider variety of Baconians to present a fairer view of the theories. BTW, the difference between you and Kathman is that he is an expert on Elizabethan theatre history who has published in major journals in the field, whereas you are not. The Singing Badger 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So why don't you add the cipher material from the Shakespeare Authorship article? (Puzzle Master 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
I also have my hands tied with this article because I cannot cite my book or that of Cockburn since no matter how deep the research and carefully argued they are, both are privately published. (Puzzle Master 21:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
Oh, and most of this article is repeating common Baconian arguments ... I'm tempted to let someone else fill in the Counter Arguments section because I'd be curious to see what they come up with.(Puzzle Master 21:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, if they're mostly common arguments, you should be able to quote them from the classic books in the field. The Singing Badger 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it provides a much greater service to the reader to quote the historical primary sources directly than to burden the reader with finding these primary sources for themselves by going to the trouble of obtaining a secondary source. I imagine that this is what User:Williamborg meant when he was kind enough to leave the following message on my Talk page "After a few hours of looking at the material from new contributors, it was an immense relief coming across an article so well written. I marked it to come back to read carefully later. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)". Even Alabamaboy liked it (see above): "I really like this article and think it is a welcome addition to Wikipedia". It is gratifying when one's hard work and good intentions are appreciated. (Puzzle Master 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Oh, I agree, this is great work. But it would also be good to explain who originated these ideas: for example, who was the first Baconian to notice the Gray's Inn connections - how old is this theory? The Singing Badger 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Greg reference is interesting "it is perhaps best to assume that in the Treasurer's accounts, 28 Dec. is an error for 27 Dec". I knew that academics took this view and if I needed an example of intellectual dishonesty amongst 'scholars' this would be it. There are three arguments ranged against Greg's attempt to manipulate historical evidence: Gray's Inn precedent; the Pension Book (which would certainly have recorded payment to an outside party); and the fact that it explicitly states "Innocents Day" on the document. I have three questions for anyone reading this. (1) Are you able to put aside the feeling of needing to defend a position? (2) Are you willing to think for yourself instead of letting the 'scholars' do your thinking for you? (3) How much confidence do you have in yourself to question what the 'scholars' are telling you? (Puzzle Master 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Oh, come on...

The sentence "Shakspere of Stratford used several variants of his name during his lifetime including Shakespeare" shows a clear Baconian bias: Baconians habitually refer to Shakespeare using the "Shakspere" or "Shaksper" spellings of his name. He spelt his name in all sorts of different ways, but the mainstream convention today is "Shakespeare" - to refer to the guy using the usual Baconian spelling is clearly implied bias. I'm going to amend.Bedesboy 11:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that there isn't a section putting forward criticisms of the theory - I've added one, though it could do with some improvementBedesboy 11:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your argument. The Stratford man was baptised Shakspere. So that is where the investigation begins. How much evidence is there connecting the Stratford man with the actor with the author? To avoid assumptions, we distinguish between them by name but since there is ample evidence that the Stratford man was the London actor, we only need two names: Shakspere the Stratford actor and Shakespeare the author. The use of Shakespeare throughout uses the assumption they were the same person and this is not how any anti-Stratfordian theory conducts its investigation. There is no deception here because the article states that Shakspere sometimes used the name Shakespeare. (Puzzle Master 11:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Your creation of a Criticisms section is welcome as some counter arguments are required. (Puzzle Master 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

I think your new version of the last para of the terminology section is fine - nice one :-). I accept that the use of the conventional academic spelling is "...not how any anti-Stratfordian theory conducts its investigation". However, this isn't an "investigation" - it's a Wikipedia article and it needs to be as dispassionate as possible. In the criticisms section I've taken some care to cite sources and use a third person formulation. I think this article has the makings of something very promising and maybe even a featured article, but it needs to be completely Wikified and NPOV. Nice to meet you, by the way. Bedesboy 13:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an argument that concealed authorship was not unusual. Describing contemporary writers, the dramatist and pamphleteer Robert Greene wrote that "others ... which for their calling and gravity being loth to have any profane pamphlets pass under their hands, get some other Batillus to set his name to their verses." Greene, Robert, Farewell to Folly (1591) (Batillus was a minor poet in the reign of Augustus Caesar). (Puzzle Master 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

