Did Shakespeare write the plays?

You guys (and gal) are funny, as well as typical. You can't handle the evidence and instead use the usual put-downs and a reference to a Stratfordian website as if it's the end all and be all of the authorship evidence. The shakespeareauthorship website has nothing contrary to the Baconian evidence I've sited. It mostly deals with the Stratfordian argument which cherry-picks it's evidence and then shows only a one-sided interpretation of the evidence it presents. Most of the rest is anti-Oxfordian arguments and then links to other sites that don't present the best evidence, especially for Baconian theory. In any case, the Stratfordian theory is losing just as the earth-centered universe theory lost despite all the attacks on heretics by its religious (and "scholarly" cough, cough) authorities.
Regarding the "friendly rivalry" between Jonson and Shakespeare--if you had actually read what the wikipedia said regarding the "War of the Theatres" it reads "The resulting controversy, which unfolded between 1599 and 1602, involved the playwright Ben Jonson on one side, and his rivals John Marston and Thomas Dekker (with Thomas Middleton as an ancillary combatant) on the other. The role Shakespeare played in the conflict, if any, has long been a topic of dispute among scholars."
Also, references to "Shakespeare" either refer to Shakespeare "the playwright" (whoever that might have been), or possibly to William of Stratford, by individuals who may have believed that he was the author, but who weren't in a good position to know if he actually was or not.
Regarding the painting of Jonson and Shakespeare playing chess: "Most scholars consider this to be pure speculation..."

Better luck next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanAlbert

You guys (and gal) are funny, as well as typical. You can't handle the evidence and instead use the usual put-downs and a reference to a Stratfordian website as if it's the end all and be all of the authorship evidence. The shakespeareauthorship website has nothing contrary to the Baconian evidence I've sited. It mostly deals with the Stratfordian argument which cherry-picks it's evidence and then shows only a one-sided interpretation of the evidence it presents. Most of the rest is anti-Oxfordian arguments and then links to other sites that don't present the best evidence, especially for Baconian theory. In any case, the Stratfordian theory is losing just as the earth-centered universe theory lost despite all the attacks on heretics by its religious (and "scholarly" cough, cough) authorities.
Regarding the "friendly rivalry" between Jonson and Shakespeare--if you had actually read what the wikipedia said regarding the "War of the Theatres" it reads "The resulting controversy, which unfolded between 1599 and 1602, involved the playwright Ben Jonson on one side, and his rivals John Marston and Thomas Dekker (with Thomas Middleton as an ancillary combatant) on the other. The role Shakespeare played in the conflict, if any, has long been a topic of dispute among scholars."
Also, references to "Shakespeare" either refer to Shakespeare "the playwright" (whoever that might have been), or possibly to William of Stratford, by individuals who may have believed that he was the author, but who weren't in a good position to know if he actually was or not.
Regarding the painting of Jonson and Shakespeare playing chess: "Most scholars consider this to be pure speculation..."

Better luck next time.

---

You first visited this thread on 17.7.2009 so you must be aware that no matter who you or anyone else submits as an alternative to Shakespeare, there will be people who not only dispute such submissions but will actually take it as a personal affront. I am not of their number, as I set up the thread in the first instance, but until verifiable proof of another author is produced, you will, unfortunately, be wasting your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanAlbert

You guys (and gal) are funny, as well as typical. You can't handle the evidence and instead use the usual put-downs and a reference to a Stratfordian website as if it's the end all and be all of the authorship evidence.

---

I believe you are suffering from a confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanAlbert

Also, references to "Shakespeare" either refer to Shakespeare "the playwright" (whoever that might have been), or possibly to William of Stratford, by individuals who may have believed that he was the author, but who weren't in a good position to know if he actually was or not.

---

There is no reason to believe otherwise. NO evidence from the period has ever come forward to suggest that the plays were written by anyone other than the man from Stratford. Use Occams razor here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanAlbert

Regarding the painting of Jonson and Shakespeare playing chess: "Most scholars consider this to be pure speculation..."

---

I agree. It can only be speculation I'm afraid. Someone prized it enough to try and steal it the last time it was moved however and it has been in hiding since. No scholar has been able to examine it in many years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanAlbert

Better luck next time.

