Talk:Shakespearean authorship question/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 →

Contents 1 Baffled? 2 Moving 1604 Section 3 Needless Puns 4 History Section 5 First Folio frontispiece 6 Neutrality 7 Bohemia on the Adriatic 8 Bacon's Leisure Time

Baffled?

I'm stumped. Trying to improve this article but can't. It states Ben Jonson complains about Shakespeare and his writing, but which one? (I've no doubt who is who, but does the writer know what he/she is writing?) If the Stratford man is illiterate, how can he write anything for Jonson to comment on? Mandel 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Generic claims of that kind without specification or substantiation should not be allowed on the page, whether they seem to support orthodox or unorthodox conclusions. The claim should require not only a citation (what document of Jonson's is being referred to), but a direct quotation. "Complains" is simply nonsense. Ben Jonson did say, "I loved the man--this side idolatry," and that deserves to be quoted (no, I don't know the source without checking), for it goes to the point at issue of Jonson's state of mind.

• Your problem arises from the fact that there have been a great many anti-Stratfordians with a great many different anti-Stratfordian theories. There's therefore not one anti-Stratfordian orthodoxy, as it were, to compare with the accepted position. The anti-Stratfordians who use Ben Jonson's criticisms of Shakespeare's writing as telling evidence are different anti-Stratfordians, and making a fundamentally different case, from those who think Shakespeare wasn't literate at all (who presumably believe Jonson was commenting on the true writer). I think you'll find the page easier to edit if you don't seek for coherence, but handle each argument separately. AndyJones 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor is there one *orthodox* position on most of these things (see, for example, Leah Marcus' very orthodox but honest analysis of the folio frontespiece on this discussion board). One of the problems with this discussion is that while it is necessary to sometimes to employ terms like orthodox (or "Stratfordian") and "anti-Stratfordian," the same terms can be used in highly misleading ways. Increasingly, as the controversy proceeds, the terms will be come more and more hazardous. For example, Professor William Leahy, who started the new MA program in authorship studies at Brunel University http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/acad/sa/artsub/english/postgraduate/support) is an academician who only a couple of years ago would have labelled himself orthodox. He is now "anti-Stratfordian" in the sense that he believes the question is a legitimate and important one for academic inquiry. That said, I think I can shed some light on the Ben Jonson question, because I think Andy Jone's distinction is neither necessary nor particularly helpful. Would it possible for an anti-Stratfordian to speak for the position? It is an axiom of the anti-Stratfordian position that Ben Jonson's statements about Shakespeare cannot be taken at face value, but instead invite careful analysis in light of what is known about Jonson's methods and commitments. This has been the position ever since Canon Gerald Rendall and Sir George Greenwood set it forth in the 1920s.Wrote Greenwood:

"Here the indignant critic will doubtless interpose. "What! Jonson wrote thus, though knowing the facts. Then, according to you, Ben Jonson was a liar!" Wherat we of the 'heretical persuasion can afford to smile. For we see no reason to suppose that Jonson might not have taken the course we attribute to him, and considered himself quite justified in doing so...."

I agree with both of you that the quoted section of the page is awkwardly worded and should be amended. But something like what I just wrote, or a judicious quote from Greenwood, can be put in its place without doing an injustice to anyone on any side of the issue.--BenJonson 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving 1604 Section