I think it is correct to include the First Folio graphics in support of Jonson's testimony. There is evidence that Jonson's attitude to Shakspere was equivocal:

JONSON ARGUMENT. The following note was discovered amongst Ben Jonson’s papers after he died in 1637. It was published in Timber: or Discoveries, made upon men and matter (1641) and represents a clear expression of Jonson’s perception of the relationship between Shakespeare and Shake-speare: "I remember, the Players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing, (whatsoever he penn’d) hee never blotted out line. My answer hath beene, ‘Would he had blotted a thousand,’ which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most faulted." Our first observation is that “in his writing” is qualified by “whatsoever he penned” as if Jonson is counselling caution as to what should be attributed to the actor. We then have “Would he have blotted a thousand” which is clearly identified as a “malevolent speech.” This appears to mean that whatever Shakespeare wrote was so poor that Jonson felt it deserved to be blotted out. Jonson evidently felt that the actor’s writing (if it existed) was unworthy of commendation. He continues with a comment on Shakespeare’s spontaneity: "… wherein he flow’d with that faculty, that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopp’d: Sufflaminandus erata; as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his owne power; would the rule of it had beene so too. Many times he fell into those things could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him ‘Caesar, thou dost me wrong.’ He replied, ‘Caesar never did wrong but with just cause’: and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." Key : (a) he had to be repressed This is a telling reference to the Roman orator Haterius who had a reputation for confusing his words. With “would the rule of it had beene so too,” Jonson does not confirm the level of intelligence one might expect from the author of the Shake-speare work. Julius Caesar was first printed in the First Folio (1623) where the following appears at the end of a 14-line speech by Caesar:

Caesar. … Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause
Will he be satisfied
(1599 Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1)

The two most likely interpretations of Jonson’s comments are as follows: (a) The line that he heard the actor recite was from an earlier version of Julius Caesar (which does not survive), Shakespeare correctly recalled it, so Jonson was instead criticising the writing. Since the actor was the object of the ridicule, Jonson was then attributing the writing to him. Caesar’s speech must have been modified later for the First Folio. (b) There was no earlier version of Caesar’s speech and it originally existed as given in the First Folio. The actor had incorrectly recalled the line and replaced it with an ill-considered version. Jonson was therefore ridiculing the recollection not the writing.

Fortunately, there is some evidence to allow us to decide between these alternatives. In 1625, Ben Jonson’s comedy The Staple of News was acted by “His Majesty’s Servants” containing the line that had made Shakespeare such an object of ridicule for Jonson. The Induction (or Prologue) has the following exchange between Prologue and Madame Expectation:

Prologue : [We ask] That your Ladyship would expect no more than you understand.
Expectation : Sir, I can expect, enough.
Prologue : I fear, too much, Lady and teach others to do like.
Expectation : I can do that too, if I have cause.
Prologue : Cry you mercy, you never did wrong, but with just cause.

