The Bard's Birthday

[Drunken Master]

Today is Shakespeare's birthday. Had he not died after a night of hard drinking in 1616, he would be 440 years old today.

I've included my favourite speech from The Bard below, from King Lear Act 1 scene 2. In this scene Edmund, the bastard son of Gloucester, plots the demise of his legitimate brother Edward. Nobody writes a good "wallowing in my own nastiness" speech than Shakespeare:

Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moon-shines
Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam's issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got 'tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father's love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!

 

[wrong hole]

"Doubt that the stars are fire;
Doubt that the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
But never doubt I love."

 

[Berlin]

Is Britney related to this Shake Spear guy ?

 

[feste]

Today is Shakespeare's birthday. Had he not died after a night of hard drinking in 1616, he would be 440 years old today.

...

King Lear is a fine piece of literature. I saw Christopher Plummer in the roll at Stratford,Ont. a couple of years ago. An excellent production all around.

As to this fellow who's birthday it is today, well it's unlikely he had anything to do with writing King Lear or any other play attributed to someone name William Shakespeare. This maybe one of the biggest con jobs ever done.

For those interested, the facts on this issue are summarized here:

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/begguide.htm

P.S. there have been a lot of candidates proposed as the true author but my money is on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, born April 12th,1550, died June24th, 1604.

 

[Drunken Master]

Re: Re: The Bard's Birthday

As to this fellow who's birthday it is today, well it's unlikely he had anything to do with writing King Lear or any other play attributed to someone name William Shakespeare. This maybe one of the biggest con jobs ever done.

Pul-lease. The whole anti-Stratfordian shitck is a massive pile of steaming elitist crap. As a conspiracy theory it makes "Aliens shot JFK from the grassy knoll" look sane. Half of England would have had to be in on the con, from Queen Elizabeth to Ben Johnson. The Oxfordian argument is all based on the idea that a middle class guy from a small town in England could never have produced great literature. Supposedly only a nobleman like de Vere could have - riiiiiiight. Well all know from our own century how smart the members of the English nobility are.

P.S. there have been a lot of candidates proposed as the true author but my money is on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, born April 12th,1550, died June24th, 1604.

Precisely. How did Oxford continue to write plays under the name of Shakespeare for twelve years after Oxford's death! Shakespeare dies in 1616, and the Tempest, one of his greatest plays is performed a few years before his death!

feste = Alien (<>..<>)?

 

[feste]

Re: Re: Re: The Bard's Birthday

Pul-lease. The whole anti-Stratfordian shitck is a massive pile of steaming elitist crap. As a conspiracy theory it makes "Aliens shot JFK from the grassy knoll" look sane. Half of England would have had to be in on the con, from Queen Elizabeth to Ben Johnson. The Oxfordian argument is all based on the idea that a middle class guy from a small town in England could never have produced great literature. Supposedly only a nobleman like de Vere could have - riiiiiiight. Well all know from our own century how smart the members of the English nobility are.



Precisely. How did Oxford continue to write plays under the name of Shakespeare for twelve years after Oxford's death! Shakespeare dies in 1616, and the Tempest, one of his greatest plays is performed a few years before his death!

feste = Alien (<>..<>)?

I always found it curious how people get so riled up when you mention this idea. Just a little investigation shows there's something mighty odd about this fellow from Stratford being the author of these plays. His parents, wife and daughters were all illiterate (provably illiterate like marks instead of signatures on legal documents). Theres no evidence he ever was schooled anywhere by anyone. During the Stratford fellow's lifetime no one ever referred to him as being the author, out of the 70 or so pieces of evidence we have none suggest he was the author of anything (most of the stuff is legal documents like lawsuits and wills and arrest warrents). Nothing exists that was written in his hand except six signatures that are all incredibly crude and not even similar to each other.

As to the plays when they were written performed and published could have taken place over a wide span of time. The first complete edition of the plays was first published in 1623, seven years after the Stratford guy died. In it were 18 plays that had never been published before and for which there is no other evidence they existed before 1623 .

Read the stuff at the link I posted (here it is again http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/begguide.htm) and then make up your mind whether there is any substance to this. You can't believe everything your teachers have told you, can you?

