First
thing – HAPPY NEW YEAR to all Shakespeare enthusiasts whatever your authorship
opinion!
And
secondly,
Here
is my brief response to the other challenges raised.
To
those who rely totally on supposed (mainstream) Shakespeare ‘experts’ and no
one else I have no hope that you will ever be able to examine different and
opposing evidence and to think for youself. Go ahead, prove me wrong by reading
and analyzing either Ros Barber’s evidence regarding ‘Labeo” or Mark
Alexander’s article on Shakespeare’s law. Show us all the specific faults in
either of their analysis:
You
say that “The analysis by lawyers that Shakespeare had expert knowledge on the
law, does not include any expert knowledge on the law of Tudor/Stuart England.”
The lawyers who wrote the most authoritative book on this-- Shakespeare’s Legal Language, by Sokol
and Sokol, 2000, were certainly experts both on Shakespeare and the law and
legal language he used. And they verify the great extent, great depth, and
accuracy of his legal knowledge as well as his ability to relate legal thought
to all aspects of Shakespeare’s world in both his plays and poetry. This all by
itself should be enough for anyone to have at least some doubt that the
business man from Stratford was the great Author.
But
to go on:
Regarding
the First Folio’s supposedly incontrovertible evidence and trustworthiness:
Charlton
Hinman faulted the statement, supposedly made by Heminges and Condell, that the
First Folio contained the “True
Originall Copies” of Shakespeare’s plays. He wrote “Some of the plays in the
Folio apparently do reproduce Shakespeare’s own “foul papers”; but others are
mere reprints of earlier quartos, and a number were set into type from
combinations, part manuscript and part printed, of materials variously related
to Shakespeare’s original papers . . . Some of the copy supplied to the Folio
printers, on the other hand, must have been very different both from
Shakespeare’s original text and from anything that can be thought to reflect
accurately his intentions or even his acquiescence—though notably inferior
copy was commonly mended by copy of higher authority.”
So
it’s unsure what exactly the writer(s) here meant. And whatever they meant it
doesn’t seem to be true since what ended up in the FF came from a variety of
sources, some of which don’t reflect what Shakespeare actually wrote in his
foul paper manuscripts or what he intended to write when they were later
transcribed or recreated.
Stratfordian
Irvin Leigh Matus in Shakespeare, IN FACT
writes “that most of these [earlier published plays] were not all “stolen and
surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by the frauds and stealths of
injurious imposters,” [as said, supposedly, by Heminges and Condell] can be
seen by the fact that the folio texts show definite reference to the
quartos—some of which modern editors hold to be superior, or at least closer to
the author’s original.”
Nor
can it be true that Heminge and Condell had then “now
offer'd to your view cur'd, and perfect of their limbes; and all the rest,
absolute in their numbers as he conceived them.” Whoever edited the FF
certainly didn’t remove all imperfections and present for buyers anything like
a perfectly edited product.
So as with the supposed pictorial figure of the author, we also
can’t take as true testimony of the supposed authors of the preface.
There then is a couple examples of the ambiguity we speak of.
Regarding whether or not Heminges and Condell actually wrote what
is attributed to them, there’s evidence to suspect they did not.
Some of the summation of this evidence I’m getting from
N.B.Cockburn’s The Bacon-Shakespeare
Question, 1998. He writes “Heminges and Condell, .. were probably of little
education” “The language [of the two epistles] is too polished for the actors
and shows signs of classical learning. For example, the Epistle Dedicatory has
close parallels with the Epistle Dedicatory to Pliny’s Natural History…There are strong indications that [the sentence
beginning “country hands”] was written by Jonson…Edmund Malone cited parallels
between the epistles and Jonson’s work. One is the rather odd expression of
classical origin in the epistle to the Readers, “absolute in their numbers”,
meaning “perfect”, which Jonson used at least three times elsewhere.”
Much more of this evidence can be found in Katherine Chiljan’s Shakespeare Suppressed, 2011, in chapter
8 - The First Folio Fraud.
Again, it is enough evidence to demonstrate that we cannot take
the First Folio assertions or authorship as true or as it first appears to the
unweary reader.
------------------------------------ -
Next, what about the Stratford Monument?
Avery brief response once more. If you say you take historical
evidence Res
ipsa loquitur, it follows then that you must take the first
drawing of the bust by Dugdale as fairly accurate with its wool sack and no
pen, drooping mustache, etc. and not depicting a writer, even if he himself
actually thought that the Stratford man was the author.