In consideration of case (a), it is reasonable to assume that Jonson would have been aware of the correction to the line in Julius Caesar, especially since there is evidence that he worked on Shake-speare’s First Folio and his two eulogies suggest some empathy for the writer at that time. Two years later The Staple of News appeared. It seems unlikely that Jonson would now continue to ridicule the deceased author because not only had the line now been corrected for the First Folio, but he had demonstrated his respect for him only two years earlier. This leaves us case (b), where the First Folio version of Julius Caesar was the original one and the actor incorrectly recalled a line that was not his. The implication is that Jonson perceived Shake-speare the author and Shakepeare the actor to be different people, for while one might forgive the real Shake-speare for forgetting one of his own lines, one would not expect him to give a “ridiculous” substitute in its place. (Puzzle Master 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Of course it's often been pointed out that "Caesar never did wrong without just cause" is a brilliant line, a beautiful piece of political hypocrisy that is worthy of Tony Blair. Trust the pedant Jonson to miss the irony - I wouldn't be at all surprised if he mutilated Shakespeare's text out of his own sene of 'correctness'. The Singing Badger 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite. With all due respect, that's Baconianism all over: picking away at the text while forgetting that there's a ton of evidence for Shakespearean authorship, not least the fact that all these people talk about Shakespeare as the author of his own work. I know Jonson seems to have a bit of a love-hate relationship with Shakespeare - so what? The claim that Bacon wrote Shakespeare is an extraordinary one, given the mass of evidence that William Shakespeare wrote them. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. None of the evidence I've seen for Baconianism or Oxfordianism or any of the other theories is extraordinary - it is trivial and wholly dependent on assumptions. I can't imagine Bacon approving of any thesis put forward on the basis of such shaky evidence. Anyhow, that is fundamentally beside the point: WP is not the place to argue about these things - it's a place to give a balanced overview, presenting as fact the conclusions that seem overwhelmingly likely while acknowledging that outside of mathematics nothing is ever finally proven. The Shakespeare/Bacon debate is a bit like the evolution/ID debate - rational consensus supports the former in each case, but a minority has advocated the latter. The notion that anyone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and poems of Shakespeare is not, in my view, a balanced presentation: it is an unsupported assertion supported by a vocal minority on the fringes of rational debate. It merits detailed reporting because it has an interesting history in itself (see Schoenbaum), but until it comes up with more startling evidence than it has so far, it can't be taken seriously as literary history. That's not intended personally, and I hope you don't take it as such - I'm very glad you're getting involved in WP. However, we have to remember what Wikipedia is not.

These are your personal views based on what you have uncritically accepted as true. I have not seen a credible counter argument in anything either you or The Singing Badger has said. You forget that it is the minority who have always been responsible for cultural advancement! :) (Puzzle Master 10:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

"Uncritically accepted as true?" - congratulations, because you have managed to offend me (not easy) and be completely wrong at the same time. In case you're not familiar with rational modes of thought, "critical thinking" consists of weighing the available evidence and making a decision based upon it. I have weighed the evidence really quite carefully - as I do in all things - and come to the conclusion that the argument that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare is almost certainly complete rubbish. Yes, these are my personal views in the same way that the ones you express are your personal views: it just so happens that an overwhelming number of intelligent, educated people support my position, whereas yours is supported by a tiny minority. Why? Because the evidence for my position is much, much stronger.
As I observed above, I admit there is no certainty outside of mathematics: I cannot finally prove Shakespeare was written by Shakespeare any more than I can prove that the earth travels around the sun. All I can do is weigh the available evidence and make a judgement based upon it. In both the case of Shakespeare and the case of planet Earth, it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the conventional positions. The arguments I put forward in the criticisms section are supported by major evidence - which makes them very "credible", I should say. The point is, however, that as the maker of the extraordinary claim the onus is on you to come up with the extraordinary evidence. None of the evidence for Baconianism is extraordinary. No mainstream historian considers it legitimate. If any of it were legitimate, it would have been seized upon by academics, whose desire to make a name for themselves would hugely outweigh any sentimental attachments to W. Shakespeare.
As I have already said, that is completely irrelevant: we're here to write and edit an Encyclopedia based on information that is considered by the overwhelming majority of observers to be overwhelmingly likely to be true - and which, furthermore, is supported by the weight of solid empirical evidence. Wikipedia is not the place to evangelise your minority views - start a blog or find a forum to get them off your chest. I'm sure the ghost of Thomas Looney would be proud of you, even if Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method, I seem to recall) probably feels like rising from his grave and giving you a lesson about the nature of evidence and probability.Bedesboy 15:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think though. I think that the Stratfordian point of view is uncritically accepted by people who read other people's textbooks, have given up thinking for themselves, and have become so obsessed with details surrounding the Stratford man that they neglect the wider picture. Bacon was a superior intellect to any man alive. That is a fact. No such fact exists for the Stratford man. So I recommend you check out the credentials and circumstances of Bacon. Oh, and ignore the cipher stuff, it's largely child's play. By the way I'm a scientist with published papers so you can save your lecture on probability!!! (Puzzle Master 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Holocaust denial: Criticism section (User:86.136.163.135)