 

[Drunken Master]

I get riled up because the Oxfordian argument makes a mockery out of history - and logic. The primary argument is this: "We don't have positive proof that Shakespeare wrote his plays. On the other hand, we don't have any proof that Oxford didn't write the plays. Therefore, Oxford wrote the plays." It is as if the only evidence that would satisfy the anti-Stratfordians would be a hand-written manuscript of Hamlet, signed by Shakespeare, notarized, accompanied by several photographs of him writing the play.

The fact that Shakespeare's parents were illiterate is a non-sequitur. Shakespeare's father had rising steadily in social status over his lifetime. It would not be usual, given this rise, that Shakespeare's dad would want to see him better educated. The idea that a lack of school records is somehow proof is nuts - they didn't have permanent records back then.

The playwright Robert Greene does, in fact, refer to "Shakespeare" during the poet's lifetime. Greene appears not to have been in on the joke that it was Oxford writing the plays. Also, how do we account for Ben Jonson's authorisation of the picture - definitely not de Vere - which appears on the frontispiece of the First Folio? What would Johnson have had to gain from keeping the joke going after Shakespeare's and de Vere's death?

But the biggest case against to my mind is the quite simply the flurry of Shakespearian activity that occurs after de Vere's death! The quarto edition of King Lear comes out in 1608, and then is heavily revised for the Folio edition of 1623! When was Lear written? If de Vere wrote it before 1604, why did it take 4 years for the play to surface? Who authorised the very different version of the play that appears in the Folio?

 

[Drunken Master]

Is Britney related to this Shake Spear guy ?

No, but he might be related to The Shake.

 

[feste]

I get riled up because the Oxfordian argument makes a mockery out of history - and logic. The primary argument is this: "We don't have positive proof that Shakespeare wrote his plays. On the other hand, we don't have any proof that Oxford didn't write the plays. Therefore, Oxford wrote the plays." It is as if the only evidence that would satisfy the anti-Stratfordians would be a hand-written manuscript of Hamlet, signed by Shakespeare, notarized, accompanied by several photographs of him writing the play.

All the evidence in favor of either candidate is circumstantial. For the Stratford guy all there is is Jonson's phrase "Sweet Swan of Avon" and Lenard Digges phrase "thy Stratford moniment" in the first folio and the Shakespeare bust in the Stratford church where the Stratford guy is buried. There is strong evidence the bust has been modified from a person holding a sack of grain to someone writing on a big fat pillow. Nothing else connects the Stratford guy to anything to do with the plays and poems. In documents of the time his name was usually spelled differently (e.g. Shagsper, Shaxper).

On that web page I suggested you look at there is a link to a PowerPoint presentation that descibes 25 significant links between Oxford and the plays/poems using work done by orthodox scholars. For example Ovid's Metamorpheses is a major Shakespeare source for plots,characters,ideas,etc. The first translation from the original Latin into English was done by Oxford's uncle Arthur Golding and published while Golding was living in the same household as Oxford. The two patrons of the First Folio (they paid for the printing) were the Earl of Pembroke and the Earl of Montgomery. The former was temporarily engaged to one of Oxford daughters (Bridget). The latter earl married another Oxford daughter (Susan).

The fact that Shakespeare's parents were illiterate is a non-sequitur. Shakespeare's father had rising steadily in social status over his lifetime. It would not be usual, given this rise, that Shakespeare's dad would want to see him better educated. The idea that a lack of school records is somehow proof is nuts - they didn't have permanent records back then.

Shakespeare's female characters are almost all strong,intelligent people. He couldn't do anything about his parents but it is incredibly hard to believe he would have an illiterate wife and daughters himslef. One daughter did marry a doctor who kept a detailed diary much of his life. In it he talks about and praises a well known poet named Drayton. He never mentions anything about his father-in-law.

The playwright Robert Greene does, in fact, refer to "Shakespeare" during the poet's lifetime. Greene appears not to have been in on the joke that it was Oxford writing the plays. Also, how do we account for Ben Jonson's authorisation of the picture - definitely not de Vere - which appears on the frontispiece of the First Folio? What would Johnson have had to gain from keeping the joke going after Shakespeare's and de Vere's death?

