Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shakespeare authorship question is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

	Shakespeare authorship question is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Shakespeare authorship question:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Archives
*Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

[edit] Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article

If this article is confined to only citing "academic sources" there would be no article. It is, by its very nature, a controversy. Contributors to the controversy are not usually in academic institutions but this does nor mean they are too stupid to assemble a cogent argument. Neither does it mean their standards of investigation are necessarily lower than those in academia. Usually, Wikipedia does not attempt to evaluate arguments, it being sufficient that they originated from a scholarly source. That will not work here. These controversial arguments must be evaluated and, of course, they must rely on cited evidence (which is different from citing academic opinion). The best one can hope for is a balance of conflicting views, and space must be allowed to state the arguments of all sides. The danger is that a supporter of one of these controversial viewpoints might attempt to force a particular point of view (bias the article). In this case, I recommend issuing a warning and possibly a ban because this behaviour destroys the efforts of the group to balance the article. One might even consider freezing the article for a week or two to prevent further attack. (Puzzle Master 13:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

If you are creating the counter-argument yourself then it is "OR" and not acceptable. Thems the rules. Who or what exactly are you proposing to "ban"? Paul B 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Paul's question, please explain. Anyway, this article has to adhere to the WP:RS rule, the same as everything else. This isn't some abstruse piece of wikilawyering: WP:V is at the absolute core of what Wikipedia aspires to be. Much of Barry's argument falls at that hurdle. If this were a topic that we could not evaluate from reliable sources then it would have to be deleted. Fortunately, we can do so: although the article falls sadly short of that ideal in its current state. AndyJones 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"If you are creating the counter-argument yourself then it is "OR" and not acceptable." Paul, I don't understand this statement. Andy, can you name a single book in support of the Oxfordian, Baconian or Marlovian theories that has been published by one of the University Presses. These are the publishers with the most rigorous standards and which demand academic peer review. These are the publishers that constitute reliable (academic) sources. (They also happen to all be Stratfordians.) If not, why haven't the sections on these theories in the article been deleted? If not, why do we have this article? Taking the argument further, why do we have articles explaining the tenets of spiritualism, witchcraft, and UFO theorists when none of these ideas has academic status? Rules are fine but they were not delivered to us in stone by Moses, sometimes they need adjusting. (Puzzle Master 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

No, I cannot name any such books because so far as I am aware there aren't any. Anti-Stratfordianism is not considered credible by academia, and that is because anti-Stratfordianism is not credible. And WP:V is not negotiable. I will remove mercilessly any and all edits made to this (or any other) page based on the premise that it "needs adjusting". And I won't be alone. AndyJones 12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only do you sound like you believe you ARE Wikipedia but you also appear to believe you have a hotline to God about what truth is! (Puzzle Master 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

"OR" stands for Original Research, as you should know by now. Paul B 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be patronising. At least show some basic human respect. (Puzzle Master 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Don't be absurd. Basic human respect is something of which you seem to know nothing. However the answer was straightforward. Paul B 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well...Barry has certainly returned to these pages with quite a flourish! Did anyone call "en garde"? I think Barry does, however, raise an important issue. What are RS and V and who settles the grey areas? To quote a few WP policy pages:

(from WP:V) "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
(from WP:V) "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
(from WP:RS - and one of my favorites. It certainly applies here) - "This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

So what I learn from these policies is that while academic journals from University Presses are the BEST sources, they are not the ONLY sources allowed on WP. Magazines, books from respected publisheing houses and mainstream newspapers are completely fair game. I think it greatly depends on the topic. On the WS page, due to its status and universal importance only the best sources were "allowed" by the editors. And in every case, an academic source was avaivable - even the Authorship Question is heavily covered by academia - it just took a little searching. Heck, even Wells/Kathman cover the issue and candidates pretty darn well, in spite of a few whopping errors by Kathman. Also, the authorship casebook Shakespeare and His Rivals covers each claimant very well. These sources don't have to support a candidate in order to give a fair reading of each claim, which they do pretty well - especially Shakespeare and His Rivals. Hey Barry - even the Group Theory with Oxford, Bacon, Shaksper & others is covered. Naturally, if academic sources can be found for any particular statement, than that source certianly trumps any other source. But, where no in-depth academic source is avaialble to reference a particular statement, then "books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers" are certainly allowed as RS. And for the most part, personal websites and blogs are simply not appropriate unless they conform to the self-published material rules above.

I believe this a reasonably understanding of the policies stated above. I would love to hear comments from the regular editors of these pages. Smatprt 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To Smatprt. You're wasting your time. There is no prospect of you hanging your own aggressive behaviour on me. When I was here months ago you were trying to skew this article towards Oxford and I see that you've now progressed to skewing the main Shakespeare article too. You've been asked not to by others but you've simply ignored these requests. Clearly, you are the one who is at war with everyone else here. You evidently have no interest in working with others and seem obsessed with fashioning these articles towards promoting Oxford. I have experienced your aggression first hand. I added a perfectly acceptable referenced addition about Bacon to the header in the interests of balance. However, you changed the name incorrectly from "Michell" to "Mitchell" and the date incorrectly from "2000" (which is on my copy) to "1996". Then, presumably because it didn't suit your cause, you removed my reference altogether and rewrote the header to favour your candidate. You appear not to have the slightest concern as to whether or not the reader obtains a balanced view. Sadly, I don't see anyone in authority on these forums who is attempting to restrain your cancerous destruction. People just quote rules at each other without any attempt at enforcing them. I think you should identify yourself instead of hiding behind a pseudonym and your sockpuppet Ben Jonson so that we can all see who you really are. I, personally, would like to see you banned from this forum. (Puzzle Master 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

To: Senator McCarthy. I am not, and never have been, a sock puppet of Smatprt, or of PuzzleMaster, or any other contributor to these forums.--BenJonson 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just found this on my talk page written by Smatprt from April. "Thought you might like to know that the Strats are quickly building a concensus to cut down the section on authorship on the main William Shakespeare page. These cuts include the summary on Bacon (as well as Oxford and Marlowe). The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Shakespeare#Consensus_on_authorship_section While we are on opposite sides (officially) of a three sided question, I have always thought that Bacon and Oxford were more connected than most will even consider.Smatprt 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)". I thought editors were not supposed to covertly elicit support from others. (Puzzle Master 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Forgive me for trying to keep you informed. FYI - I have never heard of such a rule and if it exists, then just about every editor of the William Shakespeare page is also guilty. Regarding my edits to your material - I am doing my best ot keep to academic sources (where possible). When they differ from your Bacon Theorists, there is really no question as to which source can be used. Your insistance on inserting material written by non-experts or taken from personal websites show you have no comprehension of WP:RS or WP:V. REgarding your accusation that I am a sock puppet for BenJonson, I suggest you do your research. I am no academian like BenJonson, who obviously has been editing alot longer and is way more knowledgible than I am. Thanks for the compliment, though. (Your insistance that I identify myslef is truly strange. Are you planning on attacking me personally?) Seriously, I have given so many clues as to my identity, I am surprised the PuzzleMaster appears to be stumped! Smatprt 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I know who you are! I've even heard a rumor you can act. :)--BenJonson 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Balance

Edited article for balance. I think this article should not be a platform for an obsessive to propagate Oxfordian views and I happily offer my services to maintain the balance with inexhaustible patience. (Puzzle Master 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

The whole article's crazy if you ask me. It needs cutting by half at least. (Hangemhigh 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

(==Who is this guy?== I made two edits here and this guy changes it all in hours! Is this a fascist regime or do we have democracy? (Hangemhigh 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

This is a wiki. Anyone can (and will!) mess around with your edits in any way they think fit. Some of those changes will be good and some will be annoyingly bad. It's neither fascism nor democracy (see WP:NOT, which discusses the issue). Do you want to discuss your changes here? AndyJones 12:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hangemhigh - I explained why I restored your cuts on the subject bars - something you failed to do. Deletion of properly referenced material, without any discussion, it the same as vandalism. Especially deleting entire sections. Why not try rewriting or editing a section instead of simply hitting delete?Smatprt 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An attack on Smatprt's behaviour, not on Smatprt. To Hangemhigh. Let me give you some advice. Don't get involved in an edit war. If Smatprt can revert your edits (and those of three other editors) in just four hours the elevator obviously doesn't go to the top floor. The difference between the contributions of most editors here and Smatprt's is that Smatprt feels he controls this article and only his version is permissible. This involves the obligatory insertion of propaganda (see WP:SOAP) to the effect that Oxford is the most popular candidate. He does this under the pretence of conducting himself in a 'proper' manner, quoting which Wiki guidelines he is following, and the fact that Oxford is mentioned (albeit negatively) in a host of scholarly books. He is oblivious to the amount of bias he is creating but then Smatprt has no difficulty deluding himself. The scale of denial he needs to muster to believe in Oxford is enormous (to you and me but not to him) involving the repudiation of all scholarly dating of plays after 1604 (with any topical allusions thereafter inserted by actors) and the fact that there is not a single piece of hard evidence connecting Oxford with a Shakespeare play (at least Bacon is connected to The Comedy of Errors through the Gesta Grayorum). Rest assured that those who read this article will not be so easily deluded. The general public can recognise an evangelist when they see one. As for you and me, despite the work of many editors, we will have to resign ourselves to the fact that this article will remain poor and leave Smatprt in his own private world of goodies and baddies where Oxford emerges as the hero to save the day. For me, it's sad he uses this article to act out his personal issues, one of which is obviously the demand to be heard, when hiring a therapist could save us and him a whole lot of grief. (Puzzle Master 12:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Reverted article to get rid of anti-Stratfordian POV. (Felsommerfeld 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

And in doing so, you edited out "Although all alternative candidates are rejected in most academic circles, popular interest in the subject has continued into the 21st century", making the article even more POV. I have restored. To repeat - mass deletion of propely referenced material is highly controversial and should be discussed first at talk.Smatprt 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, my dear anti-Stratfordian, I don't give a damn. (Felsommerfeld 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Nice. Very professional.Smatprt 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, academians react to Oxford negatively - JUST LIKE ALL THE CANDIDATES! But the fact remains that the academic community has labled Oxford as "the leading candidate", "the most popular candidate", "the leading theory", etc., cannot be disputed. And can we be honest - if I was supportive of Bacon, instead of Oxford, Barry would not be making this ruckus.Smatprt 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the "academic community" has labelled him any such thing. It's a fact that he's currently the most popular, but the phrase 'leading candidate' implies that the academic community has given his supporters some sort of approval. Paul B 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that, Paul. "Popular" is the word that is used by academics far more than "leading", although "leading" is used as well.Smatprt 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hangemhigh", "Tolerancebelowzero" - where are you guys suddenly appearing from and is the reappearence of Tom Reedy under his own name related? Is there a code somewhere? Paul B 23:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes - interesting that all 3 were created as "new users" on July 8th & 9th. Sockpuppets?Smatprt 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, huh? You sure know how to make enemies here. (Hangemhigh 11:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

If not, then I apologize. Seeing 3 new editors appear on the same page on the same day led me to assume something I should not have.Smatprt 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so Stephen Moorer. You altered my edit which corrected the reversion to alphabetical order of the candidates. Anyway, my real question is about your comment "the candidate order is not alpha - it details the top candidates based on current knolwdge and research". Which Wiki guideline says that candidates must be in order of popularity and not alpha order? Or is this something you have unilaterally decided? (Bodleyman 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

No wiki guideline dictates any order in a case like this. No unilateral decision - much discussion and a consensus built by another editor - Singing Badger, I believe. FYI - the candidates were never alpha - just haphazardly added over the years. BTW - if alpha, why would Marlowe be before DeVere? More to the point - the history of alternative candidate section ended with DeVere acknowledged as the most popular current candidate, then went on to his bio. In terms of flow, this makes for better readability.Smatprt 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So Oxford suddenly loses his title and becomes DeVere (and that rather than SOS's preferred spelling "de Vere" too) so he can go up the alphabet list. Do you have to be so unrelentingly one sided? Paul B 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul, if it's the title, it would be Earl of Oxford. Is it DeVere or De Vere? Oxford or Earl of Oxford? But this alpha debate is silly. If the consensus wants this alpha, so be it, but that discussion has never appeared on this page, as you know.Smatprt 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't be E for "Earl". That's not how encyclopedias and directories arrange names. Wikipedia is unusual in that you'd look for Frank Zappa by typing F first rather than Z, but that's because it's not a book. Paul B 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Why are unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry so rife on this page? Will people please read WP:AGF, and then either hold their tongues, or present some actual evidence, if they want to allege that I am Alabamaboy or that Smatprt is BenJonson or that a newbie is TomReedy or that the Earl of Oxford is Shakespeare. AndyJones 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My mission. To rid the world of conspiracy theories. (Suckpipette 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Reversion to consensus

The reversion I'm defending was agreed upon over 9 months ago. Smatprt or Stephen Moorer has simply made it POV Earl of Oxford (re. Paul B.'s discussion above, the original alpha candidate order was altered by Moorer without discussion).

Actually, there was considerable discussion and consensus brokered by Singing Badger about 6 months ago. Barry participated in those discussions as well as many other editors. Check the archive. Smatprt 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He has also been warned by the administrator Alabamaboy about his behaviour on his user page as follows. On 21 June: "Smatprt, please don't start an edit war on the article over that authorship section. A large number of us have worked really hard on the article and doing an edit war at this point would doom the FAC. Please do not make any more edits to that section. Also, Awadewit and qp10qp have said the authorship section won't be a deal breaker, so please don't start that discussion again on the FAC page. Most everyone has signed onto a compromise I brokered to leave the final decision on whether that section should or should not be in the article until after the FAC is finished. I am also e-mailing you something, so please check your in-box." and on 23 June "Again, please don't simply revert edits back and forth on the article. First discuss any controversial changes on the article's talk page." Moorer who is trying to boss everyone else about what goes in this article must not succeed. (Felsommerfeld 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately, you are refering to a discussion from another page so you are mixing apples and oranges. Alabamaboy brokered a compromise on the William Shakespeare page - not this one. FYI - Alabamaboy has since left that page because of what he percieved as higher standards being set for that page than others during the FA process. I defended the article against editors who wanted to remove the section IN WHOLE - what alabamaboy described as an attempt to "whitewash" the authorship issue. I supported his consensus and his request that I not edit war (made because several editors continued to dicker with the paragraph in question) was honored.Smatprt 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Following a suggestion by Mandel (Archive 4, 27 April) I've moved the Raleigh argument to the Baconian Theory article. Mandel also argues that the 1604 section belongs in the Oxfordian Theory article and I agree. It's primarily a defence of Oxford and only indirectly an anti-Stratfordian argument (just as Raleigh's execution is primarily an argument for Bacon). I think in structuring the article we should consider the reader and put aside our own personal wishes. I don't care which candidate appears first in the article. Let Smatprt have Oxford first if it means a lot to him. However, I think that however much we believe our own candidate did it, the balance of the article should be paramount. I hope Smatprt can manage to stop being so defensive about Oxford. There's a whole article on him for Christ's sake! I can't believe that you want to monopolise the main article as well! Sadly, in the anarchic Wikipedia where the rules have no executive force behind them, unless people have self-awareness and can compromise then it just comes down to a battle of wills. I'd like to see everyone win here but as I said, it demands a minimum level of self-awareness as to the fairness of what one is asking for. (Puzzle Master 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

In general, I agree with your statement. I do not agree about the 1604 issue for the following reason - it is one of the strongest anti-stratfordian arguments in the article. What, after all, could be a stronger issue? If Shakespeare was dead by 1604, then the Stratford lad is out. I am sorry that the issue is problematic for the Bacon candidacy (at least a sole-Bacon candidacy), but anti-baconism is not the intent - anti-stratfordianism is. With the 1609 "ever-living poet" reference, as well as the unexplained stoppage of regular Shakespeare publication in 1604, plus the questions raised by the Heminge/Ostler case, where a witness testified that Shakespeare was deceased - they all add up to a legitimate question. It is most damaging to the Stratfordian theory. That is why I believe it should stay. The fact that it was deleted without any discussion (like the hypen issue) is a greater cause of concern.Smatprt 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored the material in question and am happy to discuss potential major edits. I find it disturbing that during these recent edits, numerous edits were made without even an explanation in the comment bar, or a cryptic "Is this needed" or somesuch. Instead of good editing or attempts at re-writes, entire sections were simply cut. Moreover, the cuts were properly referenced material, citations for which were requested by previous editors and provided. There were also some curious edits - substituting a line about Oxford with one about Marlowe for instance; eliminating a line in the geography section that shows that Shakespeare was merely follwing his source when he makes the Bohemia coastline reference; and surprisingly, eliiminating the purely Stratfordian statement that most acadmics dismiss all the theories! The common thread in each of these cuts is that the sentences in question dare to mention the name "Oxford". It seems that even a properly cited reference to Oxford's name must be cut at all costs, even if that means cutting valuable information. Is this really what you guys want? If that is the case, then I imagine that we will have a hard time reaching consensus.Smatprt 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry - this is what you wrote on Dec 18, 2006: "Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views. I read objections to arguments for which further evidence exists to develop the original thesis (e.g. Rayleigh's execution in Macbeth, the play also appears to refer to Rayleigh's trial) but in respect of the length of the article, I am loath to include it. So, well done to those who have worked on this page. (Puzzle Master 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)) And here is the article on that date: [1]. Hyphen para, 1604, etc., - all in. You called it a "fair representation of all views". The only difference now is that the lead para has been slashed down to one of the smallest and most underdeveloped lead paragraphs I've ever seen. Aside from that, and given your earlier statement, I truly fail to understand why you raised all these issues in the first place. What happened?Smatprt 05:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait. How are you going to show that the writer was dead by 1604? The words "ever-living" in the Sonnets can be taken both ways. Surely, it's more likely to mean alive than dead. In fact, it actually says "living"! Also, I don’t follow the logic that if the author stopped writing in 1604 then this would eliminate Shakspere from being the author. You claim "there would be no reason for him [Shakspere] to give up a lucrative career at the height of his (alleged) fame". Why not? Nobody knows why Shakspere might retire. The Workes of Ben Jonson (1616) inform us that he stopped appearing in Jonson's plays after Sejanus in 1603 so he evidently had a reason for that. There is also “in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent.” He did? There are at least 10 plays dated by scholars to be after 1604. No doubt you reject all this as biased research. This brings me to the problem I have with you. It’s the extreme lengths you’re willing to go to in order to establish your thesis. It’s a complete loss of perspective. It’s selectively speculative, illogical, and contains no evidence (apart from references which share your outlook). Here's some evidence. In The Tempest we have Stephano and Trinculo. In 1609, there was a court rumour that the King's first cousin Arabella Stuart was intending to marry Stephano Janiculo, a man of dubious character who was masquerading as the Prince of Moldavia (see Riggs, David, Ben Jonson, A Life, Harvard University Press: 1989, p.156). Ben Jonson used this topical allusion in Act 5, Scene 3 of Epicoene (1610): "... the Prince of Moldavia, and his mistris, mistris Epicoene". So it was a big talking point. Of course, the two characters Stephano and Trinculo (which appear to be drawn from Stephano Janiculo's name) also have dubious intent in The Tempest in plotting to kill Prospero. So there is evidence that the author Shakespeare was inserting topical allusions and was still alive in 1609. This also supports the idea that it was the topical Strachey letter that sourced The Tempest. So I still don’t care for this 1604/1609 section and still maintain that it’s an Oxfordian argument. If it was kept in, Oxford would receive a much higher profile than any other alternative candidate. What I’d really appreciate though is for you to sit down quietly, have a long hard think about what you’re doing, then recognise as most editors do here (and they're not out to get you) that what you’re really trying to do in this article is sell the Oxfordian cause. I don't think it's malicious. In fact, I don't think you have any control over it. To me, your lack of self-awareness is a symptom of a low level of mental health (hence my suggestion of therapy which I sincerely hope you take up). (Puzzle Master 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