---

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's about evidence and not speculation.

Emil, thanks for the comments. The non-Stratfordians are gaining ground. This site is one of the least active on this topic so it doesn't represent what's happening elsewhere. The Stratfordians just don't have enough good evidence to end the debate, and they refuse to encourage scholars to look at evidence related to the authorship question out of fear that their theory will be found wanting. As of May of this year there were 725 individuals with advanced degrees – 312 doctorates and 413 master’s degrees that have signed a declaration of doubt on the authorship question. A total of 354 of them (18%) indicated that they are current or former college/university faculty members. As more educated people actually take the time to examine the alternate authorship evidence then the more that list of doubters grows. But the conformists still are out there in force discouraging the public from looking at both sides of the evidence and arguments and thinking for themselves. So there's still a lot of work to do. Changing the beliefs of the masses often takes a great deal of time and effort. But it does happen eventually.

xman:
"I believe you are suffering from a confirmation bias."

Ok. That's what the non-Stratfordians say about the Stratfordians. The difference is that we lay out the evidence that counters the Stratfordian view. And so far there's been no response to it.


"There is no reason to believe otherwise. NO evidence from the period has ever come forward to suggest that the plays were written by anyone other than the man from Stratford. Use Occams razor here."

False. There's a great deal of reason to believe otherwise. And the evidence and reasons are easily publicly available. There absolutely IS evidence from the period to suggest that the plays were written by Francis Bacon. And that evidence is easily publicly available for anyone to examine. Occams razor favors the Baconian viewpoint.
from Wikipedia:
The razor's claim that "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones" is amenable to empirical testing. The procedure to test this hypothesis would compare the track records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. The validity of Occam's razor as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones (while the converse would lend support to its use). Put another way, any new, and even more complex theory can still possibly be true.

So the authorship evidence is more complex than the simpler Stratfordian theory. But being simpler doesn't make it more accurate or true. So those that have taken the time and trouble to examine the complex evidence have found the simple orthodox theory weak, and other theories better. The same happened with the Copernican Revolution at the time that it seemed so obvious that the Earth was the center of the universe.

"Luck has nothing to do with it. It's about evidence and not speculation."
Agreed. It's about evidence and logical analysis. We've done that beyond what the Stratfordians have and this evidence and analysis is easily publicly available for anyone to examine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanAlbert

Emil, thanks for the comments. The non-Stratfordians are gaining ground. This site is one of the least active on this topic so it doesn't represent what's happening elsewhere. The Stratfordians just don't have enough good evidence to end the debate, and they refuse to encourage scholars to look at evidence related to the authorship question out of fear that their theory will be found wanting. As of May of this year there were 725 individuals with advanced degrees – 312 doctorates and 413 master’s degrees that have signed a declaration of doubt on the authorship question. A total of 354 of them (18%) indicated that they are current or former college/university faculty members. As more educated people actually take the time to examine the alternate authorship evidence then the more that list of doubters grows. But the conformists still are out there in force discouraging the public from looking at both sides of the evidence and arguments and thinking for themselves. So there's still a lot of work to do. Changing the beliefs of the masses often takes a great deal of time and effort. But it does happen eventually.

---

While I reiterate my belief that William Shakespeare probably was the author, unlike some contributors, I am prepared to allow for the possibility that he might not have been, given that we know comparatively little about him. I would take issue with you on Shakespeare's lack of legal knowledge. In writing my first book Pro Bono Publico, I had need to find out a good deal about English law, as one of the main characters is a leading lawyer who rises to become Lord Chief Justice. I was able to find out all I needed to know by consulting various books and the Law Society, I don't think Shakespeare would have had a great problem in this regard.
Another difficulty that the Baconians have to deal with is the counter claim by the Oxfordians. It would seem that the Earl of Oxford's supporters are also numerous and equally determined to establish him as the rightful author.

Allan, I could supply a point by point refutation of your last post but suffice it to to say that you are incorrect on all your points. (Are you prepared to discover for yourself how? if not, why not? and if not well then you support that ...) Now I am convinced you suffer from a confirmation bias. You can lead a horse to water ...