Greene refers to someone amibiguously as Shakescene. No one knows for sure what the reference is. There's no way to connect it to the Stratford guy. I'm saying that William SHakespeare's name on a published play or peom is a psedonym and canot be connected in any concrete way to someone with a similar name in a place called Startford three days ride from London. There were more than one person with a similar name around that time in other places. If there was a deliberate plan to hide the true author Jonson was probably in on it. He was probably hired by the Earl's to give it credibility. The picture itself is probably t of a real person. It doesn't llok like a real person. It has two left eyes and the head seems disconnected from the body. The are several reasons there may have been a coverup. Initially it might have been a breech of decorum for a noble to be seen as a playright. Also there are characters in the plays who are obviously based on real people in powerful positions who could be embarrassed if it was revealed the playright new them.

 

[feste]

continued....

But the biggest case against to my mind is the quite simply the flurry of Shakespearian activity that occurs after de Vere's death! The quarto edition of King Lear comes out in 1608, and then is heavily revised for the Folio edition of 1623! When was Lear written? If de Vere wrote it before 1604, why did it take 4 years for the play to surface? Who authorised the very different version of the play that appears in the Folio?

There was a greater flurry of activity before his death. The first thing published with Shakespeare name on it is the poem Venus and Adonis in 1593. Another peopm is published in 1594. From 1594-1598 Shakespeare plays are published anonymously. A dozen or so plays are published with this name from 1598 to 1604 then everything stops for a while. Lear, Troilus and Cressida are published in 1608.
The Sonnets in 1609. Othello is published in 1622.

As to Lear here is a comment on the text from the online edition:

Q1 contains about 300 lines not in F1, while F1 has about 100 lines not in Q1. For centuries editors have debated over the merits of both texts. Is Q1 based on Shakespeare's own handwritten copy, and thus more authentic? Is F1 Shakespeare's own and final revision, or the work of editors? As long as scholars must publish, there will be disagreement over the status of the texts of Lear.

Theatre owner Heslowe mentions a performance King Leare in his diary on Easter in 1594.

 

[Drunken Master]

Nothing else connects the Stratford guy to anything to do with the plays and poems. In documents of the time his name was usually spelled differently (e.g. Shagsper, Shaxper).

Spelling was completely non-standardized in this era. Shakespeare's father spelled his name in a variety of different manners, as we know from a variety of official documents.

For example Ovid's Metamorpheses is a major Shakespeare source for plots,characters,ideas,etc. The first translation from the original Latin into English was done by Oxford's uncle Arthur Golding and published while Golding was living in the same household as Oxford.

Golding's work was immensely popular. Edmund Spenser, the greatest non-dramatic poet of the era, also borrowed from it heavily. Was he also de Vere?

The two patrons of the First Folio (they paid for the printing) were the Earl of Pembroke and the Earl of Montgomery. The former was temporarily engaged to one of Oxford daughters (Bridget). The latter earl married another Oxford daughter (Susan).

Given the level of inter-marriage within the English nobility, this proves little.

Shakespeare's female characters are almost all strong,intelligent people. He couldn't do anything about his parents but it is incredibly hard to believe he would have an illiterate wife and daughters himslef. One daughter did marry a doctor who kept a detailed diary much of his life. In it he talks about and praises a well known poet named Drayton. He never mentions anything about his father-in-law.

It is hardly unusual for writers to marry people who have no interest in literature. Look at Nora and James Joyce. Nor would Shakespeare's choice of wife have precluded him from writing strong female characters. As for Dr. John Hall, Susanna Shakespeare's husband, let's not forget that plays were not considered serious literature at this period. It was only in the eighteenth century that the idea of Shakespeare as a great writer emerge. That the good doctor did not think much of his father-in-law's profession should not surprise us.

Greene refers to someone amibiguously as Shakescene. No one knows for sure what the reference is.

He refers directly to Henry VI, one of Shakespeare's earliest works! Is this all a coincidence?

If there was a deliberate plan to hide the true author Jonson was probably in on it. He was probably hired by the Earl's to give it credibility. The picture itself is probably t of a real person. It doesn't llok like a real person. It has two left eyes and the head seems disconnected from the body. The are several reasons there may have been a coverup. Initially it might have been a breech of decorum for a noble to be seen as a playright. Also there are characters in the plays who are obviously based on real people in powerful positions who could be embarrassed if it was revealed the playright new them.