The 1604 "question" rightly belongs to the Oxfordian theory, not here. I'm doing this because Oxfordians postulate the 1604 "problem", but it need not necessarily be accepted by Marlowians or Baconians, and hence that is not an anti-Stratfordian orthodox position. Hence, I'm axing it, in a bid to make this less like contradictory patchwork. The Raleigh case goes to Baconian theory. Mandel 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pls note. This article is for the case against the Stratford man, not case for any one specific candidates. In-fighting amongst non-Stratfordians would make their supposedly unified case even more fragmentary than it now is. Mandel 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides yet on the question of moving "The 1604 Problem" to Oxfordian Theory. However, I do strongly disagree with your general conclusion here. This page isn't just about the case against Shakespeare. It is meant to be an overview of the authorship issue as a whole. And if the case is, in your view, fragmentary, then this page should reflect that. AndyJones 13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally the cases against W.S. and not skewed in favor of one opponent, I mean. There are perplexing arguments throughout here which leaps from candidate to candidate. Argument A is A and if Argument B doesn't support Argument A, they should not be lumped together and it certainly doesn't mean C is incorrect. Note if every Anti-Stratford argument is included, including clearly fallacious ones, we would need at least a few megabytes. The 1604 problem is very detailedly expoused in Oxfordian Theory. Mandel 14:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is meant to be an overview of the authorship issue as a whole. Isn't this the case against Shakespeare at large? While it summarizes proposed candidates, it doesn't take sides, not in favor of, say, Bacon over Oxford, does it? Mandel 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I too disagree with your general conclusion, as well as your whole premise. You have defined the page on your own terms, nothing more. Andy is right in saying that this is an overview of the whole issue. Also, the page is hardly taking sides. If laying out an overview reflects that Oxford has a strong case, that only make sense as he has, indeed, achieved front runner status among the anti-Strats. However, removing the 1604 section goes further than that. First, it is entirely Anti-Strat. In fact, I think it is one of the most compellling of the Anti-strat arguments - if "Shakespeare" was dead by 1604 then the Stratford Man could not be the writer. What on earth is more anti-Strat than that? Regarding duplication between pages, that is to be expected. Simply look at the sections on Shakespeare himself with links to various "main articles" and you will see plenty of duplication. In the case of Oxford it makes complete sense too - First, we have an overview paragraph on the Shakespeare page, authorship section. If readers want more it takes them to Shakespeare Authorship, which gives them a few more paragraphs on Oxford. Then if you want more you can go to the Oxford page for a complete bio, or the Oxfordian theory page to get the complete theory. It's a natural progression from a mention, to a summary, to fuller articles. And it's what makes Wikipedia so cool.Smatprt 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Andy Jones and Smatprt on both points. The 1604 date is significant for generic as well as specific reasons. In fact, rather than removing the section, it should be improved. One of the strongest arguments in Looney's 1920 book on Oxford is his demonstration that the pattern of production of play quartos strongly suggests the occurence of some anomolous event in 1604. Before 1604, approximately 17 new plays were published in quarto form (I have to consult my notes for an exact number, but that is correct to within a small margin of error). From 1604 until 1621, only three new plays -- Lear, Pericles, Troilus and Cressida-- were published (all in 1608-9). In 1622, Othello was published in quarto, right before the folio. Thus, at what should have been the height of the author's productive career, the flow of new publications almost ceases. This is a significant fact pattern that should be acknowledged in this article. I think its appropriate that an enlarged discussion of the 1604 question should be subordinated to the Oxford page, but the idea of eliminating it here is no more appropriate than was the earlier (and now, thank God, forgotten) attempt to eliminate the graphic of the Sonnet's title page.--BenJonson 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a size limit for articles, and we cannot afford to make circular arguments. The 1604 problem is an Oxfordian position, not Baconian or Marlowian. This page is heavily skewed in favor of Oxford over Bacon and Marlowe, and as such is not NPOV.Mandel 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As the Oxfordian position is more widely held than the Baconian or Marlovian, it is not a violation of NPOV to discuss it at more length than the others. (At the same time, the basic premises of the Stratfordian position, as being more widely held yet, ought to be discussed at some length, as well - this article should not be simply about anti-Stratfordian arguments). john k 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - your statements are not making sense. As I mentioned, the possibility of "Shakespeare" dying in 1604 is completely anti-strat. I see no sense in arguing that point further. Circular arguments? Editing for size? You are making POV edits, not size cuts. Please.Smatprt 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen above, your arguments are very POV. When Charton Ogburn adds it, it is vital, when AL Rowse adds it, it becomes "unnecessary". Mandel 15:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mandel, you're outvoted here. If you want to discuss reducing the size of the article, let's discuss that. But your attempts to predetermine what will be cut are inappropriate. Let's start with some discussion of what length the article should be. Then, if we can agree on that, then we can discuss what should or could be cut. Much can be done with judicious editing without excising content.--BenJonson 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well...Yah! POV is all over the talk pages. Yours, mine, everyones. It's what makes it onto the articles that is supposed to be NPOV. But you know this.Smatprt 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is 74 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. This article has no scope to expand. If you want this article to grow fruitfully, the two section - hardly summmaries - must go. They are already in Wikipedia; why'd would you want to read something just to repeat itself over and over elsewhere? Mandel 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but insisting on adding the Kathman/Rowse stuff about "wll gee, maybe some of Sh's source books were on sale by a local printer he knew" - sounds like grasping for straws. But leave it in - it adds more "maybes", "possiblys" and "suggests" into the Stratfordian arguments, which is fine with me. And expands the article furtherSmatprt 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not maybe. Most of Sh's source books were on sale by a local printer he knew. Whether he read it is open to speculation. Mandel 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - more "maybes" for Stratford. Maybe he read them, maybe he didn't. Good work. Strong positve proof of nothing.Smatprt 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"the treasurer’s accounts show that “Wil. Kempe,” “Wil. Shakespeare” and “Rich. Burbage” received payment for two comedies played at court on 26 and 28 December, 1594." Mandel 15:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[1]