:beatdeadhorse5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

While I reiterate my belief that William Shakespeare probably was the author, unlike some contributors, I am prepared to allow for the possibility that he might not have been, given that we know comparatively little about him. I would take issue with you on Shakespeare's lack of legal knowledge. In writing my first book Pro Bono Publico, I had need to find out a good deal about English law, as one of the main characters is a leading lawyer who rises to become Lord Chief Justice. I was able to find out all I needed to know by consulting various books and the Law Society, I don't think Shakespeare would have had a great problem in this regard.
Another difficulty that the Baconians have to deal with is the counter claim by the Oxfordians. It would seem that the Earl of Oxford's supporters are also numerous and equally determined to establish him as the rightful author.

---

Emil,
Shakespeare's legal knowledge, and the Stratfordian stance on it, has been examined by a Baconian legal expert and an Oxfordian teacher of law, independently of each other, and they have both provided much evidence showing that it would be VERY unlikely for a non-legally trained person to have written the Shakespeare works. You can say that they're biased but you still need to refute their evidence.

The Earl of Oxford's supporters are much more numerous than the Baconians because the early Baconians got overconfident and produced some poor evidence which was shown to be very faulty, and this collapsed much of their momentum. Their theory has been revamped with new research by some well-trained scholarly Baconians and now is making a comeback. Hardly any Oxfordians, if any, (and of course none of the Stratfordians) have examined the new Baconian evidence. I'm looking forward to seeing their movie 'Anonymous' . I've liked all the trailers that have come out. I'm even going to a sneak preview of it tomorrow at an Oxfordian authorship conference (where a staunch Stratfordian (Alan Nelson) has been invited back to argue for the Strats).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Allan, I could supply a point by point refutation of your last post but suffice it to to say that you are incorrect on all your points. (Are you prepared to discover for yourself how? if not, why not? and if not well then you support that ...) Now I am convinced you suffer from a confirmation bias. You can lead a horse to water ...

:beatdeadhorse5:

---

xman,
I've posted refutations of pretty much all the key Stratfordian evidence. So please show how it's in error. Also, I've posted several hundred pieces of Baconian evidence on Stratfordian websites that has been viewed some 60,000 times and still not one Stratfordian has tried to challenge it. So please you be the first to refute this evidence.

Who cares if Shakespeare wrote his plays? He's bad enough as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrowni

Who cares if Shakespeare wrote his plays? He's bad enough as it is.

---

There are a great many people who care about the authorship of the plays. You are entitled to your view of Shakespeare but others are equally entitled to theirs.

I actually find the debate interesting to a fundamental level, because I care deeply about works with multiple authors -very often overlooked by mainstream author-inclined analysis-. Shakespeare can only gain from not writing all his plays, from a certain point of view.

Objectively I don't think it would change how the plays are read, which is the part I find disappointing.

But I agree the argument it's interesting to a point, that's what inclined me to chime in with such a "trollish" comment. But your answer was too polite and respectful.


Shame on you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrowni

I actually find the debate interesting to a fundamental level, because I care deeply about works with multiple authors -very often overlooked by mainstream author-inclined analysis-. Shakespeare can only gain from not writing all his plays, from a certain point of view.

Objectively I don't think it would change how the plays are read, which is the part I find disappointing.

But I agree the argument it's interesting to a point, that's what inclined me to chime in with such a "trollish" comment. But your answer was too polite and respectful.


Shame on you!

---

What I wrote is just a plain statement of fact, it wasn't intended to be polite or otherwise. I would add that there has been increased trolling on these forums in recent times and I'm surprised that the moderators haven't reacted to it. There has also been an increase in childish personal attacks between certain members which has rendered LitNet less of an interesting site than when I first joined. If you bother to read this thread from the beginning you will see some good examples. People shouldn't take themselves so seriously.

Well, to be fair, statements of facts and neutrality isn't the thing that literary people like the most about speech.