Again, why would Jonson carry on the charade 19 years after de Vere's death? The crappiness of the picture on the first folio is hardly proof of anything - the engraver probably sucked. As for de Vere reputation, I hate to sound like a broken record, but how do we explain the air-tight conspiracy which survived for so many years after his death? Why is there not one single record to be found of someone saying "de Vere was Shakespeare?"

 

[Drunken Master]

Theatre owner Heslowe mentions a performance King Leare in his diary on Easter in 1594.

There were several plays around this period called King Leare. The play Heslowe saw was not necessarily Shakespeare's.

I'll ask again - who is revising, (or finding and authorising the publication of different versions of) the plays after 1604? How do we explain references to events in the plays which occur after 1604? In King Lear, for example, in Act 1 Gloucester says to Edmund something to the effect of "these late eclipses portend us no good." On September 17 1605 Southern England experience an eclipse of the moon, and some two weeks later an eclpise of the sun occured. Coincidence? Or is somebody new revising the plays? Do we now need to create new authorial hands to accomidate the Oxford thesis? Or upon hearing hoof-beats should we simply look for horses and not zebras?

Keep 'em comin', feste. This is the kind of flame war I like.

 

[feste]

There were several plays around this period called King Leare. The play Heslowe saw was not necessarily Shakespeare's.

I'll ask again - who is revising, (or finding and authorising the publication of different versions of) the plays after 1604? How do we explain references to events in the plays which occur after 1604? In King Lear, for example, in Act 1 Gloucester says to Edmund something to the effect of "these late eclipses portend us no good." On September 17 1605 Southern England experience an eclipse of the moon, and some two weeks later an eclpise of the sun occured. Coincidence? Or is somebody new revising the plays? Do we now need to create new authorial hands to accomidate the Oxford thesis? Or upon hearing hoof-beats should we simply look for horses and not zebras?

Keep 'em comin', feste. This is the kind of flame war I like.

There were also eclipses in 1601 and 1588 in England. Double eclipses are very common because the alignment that causes the sun to be obscured by the moon will often cause the earth to cast a shadow on the moon when the moon travels to the other side of the earth two weeks later.

Some have speculated that the 6th Earl of Derby might have had a hand in revising those plays for which there is evidence of another author. A Jesuit spy working Spain once reported him "busied only in penning comedies for the common players". There is no other evidence that he was a playright . None of his comtemporaries mentions him writing plays none exist in his hand or with his name on them. He married Oxford's oldest daughter Elizabeth.

Regardless, there are no absolute references to post-1604 events in any of the plays. Any events proposed always have other pre-1604 events to explain them.

Dating of the plays is always a favorite piece of evidence for people to debunk Oxford's claim as author. The problem is the dates were concocted to fit the Stratford guy's life span and not on any concrete evidence. They could just as easily fit into Oxford's life span. They actually fit better if you take into account early mentions of King Lear and Hamlet (Thomas Nashe mentions Hamlet in a piece published in 1589 well before anyone has heard of Shakespeare the author).

 

[feste]

Spelling was completely non-standardized in this era. Shakespeare's father spelled his name in a variety of different manners, as we know from a variety of official documents.

What we are trying to do is connect name on a title page with a living breathing person. What you say basically supports my case that this isn't strong evidence for or against the Startford guy and that we need something more to make the case.

Golding's work was immensely popular. Edmund Spenser, the greatest non-dramatic poet of the era, also borrowed from it heavily. Was he also de Vere?

This is a favorite tactic of the defenders of the Stratford guy. Take a piece of evidence in isolation and treat it as if the entire case rests on this on fact. Ridicule that fact and we are suppose to think the entire case has been debunked. You have to remember that evidence for both these candidates is circumstantial. The only thing connecting the Stratford guy to the palys and poems are two vague references in the first folio and a bust in a Stratford church whose history is basically unknown up to the early 1700's. On the other hand Oxford has several dozen connections of which the Golding is just one. I think the lawyers in the audience will have to concede Oxford has the stronger case.

Given the level of inter-marriage within the English nobility, this proves little.

By itself, yes. Taken together with all the other evidence it proves alot.

It is hardly unusual for writers to marry people who have no interest in literature. Look at Nora and James Joyce. Nor would Shakespeare's choice of wife have precluded him from writing strong female characters. As for Dr. John Hall, Susanna Shakespeare's husband, let's not forget that plays were not considered serious literature at this period. It was only in the eighteenth century that the idea of Shakespeare as a great writer emerge. That the good doctor did not think much of his father-in-law's profession should not surprise us.