"Shakespeare scholar Jonathan Bate has compared Baconianism (and Oxfordianism, the belief that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare) to holocaust denial. He also contends that the popularity of Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories offers a lifeline of respectability to holocaust deniers, who deploy a similarly slack logic and lack of academic rigour in their arguments. [6]"

I had to read this several times, I couldn't believe such an offensive statement had been included in the article. The holocaust is corroborated by the personal testimony of many thousands (some still alive) who suffered under Nazi rule. There is no way I would even consider denying their experiences. The Baconian theory relies on a particular interpretation of a set of far-past historical evidence. I think the inclusion of this minority view is a cheap attempt to associate the Baconian theory with anti-Jewish feeling and it should be removed. (Puzzle Master 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Have to say I agree with Puzzle Master about this. Also, it seems to have a forum source, which hardly puts it in the mainstream of the debate. AndyJones 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Definately remove that comment. Comparisons like this are an aspect of Reductio ad Hitlerum and Godwin's Law and a poor way to frame an arguement.--Alabamaboy 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this argument, guys, as I've been moving house. I'm willing to go with the consensus, though I think you're wrong. First, Bate is a leading Shakespeare scholar - arguably *the* leading Shakespeare scholar in the UK. Second, It's an interview, not a forum source. Third, the point he is making is that Baconians and Holocaust deniers use logic in the same way: by picking on details to try and overturn a mass of strong evidence. He does *not* suggest that there is direct moral equivalence between the two camps. My inclusion of it was definitely *not* an attempt to "associate the Baconian theory with anti-Jewish feeling". Alabama Boy, I agree with you that it does indeed smack of Godwin's Law and should be removed for that reason - although I hope it's clear I was simply reporting the opinion of a major academic in the field. Bedesboy 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you read the Baconian article? I can accept that you don't want to be persuaded but where is the flaw in the logic? Apart from the fact that 10000 scholars have voted for it (and democracy is no criterion of truth), where is the strong Stratfordian evidence? I am reading Bate's book and I'm sorry but the unwarranted interpolations he makes are gratuituous to say the least. The idea that Chettle's apology is directed at Shakspere when there is more evidence for Nashe (who had already taken offence to the Groatsworth) is wishful thinking. He is just recycling every uncritical view on Shakspere he has ever read. Also, to me, he appears not to have done his reseach on the authorship question because several important arguments he appears never to have heard of! Don't believe ALL you read. Think for yourself! Take care. Puzzle Master 10:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read it, and I like to think I do a rather good job of thinking for myself. The problem with all the alternative authorship theories, as I have said, is that they are based on tendentious readings of tangential evidence. As the "strong Stratfordian evidence", what does the poor guy have to do? He's got his name all over F and the Stationer's Register and in texts written by contemporaries. If there is a conspiracy theory at work, it's the biggest and most successful in history. By the way, have you read any of Bacon's extant poetry? Up until now I'd only read the essays, but I looked at some of the poems today - God, it's a good job the man had a day job :-) Bedesboy 17:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If after reading the arguments in both the Shakespearean authorship and Baconian theory sections your suspicion about Shakspere has not been even remotely aroused then evidently there is no possibility that a considered reponse to your comments will make the slightest difference to your view. Perhaps we should just agree to differ. Puzzle Master 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The most intensely annoying thing about this is that you're portraying *me* as the one who is being irrational and closed-minded. The fact is that the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of Shakespeare's plays is overwhelming; stronger and more detailed than the evidence we have for self-authorship of Shakespeare's contemporaries and predecessors. There's not as much evidence for Kyd writing The Spanish Tragedy as there is for Shakespeare writing Hamlet. There's not as much evidence for Chaucer writing The Canterbury Tales as there is for Shakespeare writing the plays. But nobody questions them. All the arguments against Shakespeare's authorship are based on dubious interpretations of trivia.
My observation is that anti-Stratfordianism is strongest among people who don't really understand the plays as theatre and as art. You don't hear of many anti-Stratfordian actors or directors - plays written by non-actors are, notoriously, harder to stage than those written by actors. Just ask anyone who's acted in both Shaw (non-actor, nightmare) and Pinter (actor, pragmatic) . Shakespeare makes staging easy because he was probably writing the damn things on a stage. Neither is anti-Stratfordianism found among people who actually understand Elizabethan and Jacobean culture and history in detail, and the fact that it was a pre-Enlightenment, pre-Romantic culture. Generally you find anti-Stratfordianism among non-specialists - and often those who lack the social and cultural awareness to see the plays as anything other than puzzles to be picked away at.
Sure, the Romantic view of Shakespeare the lone genius is inaccurate - the guy wrote in a milieu and would have incorporated criticisms and suggestions from his fellow actors. But the anti-Stratfordian theories also spring from that Romantic view: the notion of Bacon or Oxford or whoever labouring away in secret to create masterworks. That wasn't how theatre was created in those days. It was more like the writing of an episode of The Simpsons - one lead writer getting lots of input and feedback from other writers and performers. Shakespeare's plays are in many senses a team effort, although Shakespeare was the clear team leader and presiding genius. Bacon wasn't part of any theatrical team, nor were any of the other conspiracy theory contenders.
So there we go. Johnson was talking about Voltaire's formal, neo-classical criticique of Shakespeare when he used the phrase "the petty cavils of petty minds" - but he might as well have been talking about anti-Stratfordianism.Bedesboy 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning to (User:86.136.163.135)