I think this illustrates your agenda pretty well, Mandel: you want to remove things you don't like and replace them with things you do like. Contrary to what you may think, most anti-Stratfordians are quite familiar with such facts. We just don't find them, in the context of the entire fact pattern, to be very significant. Most of us will gladly concede that Mr. Shakespeare, howevever you spell his name, was a theatrical personality. That doesn't, ipso facto, make him the author. In fact, it makes him a pretty good candidate for a viable front.--BenJonson 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As it does NOT say "Shakespeare of Stratford", I'm afraid your quote adds nothing to this debate.Smatprt 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Oxford became an actor with the Chamberlain's Men? Make up your mind. Mandel 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - now I am mixing up topics, as well. My response on this is in the edit summary - payment for two comedies is distinctly different than acquiring patronage as per Jonson reference.Smatprt 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Needless Puns

I think we should delete that hilarous "ann hate" pun because I see it as pointless to the debate. Is it there as a response to some anti-strat statement I am not seeing? Do we really want to start listing all the puns that various scholars see in the plays and poems. We could have Bacon and Vere puns all over the place - even leading to another article! :)

Paul B - Please don't tell me what I know. You say without doubt that I have been told about this paragraph's info and this source before. You have me confused with someone else. Maybe BenJonson. If I am wrong than please show me where. Smatprt 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

here's where you were told [2]. Your opinions about the views of a distinguished professor are of no interest. The passage is of obvious relevance. Your POV deletionism is outrageous. Paul B 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not offer an opinion on BenJonson. And, as usual, you avoid the question and refer to a pointless issue. My only edit back were you refered me to was the request of a source for the POV statement on the sentence I marked - "more compatible...than an anonymous nobleman...etc." You instead mistakenly sourced the Anne pun which I did not tag. Also, I expected to be shown a discussion we had - not an edit summary that didn't answer the right fact tag. Sorry, it was your bad.Smatprt 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so dishonest. The revert was to your previous edit here and referred to it as anyone can tell. [3]. You used similar tactics over the Hammersley portrait. Paul B 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No dishonesty here. Just your intrepretation of events, as influenced by your own POV, just like everyone else. In the future, please include your discussion on the TALK page, not in edit summary. "Dishonest", "tactics", "deletionism" - wow, and I thought I was paranoid. As others have said to me, "Lighten up!" Smatprt 16:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment on the edit summary was not written by me, if you bother to even look. Paul B 07:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

History Section

No doubt I have thoroughly annoyed some contributors to this page with my frequent insistence of the importance of viewing this topic historically. I thought I would stop preaching and do a bit of editing, so I have revised the history section with these concerns in mind:

1) I added a sentence or two about Sir George Greenwood. It is impossible to do justice to the history of the authorship question without mentioning this prolific writer and controversialist, a liberal MP who regularly contributed to the London Times and wrote twelve books on authorship, many of which directly engaged Sir Sidney Lee or J.M. Robertson in debates that were very public and are well documented in the newspapers and journals of the time;

2) I added reference to the Shakespeare fellowship, the organization founded by Looney, Greenwood, and supporters in 1922.