Another favorite tactic. Denigrate the author while caling him a genius. By 1602, Venus and Adonis had gone through nine editions. By 1640, that number had risen to fifteen. Lucrece numbered six reprints up to the time of 1616. The plays were very popular too. Otherwise why publish them, in some cases more than once.

He refers directly to Henry VI, one of Shakespeare's earliest works! Is this all a coincidence?

He might refer to Henry IV but how does that prove the Startford guy had anything to do with writing it. I can write about Tom Sawyer all I want without knowing that Mark Twain is a pseudonym. And how do we know Mark Twain is a pseudonym. Because others bore witness to that fact by writing to or about Samuel Clemens and from his own letters. We have nothing equivalent for the author of the Shakespeare canon.

Again, why would Jonson carry on the charade 19 years after de Vere's death? The crappiness of the picture on the first folio is hardly proof of anything - the engraver probably sucked. As for de Vere reputation, I hate to sound like a broken record, but how do we explain the air-tight conspiracy which survived for so many years after his death? Why is there not one single record to be found of someone saying "de Vere was Shakespeare?"

Jonson must have known who the true author was. There are hints in what he said in the preface to the first folio that he wasn't being completely straightforward about the author. England at that time was a totalitarian state and Jonson not being of the nobility would have to go along with any charade. Why there was a charade is the big question. I mention two possible reasons. Others have been proposed, some really off the wall. Lord Burghley was the most powerful man in England under Queen Elizabeth and also Oxford's father-in-law. Most of the letters we have by Oxford are to Burghley. We have none of his responses. They didn't get along well. Burghley was powerful enough to have a lot of the record purged especially if the paper trail was unfavorable to him. There is a huge archive of unexamined documents from the Elizabethan era that could possibly shed more light on this mystery but because of the pigheadedness of the Shakespeare establishment there are few people willing to devout any resources to this task.

 

[Drunken Master]

Regardless, there are no absolute references to post-1604 events in any of the plays. Any events proposed always have other pre-1604 events to explain them.

Only if you interpret references and events out of all recognition. The Tempest contains direct references to shipwreaks that occured in the Bermudas in 1609, but I'm sure with a little work you could turn this into a reference to the Armada Year or some other damn thing...

This is a favorite tactic of the defenders of the Stratford guy. Take a piece of evidence in isolation and treat it as if the entire case rests on this on fact. Ridicule that fact and we are suppose to think the entire case has been debunked.

Actually, I was just ridiculing that single fact. But think what you like.

Another favorite tactic. Denigrate the author while caling him a genius. By 1602, Venus and Adonis had gone through nine editions. By 1640, that number had risen to fifteen. Lucrece numbered six reprints up to the time of 1616. The plays were very popular too. Otherwise why publish them, in some cases more than once.

In what possibly earthly sense was I denigrating him! All of the works to which you refer are non-dramatic poems! Yes, these works by Shakespeare were popular, but not on the scale of full-time non-dramatic poets like Drayton and Spenser. We know nothing about John Hall or his taste in poetry. Published editions of the plays were not, in fact, popular, and it was only until the publication of the First Folio that the Shakespeare publishing industry took off....

He might refer to Henry IV but how does that prove the Startford guy had anything to do with writing it.

Unbelieveable! You're the one who brought up Greene's comment as if it proved something!

Jonson must have known who the true author was.

He sure did. William Shakespeare, life-long resident of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Evidence that anyone was who they said they were in this period is, yes, "circumstancial." This is the fault of the historical record, and can't be helped. But let's apply Occam's razor, shall we? Either we must believe that de Vere perpetrated the most successful conspiracy in history - going so far as to publish crappy, doggerl verse in his own name, writing his personal letters in a distinctive East Anglian dialect and his plays in the South-East England dialect, allowing his plays to be performed by the Lord Chamerlain's Men and not his own company, somehow keeping secret the fact that he would have had to contract the King's Men to produce the rest of his plays after his death, secretly ochestrating the posthumus licensing and publication of King Lear, Trolius and Cressida, Antony and Cleopatra, and Pericles, all the while ensnaring most of the English nobility, including the Queen, and most of the professional theater crowd, including Ben Jonson, into his conspiracy, all without there being a single, solitary, shred of direct evidence that such a massive conspiracy was taking place.