Interestingly, an Oxfordian researcher, who isn’t even trained in
historical research, discovered a practically identical sculptured bust to that
in the Holy Trinity Church, but in Italy. Further investigation led to the
discovery that it was quite common for such busts to be bought and transported to
England, and that they were also often used to replace the heads on other older
or damaged busts. Hmmm, could it be that the current one supposedly of
Shakespeare actually used to be for a deceased attorney in Italy?
We could say that’s what appears to be the case from a Prima Facie point of view. Maybe a real
historian someday will be able to settle it one way or another.
Here’s more on the topic of the monument:
The famous Latin inscription on the monument adds more ambiguities
to the collected evidence. Here’s how one seemingly un-biased person assessed
it:
True, he wasn’t ‘an expert’ but then what we’re looking for is
what someone’s self-evident impression is. After his own analysis he says he is
now one of the skeptics.
Let
me add again that the ambiguities continue in that how Mr. Goldstone might
interpret the inscription in a negative light, it can also simultaneously be
viewed as depicting the true author.
Oxfordian
Alexander Waugh has offered one interpretation of it:
And
then the Baconians have shown that the three notables Nestor, Socrates, and
Maro have all been compared to Francis Bacon. Further, so has the idea of the
author now being found on Mt. Olympus also been applied to Bacon. Baconians can
also answer why the inscription uses Maro/Virgil rather than Shakespeare’s
‘favorite’ classic writer Ovid. And this quote from Bacon’s Advancement of Learning will also
mention his opinion of Socrates.
“For
in the time of the two first Caesars, which had the art of government in
greatest perfection, there lived the best poet, Virgilius Maro...but Socrates
whom they had made a person criminal, was made a person heroical, and his
memory accumulates with honours divine and human; and those discourses of his,
which were then termed corrupting of manners, were afterwards acknowledged for
sovereign medicines of the mind and manners, and so have been received ever
since to this day.”
So
if a skilled writer wanted to achieve a level of greatness equal to that of the
greatest of the ancient classical era, then for Bacon anyway, being
acknowledged as a modern Virgil was the mark to aim for.
------------------- -
Now,
finally for Jonson who you point out knew the actor/businessman of Stratford.
As
I’ve written before:
Ben
Jonson is a conflicted witness in that he had a close relationship with his
patron William Herbert, the 3rd earl of Pembroke, the Lord
Chamberlain and a dedicatee of the First Folio. This earl had a negotiated
marriage with the earl of Oxford’s daughter Brigit Vere though it was not later
completed. The other dedicatee, his brother Phillip, was married to the
Oxford’s younger daughter, Susan. Conceivably then, Jonson was in a position,
and could have had a motive, to hide Oxford’s authorship on behalf of the
Herberts.
Then
again, Jonson was a friend of Francis Bacon, who was friends with William and
Phillip Herbert. In the biography Ben
Jonson: A Life, author Ian Donaldson writes that Ben Jonson “was on close
and friendly terms with Bacon during the late 1590s.”Also, “He had written
verses in celebration of Bacon’s sixtieth birthday on 22 January 1621, and may
have been present at York House to read this poem at the lavish banquet held
that night in Bacon’s honour”. This poem includes the cryptic line
“Thou
stand’st as if a mystery thou didst!”
He
seems to have known about some secret that maybe only many of those at the
banquet were aware.
Jonson
also says some of the same things about Bacon that he said of Shakespeare:
Of
Shakespeare: “Of all that insolent Greece, or haughty Rome Sent forth…”
Of
Bacon: “he,
who hath fill'd up all numbers ; and perform'd that in our tongue, which
may be compar'd, or preferr'd, either to insolent Greece, or
haughty Rome. In
short, within his view, and about his times, were all the wits borne, that
could honour a language, or helpe study. Now things daily fall : wits grow
downe-ward, and Eloquence growes
back-ward : So that hee may be nam'd, and stand as the marke, and
[acme] of our language”. This is from Jonson’s citing of whom he
considers to have been England’s greatest writers. Nowhere is Shakespeare
mentioned. Hmmm, what ever happened to that “Soul of the Age!”?