3) I edited the timeline indicating that Oxford had become the favored 20c candidate in the 1980s. This is misleading. Without wishing to diminish the importance of Ogburn's 1984 book, which indeed has had considerable impact, Oxford he was already identified as the leading alternative to the orthodox view by 1975 in Encyclopedia Britannica. Sorry I don't have the reference immediately to hand, but I will find and provide it.

4) I then edited the paragraph for coherence which involved a some tightening of sentences and rearrangments of the development of the paragraph necessitated by these three changes to the content.

These were the only changes I made. Thank you to everyone for reviewing and either approving or recommending edits to these changes.

best wishes to all.--BenJonson 05:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First Folio frontispiece

Hello, All.

I wonder what other editors think of the following issue, and which Wikipedia article is the best place in which to mention it.

In the mid 1990s in England, I saw a documentary about the debates over the authorship of Shakespeare's works, including the interesting features of the portrait in the First Folio's frontispiece. It seemed that the best conclusion to draw about the portrait from the information in the documentary was as follows:

• The Shakespeare portrait is highly similar to a certain painted portrait of Queen Elizabeth I.

• A standard 'template' of the Queen's face had been distributed throughout the kingdom to be used by those who, for whatever reason, needed/wanted to create likenesses of her. This template is highly similar to both the engraving of Shakespeare and the Elizabeth portrait whose similarity to the Shakespeare engraving is noted.

• The creator of the portrait almost certainly used the Elizabeth template as the basis of a human face, which he then modified in dress, hair, and moustache.

• The 'mask' line corresponds to a line in the Elizabeth template.

I don't spend much time at Wikipedia these days, and am avoiding the temptation to check my watchlist and be drawn too deeply into things. But, if anyone has a constructive response, it would be nice to know of through a message at my Talk page.

Thanks.

President Lethe 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a tricky one, in that it's probably notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia somewhere, but it's hard to see where it would fit. It's only tangentially connected to the authorship debate, although this is the page where we already have the external link giving the "anti" position, namely this one AndyJones 09:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, AndyJones.

One of the first things I noticed when I came across this article was the First Folio portrait at the top right, and its long caption, and the caption's presentation of the typical "Some say the portrait is soooo mysterious, because of the mask line, (and point to this as a clue that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare), while others say there's nothing odd about the portrait at all" dichotomy. If there isn't a Wikipedia article or section about the portrait specifically, then at least that long caption would seem to be a place to bring up the issue.

Part of why I decided to ask about it here before putting such information into the caption was not only that I wasn't sure that the caption was the best place, but also that I have never seen the template information about the portrait presented anywhere but in that documentary. Now, this topic is not one that I pursue very often or very deeply, so it's possible that it is mentioned elsewhere. But the fact that I've never seen it elsewhere, while I've seen other information about the Shakespeare debate (information that I'd consider much ... let's say 'sillier', and I don't mean any malice by that) presented much more often, in more places, by more persons—the fact that I'd seen it so rarely in comparison to other information made me wonder whether perhaps it had been thoroughly discredited.

Still, every piece of true, useful information in the universe started out being known obscurely before it was widely recognized. Also, although it was more than a decade ago, I still have a fairly vivid recollection that, when the documentary overlapped transparent versions of the Shakespeare engraving and the Elizabeth painting, there was exact correspondence in the placement and shape of the eyes, nose, mouth, and chin, which seemed highly compelling support for the template theory. (As I recall, the result was significantly different from that presented at the webpage that you linked me to, which I soon will read in full. But, even if my recollection is inaccurate, the images at the webpage still fail to prove that no Elizabeth portrait could have been, or was, used to aid in the Shakespeare engraving.)

So, (1) I still wonder whether anyone else here is aware of the template explanation (and perhaps has a firmer source than my decade-old recollection of a documentary I saw once (although I saw several instances of the advertisement for it that included the overlaying of the two portraits)), and (2) I get the impression that, so far, the portrait caption in this article is the best already existent place at Wikipedia to mention the template explanation.

Thoughts?