Or we could believe that William Shakespeare wrote his plays. Simple, eloquent - and most likely true.

 

[feste]

Only if you interpret references and events out of all recognition. The Tempest contains direct references to shipwreaks that occured in the Bermudas in 1609, but I'm sure with a little work you could turn this into a reference to the Armada Year or some other damn thing...

Oxford invested in and possibly owned a ship called the Edward Bonaventure that was shipwrecked on Bermuda in 1593. The account in the Tempest refers to a place called Bermoothes and the description of the shipwreck is too general to tie it to a specific incedent





Unbelieveable! You're the one who brought up Greene's comment as if it proved something!
[/QUOTE]

Actually you are the one who mentioned him first using the name Richard Greene which you subsequently corrected to Robert Greene. Some scholars believe someone named Chettle was the real author of the piece in question.


He sure did. William Shakespeare, life-long resident of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Evidence that anyone was who they said they were in this period is, yes, "circumstancial." This is the fault of the historical record, and can't be helped. But let's apply Occam's razor, shall we? Either we must believe that de Vere perpetrated the most successful conspiracy in history - going so far as to publish crappy, doggerl verse in his own name, writing his personal letters in a distinctive East Anglian dialect and his plays in the South-East England dialect, allowing his plays to be performed by the Lord Chamerlain's Men and not his own company, somehow keeping secret the fact that he would have had to contract the King's Men to produce the rest of his plays after his death, secretly ochestrating the posthumus licensing and publication of King Lear, Trolius and Cressida, Antony and Cleopatra, and Pericles, all the while ensnaring most of the English nobility, including the Queen, and most of the professional theater crowd, including Ben Jonson, into his conspiracy, all without there being a single, solitary, shred of direct evidence that such a massive conspiracy was taking place.

Or we could believe that William Shakespeare wrote his plays. Simple, eloquent - and most likely true. [/QUOTE]

There was mock trial in Washington, D.C. a couple of years ago where those for the Stratford man argued against those for the Earl of Oxford. Bob Bennett, well known D.C. lawyer and brother of Bill. argued for the Oxford side. He became an Oxfordian in preparing for this trial. e asked a really intersting question that the other side never answered: "If the works were anonymous who would be the more likely candidate?"

In a book published by a well-respected academic press in 2001, Diana Price took a list of 25 Elizabethan authors and collected all the contemporary evidence she could find that could proven that this person was a writer. Things like letters to and from the person, educational records, reords of payments for writing, obituaries, etc. She created 10 categories of evidence to facilate organizing the facts she found. The most documented writer was Jonson with items in all ten categories. The least documented was William Shakespeare with evidence in none of the 10 categories. The only evidence that connects the Startford guy to the works only appears 7 years after his death.

 

[Drunken Master]

Actually you are the one who mentioned him first using the name Richard Greene which you subsequently corrected to Robert Greene. Some scholars believe someone named Chettle was the real author of the piece in question.

Sorry - what I said was unclear, and I should have elaborated. Yes, I did indeed bring up Greene first. What I meant to say is that you can hardly claim the Geene's comment about a play by "Shakes-scene" about a play that we have pretty good independent reasons to believe Shakespeare wrote can hardly be can taken as evidence against Shakespeare's authorship. Nor is this evidence "ambiguous" in any real sense. It is simply not conclusive. It hardly proves that Shakespeare didn't write his works, much less that de Vere did.

And yes, I did mis-name Robert Richard at first. Shame on me - such is the difficulty of quoting facts from memory. Now, we wouldn't want this discussion to degenerate into a pissing match about minor mistakes or, say, grammatical missteps, would we?

I'm saying that William SHakespeare's name on a published play or peom is a psedonym and canot be connected in any concrete way to someone with a similar name in a place called Startford three days ride from London.

 

[Lil'Miss]

Hamlet taught me everything I need to know about men

"Do not believe his vows, for they are brokers, Not of that dye which their investments show, but mere implorators of unholy suits, Breathing like sanctified and pious bawds. The better to beguile" Hamlet I.3 136-140

"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet III.1.139-140