There is no point attacking this article because one way or another it will all be changed back again. Puzzle Master 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant by this comment. However, I agree with AndyJones about removing the link to your book. The link is self-promotional and not allowed per Wikipedia policies. Otherwise, the article is looking good. Best,--Alabamaboy 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite. I *think* I was 86.136.163.135, but I've just changed ISPs, so I'm not sure. I daresay a sockpuppet will appear and set me straight :-) Bedesboy 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a meaningful warning anyway. Surely ANON is as entitled to edit this page as Puzzle Master or any of the rest of us. AndyJones 12:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
(To AndyJones) I guess the problem I have with your contributions here is that I don't see any article or arguments you've created so when I see you deleting references to my name everywhere (and this is something you choose to do - no one is paying you to do it) I'm thinking "this guy can't create anything of his own, he just wants to cut what others' produce, hiding under the veil of Wiki guidelines". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do create things here, but I haven't seen anything. There are too many destructive influences in this world and I celebrate the creators because they are few and far between. To be fair to you, you did award me a Barnstar, but I would appreciate a more vocal support from you in these Talk sections in defence of the positive work I'm trying to doing here, which (despite your belief) has more to do with the promotion of ideas than promoting myself. Puzzle Master 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

AndyJones has been an editor here for more than a year and has more than 3000 edits. Creating article isn't all that Wikipedia is about; editors also work to verify information and seek consensus on controversial additions to articles. AndyJones is merely doing what editors here should do. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verbal parallels

Divided Parallels into three sections and added an example in new Published Work part. Puzzle Master 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gray's Inn

Added the Gesta's description of the performers as 'base and common', which was not mentioned. I made a guess about what the Baconian response is, but please correct it and/or add a citation if possible. The Singing Badger 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion in the context of its use although I tweaked it. There is evidence that the revels' confusion was contrived to execute a theme of conflict and reconciliation with the Templarians, because this theme was used again in 1597-8 at the Middle Temple revels in association with Lincoln's Inn [see Leslie Hotson's Mr W.H. (1964), p.60]. The 'base and common' description of the players occurred in a law skit where the Clerk of the Crown accused a 'Sorceror or Conjuror' of causing the confusion. Among the accusations was one that he 'foisted a company of base and common fellows to make up our disorders with a play of errors and confusions', which would have been a public slight on the Lord Chamberlaine's men if they really had been involved. One can be sure that a professional company of players would have received a payment recorded in the Gray's Inn Pension book but anyway, Gray's Inn had their own players as evidenced by the many skits that were performed during the revels. The whole argument (together with an argument for Love's Labour's Lost being intended for performance) is set out in Chapter 7 of that deleted unreliable source The Shakespeare Puzzle. Oh, and look out for Lucy Negro of Clerkenwell in the Gesta, a possible dark lady of the sonnets. Puzzle Master 19:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you see a 'law skit', I see 'a play of errors' as referring to The Comedy of Errors and the sorceror who causes confusions as Dr Pinch in the play ... but to be fair the Gesta is pretty hard to interpret at times. Anyway, it would be really nice to quote an established Baconian publication on this point rather than add original research responses. Really it would. I'll keep my eyes open for Lucy Negro though. :) The Singing Badger 20:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right, the 'play of errors' is the Comedy of Errors. It was part of a Night of Errors which included a crowding of the stage to delay the performance of the Comedy of Errors so that the Templarians could go home offended (as I said, it was a deliberately planned theme of conflict and reconciliation). Two days later a law court-room skit was performed in which a 'sorceror' was blamed for the confusions that night including organising the play. Puzzle Master 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that now, I misread it. Thanks. The Singing Badger 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not the easiest of documents to understand! Puzzle Master 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a line to cite fact that Gray's Inn had their own company of players over the revels duration. Puzzle Master 10:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacon's letter to Burghley

Bacon's letter to Lord Burghley reads as follows:

It may please your good L. I am sory the joynt maske from the four Inns of Court faileth wherein I conceyve thear is no other ground of that event but impossibility. Neverthelesse bycause it falleth out that at this tyme Graies Inn is well furnyshed of galant young gentlemen, your L. may be pleased to know that rather than this occasion shall passe without some demonstration of affection from the Inns of Court, thear are a dozen gentlemen of Graies Inn that out of the honour which they bear to your L. and my L. Chamberlayne, to whom at theyr last maske they were so much bounden, will be ready to furnish a maske wyshing it were in their powers to performe it according to their mynds And so for the present I humbly take my leave resting

Your Ls very hmbly and much bounden fr. Bacon

(Bacon to Lord Burleigh, folio 13, Burghley Papers, MS Lansdowne 107, British Library, in Bacon’s handwriting) If you want to examine the document for yourself, here it is [[1]] (I have a one year worldwide copyright.) Puzzle Master 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just meant that something stable is needed because not all Wikipedia users have access to the British library. :) The Singing Badger 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting point ... notice that the two Bacon letters show that he is not only controlling the Gray's Inn players but those for all four Inns of Court. On 2 February 1602, John Manningham does not record who played Twelfth Night at the Middle Temple. The Middle Temple records show only '£5 as a favour, are allowed to those who remain [over Christmas]'.[Hopwood, Charles Henry (Ed.), Middle Temple Records, Vol. 1 (Butterworth & Co: 1904), p.418] This £5 favour was also granted for the three previous Christmas breaks. It would have taken all of this amount (perhaps more) to hire a professional company for a play. However, if Bacon had a group of players at his disposal, isn't the probability with them performing Twelfth Night?! What this suggests is that the Lord Chamberlain's men were not the only company playing Shakespeare plays. Puzzle Master 09:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about theatre here. Remember that the Inns of Court players wre amateurs; we've all seen amateur acting. Remember also that the plays we know the Inns of Court players to have performed (Gorboduc, Jocasta, Supposes and various masques) are stentorian in style, requiring the actors only to learn their speeches and then declaim them. The Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night are written for professionals: they are fast-paced comedies that require actors skilled in comic timing and physical comedy while simultaneously being emotional and heartfelt. Sure, it would have been cheaper to hire the Inns of Court players - but it would have been more fun to get the professionals in to do it properly and provide reliable entertainment. The Singing Badger 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you believe this yourself. Every year I see Shakespeare performed in the Oxford colleges by amateur actors and they are good productions. What's more, there is no record in the Gray's Inn Pension Book for payment to a professional company. I'm amazed the lengths to which you are prepared to stretch credulity to prevent your man Shakspere expiring! :) Puzzle Master 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonson's testimony of Bacon

In Credentials for Authorship, I have clarified Jonson's meaning of 'numbers' and 'mark' by placing them in the text. I recognise that The Singing Badger has already debated this point, however, I rely not on my own authority but on Shakespeare's Words by Crystal and Crystal (citation included). Puzzle Master 22:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But what does 'filled up all the numbers' mean if 'numbers' means verses here? The Singing Badger 23:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Verses had numbered lines. So 'filled up all the [line] numbers'. Puzzle Master 08:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Verses had numbered lines? Are you sure? (I always thought 'numbers' referred to the meter, i.e. number of syllables per lines). The Singing Badger 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is "numbers" means "verses". Why would you question a dictionary definition, especially Shakespeare's Words which gives contemporary meaning? Another example: "To tell or relate something in numbers or verse;" [2] Puzzle Master 10:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems you're right about the meter. Discussion of Shakespeare's Sonnet 17:

If I could write the beauty of your eyes,
And in fresh numbers number all your graces

"Line 6. 'in fresh numbers number' = in fresh verses enumerate; the first numbers is a noun meaning verses, the second is a verb meaning to count. Verses were sometimes referred to as numbers because of their musical quality, and the fact that one could count the number of stresses to a line etc." [3] Puzzle Master 10:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The reason I keep prodding you is that 'Bacon has filled up all numbers' is not much of a compliment if it refers to poetry. It's as if writing a poem simply consists of deciding on the meter, and then 'filling it up'. Now, that describes well Bacon's extant poetry, which is metrically perfect to the point of being stilted and dull [4]; but Shakespeare's writing often isn't metrically perfect; he messes with the meter, breaks the rules, startles you. If Jonson is talking about Bacon's poems, he's using a very backhanded compliment (something he was of course a master of). The Singing Badger 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'd love to see what you think is the most likely interpretation of this. Remember, there are three ideas here that need a common thread, (1) 'numbers' which was commonly interpreted as verses, (2) 'insolent Greece haughtie Rome' which Jonson used in the First Folio, and (3) 'stand as the mark of our language' that is, Bacon stands as the mark not Shakespeare whom Jonson also knew (I mean he worked on the First Folio)! Remember also that Jonson had no reason to have a grudge against Bacon because he was employed by him in translating his Essays into Latin. Here's the piece: "But his learned and able (though unfortunate) successor [Bacon] is he who hath filled up all the numbers , and performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or to haughty Rome ... so that he may be named, and stand as the mark of our language." Puzzle Master 18:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I already told you, I think 'numbers' means 'numbers' in this context because Jonson is talking about rhetorical speeches in this passage, not poetry. I think "filled up all numbers" means something like "swollen the ranks". My point was that 'filled up all numbers' makes no sense if it means poetry, due to the subject matter of the passage, and the backhanded nature of the 'compliment'. The Singing Badger 13:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the subject matter of the sentence?! We have "numbers"/verses, the First Folio, and 'mark of our language' in THE SAME SENTENCE!!!. And how many more contemporary examples of 'numbers' meaning 'verses' do I have to give you?! Clearly a contemporary dictionary definition does not suffice. So what is your plan? Invent your own dictionary definition and cite yourself? Jonson's aspiration in life was to improve his social status. I have found no example of Jonson giving Bacon a back-handed compliment - he respected him (he even wrote a poem for Bacon's 60th birthday "And in the midst/Thou stand as if some mystery thou didst"). Puzzle Master 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[5] I keep seeing the argument that since Bacon's extant poetry is inferior to Shakespeare's then he could not have written the Shakespeare work. Bacon said he was a 'concealed poet'. Wouldn't it be fair to say then that he might have taken measures (like writing inferior poetry) to effect the concealment? We're not dealing with a court fool here, this is the greatest English philosopher of the age. The notion that Bacon had no rhetorical skill is propagated by those who have not studied his work. Read the Works of Lord Bacon by James Spedding (it's only 14 volumes!). There you'll find many verbal parallels with the Shakespeare work. I don't buy the argument that Jonson could have given Bacon a 'back-handed comment'. While Jonson felt comfortable criticising Shakspere (whom he regarded as inferior class) he would have gone out of his way to praise Bacon (whose class he hoped to attain to). Why didn't Bacon correct the grammatical problems in the First Folio? Here are some ideas. (1) He still had his masterwork De Dignitae & Augmentis Scientiarum Libri IX to complete. (2) He decided that it was work others could easily do. Puzzle Master 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was a concealed poet when I was 14. It wasn't because I was plotting the Great Instauration. It's because I knew I was crap, but I liked writing poetry anyway.
There are ASTONISHING parallels between Shakespeare and the works of the Earl of Oxford too!!![6] How can this be????? Were they BOTH Shakespeare?!!?!?!!?!?!!?! Think very, very carefully about WHY people are able to find parallels between Shakespeare and more than one writer. NO - don't stop thinking - you were about to stop. KEEP thinking.
This is the Singing Badger signing out for the sake of his mental health. The Singing Badger 13:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, but we're talking here about the consequences of Bacon being revealed as a poet in the Elizabethan age, that is, being seen as having too much fantasy for government. You cannot suppress/reinterpret evidence just because it doesn't fit your own candidate, Mr Billy Wagjavelin of Stratford. In contrast, my own mental health is fine! :) Puzzle Master 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that if someone says he's a concealed poet then it's difficult to say his poetry is bad from the poetry he advertises. But his advertised poetry could show he's a good poet (Bacon's doesn't). But then if it did he wouldn't be trying to conceal himself. Bodleyman 11:53, 27 Septmeber 2006

Too much fantasy for government! Unlike Philip Sidney, Thomas Wyatt, Thomas More, Edmund Spenser and all the other politician-poets of the age who openly published their poetry... this conversation is absurd. Goodbye. The Singing Badger 13:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't go! I've got some more evidence! From the play Sir Thomas More "Poets were ever thought unfit for state." [7] "Thomas Bodley the founder [of the Bodleian Library] had famously objected to plays as mere 'baggage-books': prior to 1640, therefore, the library was devoid of plays." [8] "I know very many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably and suppressed it again, or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it, as if it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem learned and to show himself amorous of any good art." — Puttenham, George, Art of English Poesie (1589). However, the real point (which you avoid) is how you plan to explain the occurrence in the same sentence of "numbers"/verses, a reference to the First Folio, and describing Bacon (not Shakespeare) as the "mark of our language" (which, to me, points more to literature than philosophy especially since Jonson wrote plays himself). Alternatively, you could humbly concede that this is nice piece of Baconian evidence (and I'd certainly respect you for it). Puzzle Master 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet more evidence that Jonson was deferential to Bacon. "Yet there happened in my time one noble speaker, who was full of gravity in his speaking. His language (where he could spare or pass a jest) was nobly censorious. No man ever spake more neatly, more pressly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech, but consisted of his own graces. His hearers could not cough, or look aside from him, without loss. He commanded where he spoke; and had his judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had their affections more in his power. The fear of every man that heard him was, lest he should make an end … I have and do reverence him, for the greatness that was only proper to himself, in that he seemed to me ever, by his work, one of the greatest men, and most worthy of admiration, that had been in many ages." — Jonson, Ben, Timber: or Discoveries; Made upon Men and Matter (1641), Workes. Bodleian Library : Douce. I. 303. STC 14753 Puzzle Master 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm confused. How does Johnson respecting Bacon count as evidence regarding the authorship of the plays? Zahir13 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is as to the sense in which certain allusions that Jonson made to Bacon's authorship of the Shakespeare work can be interpreted which depends on the degree of reverence he had for Bacon. In other words, does the probability lie with Jonson being sarcastic or genuinely appreciative. (Puzzle Master 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Ross Jackson deletion

The notion that Bacon was the son of Elizabeth I has been mentioned earlier in the section so it adds nothing to the discussion of the historical development of this idea. The rest appears to be using the article to promote a book which anyway is derivative of Peter Dawkins's work (which has already been mentioned in the historical section). (Puzzle Master 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/c/Talk%7EBaconian_theory_dcb9.html"