You might be wasting your time trying to discuss this rationally with Stephen Moorer. Most other people here myself included have already come to that conclusion. (Felsommerfeld 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Barry - you must have missed this - this is what you wrote on Dec 18, 2006: "Having left this article for some time and only recently read it again I think it now has a fair representation of all views. I read objections to arguments for which further evidence exists to develop the original thesis (e.g. Rayleigh's execution in Macbeth, the play also appears to refer to Rayleigh's trial) but in respect of the length of the article, I am loath to include it. So, well done to those who have worked on this page. So what happened to you? And why the personal attack?Smatprt 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and the Stephano Janiculo connection is interpretation, not evidence. And the Strachey myth has been thoroughly discounted by modern researchers (at least you called it "the idea" and not "proof". In any case, are you saying that your interpretations are the only ones that count? Lack of true evidence be damned?Smatprt 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that you are trying to smear my name by leaving comments against me on the talk pages of administrators. Thanks for the extra incentive to oppose your ridiculous ownership of this article. [2] May I cordially invite you to examine my own list of contributions which I haven't quite finished. [3] In case you're wondering, they're all administrators. (Felsommerfeld 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

"Guys, That one re-organization edit and the hyphenation edit have been reverted and re-reverted way over three times. Please discuss it here and reach a consensus first before changing. I would also suggest breaking down huge edits into a series of smaller ones. AdamBiswanger1 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of having an admin account in the "A"s. I completely agree with AB: when I counted, it looked like people were just about keeping their reversions slightly slower than 3/day, but frankly that's no excuse: given the rapid deterioration in any attempt at civil and constructive discussion of these edits, if people keep reverting and trading insults, or if "new" accounts appear to mysteriously appear to do the same thing, they'll find their "right to revert" will be construed as disruptive editing, and hence blockable. Alai 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] File on User:Smatprt

Regular editors will be delighted to see that Smatprt has a history of abuse in forums. He has already been blocked twice for 3RR violation [[4]][[5]] and he has a reputation for non-consensus in his editing on other forums. For example, on 13 May 2007 we find under the Shakespeare heading that "Smatprt is trying to delete all the arguments and information from Kathman's site while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses" [[6]] and this one from a google search "You might like to take a quick look at the Shakespeare plays, where a certain Smatprt has taken it upon himself to perform mass restoration of the tags ..." [[7]]. It is his custom when confronted to file a report on the Administrator's noticeboard blaming his accuser. The following example resulted in no block.[[8]] There is also evidence that he is operating under a sockpuppet BenJonson (see above discussion). I resent the way he has dominated this forum for the past year, his sole agenda being to show the Earl of Oxford in the best light, and I am arguing in the Administrator's forum for a substantial ban.(Felsommerfeld 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I believe I have filed, at most, 2 or 3 reports in the last 12 months. Each was on an editor who was making mass deletions of referenced material, and then edit warring (like Felsommerfeld and hangemhigh) to keep their deletions intact. Your edits are similiar - deletions of material without any discussion - and that is the cardinal rule around here I thought. Regarding the Kathman edits, please refer to the William Shakespeare page discussion, as Kathman's website has indeed been declared NOT a reliable source. REgarding your 3 referenced users - Barry and Paul have certainly proven argumentative and controversial, however Alabamaboy, being a respected administrator, probably has the best outlook on this. BTW - in spite of being told by several non-aligned editors that I am no sockpuppet, Felsommerfeld is still making unfounded accusations. I think this speaks volumes.Smatprt 13:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] File on Felsommerfeld

User:Felsommerfeld appears to be operating a "Disruptive throwaway account" used only for a few mass deletions and accusations. Out of a total 62 edits, 55 were used making false accusations against myself. The other 7 were making mass deletions of long-standing material to the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. The reasons seem to be as follows: 1) User is a staunch Stratfordian who has stated that the article in question shouldn't even exist. He has made several mass deletions of well referenced material.[9], [10], [11], [12] 2) Because I restored this material, the user has made personal attacks, false accusations and went so far as to make erroneous reports to over a dozen administrators.[13], [14], [15] For full disclosure I have allowed myself to be dragged into 2 edit wars/3Rs, for which I have great regret. In each case it was because staunch stratdordians were making mass deletions of properly referenced materials. I believe this user is again trying to draw me into a 3R revert. Instead, I am keeping my edits light and I have coming here for help.

I have requested this user be blocked or bannedSmatprt 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Aw, poor innocent you! Never something you've said or done. Looking through all this trash, this looks like the way you think about life. Keep facts you like and pretend those you don't like don't exist. Not very scientific (and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia!!!). And all this garbage about sockpuppets, Stephen Moorer (if that's you) has gotten himself a sockpuppet called Smatprt. No one is called Smatprt in the real world. Just like Dukeofrutland is a sockpuppet for me. There IS no Duke of Rutland out there! But who gives a damn who we are. Just be more reasonable. (Dukeofrutland 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland might disagree with you.

—wwoods 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The future of this article

Okay, I read the article in full last night, from knowing nothing about the subject, and came to the conclusion that it is:-

an interesting and largely well-written article.
remarkably balanced from both (all) sides, especially for an obviously contentious topic. In evidence for this, I submit that having read the article, I am still open to both the Stratfordian and Oxfordian arguments.

So my advice to all parties involved is to take a break from this article for a few days, safe in the knowledge that your viewpoint is at least getting a reasonably fair representation. With a few days to clear your head, take a look at the article and work out any remaining details by discussing them as much as necessary - there's probably not as much under dispute here as either side imagines. Ideally this would resolve the dispute without taking it any further. Request For Comment should be a last resort if this is not possible.

Finally, to address the sockpuppet issue, I should say first that I have myself twice been accused of using sockpuppets, and have also been involved in votes where it was clear that the other side was using sockpuppets. Both are frustrating because there it is hard to prove and impossible to disprove such accusations, so they lingers and generally make for distrustfulness. My suggestion here is that the dispute is resolved by discussion rather than voting. In this way, there is no advantage or disadvantage to the use of sockpuppets. It seems especially appropriate here because, by its nature, the article is dealing with a minority viewpoint. Soo 12:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Why not work together and try and get this to GA, rather than worrying about sockpuppets, whether it be creating them, accusing, or otherwise? I think it's pretty close, especially since there are so many editors working on it. Wrad 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Baconian (sort of halfway between Stratfordian and Oxfordian) and I agree with these two administrators that the current version is "pretty close" and should be the consensus/balanced version. I know Smatprt wants the Shake-speare hyphen argument in, where the hyphen in the Shake-speare is supposed to be evidence of a pseudonym. This is actually a pro-Baconian argument as well as a pro-Oxfordian one but I have always objected to it because, although interesting, I think it is weak and it's the weak arguments that allow people to reject our cases so easily. I've also come to think (whatever I previously thought) that the 1604 argument which Smatprt also wants in is purely pro-Oxfordian, the argument being that Oxford died in 1604 and over 10 plays which 'scholars' have dated to be after that time have been erroneously judged to be so. I really think that as soon as this goes in the article it takes on an Oxfordian slant. I know he feels strongly about this so here's my compromise idea. Let Smatprt write 100 words on it in section 3 then refer the reader to the main Oxfordian article for greater detail. Otherwise, I think the article should stay as it is at present. Right, now I'm getting out the way before the rockets go off again! (Puzzle Master 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Barry - thanks for the effort at a compromise. As I understand it, you are suggesting keeping the deleted hyphen paragraph out, but allowing me to cut the 1604 section down to 100 words so it does not swing the article too Oxfordian. Is that correct? Certainly not what I would wish in an ideal world, but in the spirit of compromise, I would reluctantly accept.Smatprt 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll back this idea too. Also, two independent editors have testified that BenJonson was not Smatprt so I accept this and apologise to Stephen for doubting his integrity. Reading through various archives I can see BenJonson cautioning Smatprt against over-interpretation in places. Right, let's move on. (Felsommerfeld 08:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

I'll back the idea but I want to ask editors here what to do with Smatprt? Judging by the response on the Administrator's forum [[16]] there are several editors who think Smatprt is skewing the Shakespeare-related articles then single-mindedly defending his changes. In my view, this war of attrition cannot continue. (Felsommerfeld 11:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

(undent) I think this article will languish in its current state until editors realise that the way to improve an article is to add content and not delete material they disagree with. If a viewpoint has well sourced references then it should stay, and so should any other viewpoint similarly cited. If folk are really interested in improving the article they should list the matter at WP:RfC and take advice how to improve the contributions. LessHeard vanU 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Firstly, the article isn't languishing: whatever its other failings it is well-written and interesting. (Surprisingly so: I read it in full for the first time a few days ago, and was amazed how well it hangs together, when you consider its contentious nature.) As for removing sourced content (and absolutely without supporting either side in the current edit war) removing content is part of the be bold rule. If a user sees information on wikipedia that a great encyclopedia would be better without, that person should delete it. AndyJones 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this article is languishing in merely excellent class rather than best possiblestatus... ;~) It's stasis is perhaps due to parties expending energy on removing material they believe Wikipeida would be better without (every POV warrior believes the best WP is the one that reflects their interpretation!) rather than expanding it. If an editor concentrates in providing the best references they are able to find for their viewpoint, rather than simply removing those which counter it, then the article is better served. If all parties follow this policy then you are likely to have an excellent article well served by quality citations. If you are a Wikipedian then this is the very best result. LessHeard vanU 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you recognise the central problem here. All articles require that material be added and removed, based on coherence, readability, notability of argument and so forth. The problem with this article is the definition of "best references". Almost all anti-Stratfordian arguments come from amateurs, so could be excluded on the grounds that they are not from reliable sources. Likewise, almost all mainstream writers do not even respond to their arguments, so many mainstream responses are not published by a reliable process either. What you say sounds straightforward, but in practice can't work straightforwardly in this case. If we included every anti-Statfordian argument we would soon be drowning in absurd conspiracy theories and 'coded messages'. If we included every piece of evidence for Shakespeare we could fill books with every possible link that's ever been suggested between his writing and his life. Paul B 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I think you are mistaken about Reliable Sources, which were raised to ridiculous extremes during the FA process for the WS page. Alabamaboy certainly recognized this, mentioning these raised standards in his exit speech. On this point, before HE left this page, administrator SingingBadger left this messege for all the editors: "Oh yeah, you can certainly use anti-Stratfordian writers; Ogburn is most definitely 'classic' (I don't know anything about Cairncross). Maybe 'classic' is misleading. That sentence is simply making the point that Wikipedia isn't a venue for introducing new ideas and theories that haven't been properly published. So any properly published anti-Stratfordian text is an acceptable source.' – SingingBadger

Badger then clarified: "The requirement is only for properly published sources. Charlton Ogburn is a valid source. Delia Bacon is a valid source. A. D Wraight is a valid source. The Henry Neville book is a valid source. I don't agree with the conclusions of those authors, but their ideas are worth including in the article because they submitted their work to publishers and went through an editing and checking process of some description. The only sources we try to keep out of Wikipedia are self-published books and self-published websites by people who have never been properly published in the field of Elizabethan literature. There are tons of valid anti-Stratfordian sources out there. Go and cite them. With page references please. Ditto Stratfordian sources. Finis. The Singing Badger 00:22, 3 October 2006.

Also Administrator AdamBiswanger1 recently added Stratfordain arguments from, of all places, Mark Anderson's Shakespeare by Another Name, thus giving us another valid source for both sides of the debate. There are really plenty of sources for the Strats that do indeed address each theory. Want a strictly scholary source? Try "Shakespeare and His Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy", which gives each theory indepth coverage, then tears them apart. Smatprt 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Singing Badger was entitled to his opinion, but it is actually clearly contrary to policy, which nowhere states that a reliable source is any book that's been published, including ones dating from the 1850s. If that were true Christian fundamentalists would be reliable sources on Darwin and Adolf Hitler would be a reliable source on racial differences. There is no point going over this again. I was responding to LessHeard vanU's argument that more is always better. You haven't even addressed the main point. If we included every theory - including every theory from biographers of WS himself - the article would lose focus. Paul B 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should worry - if someone wants to add the theory that the Queen wrote the plays, they are going to have to find "some" source, of which that would prove extremely difficult. There are plenty of sources out there, but they only address the candidates that are already represented, so I think the danger of "every theory" is probably not really there. And as you have noted, the number of biographers of WS who actually address authorship issues are far and few between, so the danger there is also relatively small. After all, I would think that most WS biographers avoid this page. Again - there are plenty of sources following WP:V - "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Smatprt 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it's not necessary to make every edit about sources into an authorship issue. Why the need to write "Oxfordians argue ..." everywhere? Just state the argument and sources and get the hell out of there! If I started writing "Baconians argue ..." all over the Shakespeare articles, all hell would be let loose. Also be careful because phrases like "seems to confirm" are dubious. Frame it as an alternative possibility. In my recent edits to The Tempest I accept that the Eden/Erasmus sources are a viable alternative but there's no need to talk about Oxford there. This is the reason why people here are angry. (Puzzle Master 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for that, Barry. You make complete sense and your edits today were quite good. I think instead of "getting angry", if folks would just have done what you have done (rewriting instead of deleting), then all these arguments and edit wars could have been averted. Thanks again and I'll keep your advice in mind. In the future, please feel free to make the kinds of edits you did today.Smatprt 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omission?

I find it puzzling that while much space has been devoted to discussing identity & chronology, very little has been given to style -- how these authors use language. Do they betray a common vocabulary, use of metaphors, etc.? I bring this up because Caroline Spurgeon, Shakespeare's Imagery (Boston: Beacon, 1958) is an example of research, admittedly from an earlier generation, that examines Shakespeare use of images, and compares it to his contemporaries -- as well as to Marlowe & Bacon -- & finds that the several authors show distinct preferences for certain varieties of imagery. Shakespeare's most common source of images is from sports and games (riding, bird-snaring, falconry as well as archery); Marlowe draws from "bookish" topics (as befits a University man) and frequently uses personification, while Bacon draws from sceens of home life ("everything touching the house and daily life indoors") which Spurgeon believes is that this includes "many images drawn from light and darkness".

My point in mentioning this is not to convince anyone (although this book settled the question for me long ago), but that without discussing Spurgeon's research no advocate for a non-Stratfordian position would be adequately prepared to defend their belief. And I feel without a discussion of this text & its implications, this article does not qualify FA status. -- llywrch 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, Llywrch. There should be a sentence or two added to the section about William Plumer Fowler's 1986 book, *Shakespeare Identified in Oxford's Letters.* This massive book goes through 37 of Oxford's extant letters to show the close affinity, in terms of vocabulary and phraseology, between these letters and the works of Shakespeare. Fowler's work has not recieved the attention it deserves. While not beyond criticism, the book goes very far to demonstrate the plausibility, on stylistic grounds, of Oxford's authorship. Decades ago J.M. Robertson argued, persuasively in my opinion, that Bacon could be ruled out of consideration on stylistic grounds (and there are those today, like Ward Elliott, who think the same can be said of Oxford). --BenJonson 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Bacon was more of a prose writer than the more poetic Shakespeare. Wrad 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, Bacon never wrote a line of poetry in his life. However, Spurgeon selected him to compare against Shakespeare because at the time she wrote "the claim that Bacon is in truth Shakespeare and wrote his plays is still held to be a serious and well-foudned one by a lage number of people. It is natural, therefore, that one should be eager to ask, 'What does an examination of their images tell us?'" (p. 16) -- llywrch 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ... Bacon certainly wrote poetry and published it in The Translation of Certain Psalms (1625) where he renders various psalms into verse form. From these, the barrister Nigel Cockburn (The Bacon-Shakespeare Question 1998) has rooted out certain metaphorical parallels with Shakespeare's work. I'm amused that Spurgeon could believe that Bacon might use the same imagery in his work on natural philosophy as in his conjectured plays and poetry. Also I can't help thinking that it's rather lazy forming an opinion on the basis of one dubious test. It is better to make a complete study of the arguments for all candidates (including Shakspere) ... then decide. (Puzzle Master 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Bacon also seems to have written some masques.--BenJonson 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But Spurgeon's study is a well-known one, & was the most comprehensive until that time. Until her book was published, no one had looked at Shakespeare's imagery in such a systematic way, let alone included a comparison to a number of his contemporaries. -- llywrch 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Spurgeon's book is a good place to begin such an inquiry; among other merits, the book reveals how central the authorship question has been to Shakespearean studies (although often denied its true role) for many decades, since Spurgeon specifically set out to test the Baconian theory through the examination of Shakespearean imagery. She concluded that there were significant discrepancies between the uses of imagery by the two writers. Corter Pole, in his Oxford University PhD dissertation, later did the same for Shakespeare's Bible allusions, and demonstrated that there was an almost complete misfit between the Bible allusions cited by Bacon and those found in the Shakespearean ouevre.--BenJonson 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo article

Interesting article here - which discusses some of the more basic hypotheses.

A couple of extracts -

"Acclaimed actor Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, the former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe Theater in London, unveiled a "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" on the authorship of Shakespeare's work Saturday, following the final matinee of "I am Shakespeare," a play investigating the bard's identity, in Chichester, southern England."...

"The declaration names 20 prominent doubters of the past, including Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud and Charlie Chaplin."

Jacobi subscribes to the group theory. It is not unlikely that Shakespeare's works have some element of collaboration. This is common in acting companies. --MacRusgail 13:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fulke Greville

Is this a legitimate addition? All of the material seems to have been added by the same person, and a google search yields sparse information about Greville as a candidate for Shakespeare's works. Any thoughts? AdamBiswanger1 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it may deserve a few sentences or a paragraph. But we've definitely got some undue weight going on... Wrad 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is a copyright violation from this site: http://www.masterofshakespeare.com/fulke_greville.htm, and needs to be summarized and reworded drastically. Wrad 00:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm thinking about deleting it... maybe throwing a sentence in the "other candidates" section... AdamBiswanger1 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done just that. And removed the link to the plagerised SPAM cite. Kept the picture though - but under "other candidates"Smatprt 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortening the article

I think it's time to shorten this article, (as per WP:SIZE), as it has grown to well over 60 kb. We can start by (and feel free to add your ideas):

Shortening info on alternative candidates (most already have their own articles)
Shortening the enormous introduction
Can anything else warrant its own article?

AdamBiswanger1 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant policies (for general reference): WP:CFORK, WP:SS, WP:SIZE. AdamBiswanger1 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare's ignorance

May I suggest a new section, on Shakepeare's ignorance, to balance the usual 'anti-Stratfordian' argument that the author of Shakespeare was too learned to be the man from Stratford?

It seems to me, on the contrary, that the author of Shakespeare was a rather ignorant and poorly educated man (by the standards of his time), especially in matters of history and geography. He seems to have believed that there were striking clocks in Roman times (Julius Caesar), that Milan was on or near a sea-coast (Tempest), that the kingdoms of France and Burgundy existed contemporaneously with the ancient Britons (Lear), that there were lions in France (As You Like It), and that there was a Duke of Athens in classical Greek times (Midsummer Night's Dream). [Added: Theseus was of course a legendary ruler of Athens, but Shakespeare's use of the term 'Duke' suggests an anachronistic confusion with the Duchy of Athens established after the Crusades.]

These are not mistakes that would have been made by a man like Bacon or Oxford. Maybe the anti-Stratfordians can provide an explanation. Perhaps the mistakes were a cunning plan to put people off the scent. But the point ought at least to be made.217.38.121.254 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)DavidB

You might consider "dramatic licence", but aside from that, consider that in one case (at least) - the famous "seacoast of Bohemia" reference that stratfordians make such a big deal out of, well - that material was extant in his source, which Shakespeare merely adapted!

Shakespeare's use of anachronism, his blending of fiction and truth, is part of his brilliance, as many a fan of the plays themselves will tell you. So this "ignorance" issue breaks down for me. It's such a non-starter. But if it must be made, then it should probably be under the "objections" catagory, and, of course, referenced just like everything else. Smatprt 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

After searching many websites and publications, I found that the debate is rarely called "Shakespearean". It's almost always "Shakespeare", which makes sense, since it's about the man and not the larger catagorie known as Shakespearean. I therefore made this minor change to the name of the article. I hope no one has a problem with this. Smatprt 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

It says that there are no detailed records of Shakespeare's attendance in any school, but there aren't detailed records of anybody's attendance. Seems like whoever wrote this was a bit biased. Please correct this posthaste. Magicallydajesus 06:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops! I didn't mean to start an edit war!

Sorry, I didn't mean my edits to start an edit war. When I saw all the [citation needed] markers, and thought I could help by supplying some citations. As for WP:RS, it does say: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context." And considering the context of statements like "Mainstream scholars assume that..." or "Stratfordians claim that..." you can't get much more authoritative than a website where a mainstream Stratfordian scholar actually makes those claims! If we can't cite any Stratfordian webpages in that context, then what can we cite? P Ingerson (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

David Kathman is not an acknowledged expert in Authorship studies. It is his personal hobby horse. As best as can be ascertained, he has been published once on the subject, in a collection of Wells, I believe. That is indeed reliable, as he had (some) oversite and peer review. His personal website, on the other hand, has no oversite and is certainly not reviewed for content or accuracy. Given the meaness and anger exhibited on the site, I wonder why anyone would want to hold it up as an example of a "reliable source". Previous discussion on this pointed up that his printed article was fine, but his personal website was not. Just read thru a fe of his posted articles and you will see a lot of name calling, but not alot of verifiable statements and even fewer references. As mentioned above RS relys on the credibility of the publication - Kathman's personal website simply isn't credible.Smatprt 14:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"David Kathman is not an acknowledged expert in Authorship studies". Since most 'Statfordians' (i.e. Shakespeare scholars) do not accept that 'authorship studies' is a legitimate field, that's rather like excluding the opinions of an evolutionary scientist from an article on Creationism on the grounds that he is "not an expert of creationist studies". However, Smatprt knows very well that David Kathman wrote the chapter on Authorship in the Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, edited by Stanley Wells. That means he's accepted as an expert on Authorship studies by Oxford University Press and by a Professor of Shakespeare Studies and Director of the Shakespeare Institute. You don't get much more authoritative than that! Paul B 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. DK clearly an acknowledged expert on the subject. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice you didn't answer my question, "If we can't cite any Stratfordian webpages in that context, then what can we cite?" I also notice that in this edit you state that "Much better sources are available." What are these better sources, and why haven't you cited them? If your sources rally are that much better, they might be a good compromise that everyone can agree on? P Ingerson (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

For starters, here is a source for much of the information you seek - It's called "Shakespeare and his Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy" by George McMichael and Edgar M. Glenn, a pair of college professors. It is copyright 1962, and published by The Odyssey Press, in NY. lib of congess card #62-11942. It is strictly informative, providing source documents, contemp. reference, first signs of doubt, etc. It makes it clear on the first page that "most academic scholars aceept that Shakespeare was Shakespeare", and in presenting each theory, pretty much dismisses them - although without all the anger and name-calling and wild theories that Kathman advances. I do agree that better sources would be the best compromise and appreciate P Ingerson for a civility that is often lacking on this page.Smatprt 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. A book published 45 years ago is all very well, but the article often needs to cite refutations of Oxfordian claims made more recently. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And another: The Authorship of Shakespeare. James G. McManaway. Publisher: Folger Shakespeare Library. Cornell University Pres, Ithaca, NY. 1962.Smatprt 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been established that David Kathman's views are representative of the generally-accepted Stratfordian contentions. If this is not the case, we are essentially grafting original research into the article. Often Kathman merely cites primary sources from which he bases what seems to be just that, original research. Essentially, we can only include citations that support the generally-accepted Stratfordian contentions, unless note otherwise ("David Kathman contends that...") As it stands now, claiming that most experts believe something by citing one of them isn't logical. If Mark Anderson, an Oxfordian, were to posit an unorthodox, unique claim, I would certainly not preface it with "Oxfordians hold that_______________<ref>Mark Anderson, etc.</ref> So, guys, we need to either:

Establish that Kathman and Stratfordians are one in the same,
Mention in the article that these claims are unique to Kathman, or
Replace this citation with a secondary source or a peer-reviewed journal. AdamBiswanger1 15:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the concept of original research when used in the context of Wikipedia. Experts are allowed to do original research. We - Wikipedia editors - are not. Kathman is an expert, as is established by his many scholarly publications. We report the views of experts. 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my comment. We do report the research of experts, but if we report what one possibly dissenting expert thinks, we do not purport it to represent all experts, and we do not support a phenomenon (Stratfordian thought) by providing an example (One Stratfordian), unless we are certain that the example is indicative of the phenomenon. However we are not quite in a position to do that because it is impractical, so our only solution is to use a neutral publication that surveys the arguments on both sides, or to provide numerous examples of expert Stratfordians advancing the same claim. Also, in WP:OR, we are reminded that editors cannot use a synthesis of sources to advance a new position. So, listing all of the minute, and often conflicting contentions of various Stratfordian experts would assert an idea of Stratfordian that we ourselves have created. AdamBiswanger1 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Stratfordian thought". Very few academics respond in detail to specific Oxfordian arguments. I think your interpretation of WP:OR is rather off the mark. There is and never can be some metaphysical concept of 'Statfordians' or 'Oxfordians'. There are only a relatively few individual authors. Saying 'Strafordians say..' is just to say this is a Stratfordian argument. There is no 'new synthesis' involved at all. However it would be no big deal to write that Kathman says this. It's not a big policy related issue. You are making a mountain of a molehill. Paul B 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Kathman - he is not a professional scholar - he is a mutual fund analyst. He has done some decent research on apprentices and boy acting companies but has also advanced a number of unsupported theories about the authorship. He has contributed ONE essay to a collection by Wells - and it contains at least one whopping error. This does not an excerpt make. However, because its in the Wells book, with its peer review and well-respected editors, Wiki rules seem to say that that ONE essay can be quoted. However, his personal website, more of a blog, is full of ridiculous assertions that have no support among mainstream scholars (who dare not make such claims for fear of ridicule). Kathman's website cites very few references and is chock full of OR. His website is also so mean-spirited that I am surprised that anyone who cares about Wikipedia would want it linked. It drags down Wikipedia in general and this article in particular.Smatprt 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OR isn't a problem in this context, it's an internal wikipedia rule: researchers doing original research is normal. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Kathman does not work in academia is irrelevant. Mutual fund analysis is rather more remunerative. The fact that he is accepted as an expert by journals, editors and academic publishers is the important point. The 'ridiculous assertions' are only ridiculous in your fantasy world. Provide evidence that they are considered ridiculous by anyone outside Oxfordianism. What you consider to be ridiculous is of no more weight than PuzzleMaster's narcissistic pronouncements about the stupidity of Stanley Wells and Jonathan Bate in comparison to his glorious self. Paul B 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of all the people I have encountered here, Mr Barlow, your pronouncements exhibit the least evidence of both intellectual depth and of having researched these matters. You are but a sponge that uncritically soaks up anything that anyone who carries the name of academic tells you, not only because you lack the intellectual capacity for critical thinking but because you also lack the imagination to recognise the range of possibilities available. All you can offer is invective in the mistaken hope that those who have done enough research to embarrass your shallow point of view will go way. But I will be here for years to come, if only to celebrate the day, if it ever comes, when you manage to cobble together a worthwhile argument. (Puzzle Master 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

It's Dr Barlow to you, you silly, silly little man. Paul B 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That only demonstrates how easy it is to get a PhD. (Puzzle Master 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Let's be clear. Smatprt is a POV pusher, as defined in Wikipedia:Information suppression. He wishes to suppress any material that will contradict his preferred POV and push any material that will support it. His main reason for wishing to keep out the Kathman pages is that they contain very very detailed anti-Oxfordian arguments which are not to be found elsewhere because Shakespeare scholars do not on the whole publish on paper detailed refutations of Oxfordiansm. The majority of Oxfordian books are published by commercial publishers and have no more status as RS than the writings of Erik von Danekin. This is a clear double standard. Paul B 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Specifically, I think http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html is the best available citation for the "Shake-speare" vs. "Shaksper" claim, so I'll restore it, alongside the print citation already there. AndyJones 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

On the question of how Kathman & Ross's The Shakespeare Authorship Page is regarded, Michael Best of the University of Victoria (in a section headed "Checking on the credibility of a site" in his chapter "Internet and CD-ROM Resources" in the Oxford Guide) describes it as "one of the most informative and scholarly sites on Shakespeare". AndyJones 16:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes - let's do be clear Paul, while you and your gang of bullies may call me a POV pusher, in actuality I am a POV defender. If it were not for me and the other "heretics" (to use a name we have been called on these pages), you and your gang of bullies would have been successful in completely deleting the authorship issue from all of Wikipedia. Efforts by the most overzealous of you would have been successful and the many deletions that I have fought to restore would have been gone forever. You all keep accusing me of deleting information that I disagree with, but you have yet to show examples in any sufficient quantity to make that charge stick. But keep making it, everyone - it makes is sooooo easy to defend. Do I go overboard with the reverts? - sure, sometimes I do, but quite frankly, I see it as a valid response to the rudeness, nastiness and ongoing bullying exhibited by you and your buddies. I think what really upsets you is that neither I, nor Barry for that matter, are ever going to go away. And yes, I will continue to defend a POV that you and others want censored from the site.Smatprt 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is fairly typical of your lies. Long long before you came along I did my best to maintain balance on this page according to the Wikipedia rules, and even bending them in favour of anti-Strafordian claims - precisely because Oxfordian and other arguments do not typically come from reliable sources according to WP:RS.

Wrong again - there are plenty of RS our there that cover these issues.

I have never argued that they be excluded. What I have done is point out to you that you that most Oxfordian argument could be excluded if we applied your double standards. You will use any argument you can think of to exclude arguments in favour of the mainstream position

Wrong again. I have no record of deletionism - unlike you and your gang of bullies.Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

and you will include even your own OR in favour of your position if you think you can get away with it.

Nope - I don't do OR - I report the work of others. Of course, you know that. You just like to repeat your lies and accusations, and keep bullying others.Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen you do it time and time again. You have no interest at all in balance. The great majority of of the vicious vituperative language comes from you and Barry. Barry drove away Singing Badger, one of the most constructive contributors here, with his aggressive personal abuse.

So now you are speaking for Singing Badger? One would think he could speak for himself. BTW it was the Badger that said that Ogburn was RS, among others.Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If I now seem to be angry it is because of long experience of you and Barry - the same Barry that your saint-like self has just accused of making himself look like a "moron". You also just competely misrepresented WP policy again by referring to Jacobi as "notable", which is wholly irrelevant since that means nothing more than the fact that he is worthy of his own article, not that his view on Shakespeare carry any weight. Nontheless, mrention of his name does not bother me and never has. Paul B 07:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey "Dr." Paul- try reading the entire rule next time. "Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent." So which of us was "completely misrepresented WP policy"? That would be You. Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, Dr Barlow (where's the PhD from Walmart? Just joking!) There you go again, attacking with the accusation "his aggressive personal absuse" - the spelling is yours. You evidently lack the awareness you're doing this. I don't agree with Smatprt's authorship candidate and I think his reverting is obsessive but I don't feel bullied by him as I do by you. You are a typical forum bully whose success depends on the majority giving him free reign as they do here. If you presented counter-arguments that would be fine, but all your contributions that I have seen are personal attacks ("silly, silly man" and "narcissistic pronouncements") so it's ironic that that's what you accuse me of. In contrast, my reasoned position is sprinkled throughout the archives here if you care to do the research (which I doubt). As Smatprt says, we are NEVER going to go away. (Puzzle Master 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

The utter childishness your your abuse should be evident to all. When one resorts to sneering at typos one may as well give up. I only called you a silly man after you resorted to the infantile tactics we see here, and after you personally abused Bates and Wells. Paul B 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's incredible that someone can question the research ability of Stanley Wells and Jonathan Bate. These guys are professors! And why does this article exist? If Shakespeare didn't write it then half of England would have known. It's a conspiracy theory and all conspiracy theories are propagated by the mentally unbalanced. QED (Felsommerfeld 12:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

My advice: go and talk to PaulB. You are wonderfully suited for each other! I reiterate my earlier comment that Wells and Bates have not sufficiently researched the Shakespeare authorship issue (certainly not the Baconian case). (Puzzle Master 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Barry is right on this - Wells and Bates have not researched the authorship in depth and admit to it, because they deem it unworthy of their time. As a result Wells even allowed Kathman to repeat his own POV/mistakes in the ONE book that Kathman has actually contributed to.Smatprt (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

I have blocked one user in this dispute for excessive reverting. Excessive reverting is disruptive, being disruptive is being blockable. Please do not revert more then one time a day on this article for the next while, and discuss your differences on the talk page (here). If you guys need assistance sorting out the dispute, see dispute resolution. Thank you. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxfordian Slant