Just a followup note on the movie Anonymous that I saw last night at the Oxfordian conference. I won't describe any of the plot - you'll be reading a great deal about it soon I'm sure. I will say though that it's an idealized portrayal of the Oxfordian theory and definitely not like a documentary. Aside from the portrayal of the Earl of Oxford as the real Shakespeare, the film takes many historical liberties. But, as director Emmerich pointed out, that's what film makers and story writers do. I didn't have any problem with any of that and enjoyed the movie overall (even though there wasn't any hint in it anywhere of even the existence of Francis Bacon, who was friends with the earls of Essex and Southampton, cousin of Oxford, and advisor to Elizabeth). I'm sure many conservative Stratfordians will hate the movie, just as religious conservatives hate any depiction of their religion differently than how they believe it. This is similar to how many political conservatives in the US hated the movie Avatar because they felt (they read) that the movie promoted a liberal agenda. And they wouldn't even go see the movie because of this! And I even went to this event with a Baconian friend and he hated it because he feels it will detract from the truth of Bacon as the true author! I don't think the movie will win an Academy award but overall it seemed pretty well done. But again, I'm not that harsh a critic as I tend to see what good I can in about any movie, especially ones regarding Shakespeare. A historian there was on a panel discussion after the movie and he said he hoped that it will help bring a 'spirit of inquiry' into the authorship question. Arch Stratfordian Prof. Alan Nelson was there and he complained about a scene at the end of the movie with Ben Jonson. Personally, I would never take a movie as a substitute for historical evidence and logical argument. So it will be fun sitting on the sidelines (this time) and watching the Strats and Oxfordians talk past each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllanAlbert

xman,
I've posted refutations of pretty much all the key Stratfordian evidence. So please show how it's in error. Also, I've posted several hundred pieces of Baconian evidence on Stratfordian websites that has been viewed some 60,000 times and still not one Stratfordian has tried to challenge it. So please you be the first to refute this evidence.

---

Now I begin to understand your error a little better. You believe that the stylometric and circumstantial 'evidence' you are interpreting (with confirmation bias) to be as relevant and indeed as strong as actual evidence such as, say a fingerprint (not the story about a fingerprint) or a signature (not the promise of one). The onus is on you to show that it couldn't have been this man in Stratford, not to interpret his art to say what you see on it.

I find the arguments why not William Shakespeare could not have been the writer always smells like snobbery....
People are saying they favor someone else over William himself because of...
- illiterate son of a glover!!
- less knowledge than X on matters concerning geography/legal/nautical/court life/etc

But...
No records of anybody attending that school in Stratford exist, did noobody go? Including those Stratfordians of those days accepted by Oxford university??
His father was elected (by his fellow townspeople) as mayor., City council members could put their sons in school for free....
The plays show an icredible lack of knowledge on Italy (Milan has a sea port??, waiting for the tide in the Mediterranean, a sail maker at the foot of the Alps??)
Court life....
A king going to the kitchen to talk to the cook??
A king having to fetch his own clothes??

What about the Stratfordian dialect words for all lot of nature references..

The whole conspiracy rests on keeping the identity of the courtier secret yet many Oxfordians say look at what happens in the plays it is his life in there.... not a very good tactic to keep your identity hidden if you wirte of your life for plays to be performed in court or in public.
BTW why would he give his best plays to a company that was in a fierce rivalry over the popularity in court and in the streets of London??

And as for Marlowe he died too soon...
Bacon?? Didn't he have too much work as it was already??

No I think that William Shakespeare kept his eyes and ears wide open, picked up any plot he could in reading old books, listening to court gossip.

He wrote for his company, the roles were tailor-made for his fellow actors, his wife was a strong woman (reason for his strong female roles??? She was running the Stratford house for all those years alone, making all kinds of legal and financial decisions in his name) while Will was a lodger in London for most of the time, did not buy a house there untill later in his life, and acted, wrote plays, managing the theater to pay the bills.
His name appeared on plays submitted to the censor, his rivals and fellows all knew those plays were his.

As for the hyphenation... I read that in that the name was hyphenated and not-hyphenated on different editions of the same publication during his lifetime.... so it was not a deliberate hyphenation on the writer's part but a typesetters initiative.
BTW more names of people have been hyphenated in print in that time, Fitzgeoffrey, Oldcastle, Munday, Waldegrave... all very real people