President Lethe 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a load of utter drivel devised by Lillian Schwarz. It's nonsense to say that there was a "template" of Elizabeth - there were several portraits and copies of the better known ones over the years, all slightly diffed from one another of course because they were created by hand. I think it's discussed somewhere on the Kathman site. One reason it's not discussed here is that it does not in any way advance the Oxfordian cause. We can create a page on the engraving, of course. At the moment any discussion should go on the Martin Droeshout page. Paul B 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, too, Paul B, and your note at my talk page. A few points that may be useful if I present them, even if they're not necessarily in response to anything anyone here has written to me:

1. While I have never delved deep into this topic, I so far haven't been convinced that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote his works.

2. I don't view the Droeshout engraving as support for the various anti-Stratfordian theories.

3. As I've said, I'm relying only on my memory of something I saw once, more than 10 years ago; but I don't know either way whether the information presented in that British documentary was specifically the Lillian Schwarz stuff, or just related to, or inspired by, it. The Elizabeth painting in that documentary may even be a different one from the one discussed at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/elizwill.html (hereinafter "the external page").

4. I've read the external page. Withholding full judgement because I haven't seen the Scientific American article to which it responds, I can say it seems to refute successfully some of the claims that, it says, Schwarz made in the Scientific American article.

5. Why/how is it nonsense to say that there was a template of Elizabeth? Do we know that there never was? I ask these questions regardless of the connections that some may draw between the existence of such a portrait and the Droeshout portrait.

6. If this article already has a link to the external page, perhaps it would also be appropriate to include that link in, or move it to, the long caption about the Droeshout portrait that appears at the top of the article.

7. I make my living drawing portraits from two-dimensional sources. While the external page certainly very easily refutes the contention that any features of the Shakespeare portrait are a perfect match for the Elizabeth portrait in question, it fails to do what just about any treatment of the subject would fail to do: proving a negative—proving that that portrait of Elizabeth had zero direct or indirect influence on the production of that engraving of Shakespeare. I personally have used tracings of the facial features of one image of one person to produce drawings that are intended to be viewed as depicting someone (real or imaginary) other than the first person; this process can indeed involve tracing separate features in new relative positions and then further altering them. Yesterday, having read the external page, I was curious to see what it would take to make the Shakespeare portrait more closely resemble the Elizabeth one, with this result, which I share just because others may be curious.

8. Before I produced the image to which I linked above, I also tried simply laying the Shakespeare portrait on top of the Elizabeth one and giving it varying degrees of transparency. In this process, I observed a phenomenon that, as I recall, was not addressed in the speech in that documentary, even though the phenomenon was definitely part of the visuals of that documentary: it is simply that the viewer can be tricked easily, when viewing two overlapped transparencies, into believing that features of one of the layers are also present in the other, simply because, when two layers occupy the same space simultaneously and both visibly, it's hard to tell which elements belongs to which layer. This trick can result in the impression that the two images are more similar than they really are.

9. It seems that several facts about this portrait issue are worthy of being reported in Wikipedia, and that they may be good candidates for inclusion in articles about the Shakespeare authorship controversy (because some persons arguing the controversy do point to the portrait as evidence in support of one viewpoint or another about the authorship). Some of these facts are reported in the caption to the portrait at the top of this article. Among the facts that I consider worth reporting are these:

A. Some persons use various ideas about the portrait in support of various sides in the authorship argument.

B. It has been suggested that the Shakespeare portrait does have points of "exact" match to the Elizabeth portrait; and this suggestion has been successfully refuted.

C. Similarities between the Droeshout portrait and the Shakespeare grave bust appear to be greater and more numerous than those between the Droeshout portrait and the Elizabeth portrait.

D. (I'm not sure this one should be included. I may be mixing up stories of other historical figures. But I was under the impression that Droeshout was unlikely to have seen Shakespeare in person, especially to have had him sit for a portrait, and that it seems likelier that Droeshout was simply informed of some features to include (such as moustache, high forehead, masculine clothing, &c.) in creating a depiction of Shakespeare.)

E. There are indeed notable similarities between various elements of the Shakespeare and Elizabeth portraits. But the same elements have similar counterparts in other portraits of other persons; some of them, such as the shapes of the eyelids and nose, were simply very common in European portraiture of that period.

F. We have difficulty in entirely proving that some other, already existing portrait of a real or imaginary, famous or unknown, male or female, human being was in no way used at any stage of the production of the Droeshout portrait.

Sorry if this is too long-winded for some.