Non-Stratfordians (and some Stratfordians
as I recall) seem to agree that Jonson’s Epigram beginning “Poor Poet Ape, that
would be thought our chief,” refers to the actor from Stratford. The
only other person that Jonson calls “our chief” is Bacon:
“Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam
“One,
though he be excellent and the chief, is not to be imitated alone, for
never no imitator ever grew up to his author; likeness is always on the side
truth. Yet there happened in my time one noble speaker who was full of gravity
in his speaking; his language, where he could spare or pass by a jest…”
It
seems that Francis Bacon would take much pleasure in a big jest or practical
joke.
Finally,
we know that in his final years Bacon was putting together his final
manuscripts for publication. He had a stable of “good pens” including “Mr.
Benjamin Johnson (the learned and judicious Poet)” to help with the Latin
translations. Many Baconians believe then that Jonson was likely living with
Bacon at this time for this purpose and so at or about the same time he was
working on the First Folio. Yet it’s always been found a bit odd that Bacon
never mentioned anywhere in his writings either Shakespeare or Jonson though we
know he obviously knew them both and would have admired their work. And also
this is not to assert that Bacon wrote all the Shakespeare works. Maybe if he
was the ‘chief’ of a circle of playwrights and poets then maybe he wrote some
and supervised or advised other writers. Even some Baconians assert that Oxford
certainly wrote some of the Shakespeare works. Maybe we can never have enough evidence
to do any more than suggest that so and so probably wrote such and such.
At
this point all points asserted for the traditional Prima Facie or Res ipsa loquitur case have been rebutted.
Evidence casts strong doubt against Heminges and
Condell having written any part of the preface since the evidence already links
Jonson to it. Jonson, by the evidence, knew the Stratford man but does not
appear to have been a friend of his. He was a friend of Francis Bacon and he
was supported in his work by one or both of the Herbert brothers who had
connections to the earl of Oxford.
You keep throwing out these Primary Source red
herrings. Evidence of any and all historical artifacts plus analysis is what
leads to judgements. You don’t need, and can’t expect, a contemporary document
that says something like “I, Ben Jonson, am the real author of the First Folio
parts that list Heminges and Condell as the author.” It’s ridiculous to expect him to reveal to
everyone something he would have had to agree to conceal. Similarly, if
Heminges and Condell had known all along that someone other than their business
partner William Shaksper was writing these scripts, and they must have known
the truth one way or another, then it’s possible that they wouldn’t want to
harm their friend’s memory by revealing a secret that the general public had of
the matter.
In essence, because not a single one of you
assertions have stood up to scrutiny, you’ve cornered yourself with the stupid
stance that, if there was a hidden author, that anyone in on the secret would
have abandoned their oath or agreement to keep the secret and state
unequivocally for posterity, and in a way that would survive for hundreds of
years, all the truth about the author of the Shakespeare works. You’re only
left with the thinnest of frayed threads that only some particular ‘expert’
scholar of your acceptance, or some undiscovered primary source, artificially
chosen by you alone, and of which you alone would make the sole judgement
about, could be allowed to upset the traditional authorship belief. And your
little certificate doesn’t qualify you as anything like an expert historian.
And so according to your very own standards, no one should count as meaningful
any of your personal beliefs about what qualifies as valid evidence!
But I really am not trying to persuade you or
anyone else for that matter. I just want to give some counter-arguments for all
readers to make their own judgements. Or to not make any judgements if it
doesn’t interest them enough to do so.
------------------------------------- -
Lastly, News from the Shakespeare Authorship
Coalition:
Declaration signatory count goes over 4,000 (and the number of traditional authorship believers continues to drop and drop and drop)
It was another good year for adding new signatories to the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. The signatory count went over 4,000 in the spring and continues to grow steadily, reaching 4,161 as of the current update. Other milestones reached in 2018 include topping 1600 signatories with advanced degrees (694 doctorates, 908 master’s degrees: 1602 total), and reaching 700 current or former college/university faculty members. This continues the trend of signers being well educated (77% college grads, 38.5% with advanced degrees). We also added ten new “Notable” signatories for a total of 89. The complete list of Notables is shown here.All college graduates and faculty members are asked to indicate their field. The largest group, both among faculty and all college graduates, is those in English Literature: 121 faculty and 458 graduates, 579 in total. These are followed by those who said they were in Arts (402), Theatre Arts (278), Other Humanities (212), Math/Engineering/Computers (204), Education (200), Law (200), History (197), Other/unspecified (183), Social Sciences (166), Natural Sciences (165), Medicine/Health Care (152), Psychology (123), Management (115), and Library Science (42). So virtually all fields are represented, but English literature predominates.