No doubt Smatprt will revert my changes yet again. I've deleted the mention of Derek Jacobi's support for Oxfordianism and the trivially silly "ever-living" solution to the Sonnets puzzle (in the Sonnets graphic) which is supposed to be a De Vere anagram of some kind. It's obvious, even to a moron that, whatever the solution to the Sonnets puzzles is, because there is a point between each word, it involves ALL the words not one small phrase conveniently selected. I know these things: puzzles is my speciality! The Jacobi deletion was carried out because Smatprt tries to insert an Oxfordian reference at EVERY opportunity. He hasn't the slightest interest in balance. For him, this article is merely a vehicle to promote his views. But we've been here before ... many times ... haven't we? And despite MANY warnings he has obviously NO INTENTION of changing his crusading style. Sigh! (Puzzle Master 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Barry, Barry, Barry - at least get the argument right so YOU don't look like a moron - the "ever-living poet" reference has nothing to do with anagrams or other puzzles. The issue is that the term "ever-living" usually refers to a DEAD person! Shakespeare himself gives us the best example in H6 - refering to the DEAD Henry V, we have "ever-living man of memory". I know that this offends you because the "he was dead prior to 1609" argument makes things hard for the Bacon candidacy, which is your POV. But none-the-less, it cannot be argued that if it can be proved that the author was dead by 1609, thus knocking Stratford off his pedestal, then the Authorship Question would be drastically affected. You accuse me of POV pushing, but then you delete material that conflicts with YOUR POV. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle...Smatprt 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I know that John Michell author of Who Wrote Shakespeare? (who I like) claims that "our ever-living" is an anagram of "Nil Vero Verius" (apart from one letter) which was Oxford's motto. Second, where is the proof that "ever-living" does not mean ... ever-living?! In other words, he lives for ever in his writing. You would like it to mean a dead person because Oxford was dead by 1609 when the Sonnets was registered but the truth is no one knows what was meant in which case there's no issue and it doesn't deserve mention. My third point is that I see a major obstacle to Oxford's candidacy ... he was dead before 11 of the plays were written! I don't have to reject the dating of 11 plays to give Bacon a fighting chance but you have no choice for Oxford. So now it's all about probabilities. What is the chance that independent researchers have got maybe one, two, three datings wrong (we're still in the realm of the probable), four, five (I'm getting doubtful), six, seven (wait a minute), eight ... ELEVEN!!! It's your estimation of what is probable that I think is faulty. If I had come to the authorship problem knowing nothing about it and someone had said "Oxford is a candidate and by the way a lot of research shows he was dead before 11 Shake-speare plays were written" I wouldn't have bothered with him. But you desperately want him to be Shakespeare and you would be prepared to accept the utterly improbable to keep him as Shakespeare. That's the difference between you and me. I don't think the case for Bacon is anywhere near as improbable as it is for Oxford. A psychological point: I think both you and BenJonson are identifying with and using Oxford to make sense of your own lives which is why you obsessively revert changes here even when the probability of you being right is against you (in other words, you're defending you). The point is, Oxford doesn't make sense of Shake-speare the author's life. The whole case for Oxford rests on autobiographical interpretations but I don't see why the plays are necessarily autobiographical. I mean, Harry Potter's parents were murdered by a wizard ... this did not happen to J.K.Rowling! And even if aspects of Oxford's life are represented in Hamlet what precludes someone who knew Oxford from writing about him? The Oxford case is making gratuitous assumptions. (Puzzle Master 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

And Derek Jacobi is NOTABLE WP:NOTE just as Mark Twain (who was no researcher) is NOTABLE. BTW - it is my understanding that Jacobi's belief in a group includes Bacon as a major player in that group, as do many other group theories. Bacon and Oxford were close...so....who knows, maybe we are both right!Smatprt 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence at my disposal suggests otherwise. I think Bacon wrote the Shake-speare work alone as the political and moral Histories for his Great Instauration project. To understand this we need to appreciate that Bacon (described by some as the finest mind for 500 years) was trying to revise the entire teaching of Aristotle (which was heavily ingrained in the culture) and put human knowledge on a more secure footing. However, if you like, we can agree that Stratfordianism is a propaganda machine that rejects all reasonable attempts to investigate it. I'd like to see the end of this brainwashing of our students (and some of the brainwashed are right here at Wikipedia defending these Shakespeare pages). (Puzzle Master 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Mark Anderson's Oxfordian Book

I've just bought Shakespeare By Another Name from amazon. I gave up at page 25. It's painful, tediously painful, to read! I wanted the book to tell me what the case for Oxford was. But what kind of historical investigation starts at page 1 with the assumption that Oxford is Shake-speare then, without any attempt to construct an argument, spends page after page gratuitously assigning lines from Shake-speare to aspects of de Vere's life? It's pure evangelism! It's crammed with irrelevant biographical detail and a simple browse discovered an error of fact too (like the assumption on page 403 that it was Strachey who delivered Strachey's letter to England and so it would have arrived too late to source the first known performance of The Tempest when, in fact, it was Gates who brought it to England much earlier). I'm annoyed with myself for wasting an evening on it. No wonder the Stratfordians are thriving! (Puzzle Master 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

I don't mean to argue with you, but I don't think it's as bad as you say, although alot of the interpretations are sketchy, like when he contends that such-and-such a friend of de Vere's was the inspiration for such-and-such a character. But some evidence is downright convincing, like Hamlet's irrelevant mentioning of his abduction by pirates who left him naked on the shore, but spared him his life when he revealed he was a noble. The story matches remarkably with de Vere's. And, as far as the method of assuming that de Vere was Shakespeare, that just makes writing and reading the book easier, getting rid of the need for "could have" and "might have been" at every sentence. AdamBiswanger1 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm mystified why you are so careful to convey the impression that you're not attacking me. As to the issue at hand, what if the pirates story does match the details of de Vere's life? Why does that necessarily mean that he wrote Hamlet? In Twelfth Night there are good parallels with Sir Toby Belch and Sir Posthumus Hoby with regard to an incident that went to Star Chamber in 1601 involving the disorderly conduct of William Eure in Hoby's house. Toby also refers to Sir Edward Coke's conduct of "thouing" Raleigh three times (an insult) at his trial in 1603 with "if thou thou'st him thrice, it shall not be amisse". The Comedy of Errors, in making use of a gold chain (which is not in the Plautine version), alludes to a real incident involving Sir Roger Manswood's theft of a gold chain which went to Star Chamber in 1591. Macbeth refers to witches and King James wrote a notable treatise on witchcraft. The Shakespeare work is littered with topical references to personalities. No one claims these personalities wrote the play they appeared in. But Oxfordians claim that Oxford wrote Hamlet. It's an unwarranted leap from the improbable to the definite. (Puzzle Master 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

I'm trying to "convey the impression" that I'm not "attacking" you for two reasons: One, this is an article talk page and not a place to discuss the relative merits of a book. Secondly, I don't profess to be an expert on the subject, and my only interest was to defend the basic integrity of the book without summarily dismissing it after reading, say, 25 pages of it. The New York Times Review of Books, one of the premier book-review publications in the US, said that the book "deserves serious attention", and that's really all I'm trying to say as well. AdamBiswanger1 20:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it deserves serious attention, even if you remain unconvinced. It deserves attention if only for the reason that it was written by "an outsider, a stranger to the field" (author's note, p. 411), who until 1993 had never even heard of any such thing as a doubt about the authorship of Shakespeare, let alone had had any biases about it. With regard to Hamlet, pages 190-191 might be of interest if you want to read more about de Vere's knowledge of Denmark. His brother-in-law Peregrine Bertie was Ambassador there: Bertie paid an extended visit to Elsinore, he met Tycho Brahe (whose observation of a supernova was mirrored in the "bright star that's westward from the pole"), and he met actual Danish courtiers named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He would have relayed these facts to de Vere, his wife's brother. Did the Stratford guy have such experiences or know of such people? (Btw, I can see no attack on you coming from AdamBiswanger. He might be disagreeing with your opinions, but it's all been done civilly, certainly involving no attack on you personally). -- JackofOz 00:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My meaning was simply this: I didn't expect an attack and I didn't perceive anything that Adam wrote as an attack. Perhaps you should study the Bacon theory and then form a view as to which case has the greater merit http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf (Puzzle Master 13:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. I had a quick browse and it seems well written. I'll read it fully when I have some time. -- JackofOz 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Nuinseann/ William Nugent

I see William Nugent/Liam Nuinseann is mentioned in this article. There is a fascinating article on Indymedia that should attract the attention of all people interested in this topic. Liam Nuinseann was an Oxford educated Irish language poet, who was also a brother of one of Ireland's most powerful Norman nobles, the Baron Delvin. He was also a rebel. But anyway the guy on Indymedia has done a very well researched article arguing that Nugent is Shakespeare. Indeed, it's so good I'm only left to wonder who the guy who wrote it really is as I'm very familiar with historians of sixteenth-century Ireland. Here it is: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79358 (it should really be on a Shakespeare website as I'd love to hear arguments against it). 86.42.97.195 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tempest: Stritmatter-Kositsky research

I read on page 403 of Mark Anderson's Shakespeare by Another Name that Stritmatter and Kositsky have "new evidence" that "demolishes the case" that William Strachey's letter was the source for The Tempest. It runs as follows:

(1) Unavailability of letter. "It is conventionally assumed that the play was written soon before its first recorded performance, at Whitehall Palace on November 1 1611. But Strachey only returned from the New World on a ship that landed in England in late October or early November of 1611. His manuscript, it now appears, did not precede him."

Response. Sir Thomas Gates, the colony governor whom Strachey had accompanied, returned to England in September 1610. So the possibility that the manuscript did not precede Strachey is not excluded.

(2) Letter still incomplete by November 1611. "Another Strachey book from 1612 (Laws, Morals, and Martial) refers to a work he hasn't yet completed about the Bermudas. If this is not the manuscript in question them Strachey describes a phantom."

Response. In fact, it is neither the manuscript in question nor a phantom. William Strachey later wrote The History of Travel into Virginia Britannica which avoided duplicating the details of the letter but remained unpublished until 1849. [A True Declaration of the state of the Colony in Virginia with a confutation of such scandalous reports as have tended to the disgrace of so worthy an enterprise in Wright, Louis B., A Voyage to Virginia 1609 (University Press of Virginia: 1904), p.xvii]

(3) Source. "The extensive nautical and New World imagery in The Tempest - what orthodox scholars believe originates in Strachey - actually comes from a 1523 dialogue written by the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus ("Naufragium") and a 1555 book by the English scholar Richard Eden (The Decades of the New World). Stritmatter and Kositsky demonstrate that Strachey, too, borrowed heavily from Erasmus and Eden."

Response. The advantage that the Strachey letter (1610) has over earlier sources is that it is topical and since King James had enormous interest in the Virginia Colony then allusions to it would have ensured his interest in the play. The shortness of the play suggests that it was intended for a private performance (perhaps especially written for King James) and the mention of "revels" at the end appears to confirm this. Anyone who checks the Erasmus, Eden, and Strachey documents against The Tempest will realise that the assertion that "The Tempest ... actually comes from" the Erasmus and Eden documents is an over-interpretation of the evidence.

There is a possible topical allusion in The Tempest that argues against a pre-1609 dating. There was a rumour circulating King James’s court in December 1609, that Arabella Stuart, a first cousin of the King’s and a member of the Queen’s household, was secretly planning to wed Stephano Janiculo, a man of dubious character who was posing as the Prince of Moldavia. Two years later, The Tempest was performed before King James with two characters Stephano and Trinculo who form a double-act as servants to Alonso, the King of Naples. Joined together, these two names exhibit a remarkable similarity to Stephano Janiculo. One dramatist who certainly made use of the incident was Ben Jonson:

the Prince of Moldavia, and of his mistris, mistris Epicoene

(1610 Epicoene, Act 5, Scene 1)

There are several circumstances that conspire to make this a reasonable Shake-speare allusion. Stephano evidently sees himself as an aristocrat:

Stephano. Monster, I will kill this man [Prospero]: his daughter and I will be king and queen ... (III.ii.104-5)

Caliban addresses Stephano as such with "Prithee, my King, be quiet"(IV.i.215), and Prospero engages Stephano with:

Prospero. You'ld be King o' the isle, sirrah?

Stephano. I should have been a sore one, then. (V.i.287-8)

It is clear that Trinculo believes that Stephano does not deserve such a title:

Trinculo. ... They say there's but five upon this island: we are three of them; if th'other two be brained like us, the state totters. (II.ii.4-6)

Like Stephano Janiculo, Stephano has awarded himself an aristocratic title above his rank. The connection between Stephano Janiculo and Stephano and Trinculo would only register with an audience if the two names were mentioned in dialogue together and this actually occurs:

Trinculo. Stephano! If thou beest Stephano, touch me, and speak to me; for I am Trinculo ... (II.ii.101-102)

Within the space of two years we have this possible allusion, the Strachey letter, and the first known performance of The Tempest, so this weighs in favour of a 1610-11 dating.

One needs to convincingly redate 11 Shake-speare plays to before 1604 (when Oxford died) in order to sustain the Earl of Oxford as a candidate. The case for Sir Francis Bacon has no such difficulty and perhaps the best way to demolish Stratfordianism is to unite behind a much stronger candidate. The case for Bacon is clearly set out here: http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf (Puzzle Master 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Well, first off, half that number were co-authored after 1604. Can you tell me why on earth Bacon (or Stratford, Neville, Derby), after writing 25 plays on his own, would allow Macbeth, Pericles, Timon, Henry VIII, and 2 Noble Kinsman, to be finished or revised (badly) by other writers (like Middleton undoubtedly did with Macbeth?) If the author died in 1604, losing control of his unfinished works, then the scenario makes complete sense. BTW - Stratfordians are silent on this question as well.

Excepting Tempest, all the other "later plays" have been dated widely - some as early as 1594. The Winter's Tale is a prime example - According to Dr. Samuel A. Tannenbaum in Shaksperian Scraps, chapter: "The Forman Notes" (1933), "scholars had been disputing for considerably more than half a century whether The Winter's Tale was one of Shakespeare's earliest plays or one of his latest." Tannenbaum reports that "Malone had at first decided that it was written in 1594; subsequently he seems to have assigned it to 1604; later still, to 1613; and finally he settled on 1610-11. Hunter assigned it to about 1605." When even traditional scholars are of such opposite opionion, stating that these plays can be dated with certainty is impossible. And disqualifying any candidate on these grounds is equally impossible. Smatprt 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and King Lear - Muir dates it pre-1603 based on speeches which may derive from Samuel Harsnett's Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures (1603), and Kermode concludes that "1604-5 seems the best compromise". Frank Kermode, 'King Lear', The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), 1249.Smatprt 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Antony and Cleo = well, for starters, Alfred Harbage Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare 1969/1977, preface, dates the play to 1603.

And what is your take on W.R. Chetwood, who said in Memoirs of the Life and Times of Ben Jonson (1756) that on the basis of performance records that sometime in 1603–04, it was "supposed that (Shakespeare) took his leave of the stage, both as actor and author."? What on earth did he mean by actor AND author?Smatprt 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to defend anything! It's you that has to show that all 11 plays (including The Tempest) were written before 1604. The performance records alluded to come from Ben Jonson's Workes 1616 in which he lists the members of the King's Men who acted (and Shakspere is not mentioned) in his plays The Foxe 1605, The Alchemist 1610, and Cataline 1611. This has nothing to do with authorship and is yet more misinformation. By the way, an unbiased researcher would have accepted that Stritmatter and Kositsky (assuming they have been correctly quoted by Anderson) are in error. Smatprt, I know that you desperately want Oxford to have written the Shake-speare work but, sorry, he didn't! (Puzzle Master 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Barry, you do have to defend your positions, just like anyone else. Your self-published book, to which I provided a url above, puts you in the position, just like any other researcher, of having made a commitment to a certain perspective. Like any other published author, you are now in a position to either successfully defend your position, modify it if you come to alternative conclusions, or give up by insisting that you were right about everything and your critics are all idiots. Your construct of the "unbiased researcher" seems a bit skewed. On the contrary, it seems to me that the unbiased researcher would not have passed judgement on Stritmatter and Kositsky's work without first reading it. Mark Anderson at least had that advantage. You, on the other hand, freely espouse your conviction that the work is flawed without having read it; moreover you think that anyone else as unbiased as yourself, should render a similar ex cathedra judgement. This merely reveals your own bias. You say that Smatprt is "desperate" to prove that Oxford wrote the plays. Some may well include that the desperation, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder. --BenJonson 17:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I'm sorry, I don't get it. Are you Roger Stritmatter or not? And if you are, why do you talk about yourself third person? AndyJones 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And is Mizelmouse (bit cheesy!) actually Ms Kositsky? (Bodleyman 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

I always find it amusing that people who use pseudonyms wish to find out the real names of others. Almost everyone involved in Shakespeare Authorship on the web knows who the Mouse and Ben Jonson are. I'm not ashamed to give my name. I have no reason to hide it. But Bodleyman, fair is fair. Tell me who you are first. Mizelmouse 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And who on earth cares and why should it matter? Demanding names in this forum is a subtle form of bullying. Are you all going to make this personal??Smatprt 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it matters if someone editing this page is someone who is also mentioned on it. And in what way me asking the question is "bullying" I do not know. Will someone just give me a straight answer and we can move on? AndyJones 09:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with giving my name. I'm Lynne Kositsky, and so far I haven't so much as edited a single word anywhere on wiki, so you don't have to worry. I am simply responding to what Puzzle Master has said about our work without his even having read it. I presume that is allowed? Mizelmouse 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Lynne has more guts than Bodleyman (he of the 15 lifetime edits!). The mouse that roared! Good for you Lynne.Smatprt 09:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Puzzle Master read the articles of Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter carefully before responding to their work. After responding, he should be prepared to engage in a dialogue, which he has not done up until now. The first article, Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, has been published by Review of English Studies. The next article to be published, A Movable Feast: The Tempest as Shrovetide Revelry, will be out in December in Shakespeare Yearbook. Four more articles will be appearing in various journals over the next year. Mizelmouse 16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... it appears that there are (or will be) some highly reliable sources out there on Tempest dating after all! It will be exciting once these articles are published and can become part of the Wikipedia family!Smatprt 17:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mizelmouse, to answer your question "I presume that is allowed?", this is a discussion page so lots of things get talked about here that never make it into the article proper. We can't prevent editors from criticising a work here without ever having read most if it. Others will see such criticism as flawed and biased, and naturally it won't advance the debate, but I suppose it doesn't do any actual harm. -- JackofOz 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Report on Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited: Stritmatter-Kositsky

It is claimed that the idea that William Strachey's True Reportory returned to England with Gates in 15 July 1610 is an unwarranted assumption (made by the commentators Gayley and Wright) based on the fact that known primary travel documents refer to only one voyage to England after that date (which would not have been in time to influence the The Tempest), namely, De La Warre’s ship which left Virginia on 28 March 1611 and arrived in England 11 June 1610.

You are totally in error if you believe this is our argument. I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it's incorrect. In addition, De La Warre's ship returned unexpectedly to England. He was not intending to go to England at all when he left Virginia, and so it would be highly unlikely that he would be carrying any mail bound for that country. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The authors maintain that if the document had travelled on this later ship it could not have influenced the play, despite there being 19 weeks to its 1 November performance. As the authors dramatically put it, if the Strachey letter had travelled on this ship “the case for its influence on the Shakespearean play collapses”. In Ben Jonson's Prologue to Volpone, Jonson gives an insight into the time it takes to write a play stating: “five weeks fully penned it/From his own hand, without a co-adjutor,/Novice, journeyman or tutor.” So 19 weeks seems ample time for Shake-speare (whoever he was) to read the True Reportory, write the play, and rehearse the actors.

Since the letter would not have been on De La Warre's boat, this is a rather useless argument; however, that the letter would have gone to the company, that someone would have taken it up to Shakespeare, that Shakespeare would have written a highly complex play, had the roles copied, and given out to the actors, that the actors would have learned it and that the set was prepared for Whitehall in such a short amount of time, is, imo, highly unlikely. And besides, we are just editing a paper now that demonstrates that Tempest was very probably written by 1603 at latest. Another paper, coming out in December, will demonstrate that Tempest was very likely a Shrovetide play, so the best that one can say, even if one doesn't accept the dating argument, is that De La Warre's ship would have arrived after the play was performed. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The authors also assume without reason that the absence of details of other ships travelling between Virginia and England means that there were none.

Actually, Strachey says this himself in True Reportory: that the ships would reappear the next spring. So there are no other ships going or coming. Mizelmouse 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This aside, the authors main argument is that the True Reportory could not have accompanied Gates on 15 July 1610. The reasons they give for this are as follows:

(1) Richard Martin, a leading shareholder of the Virginia Company, wrote to William Strachey who was still in Virginia on 14 December 1610, requesting details about the soil, the natives, their attitude to the settlers, and other matters, to be conveyed by “the return of this ship [likely The Hercules which sailed from England for Virginia in Dec 1610]”. The authors inform us that “by far the simplest and most elegant solution is that Strachey answered Martin in the manuscript later published as True Reportory” in other words, Martin would not have asked these questions if he had seen the True Reportory, and so it was not written by 14 December 1610. However, the possibility is not eliminated that the True Reportory had actually reached England by that date but Martin had not had access to it, which instead argues its confidential nature, an interpretation the authors acknowledge but to which they unfairly give lesser emphasis.

We certainly don't acknowledge that the ship could have arrived in England and gone to the company without Martin having access to it. Have you done any research at all? Have you even read our paper properly? Richard Martin was Secretary of the Virginia Company in England. He presented material such as True Declaration for publication at Stationers, as Tom Reedy told me. If Martin had no access to the letter at the company, neither did anyone else. And yet, the letter going to the company and then going onto Shakespeare is the lynchpin of the Strachey theory. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) Again, in appropriate theatrical terms, the authors claim that “the most devastating blow to the Gayley-Wright transmission model ... is the internal evidence of the text itself”. The True Reportory refers to Gates' departure so must have been written after it: “And the fifteenth day of July, in the ‘Blessing,’ Captain Adams brought [Sasenticum and his son Kainta] to Point Comfort, where at that time (as well to take his leave of the lieutenant general, Sir Thomas Gates, now bound for England, as to dispatch the ships)”.

You have missed what follows, which is rather important: "The king’s son, Kainta, the lord governor and captain general hath sent now into England until the ships arrive here again the next spring, dismissing the old werowance and the other with all terms of kindness and friendship, promising further designs to be effected by him, to which he hath bound himself by divers savage ceremonies and admirations..." We wondered how the letter, or rather 23000 word manuscript could be on the ship while Strachey was writing in it that the ship had left. There is however, a copy of an earlier letter by Strachey, which might have gone on the ship. .Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the authors claim, it is not as if these events occur at the end of the document (which would have cleared up the problem) for it “continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration (registered Nov. 1610).” Closer inspection of Wright's publication of the True Reportory shows that in fact Strachey's letter continues for less than two hundred words, before terminating with some kind remarks to the “right noble lady” it was addressed to. The seventeen hundred words of the quite different True Declaration are not part of Strachey's letter and have been inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet of 1964.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that the 1700 words of True Declaration were inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet--do you mean his edition of True Reportory?--and what is more, this shows your profound ignorance of the subject, as the excerpt from True Declaration, along with other interior excerpts, were in the 1625 edition of Strachey in Purchas His Pilgrimes (1625). Wright speculates that the excerpt was added by Purchas, but this is by no means proven. Another problem is that there are other excerpts inside True Reportory, most of them redacted in the end portion. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, no events beyond 15 July 1610 are described in William Strachey's letter. If the letter was not sent with Gates back to England, why did Strachey terminate it on the date of Gates' departure and not continue adding to it?

Why does Jourdain's narrative end a month before Gates' ship goes to England? Why does the earlier Strachey letter end five weeks before there was a ship available to carry it to England--if in fact it was written then and not later? Why do any number of narratives end at a certain "satisfying" point that does not necessarily accord with either the date they were written or the date they were sent? This is a common occurrence with narratives. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(3) The authors claim that in Strachey's work Laws of 1612, William Strachey alludes to the True Reportory being incomplete: “I have both in the Bermudas, and since in Virginea beene a sufferer and an eie witnesse, and the full storie of both in due time shall consecrate unto your viewes . . . Howbet since many impediments, as yet must detaine such my observations in the shadow of darknesse, untill I shall be able to deliver them perfect unto your judgements . . .I do in the meane time present a transcript of the Toparchia or State of those duties, by which their Colonie stands regulated and commaunded”. According to the authors, Strachey is “describing True Reportory, or a lost text just like it, as not only unpublished but incomplete”. I find this to be an over-interpretation and while he might well be alluding to the True Reportory he could just as well be saying that for reasons beyond his control he is unable to publish his completed letter.

This has nothing to do with publication, but with showing the document to the Council of the Virginia Company, to whom Strachey is addressing his remarks. If you see anything about possible publication in that excerpt, please point it out.Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion is that, with high probability, the True Reportory travelled back to England with Gates on 15 July 1610 and that the authors cannot sustain their case to the contrary. (Puzzle Master 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Your conclusion might be worth more if you had read the documents in question, which quite obviously you have not. Must dash for the airport. Will amend later as necessary.--have added some material above. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read them. And I noticed how you exaggerate one interpretation over another when possibilities are equally valid, try to pass off interpretations as fact, and try to dupe the reader into thinking that the Strachey letter did not end less than 200 words after he mentioned Gates' departure when it did.

I have never tried to dupe anyone. It is not my way. I have noticed, however, that you have made all sorts of egregious mistakes in setting out our case, and I'm not sure why. Of course, I would never say that you were trying to dupe people. I don't pass off interpretations as facts, by the way. When something is an interpretation, in one way or another I will say so. Not only that: the fact that one can interpret the Strachey information in so many ways, and there are so many problems with it--it wasn't published, there is an earlier version without all the sources, there is no evidence that it ever reached Shakespeare, there is evidence that the officers of the company hadn't seen it, there is evidence from Strachey's own mouth in 1612 that a document that sounds like it wasn't finished, there are other published and well-known sources that are much richer and cover more ground--significantly diminishes the likelihood that Strachey's work influenced Shakespeare.Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that Martin must have seen the Strachey letter if it arrived is what you'd like to believe. No one has any idea who it went to when it first arrived.

In fact you're right. No one even has any idea if it DID arrive. But if it DID arrive at the company, Martin would certainly have seen it. As I said, he was the Company Secretary. He was also Strachey's friend from his theatre days.Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem I have with you, your religious zealotry that refuses to see anything else but your own pre-1604 dating agenda.

Religious zealotry? Moi? That's a laugh. I'm not religious and I'm not a zealot. In fact I started out believing that Strachey posed a real problem for Oxfordians, but I found something by mistake, and my ensuing research into the question, together with Roger's research into secondary sources, changed my mind. I think if you ask most people who have seen the evidence, they will say, for example, that the Strachey parallels, particularly the "storm set" parallels, occur in other earlier works. This having been demonstrated, it is almost impossible to hold onto the idea that Strachey was a necessary source. Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You accept whatever supports your view and reject everything else which apparently involves being nasty to your correspondent hoping he'll go away (I won't).

First of all, I wasn't nasty. I just pointed out that you hadn't read some of the material, and had for the most part interpreted what we'd said incorrectly. If you think that's nasty, you should spend a week or two on a Shakespeare newsgroup. That said, if you're not going to go away, at least read the sources you're alluding to. No matter what you say, you have not done so, and you will continue to make awful errors if you don't. Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your sidekick Ben-SPAM-Jonson (he knows what I mean) is exactly the same.

Who's being nasty now? This kind of argumentation gets you nowhere. Surely you don't think it helps? Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're perfect for each other! (Puzzle Master 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

I hope so. We've done some good work together that has been accepted by major journals. I note that in your answers this evening, you have not made any substantive argument against what I said earlier. You have just spread a bit of invective about. If you had actually researched the question, you might have been able to mount a defence of some kind. Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Lynne, your rhetoric, enjoyable as it is, fails to dilute the points I've made!

Many of the "points" you made, such as that Wright's publisher added the material from True Declaration in the 1960s, didn't need diluting because they were just out and out wrong. I corrected you, but you haven't even acknowledged your mistakes, never mind contributed anything meaningful afterwards. Mizelmouse 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Attorney General and Solicitor General were on the Council. How do you know that the Strachey report was not for King James' benefit and one of these commissioned it on his behalf?

How did either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General commission something from Strachey for James? Strachey was in Bermuda and thought lost till he got to Virginia--not that anyone would have thought to commission anything from him anyway, even if they knew that and could have reached him, as he was almost a complete unknown. This is a new and jaw-dropping theory, I must say. Very inventive. And without even a scintilla of evidence to support it. Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

After all, Sir Francis Bacon (Solicitor General) was adviser to the king on the Virginia Colony and he was on the Council. It would make sense because King James saw The Tempest and the allusions in it to the Strachey report would then be meaningful to him.

But surely if the ms came over in September 2010, according to your theory, The Tempest would not even be thought of, never mind written, as it depended on the Strachey ms for a source. So why would whoever supposedly gave the ms to James know that it would be meaningful to him in terms of The Tempest? In any case, the question of where you got evidence for this bizarre riff on the original story still pertains. Mizelmouse 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Martin would certainly have seen it" is not certain when other viable possibilities are available (unless Martin was the lady addressed in the letter - that is, a transvestite!)

You're saying that James WAS a transvestite? And that Strachey would have dared address him in feminine form? In fact, I'm glad you brought up the "noble lady." It seems to me that neither an ms to the company (the traditional view) or a ms to the king would be addressed to a lady. This raises insoluble problems for the orthodox, which they skate around with all sorts of speculations. In fact, the only possible explanation for the orthodox is that as the company wished to see all mail that came in from Virginia, they got hold of the ms before it went out to its intended recipient. But then it seems odd that they would send it to Shakespeare,rather than on to the recipient, whoever she was, as it was a private "letter." Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of us knows. When no one knows we're left to estimate probabilities. I'd say there's a high probability that if Strachey finished his letter on the day of Gates' return to England it was intended to be sent with him. No events are mentioned after that day in the letter - it makes wonderful sense Lynne!

I disagree. The ms says quite plainly that the ship and the people on it had been "sent" to England. A bit of shifting around tenses can make it look as though the ship is despatched but has not sailed, but it cannot be said that this is certainly the case. And the narrative picks up again for a few words after True Declaration is printed, something people always try to ignore or explain away. There could be several reasons for this. In any event, as I've said before, many narratives of the time were "shaped" to a certain set of circumstances. Strachey also used a whole raft of sources to build True Reportory. We don't believe all those sources could have been available in Virginia, especially as much of it was burned or looted. We had said originally that we would buy the story that an earlier version went back, and was then injected with much of the sourced material later. Now that a copy of an earlier letter has been found, missing most of the sources, I think we were most likely correct.Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure you're a lovely lady but on these forums you hide it well!

Of course I'm a lovely lady, Barry. But that has nothing to do with research, which you apparently have not conducted, however lovely you yourself are. Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy. (Puzzle Master 10:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

I can't. I'm working on two essays and a novel. But thanks for the thought. Same to you. Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to leave this discussion (because I've more creative things to work on)

Yes, I've noticed that you are very creative, especially in your ability to invent scenarios and evade questions about them.Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

when I decided that I didn't want to let you get away your wild accusations. You labour under the misapprehension that I have done no work on this. But anyway, the research that I have done is not relevant to this discussion.

Actually, it is, very much so. You haven't read any alternative sources, you haven't read secondary sources on the question, that much is painfully obvious, I don't think you've even read Strachey or you'd see the problems in it, and if you've read the whole of our first paper, you misunderstood it so badly that you made egregious mistakes in responding to it. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the conclusions that you draw from your own research.

That's pretty clear, since you have little enough of your own to fall back on.Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you have done much background reading and that deserves credit. I do doubt that you draw fair conclusions from your evidence. Any theorist needs to be clear at what stage his/her theory is falsified if it is not to become a religiously held belief. I don't get the impression discussing this with you that there is any point that you would accept as contradicting your theory.

In fact, you are quite mistaken. I constantly discuss or argue our theory with someone who HAS done a lot of research, a Stratfordian, and as a result I often modify what I say or think about the subject. I believe he does also, though it takes him ages to admit it.Mizelmouse

In other words, it isn't capable of being falsified so it isn't a theory, it's a belief.

A theory is a belief that is hopefully based on evidence. As our papers are published, I believe you'll see we have plenty of that, whereas those who originated the Strachey theory and speculate on how the manuscript got to Shakespeare have no evidence at all to show that it did. All we are doing in our first paper is questioning theories people have held for years and positing alternatives. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Strachey's letter ends on the date Gates sailed suggests with high probability that it did so because it was to sail with Gates.

Um, who says it was to sail with Gates? Strachey says nothing of the sort and no one else even mentions it before 1625. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't (refuse to?) accept this point and so I think that you over-emphasise interpretations that support your case and under-emphasise ones that don't.

I have never denied that the letter MIGHT have gone back with Gates' ships, although it could not have gone in its published version, as material in the first person was certainly added after the publication of True Declaration, and other material might well have been added to the manuscript or deleted from it before it was published. Purchas, for example, Strachey's publisher, was well-known for his additions, changes, and deletions. Strachey might have had a pile of stuff before his "dear lady" adieus that was deleted by Purchas, either because he was bored or because it didn't fit his chronology. He was in fact known for doing so. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No amount of trying to demean me, my credentials, and my ability will alter this fact.

I've said nothing about your credentials--I have no idea what they are, and don't put much store by anyone's--or your ability. All I am criticising is your arguing a case without having done the requisite research. Your awful blunders attest to this. I have never before seen someone try to argue that the end portion was added by Wright's publisher in the nineteen sixties. This simply shows that you haven't read Purchas or the secondary sources. There are a terrific lot of things that I won't argue about, because I'm just not knowledgeable enough and I'd quickly look a fool. You seem to harbour no such fears. You are arguing with me on work we've spent ages researching, without even having had the grace to do your homework, and it shows. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be more positive but that's what I actually think. Sorry. (Puzzle Master 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

You don't have to apologise. That's fine. I don't really mind what you think. The criticisms and opinions of the Stratfordian who has done the research, on the other hand, are of major importance to me and I weigh them carefully. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I had forgotten, while answering you, that you are a Baconian, in which case my question to you is this: Why, if Bacon was Shakespeare, would he need Strachey at all to write Tempest? He was extremely intelligent and very well educated--he went to Trinity, didn't he?--and would certainly have known the earlier sources such as Eden, Ariosto, and Erasmus well, probably in their original languages. He was also certainly aware of earlier travel narratives. In around 1618, Strachey even sent Bacon his later manuscript, History of Travel. Culliford, Strachey's biographer, says that this was a "last desperate attempt" but Bacon apparently took no notice of him. I imagine Bacon would have seen immediately that it was heavily plagiarised from already published sources. In any case, Bacon neither acted as Strachey's patron nor helped him publish. IMO, knowing these facts, the possibility that he would have used Strachey's True Reportory to craft Tempest is a complete non-starter, so I'm not sure why you're hanging onto the theory like an overboard sailor hanging onto a piece of wood in a stormy sea, unless it's simply to preclude other candidates. Mizelmouse 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, please forgive me for reminding you yet again of the conclusions you've drawn from your own evidence.

(a) You said that "If Martin had no access to the letter at the company, neither did anyone else". Your argument for this is that "He presented material such as True Declaration for publication at Stationers". The True Declaration was written in-house as an attempt by the Company to counter information from returning colonists about the poor conditions. While the Strachey letter blames the natives, the True Declaration blames the settlers who it claims antagonised them. The Strachey letter was not written in-house and neither was it published by the Company. It evidently was of a confidential nature. How do you know that Martin had priority over everyone else (including the Attorney General and Solicitor General who were on the Council) to the contents of this confidential missive? This is your published claim and if this is your speculation it's best to say so.

(b) You say "I have no idea what you mean when you say that the 1700 words of True Declaration were inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet". May I respectfully suggest taking a look at Wright, p. 95, who says "A True Declaration of Virginia was published by the company, out of which I have here inserted this their public testimony". These words in Wright appear less than 200 words after Strachey's mention of Gates' departure, in other words, just after the end of the Strachey letter. Of course, you know the difference between Strachey's True Reportory and the Virginia Company's True Declaration. The latter has nothing to do with Strachey although I'm puzzled why you suggest in your paper that Strachey wrote it! You say about the Strachey letter "nor do they [words about Gates' departure] constitute the conclusion of the document, which continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration". I don't get it!

(c) Gates' departure is indeed mentioned in the past tense. Not a huge problem - could have been to provide a consistent tense for the reader. Then you ask "Why does Jourdain's narrative end a month before Gates' ship goes to England? Why does the earlier Strachey letter end five weeks before there was a ship available to carry it to England--if in fact it was written then and not later? Why do any number of narratives end at a certain "satisfying" point that does not necessarily accord with either the date they were written or the date they were sent?" But Strachey's letter ends on the day the ship sails and the ships are not that frequent! Looks suspiciously like a causal connection to me!

Now, I know you enjoy attacking me but can I tempt you to lay aside your baseball bat and answer these points? (Puzzle Master 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Oh dear. It's suddenly become clear. You think that the True Declaration (registered 8 Nov 1610) was a source for William Strachey's True Reportory and was a part of Strachey's letter. But the point of the True Declaration published by the Virginia Company was to reassure potential investors of the worthiness of investing in the colony after the murder and insurrection on the colony, information which would undoubtedly have got back by word of mouth. It reads like a reinterpretation of Strachey's letter and (as I mentioned above) while Strachey blames the natives (which would not have encouraged new investors) the True Declaration acknowledges the dastardly deeds of the natives mentioned by Strachey but frames it as the settlers antagonising the natives. (Puzzle Master 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

I've just done a huge response, but there was some kind of edit conflict, and I've lost it all unless I want to merge it, which I don't have the energy to do. So I'll just say you've misunderstood the extra material at the end of TR and still attribute it to Wright, you've misunderstood about what I said about Strachey copying (interior passages)from TD, and you've misunderstood just about everything else. So unless you decide to read the sources, primary and secondary, so you have some idea of what you're talking about and what I'm talking about, I think I should just go back to finishing my novel, which is way overdue. Mizelmouse 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no one else editing this page when you were (see history). Looks like a case of too proud to admit you're wrong. (Bodleyman 09:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

That's total rubbish. I'd never even heard of an edit conflict till I saw it on the page, and I'd kept looking for the post for ages. It had simply disappeared, except in a form where I'd have to integrate it all. If anyone would like me to re-answer Puzzle Master's final points--which by the way, are in major error, please start a new section with just those on it, and I'll be glad to respond. With regard to the rest of your argument:

1. I always admit when I'm wrong. It's the simplest and easiest and most honest thing to do. 2. The fact that you don't understand that Puzzler's point about Wright adding end material to True Reportory is completely wrong and absolutely ludicrous shows that you haven't read the sources either. Mizelmouse 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some folks are better at wiki editing than others. Edits get lost for many reasons. Why are you, Bodleyman, just making things worse? Perhaps you might add something substantial or read the post below and respond?Smatprt 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't wait for the novel if it's as good as the fiction Mizelmouse has been writing here. Lets' hope this is the end of all this authorship nonsense. (Felsommerfeld 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

My novels are usually pretty good, or at least, they often win awards here in Canada and good notices in the States. Make sure you buy a copy of the new one, Minerva's Voyage, when it comes out. It's for teens, which you might enjoy. By the way, our articles have nothing to do with authorship, more a second look at the primary and secondary source material with regard to Tempest and a demonstration of why some of the previous criticism is likely incorrect. Our work has been accepted by major orthodox journals, so it must have something going for it. I wonder, are you saying that truth can only be truth if written by Stratfordians? Mizelmouse 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So maybe you should stick to writing for children. I'm also saying that there are people much smarter than you have researched The Tempest sources and they happen to be Stratfordians.

(Felsommerfeld 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

I write for adults too. I'm sure there are people who are much smarter than I, but there is no one who works harder. I didn't rely on what others had said about Tempest previously, but researched everything myself with regard to Strachey, argued it out with the only other person (a Stratfordian) who had himself done a great deal of research after seeing my first attempts, and I wrote the papers in conjunction with a professor of English, who researched all the secondary sources. I'm sorry, but I don't know who you are. Perhaps you can tell us where you've been published, and what research you've done that confirms the validity of work on Tempest by scholars such as Furness. It would be so much more appropriate if you demonstrated your own expertise in the field rather than sarcastically slamming the attempts of others to find the truth. You might also be interested to know that many orthodox scholars are now moving away from the theory that Strachey in manuscript was a necessary source for Tempest. Mizelmouse 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've attempted to put up my responses to the Puzzler twice, and they keep disappearing, perhaps because they're so long. I've sent it to someone else to try, and if that doesn't work, I'll put them somewhere else with a link. Mizelmouse 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Something I dredged up on Kathman's defense of Strachey - it's the signature at the bottom that caught my eye. And well reasoned.Smatprt 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"I've looked again at Dave Kathman's essay, and, I'm afraid, remain unconvinced. The evidence that will establish a particular text as a 'source' may take a number of forms. The easiest is, of course, a continuous recollection of an original. So, in this play, the fact that Prospero's 'Ye elves' speech is derived from Ovid's Metamorphoses via Golding's translation is inescapable. Shakespeare must either have known it off by heart, or have been referring closely to it as he wrote the speech. Dave Kathman's argument for the Strachey letter is rather that accumulation of a number of small details generates a constellation of ideas and phrases only to be found in that particular source and in The Tempest. There is, of course, a potential here for a circularity of argument - as indeed Dr Kathman recognises - in that some of the parallels he cites are fairly tangential, and could only be entertained if one first accepts the larger contention that Shakespeare had read the Strachey letter closely. I would want to argue that this is the case for virtually all the instances he collects.

So, for example, he cites Strachey's 'we... had now purposed to have cut down the Maine Mast' as a parallel to the boatswain's 'Down with the topmast', but apart from the consideration that this must have been a necessary action in any storm, one might think that Ovid's Metamorphoses 11. l. 158 in Golding's translation, which reads 'Anon the Master cryed strike the toppesayle, let the mayne / Sheete flye' is both rather closer, and derived from a source which undoubtedly Shakespeare was consulting as he wrote the play.

Kathman cites Strachey's 'Prayers might well be in the heart and lips' as precedent for the mariner's cry 'to prayers! To prayers', but, again, this is part of standard storm description, and can be found, for example, in Newton's translation of Seneca's Agamemnon: 'To prayer then apace we fall, when other hope is none'. The description of St. Elmo's fire in Ariel's speech, which Mowat also considers 'echoes only Strachey amongst the play's recognised infracontexts', has, to my mind, a analogy at least as close in Erasmus's Colloquy, 'Naufragium', where (in a modern translation) 'the blazing ball slid down the ropes and rolled straight up to the skipper ... After stopping there a moment, it rolled the whole way round the ship, then dropped through the middle hatches and disappeared'. (There are one or two other possible parallels to this source in the play.)

Overall, I would still stand by my feeling that whilst the Strachey letter is a *possible* source for The Tempest, it is not a *necessary* source, in the way that Ovid or Montaigne both are, nor does it provide a particular point of reference in the way that The Aeneid does.

In the end, of course, it's very much a matter of individual judgement - members of this list might very well, and properly, be more convinced than I. Greenblatt famously characterised source hunting as 'the elephant's graveyard' of literary criticism - and what is most interesting, and most important, are the kinds of investment one brings to tracking down sources, and the different kinds of consequence one draws from their recognition.

David Lindley, Professor of Renaissance Literature

School of English, University of Leeds"

posted by Smatprt 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BARRY'S POINTS ANSWERED.

Barry: You said that "If Martin had no access to the letter at the company, neither did anyone else". Your argument for this is that "He presented material such as True Declaration for publication at Stationers".

Mouse: That is not my argument. You appear not to have understood it. That was an addendum to my argument that showed he was involved in the running of the company, including taking care of documents. My argument was actually that he was secretary of the council of the company, and so it was his job to be aware of what came in in terms of material and what was done with it.

Barry: The True Declaration was written in-house as an attempt by the Company to counter information from returning colonists about the poor conditions. While the Strachey letter blames the natives, the True Declaration blames the settlers who it claims antagonised them.

Mouse: The Strachey manuscript blames the natives? Have you read it? Strachey blames poor government, the lack of supply, as well as idle colonists, conspiracies, the lack of fish in the river, famine and illness, the indians having burned and looted, etc.

Barry: The Strachey letter was not written in-house and neither was it published by the Company. It evidently was of a confidential nature. How do you know that Martin had priority over everyone else (including the Attorney General and Solicitor General who were on the Council) to the contents of this confidential missive? This is your published claim and if this is your speculation it's best to say so.

Mouse: It's not speculation at all. Richard Martin was the SECRETARY to the Council of the Virginia Company in London.. He was an MP and a prominent lawyer. He was also a friend of Strachey's, and wrote to him in Dec 1610 on behalf of the company asking for an account of the colony. In other words, he was involved in the Council's everyday concerns. Can you suggest how the ms would have gone to the company without being seen by Martin? Confidentiality--if the ms was confidential--would be no reason, as it was the council who saw confidential materials. I have never suggested, by the way, that the AG and the SG would not have seen the Strachey document, only that Martin WOULd have seen it if it had gone to the company.

Barry: You say "I have no idea what you mean when you say that the 1700 words of True Declaration were inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet"

Mouse: That's because Wright didn't write a pamphlet, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Strachey didn't write a pamphlet either. He wrote a 23,000 word document.

Barry: .May I respectfully suggest taking a look at Wright, p. 95, who says "A True Declaration of Virginia was published by the company, out of which I have here inserted this their public testimony". These words in Wright appear less than 200 words after Strachey's mention of Gates' departure, in other words, just after the end of the Strachey letter.

Mouse: May I respectfully suggest YOU read Wright. He says nothing of the sort. Wright was the editor of Strachey's True Reportory, as rendered into modern spelling in the 1960's. The words above form part of Strachey's True Reportory as published in Purchas His Pilgrimes in 1625--its first publication. The argument is not whether Wright appended these words and the excerpt from True Declaration at the end of True Reportory. It is whether Strachey or Purchas did. I don't see how you could have read Wright and misunderstood it so badly, because the fact is that Wright speculates that these words were added by Purchas

Barry: Of course, you know the difference between Strachey's True Reportory and the Virginia Company's True Declaration. The latter has nothing to do with Strachey although I'm puzzled why you suggest in your paper that Strachey wrote it!

Mouse: Huh? We say nothing of the sort. We suggest that Strachey incorporated a few bits of True Declaration into the middle of the text of True Reportory, as the parallels are obvious. Wright even points out one of them.

Barry: You say about the Strachey letter "nor do they [words about Gates' departure] constitute the conclusion of the document, which continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration". I don't get it!

Mouse: Perhaps, if you read the Strachey, you would. Our theory is that Strachey added these words, which follow on directly from the rest of the text, and also added much else, when he got to London. Another theory is that Purchas added them. Either way, it contaminates the text in our opinion.

Barry: Gates' departure is indeed mentioned in the past tense. Not a huge problem - could have been to provide a consistent tense for the reader.

Mouse: But it isn't a consistent tense. The tense is slightly different, which has led to speculation that the ship might not have left.

Barry: Then you ask "Why does Jourdain's narrative end a month before Gates' ship goes to England? Why does the earlier Strachey letter end five weeks before there was a ship available to carry it to England--if in fact it was written then and not later? Why do any number of narratives end at a certain "satisfying" point that does not necessarily accord with either the date they were written or the date they were sent?" But Strachey's letter ends on the day the ship sails and the ships are not that frequent! Looks suspiciously like a causal connection to me!

Mouse: Strachey is known to have been an embroiderer, a plagiarist, and more. He might well have written the narrative, using manifold sources, to cash in on the popularity of Jourdain, etc., and shaped it to that episode only. It could, in fact, have been written well after July 10, or it might have had material added or deleted by Strachey or Purchas--who was known for that kind of thing--long after. Or Strachey might have written it by say, 1612, but not sent it. In fact, he was still sending out his other work, History of Travel, mostly unchanged, in 1618, although a first draft must have been written by 1613. I also note, as another example, that Columbus' son wrote about his father's escapades as if he were there and they had just happened. However, the son must have been about five at the time, and the narratives written much, much, later. There are many similar examples. I trust this answers your questions. If you'd like to argue further, please read the appropriate texts first.Mizelmouse 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a theory for you and I'm interested in your objections. Purchas published two separate documents, Strachey's True Reportory and an unknown (Virginia Company) author's True Declaration (about seventeen hundred words) in 1625 under the title of the True Reportory and Wright later did likewise.

Mouse: OK, you've lost me already. Purchas edited and published True Reportory in 1625. It appears to contain some passages (not too many)that are also in True Declaration. There is also a longish 1700 word extract from True Declaration at the end of True Reportory, This is not presented as a separate document but is included under the same chapter(s). What is more, the contents of it are mentioned in the editorial material at the beginning of chapter four, the chapter in which it appears. It all comes under the title of True Reportory in Purchas. The whole of True Declaration had been published by December 1610. Wright did not publish True Reportory at all. In 1964 he edited a modern spelling version of it, published by the University Press of Virginia. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Strachey finished writing his letter on the day Gates' ship sailed (there were only two hundred words to write)

Mouse: I've already told you that I don't believe that was the case. There is some evidence that True Reportory contains later material by people such as Smith, there is evidence of many sources that were probably not available in Virginia, there is no evidence the company ever got it, there is evidence from Strachey in 1612 in Lawes that he is "perfecting" a manuscript that sounds just like it, etc. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

and it got back to England before 8 November 1610. Someone in the Virginia Company read it and rewrote it as the True Declaration before registering it on 8 November.

Mouse: No, this is impossible. True Declaration contains material from people who evidently settled in Virginia earlier than Strachey, from a dispatch by De La Warre that Strachey might have had a hand in, from a report, possibly oral, by Sir Thomas Gates, from Jourdain, and possibly from an earlier draft of Strachey's ms or from other voyagers. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The aim of the rewrite was to reassure potential investors by countering the word-of-mouth reports that returning colonists might spread about the poor conditions.

Mouse: But for the most part True Declaration is very different from True Reportory. It would take a miracle to turn one into the other. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I want to be clear I understand your objections. (1) The secretary Richard Martin (in England) wrote to Strachey (still in Virginia) in December 1610 requesting details about the plantation that were later to be found in the Strachey letter, so he couldn't have received it at that time (and the Gates ship would have been back in England by then). Your reasoning is that being secretary, he had priority over anyone else in the company to see a confidential document and if he hadn't seen it then no one else had.

Mouse: Barry, you keep attributing to me words or ideas that are nothing to do with me. I haven't said he had priority. I said he would certainly have seen it if it went to the company as he was the Secretary of the Council of the Virginia Company. Thus, if he had not seen Strachey's ms, no one else in the company had either, because it hadn't been received by the company. There is also another point. Strachey clearly didn't mean it to be a confidential document. It was found among Hakluyt's papers in 1616 after his death, so it rather looks like Strachey had sent him the manuscript for publication. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) You also say that since Strachey mentions the Gates' departure in his letter, the letter did not go back to England with Gates. Also, Strachey could not have finished the letter in time for Gates' departure because another seventeen hundred words of the True Declaration were still to be written (or plagiarised) by Strachey before it left Virginia.

Mouse: No, it's nothing to do with plagiarism. At the end of the document that was published as True Reportory someone (Strachey? Purchas?) says, in the first person, that he has inserted part of a book called True Declaration that "was published by the company." It is impossible that this passage could have been written before Nov/December 1610, when TD was published. So either it was Strachey, who hadn't sent a finished ms back, or it was Purchas, when he was editing Strachey's ms between 1616-1625. There are other bits in the True Reportory document that appear to come from True Declaration also. They are for the most part redacted from the end portion. There is also source material in True Reportory from about 10-12 other writers such as Erasmus, Ariosto, Virgil, Acosta, Horace and Eden. In other words, it's a concoction, and used sources that of course Shakespeare had access to much earlier. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, tell me where this deviates from your theory. (Puzzle Master 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Mouse: I've told you briefly. There's much more. If you want to make a case that Bacon might have written True Declaration, that would be a very interesting take. But your other dog doesn't hunt as far as I'm concerned. Roger and I are just editing a forthcoming paper of ours that gives evidence that Tempest was written by 1603, and another that says it was a Shrovetide play is also forthcoming. I also notice that on your website you keep referring to the Strachey "pamphlet." This suggests to me you haven't read it, as it's not a pamphlet at all. It's a 23,000 - 24,000 word narrative, close to book length. You also give evidence of parallels between Shakespeare and Strachey that can be found in other much earlier and richer sources. Thanks for the conversation. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your previous response. Who do you claim wrote the True Declaration (Strachey or someone else), where do you claim it was written (Virginia or England), and when do you claim it written (a) in relation to Gates' departure (before or after) and (b) in relation to Strachey's mention in the letter of Gates' departure (before or after)? It would assist me enormously if you didn't split up my piece with your answers as its easier for me to digest if you answer in a separate statement. Best Wishes (Puzzle Master 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I have given who I thought supplied material for True Declaration above, not least De La Warre, Gates, Jourdain, and possibly Strachey in the earlier letter. As far as I'm aware, there is no clue as to who put it together, but Barret published it. It was clearly written in London at the Company and the bulk had to be written after Gates arrived back in London in September 1610, as he's referenced again and again as having submitted material or having given a report, which is not extant. It might have been given orally, as I believe I said above. My guess is that True Declaration was written after Strachey's first shortish letter, but before True Reportory was finished. I have no idea whether it was written before or after Strachey wrote about Gates' departure, but I would speculate that TD was written before. What is your particular interest in this? It is hard for me not to break up your text if I'm to answer in detail. If you do not wish me to do so, perhaps you could write shorter paragraphs with one or two questions in each and give me a chance to respond before you go on. Mizelmouse 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question arises that Richard Martin might have been secretary to the Virginia Company but had he read the True Declaration at the time he sent his letter to Strachey (registering with the Stationers does not mean reading)? There are two reasons for suspecting that he hadn't.

(1) Richard Martin's letter to William Strachey dated 14 December 1610, which is a private and not a company letter, requests that “you would be pleased by the return of this ship to let me understand ... how the Barbarians are content with your being there, but especially how our own people ... endure labor, whether willingly or upon constraint.” If he had read the True Declaration (registered 8 November 1610) he would have learnt that “Powhaton ... but layed secret ambushes in the Woods, that if one or two dropped out of the Fort alone, they were indangered." (Purchas, 1625, p.1757) and "our mutinous Loyterers would not sow with prouidence" (p.1757) So why in that case would he have asked?

(2) The only people that we can say with certainty might have received a report on the state of the colony at the time, written or verbal, were the Virginia Council because the True Declaration informs us: "The Councell of Virginia (finding the smalnesse of that returne, which they hoped should have defrayed the charge of a new supply) entred into a deepe consultation, and propounded amongst themselves, whether it were fit to enter into a new contribution, or in time to send for home the Lord La-ware, and to abandon the action. They resolued to send for Sir Thomas Gates, who being come, they adiured him to deale plainely with them, and to make a true relation of those things which were presently to be had, or hereafter to be hoped for in Virginia. Sir Thomas Gates with a solemne and sacred oath replied, that all things before reported were true:" (p.1758) Now the Second Virginia Charter lists over 700 people associated with the settlement: adventurers (investors) and colonists. Evidently listed according to status, the knights are at the top, followed by doctors, captains, a long list of merchants, drapers, haberdashers and grocers and then we find Richard Murrettone [Martin] at over 600th on the list. There are 52 Council members listed who are all either Lords, Earls or knights, except three and Richard Martin is not among them. So the Second Virginia Charter (May 1609) does not confirm that he was highly regarded in the Company. (see http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1601-1650/virginia/chart02.htm)

The implication here is that the printing and publication of the True Declaration might have occurred some weeks after its registration so not only had Martin not seen the published version by December 1610, he had not been privy to its contents before publication either. So one could not expect him to have seen the Strachey letter had it arrived on the Gates ship. (Puzzle Master 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Allow me to kick in here briefly and make a few points. (1)Martin certainly would have seen True Declaration because he was one of the Virginia Company council members whose name appears on the Stationers register.

Hi Tommy! Do we have to argue here as well? Yay for saying that Martin would have seen TD. Perhaps he even wrote it. What d'you think? Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) The "answers" to Martin's questions Lynne cites are not answers, but part of the history of the colony up to July 15. Martin is not asking for information he already has, part of which is in True Declaration. Martin is asking Strachey for his honest opinion on the situation of the colony, including its relations with the Indians. He is not asking for reasons why the colony failed until De La Warr got there, which is what Strachey wrote in his letter. Therefore, the "answers" in the letter are not in response to Martin's letter.

We've argued this about a hundred times. Martin's letter is December 10th, not much time for Strachey to describe what has happened to the colony since Gates departed. Part of the information may well be in True Declaration, but as you say, Martin is asking Strachey for the "real story." Little did he realise that Strachey would send him material he already had from other sources, mixed in with his own comments--at least, I think they were his own comments, but perhaps you and I still have more sources to discover. And Strachey is certainly not only commenting on the colony before DLW got there. He was hardly there himself before that. Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(3) The letter as written is not the Virginia history Strachey said he hoped to write in the preface to his Lawes. In that preface Strachey said he would write what he had seen both in Virginia and Bermuda, but the only Virginia experiences in the letter stop at July 15. Strachey was there for more than a year later, including the time Dale was governor, and he witnessed a lot more noteworthy events during that time that he meant to write about in his uncompleted History of Travel into Virginia Brittania, as is obvious from his projected table of contents he wrote to Northumberland. It is likely, though, that Strachey would have used some of the material in the letter, given his habit of recycling his material.

He said he'd been an eye witness in Virginia and Bermuda and would tell the full story of both eventually. He says nothing about writing a history of Virginia, but of being "Remembrancer of all accidents, occurrences, and undertakings," presumably during his time there. You're right that by September or so 1611 he had an extra year of Virginia to write about, and that's something to consider. But the truth is that he talks about his experiences in Bermuda in TR but not History of Travel, which DOES purport to be a history of Virginia. My guess is that he divided his experiences in Virginia between TR and HT and added to HT the texts of many who were there before him. That doesn't mean he wrote TR before July 1610, but that he planned it that way. I believe he had to get back to England to add some of the sources to both works, for which he apparently used the same library, consisting in part of Erasmus, Eden, Ariosto (?)Acosta, etc.Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, a textual study that I am currently writing of all the documents involved strongly suggests the direction of influence runs from the Strachey letter to True Declaration, and not vice versa.

I disagree, as you knew I would. This problem has become much more complicated by the discovery of a copy of an earlier, much briefer, letter, which Roger and I had posited might be the case in our Strachey paper. It is much more probable, imo, that the earlier letter--which is missing many of the source materials (and by the way, parallels to Tempest)--went back to London in 1610. There's also another problem--the report of Gates is not extant, so that makes figuring out Strachey's contributions to TD, if there were any, much more difficult. Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: there is no plausible evidence that the Strachey letter was written after July 15, 1610, or that it did not reach England in September, 1610.Tom Reedy 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh rubbish. There is no plausible evidence that it did. ;) Let's take this elsewhere, please, or I'll never finish my novel. Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Barry: Whatever it says on the document, Martin was a prominent lawyer and a member of middle temple, and was secretary of the council and I believe its counsel from around 1610. His appointment was too late to go on the charter as he obtained his position after the document was written. I know he was in competition with John Donne for the post. I really have no idea what you're talking about, Barry. As Richard Martin was one of the three people who presented True Declaration to the Stationers Register on November 8th, of course he had read the document. It says "Published by advise and direction of the Councell of Virginia, London" and he (for about the tenth time) was its secretary. I can't imagine how you can say he wouldn't have seen the document that other council members would have seen and that he personally took to the SR. I'm sort of stunned at your suggestion, which goes against all the evidence.

What is more, if Strachey's True Reportory had gone to the Company, Martin would definitely have seen it, as he was a friend from Strachey's theatre days and Strachey's link with the Company itself.

Again, please, if you wish me to answer at the end of your comments rather than breaking them up, make them short. Thank you. Mizelmouse 01:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I can see that Martin might have seen the True Declaration, realised it was just a sanitised version of events and (having shares in the Company) wanted to know the real situation from Strachey. However, he could not then have seen the Strachey letter (which contains the real situation) and one then has to decide whether it was because he had no access to it or because it had not arrived.

Lynne, I think one has to be careful in claiming on the basis of parallels that one document is a source for another when the authors have had shared experiences. Jourdain was in the same shipwreck that Strachey was in, so one might expect reference to the same events. If the Eden and Erasmus sources describe shipwrecks they (or their informants) were in, then of course one can expect common descriptions with Strachey.

No, the truth is that Strachey took many of the so-called storm parallels, which are very identifiable, from them. He certainly used Eden. He even says so in one place. He must have taken from Ariosto, Erasmus, or Tomson, or perhaps a blend of them and others including Virgil. The description of St. Elmo either came from Eden, or Erasmus or Tomson, or De Ulloa or again, a blend of them. They all contain excellent and rather intricate descriptions. He might even have used Pliny. But the real kicker is that if he took these descriptions from earlier literature--and we're sure he did--they were available to Shakespeare too, especially as we see similar descriptions in earlier Shakespeare plays. Mizelmouse

As far as The Tempest is concerned, the real test is this, does it contain parts of Strachey that are not in Jourdain, Eden or Erasmus? (Puzzle Master 12:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

The answer to that, Barry, is a resounding NO. Not only can Eden and Erasmus and/or Ariosto replace Strachey, these sources are much richer, with far more parallels, both verbal and thematic, as our articles will hopefully show when published. Mizelmouse 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether the elements are unique to Strachey is not the point. A large number of the elements in the play--theme, plot, names, verbal similarities--can be found in one topical source, Strachey's letter.

No, this is simply not true. Most of the names cannot be found in Strachey's material. And the plot elements are not strong at all. Two of the four names that are found are from Eden, and Strachey lets us know that. The people on the Sea Venture are Englishmen and the island is unpeopled. The "characters" in Eden are Spanish (as in Tempest), include the very people named by Shakespeare, such as Ferdinand and Alonso, kings of Naples, and the islands are populated. The conspiracies in fact are much closer in Eden. Strachey is not one source, in any case, it is a collection of sources, as he is a copier of the first order. Theme, plot, names and verbal similarities can be found +++ in our two main sources when compared to Strachey. Tell me, do you believe Strachey made up all the material for St. Elmo's fire, or do you believe he got it from a multitude of other sources? Strachey used at least 10 texts to write TR. Why is Strachey allowed so many sources but Shakespeare allowed just one? Mizelmouse

That they can all be found in various scattered sources does not invalidate Strachey as the likeliest source.

Um, as I said, we only need two texts, not "various scattered sources." And yes they do invalidate Strachey as the likeliest source, or at least, they make it much less probable, because if you look at Eden, for example, it is a much stronger source than Strachey, with many more verbal and thematic parallels, AND it contains most of Stachey's parallels--the ones that aren't already in Shakespeare's earlier work, that is. In addition, Eden is a very famous published source, which scholars acknowledge HAD to be used by Shakespeare. We are not positing scattered sources. Again, we are positing two, and you know that, to replace the multitude of sources that Strachey and co used. Mizelmouse

One poster on another venue illustrated it thusly: "If a local market sells a soup mix that contains nine different ingredients, and I serve you a bowl of soup that contains those nine ingredients, you can't DISPROVE that I bought the soup at the local market by showing that I could have gotten two of the ingredients in it from a different local market, and a third ingredient from your cousin Jack, and the fourth from a mail order outfit, and the fifth and sixth from my own backyard garden, and had the other three on a trip to Shanghai in 1967. Our mouse seems not to be able to follow this line of reasoning, I have no idea why. True, by finding all the parallels in other sources than Strachey, you can show that it is invalid to say Shakespeare MUST have read Strachey, but you can't show that it is invalid to say he very probably did."

I'm not sure you're supposed to import material from another venue. I hope you got the bunny's permission. Nevertheless, the answer, for yet another time, is this. I can and I do say that it's unlikely that Shakespeare used Strachey. We can make all the significant parallels and many more from two ingredients, Eden and either Ariosto or Erasmus. At first I went with Erasmus. Now I know more, I would tend to go with Ariosto, because it contains a wealth of parallels outside of the storm set. Many of the parallels to Tempest were also in Shakespeare's earlier works. IMO, it's ridiculous to look to Strachey for themes and parallels that Shakespeare had already used much earlier. Eden, Ariosto, and Erasmus were very famous sources, published over and over again in several languages (and used before by Shakespeare), as opposed to Strachey, which even if written before Tempest was composed, which I doubt, was in manuscript. And whilst the other texts were easily obtainable, no one has ever been able to give an an iota of proof that the Strachey ms was available or got to Shakespeare. If it existed at the time, it was the manuscript of an unknown, not mentioned until 1625. We can make our case, which is much stronger than the "Bermuda" case, from two sources plus Shakespeare, as I've said; we show a variety of sources simply to show how common this kind of material was at the time. To make the Bermuda sources work, you have to use at least four of them: True and Sincere Declaration, True Declaration, Strachey, and Jourdain, besides making an argument based on Montaigne. Montaigne is derived from Eden. And now there's an earlier Strachey letter, it doesn't hurt to say that many, many of the parallels are missing, especially the verbal ones. Taken all in all, I think it much more likely that Shakespeare used himself and two other very famous texts as his sources. If we can place the plays earlier, I can say definitely that he did not use Strachey. Mizelmouse

Which is why her and Roger's paper tries to eliminate Strachey in another way by attempting to demonstrate that the letter was written after the first performance of The Tempest.

Tom Reedy 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you know this not to be the truth. We did the paper simply to get Strachey out the way as a necessary source before starting on our own source and dating essays. We've also got a table up online which shows parallels in other sources. If we had not done both of those things, people would have said, as you continue to do, "What about the Strachey letter?" over and over again when we attempted to present new sources. Tell me, are we going to resuscitate our entire discussion all over again? Because I'm getting rather tired of our repeating the same things over and over, and if I don't finish my novel, I won't get paid. Mizelmouse 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Earlier the following exchange occurred.

Barry: You say about the Strachey letter "nor do they [words about Gates' departure] constitute the conclusion of the document, which continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration". I don't get it!

Mouse: Perhaps, if you read the Strachey, you would. Our theory is that Strachey added these words, which follow on directly from the rest of the text, and also added much else, when he got to London.

I don't think this is the case and I think that the Strachey letter finished on the day when the Gates ship sailed. The Strachey letter taken up to the day of Gates' departure is written in chronological order and finishes with compliments to the noble lady less than two hundred words later. If Strachey continued to write his letter in Virginia after mentioning Gates' departure,and wrote True Declaration on the end of it as Gates left him behind, then it makes no sense because he would then be repeating facts. For example:

I didn't mean that he literally wrote True Declaration. I meant that we believe he added the words from the already written and published True Declaration to his ms when he got back to London, although we don't rule out the possibility that Purchas did so. Mizelmouse

Right! For the first time I'm absolutely clear about your meaning! So in that case, in Virginia, after mentioning Gates' departure in his letter, he added nothing and his letter really did finish 200 words later. So writing more lines did not occur as an impediment to the letter being given to Gates. If he did not give his finished letter to Gates he must have been really annoyed with himself for just missing that ship! (Puzzle Master 10:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

(1a) Reportory: "there were [those], who conceiued that our Gouernour indeede neither durst, nor had authority to put in execution, or passe the act of Iustice vpon anyone, how treacherous or impious so euer" (Purchas, p.1744)

(1b) Declaration:"euery man ouer-ualuing his owne worth, would be a Commander: euery man vnderprizing anothers value, denied to be commanded." (p.1756)

(2a) Reportory: " rather then the dwellers would step into the Woods a stones cast off from them, to fetch other fire-wood: and it is true, the Indian killed as fast without, if our men stirred but beyond the bounds of their Block-house, as Famine and Pestilence did within" (p.1749)

(2b) Declaration: "Powhaton ... but layed secret ambushes in the Woods, that if one or two dropped out of the Fort alone, they were indangered." (p.1757)

(3a) Reportory: "[mariners] ... as when the Trucke-Master for the Colony, in the day time offered trade, the Indians would laugh and scorne the same, telling what bargains they met withall by night" (p.1751)

(3b) Declaration: "mariners ... who for their priuate lucre partly imbezeled the prouisions, partly preuented our Trade with the Indians making the Matches in the night, and forestalling our Market in the day" (p.1757)

(4a) Reportory: "And with this Idleness ... not imployed to the end for which they were sent hither, no not compelled (since in themselues vnwilling) to sowe Corne for their owne bellies" (p.1749)

(4b) Declaration: "our mutinous Loyterers would not sow with prouidence" (p.1757)

(5a) Reportory: “wee haue thousands of goodly Vines in euery hedge” p.1750

(5b) Declaration: "the Land aboundeth with Vines" p.1758

It also indicates in the True Declaration that it was written in London:

Declaration: "here at home the monyes came in so slowly, that the Lord Laware could not be dispatched till the Colony was worne and spent with difficulties" (p.1758)

While Strachey was still in Virginia, the True Declaration (registered November 1610) reports what Gates was doing in London:

Declaration: "The Councell of Virginia (finding the smalnesse of that returne, which they hoped should have defrayed the charge of a new supply) entred into a deepe consultation, and propounded amongst themselves, whether it were fit to enter into a new contribution, or in time to send for home the Lord La-ware, and to abandon the action. They resolued to send for Sir Thomas Gates, who being come, they adiured him to deale plainely with them, and to make a true relation of those things which were presently to be had, or hereafter to be hoped for in Virginia. Sir Thomas Gates with a solemne and sacred oath replied, that all things before reported were true:" (p.1758)

The point that really settles it for me, though, is that this last piece says that Gates was sent for to issue a report to the Council. Had Gates compiled his own notes? It would have been more natural to use Strachey's for his presentation which after all, has Gates as its subject being entitled "A true reportory of the wracke, and redemption of Sir Thomas Gates Knight; vpon, and from the Ilands of the Bermudas: his comming to Virginia, and the estate of that Colonie then, and after, vnder the gouernment of the Lord La Warrre, Iuly 15. 1610." and which we note is signed off July 15 1610 the day Gates sailed. (p.1734) (Puzzle Master 23:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

One final point: this last passage of the True Declaration is near the end of the document and says "Thomas Gates with a solemne and sacred oath replied, that all things before reported were true". Had Purchas or anyone else added or removed material from the original True Declaration of November 1610 for the 1625 publication, then it would have corrupted the statement about what it was Gates in 1610 was claiming on oath to be true. In other words, we could not know which parts of the now altered 1625 True Declaration Gates had originally said were true (and there is no differentiation between a 1610 and 1625 version in Purchas). So we can take it that the 1610 and 1625 versions are identical. (Puzzle Master 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Barry, I'm really sorry, but at this point I haven't a clue what you're trying to say, which is no doubt my fault. I'll try to find someone to translate. Mizelmouse 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, Lynne. It's no longer relevant to my argument now that I'm clear (from your above comment) that Strachey was not writing parts of the True Declaration in Virginia after mentioning Gates' departure in his letter. (Puzzle Master 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for letting me know, Barry, because the "expert" I consulted was a little unsure of what you meant also. Best wishes. Mizelmouse 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mega-lead

This article has a lead that is larger than many articles. The TOC doesn't even show on my monitor - and I have a hi-res monitor. I tried shortening it by splitting the bulk off with a new section and it was reverted.

It seems to me a short intro is reasonable, but a huge intro is just an article that is not well laid out. --Michael Daly 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is quite long so the lead is going to be long. Look at the article on William Shakespeare as a good example of similiar length. According to the MOS, the lead should mention the major points discussed in the article and should be no more than 4 paragraphs. The present article seems to meet those descriptions.Smatprt 00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

wp:lead - The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first headline. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.Smatprt 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

Why does this article spend so little space on the overwhelmingly held view of Academics that William Shakespeare is the real author? Anyone coming fresh to this issue would think it is a a lived debate; in reality it is nothing of the sort. The academic community has all but given up on the argument on the grounds that all the evidence points one way. Even the term 'Stratfordian' is considered absurd as it suggests there is an issue at stake. My suggestion is that there should be a separate article dealing with the orthordox position and the reasoning behind it. I fear that this article is always going to end up being colonised by obessives.

--John Price (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the following if you haven't managed to find any serious research against Mr Shakspere of Stratford 'The Shakespeare Puzzle'. It requires the flexibility to accept new evidence and a willingness to think for oneself, both of which I am assuming here. (Puzzle Master (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Minor introduction changes

I made some minor changes to the introduction to make it slightly more concise and balanced. I felt that 'no writings of any kind' was sufficient, 'detailed will' was a matter of opinion and that 'any school or schools he might have studied at is a matter of speculation' was better suited to go in front of the 'no records of admission' part of the sentence. That the 29,000 words included variations of the same word is information from Bill Bryson's book on Shakespeare which I believe is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.10.50 (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments from a Shakespeare professor

To fellow Shakespeare scholars: I would like to incorporate some if not all of the following list of arguments into the Shakespearean authorship article. They are:

13. There is not one smidgen of evidence to prove decisively that the author had to have traveled to France and Italy in order to write the plays. Even Italian scholars have not been able to prove that he had been there. Italy was a traditional place to set a play and local color was available in London and his sources.

14. There is not one speck of valid evidence that the author had to have been a courtly gentleman to know of courtly language, manners, hawking, tennis and other kingly sports. Almost everyone was interested in sports then as they are now. We may know the terms as observers, not as participants

15. There is not one trace of evidence to prove that Shakespeare's education, reading, sources, and conversations with knowledgeable persons could not have given him his large literary vocabulary. The plays indicate he could write. His name as an actor in Jonson's plays and his own indicates he could read, or else how could he have read and memorized his lines? It is not being presumptuous or arguing in a circular manner to say that if Shakespeare wrote the plays then he had to have the knowledge to do it.

16. There is not one modicum of proof that the author had to have had a formal legal education to have written the plays and poems. Law was often used by all dramatists as figurative language. All of Shakespeare's plays have a legal basis.

17. There is not one corpuscle of evidence to prove that the 17th Earl of Oxford or his father-in-law William Cecil, Lord Burleigh, ever destroyed any or all the evidence linking Oxford to the plays to protect Oxford and his reputation.

18. There is not one flyspeck of evidence to hint that the Stratford-upon-Avon authorities purposely destroyed the school records which, Oxfordians say, would have revealed that Shakespeare had never gone to school there and therefore could not have written the Works - thereby destroying their thriving Shakespeare industry.

19. There is not one tittle of evidence to prove that there was a universal conspiracy of silence among those who knew that Oxford had written the Works, but would not reveal it. What a coup it would have been for the one who would reveal it, if there were anything to reveal. If there were other conspiracies, they are not analogous here. To say that there was no conspiracy and that the authorship was an "open secret" seems ridiculous. How could the secret have been kept open yet unrevealed until 1920? It is against the nature of man.

20. There is not one scruple of evidence to prove that because Shakespeare engaged in necessary business ventures to invest his money and necessary legal suits to protect his rights, that he wrote only for money and had no interest in his plays. He earned money, there were no banks as we know them, he invested it, he lent it, and expected to be paid back at the then usual rate. Those seemingly paltry sums for which he sued were not paltry then when you could buy three loaves of bread for a penny. With 240 pence to the pound that would be the equivalent of 720 loaves for a pound sterling. At a cost of about $1.50 for moderately priced good bread today, a pound would equal $1070. But values were different then. I can't imagine anyone paying a thousand dollars for a one pound Folio in 1623. When Pope wrote that Shakespeare "for gain not glory winged his roving sprite, and grew immortal in his own despite," it was his opinion.

21. There is not one granule of evidence to prove that the word "ever-living" in the Sonnet dedication indicates that the author was dead in 1609 as was Oxford who had died in July of 1604. If "ever-living" was widely used of dead celebrities, in the Sonnet dedication it refers to a living immortal. There is no surrounding evidence to disprove it. Printing had been introduced into England in 1477; there were many words and meanings that had not yet appeared in print.

22. There is not one dust-speck of proof to indicate that the occurrences of "ever" in various lines indicate that they are either direct or indirect references to E ver, i.e., Edward Vere.

23. There is not one shred of evidence to indicate that any of Oxford's heirs attempted in any way to retrieve their father's hidden fame - especially since all the so-called need for the presumed concealment was over, if there ever was a need which has never been proved.

24. There is not one smithereen of evidence to prove that any of the early plays which were seeming sources for the later plays were the early work of Oxford.

25. There is not one crumb of verifiable evidence that the Shakespeare monument in Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon was redesigned to put a pillow and pen in Shakespeare's lap rather than what appeared to have been a sack of grain in the presumed original or that that presumed original ever actually existed. A painting of the monument, before the refurbishing in 1747, reveals that it was essentially what we have now. Other similar existing monuments of the period have similar pillows. The Dugdale engraving with the seeming sack was obviously made from a poor sketch of which there are many in Dugdale's work.

26. There is not a penny's worth of evidence to prove that because Shakespeare stored and sold grain at one time or another that he was therefore a grain merchant rather than a dramatist, or a hoarder of grain in time of need. He owned land, it was farmed, it was stored, and it was inventoried. There is no record that he sold it for gouging prices

27. There is not a drop of evidence to prove that if Shakespeare's father, mother, wife, and children were illiterate then Shakespeare was also illiterate. There were, by the way, other literate "marksmen" who knew how to write but also signed with their mark when they chose to. A cross was a religious symbol.

28. There is not one blip of evidence or likelihood to prove that the forty-three-year-old Oxford, if he wrote the works, would even deign to write, the servile, submissive, and self-abnegating dedication to the seventeen-and-a-half-year-old Earl of Southampton that prefix both Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.

40. There is not a spark of evidence to prove that if it were widely known that Oxford was the author of the plays and poems he would have to have feared for his life.

41. There is not a smitch of evidence to prove that the Earl of Southampton was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth and Oxford.

42. There is not drip of evidence to prove that there is so much court gossip and there are so many recognizable noble individuals in the plays and poems that every effort had to be taken to keep the author secret lest their identity might be deduced or discovered. Biographical conjectures relating the plays and Sonnet personages to the Oxford family are pure conjectures.

43. There is no evidence to prove that Shakespeare left London near the turn of the century in 1604 or was bribed to leave London. to leave the dramatic field open to Oxford. On the other hand Oxfordians say Shakespeare received a dispensation from the Queen to write plays on courtly personalities and controversial historical subjects. If the plays and poems were so socially revelatory of private family affairs and dangerous politically, why were they permitted to be published later?

44. There is no evidence to disprove that the man who is buried in the grave at Stratford-upon-Avon is not the actor/dramatist whose arms (awarded to his father, John) were later disputed in the Herald's office London noting Shakespeare as "ye player", the more especially since those arms are displayed on the monument on the chancel wall of Holy Trinity in Stratford and the inscription on the monument below the effigy specifically and punningly refers to the decedent's leavmg "living art, but page, to show his wit", and also compares him to Socrates and Virgil, hardly a reference to an illiterate yokel. The fact that the inscription reads as though the body was within the wall merely tell us that the carver was not aware of the burial in the floor of the church.

45 There is not a drop of evidence to prove that any theory based on drawing short lines ("match-sticks") through lines of the sonnets which have the letters of Oxford's name under them proves that Oxford was the author.

46 There is no valid proof that the sonnets reveal Oxford as the author by initial letters, acrostics or so called ambiguous lines.

47. There is not shard of evidence to prove that the annotations in the recently discovered Oxford copy of the Oxford family Bible were not there when the book was purchased.

48. There is no valid proof that the correspondences between Oxford's language and Shakespeare's proves that they are one and the same person. Mere knowledge of the same words is not enough; it is their use that counts.

49. There is no proof that Shakespeare's Warwickshire speech would have been unintelligible in London.

50. It is interesting but proves nothing that Disraeli, Emerson, Whitman, Clemens/Twain, Whittier, Lord Palmerston, Prince Bismarck, Galsworthy, Freud, Charley Chaplin, Lesley Howard, and a small army of others doubted the authorship of Shakespeare. Were any of them solid scholars in Shakespeare? Sow the seeds of doubt and doubters will spring up. Would the publication of an even longer list of such non-professional believers make the Oxfordian thesis more credible?

51. If it be said that there is a lack of positive evidence for Shakespeare, there is no valid evidence for Oxford beyond two or three references to Oxford as a penner of comedy only, none to tragedy. The uncontested name, portrait, and preliminary encomia in the Folio compiled by his colleagues are all that is necessary for proof of Shakespeare's authorship.

52. To say that to believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems is unimaginable and beyond reason is to indicate that the speakers themselves have spent their reason to imagine and reason that Oxford is the likely author.

53. The language of poetry does not require anyone to believe that the author is being autobiographical when he speaks of his impending death or old age or being lame. One of my own very first poems when I was about eighteen speaks of my fears of death. If there is anything really autobiographical in the Sonnets, it has not yet been discovered.

54. Oxfordian writers and speakers are most convincing when discussing the authorship problem among themselves, when they quote other Oxfordians as evidence, and have no orthodox scholar at hand to present the opposing evidence. When the current Earl of Oxford (Lord Burford) lectures alone, he is very convincing. When he and I presented our evidence before over 900 people in a "trial" at historic Faneuil Hall in Boston on November 12, 1993, the fourteen member jury decided in favor of Shakespeare. A reference to the crowd at this "trial" is made with pride by Oxfordians, but it does not mention that the Lord Burford lost his case.

55. One of the most vociferous objectors to the authorship question I know (this was many years ago), was a man who did not own any orthodox books about Shakespeare. There are well-read scholars among the Oxfordians, but it would seem that they read orthodox biography not to learn the truth but to find points to quibble about. Quibble as they can, they cannot rail the name or attribution of the forty-five pre-Folio plays to Shakespeare, corroborated as it also is by other documentary evidence.

56. There is absolutely no valid evidence to prove that Oxford or the Pembrokes were either leaders or members of a consortium to write the Works.

57. There may be doubts, but mostly no evidence to prove that if a tradition was written down for the first time after Shakespeare's death that it can't also be true - unless it is too ridiculous to believe - for example that Shakespeare was given a thousand pound gift for the use of his name, to leave London, or whatever.

58. Oxfordians protest widely against the term genius when applied to Shakespeare because to accept the validity of "genius" would explain Shakespeare - a truly assimilative genius. If Oxford could be a genius, so could Shakespeare.

59. It is no proof to say that if no letters from Shakespeare exist he therefore did not know how to write.

60. Is it proof of the "great conspiracy of silence" that Oxford was the hidden author because no monument to Oxford remains, no letters, no tribute to the great loss that the world of drama had sustained, because all Oxfordian evidence was purposely destroyed, and that THAT lack of evidence IS evidence enough to prove that Oxford wrote the plays and poems?

61. It seems peculiar thinking to say that because there is no evidence for Oxford he is therefore the concealed author of the plays and poems and then to say that all the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship is invalid and manufactured?

62. Can it be reverse proof that Oxford’s monument was destroyed because there was or was not a tribute to his dramatic craftsmanship on it?

63. There is no evidence whatsoever that Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth prevailed on Oxford not to reveal that he was the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare.

64. It is incomprehensible to believe that Ben Jonson talked with Drummond of Hawthornden about Shakespeare and wrote about him in his "Discoveries" and elsewhere, that he did so while knowing, as it is claimed, that the author was really Oxford.

65. It is proof that Shakespeare was not the author of his works because there are fifty allusions to Ben Jonson's death, but none to Shakespeare’s? Jonson was fortunate in having a friend to start collecting tributes which were printed in Jonsonus Virbius?. Jonson was poet laureate and a scholar and translator besides.

66. While Ward Elliott of Claremont-McKenna College admits that more computer testing remains to be done, I find it impossible to believe that the many tests his group has done showing the disparity between the vocabulary, grammar, phraseology, sentence length and structure, and punctuation of Shakespeare and the so-called claimants will show that any of them are the possible authors. As with Cinderella, others may have her qualities, but if the shoes don't fit, the other similarities mean nothing. Elliott wrote that he was looking for the fingerprints of the author, but the two authors did not match. He also put it another way. He said that the results of their group’s studies might be compared to a blood test. If Shakespeare is Type A positive then Oxford tested out to be Type Z negative! Professor Elliott has since published an article that once again shows, by many verbal and grammatical tests, the absolute impossibility of Oxford being the author.

67. There is not a shard of evidence to prove that Dr. John Hall thought his father-in-law William Shakespeare was of no importance because he left him out of his book of medical cases - Select Observations. The first volume of his notes covering the year 1616 has been lost.

68. There is not a pellet of proof that the silence of Susanna Hall or the neigboring Rainsfords, the Earl of Southampton, Philip Henslowe, Edward Alleyn and others about Shakespeare as a playwright means that Shakespeare was not the author. Camden's mention of Shakespeare "as one of the most pregnant wits of our time" in his Remaines Concerning Britain of 1605 discounts all of the possible silences.

69. There is not one scintilla of verifiable evidence in Oxford's extant letters intimating that he had written any of the works of Shakespeare.

70. There is not a DNA particle of evidence to prove that even if Greene was not the author of the Groatsworth of Wit that it has any significance as to the authorship of Shakespeare.

71. There is not a microscopic bit of evidence for the elimination of Shakespeare as author of his works in saying that the absence of "of Stratford" after all the references to Shakespeare mean that they cannot be used as prove that Shakespeare of London and Shakespeare of Stratford are the same man. The monument, the testimony of the sightseers who came there as a tribute to the memory of the poet, the historians and others is proof enough.

72. If Shakespeare did not sign his will himself, as has been claimed, it still does not prove that Shakespeare did not write the plays.

73. There is no proof that the Ashbourne portrait of Shakespeare is Oxford as shown by an imagined Oxford crest on a ring that he is wearing. The portrait has already been proved to be a forgery as it relaltels to Sshakespeare.

74. If you cite the absence of Shakespeare from Peacham’s lists of great writers as evidence that Shakespeare was not worthy to be cited, be sure to mention also that the noted historian William Camden did include Shakespeare in a similar list.

Though there is more to be said, this is a good place to stop writing. There are more specific Oxfordian "proofs" that can be alluded to, but I believe that they all can be denied by extrapolating from the foregoing precepts. When we separate facts from opinions there is nothing left.

I firmly believe my six dozen statements eliminate Oxford and all other claimants to the Works of Shakespeare. If the Oxfordians wish to continue the debate, they must start with a whole new set of proofs and not repeat those here demolished. I promise to listen. Write to me at avon4 at Juno(dot)com for the missing numbers or for a spirited discussion of the aforementioned points.

--Louis Marder (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is also no "concrete" evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford ever wrote anything. Leaving rings to a couple of actors (and this section of his will was interlined) is hardly evidence. "Swan of Avon" is hardly evidence. The statue in Stratford proves absolutely nothing. Green's attack is open to interpretation - again nothing concrete there. Fake portraits? Other forgeries? Visitors to Stratdford years after his death? Again - nothing "concrete" there. "Proof enough"? What kind of proof is "proof enough"? Thus the question. Smatprt (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] She was an italian jewish woman!

It is now alleged that Amelia Bassano Lanier actually wrote those famous dramas. She was an italian jewish dame living in England and the first one to publish a poems book of her own in 1611. The events of her life match well with topics found in "Shakespeare's" dramas. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)