President Lethe 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"We have difficulty in entirely proving that some other, already existing portrait of a real or imaginary, famous or unknown, male or female, human being was in no way used at any stage of the production of the Droeshout portrait." It would be virtually imposible to prove that for any portrait, so I don't really understand what you are trying to imply. Further discussion should be on the Martin Droushout page. Paul B 09:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"It would be virtually impossible to prove that for any portrait". Well, a much stronger case would be made for such a contention about, for example, a drawn or painted portrait that was almost identical to a single photograph of a single person.

But I suppose the 'implication' is that contentions that Droeshout almost certainly looked at nothing but the actual Shakespeare sitting in front of him, or an accurate two-dimensional portrait—and especially that he almost certainly did not draw some fairly direct influence from a portrait of some other person, possibly Elizabeth I—are fairly illogical.

We have two extreme camps in this argument—those who say that the Droeshout portrait is a sneaky, clandestine clue in the supposedly gigantic pile of evidence that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare, and those who say that the Droeshout portrait bears zero resemblance to any portrait of anyone but Shakespeare himself—, and each side seems, to me, to be stepping beyond reason.

I do see the point in having this discussion at the talk page for the article on Droeshout. But I also see the case for having it here, because, as this article points out in its uppermost illustration, a prominent one displayed at fairly large size and with an extensive caption, the portrait does feature in arguments about the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

Anyway, I'm heading away from the online world in several hours and won't be back for several days; I may also not return to this discussion. But I hope I've presented some information and ideas that considerers of this issue, and workers on this article, may find useful.

President Lethe 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps part of my 'implication' about the difficulty in proving the nonexistence, or noninfluence, of something was, along with my yet unanswered question (number 5), a response to your suggestion that what I was describing was "a load of utter drivel" and that I was talking specifically about something "devised by Lillian Schwarz"—a suggestion that seems to be contradicted by (1) my non-anti-Stratfordianism, (2) my explicit statement that my recollection of the documentary had significant differences from what was presented at the external page about specifically Lillian Schwarz's argument, (3) the external page's failure to mention the template theory, (4) my expressed agreement that the external page easily refutes what, it says, Schwarz presented, and (5) my point numbered 8. — President Lethe 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P-PS: Paul B, you may also have noticed that my text that you quote in your most recent reply was an item in a list of points that I suggested be included in Wikipedia's presentation of this topic. More than an 'implication', point 9:F was simply one of the items that, I figured, Wikipedia should present to readers. Sometimes, it's a good idea for Wikipedia to present logic that may be already evident to some. The reason for that, in this case, is to counteract the tendency of various persons to feel, and say, that they know exactly what was, or exactly what was not, happening about 400 years ago. — President Lethe 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

It seems as though this article is not neautral it barely bothers to explain the views preferring to debunk them. I am especcially worried about phrases like "percieved ambiguities" The article also continously reminds you that it is "outside of the mainstream" Also iut could be alot shorter66.176.172.119 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bohemia on the Adriatic

The article states:

One explanation given for Bohemia having a coastline is the author's awareness that the kingdom of Bohemia at one time stretched to the Adriatic.[64] Oxfordians find it significant that the Earl of Oxford was travelling in the Adriatic region during the brief span of time in which Bohemia did in fact have a coastline.

So I'm curious -- when exactly did Bohemia have any coastline anywhere, and especially on the Adriatic? The country has always been landlocked in Central Europe, separated from the Adriatic by the provinces of Austria, Styria, Carynthia and Carniola, as well as Hungary and Croatia. The only period in the history when its borders could have approached the Adriatic was at the height of the Greater Moravia, but that was some 800 years before.

At the times of Shakespeare and Earl of Oxford (just before the Thirty-years War) Bohemia was a part of the Habsburg Monarchy, which did stretch to the Adriatic by the virtue of its constituent lands, but that doesn't mean that Bohemia did as well.

Bacon's Leisure Time

The argument about whether or not Bacon had the time for substantial literary projects is settled by Lord Campbell. In the Lives of the Lord Chancellors, The Life of Bacon, Vol. 2, Chapter 1 (1845) he reports that Bacon had "abundant leisure". (Puzzle Master 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC))