Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 1

Asimov comment

Mav removed the Asimov comment questioning his authority; I restored it. A talented and prolific writer and scientist like Asimov is certainly qualified to comment on the likely habits of another author/scientist, and the comment is a very good one, authorities aside. Good information is good information, credentials be damned. --LDC

Yeah, credentials be damned. Otherwise we wouldn't have a Wikipedia at all! And Asimov's collected works are pretty much an encyclopedia all by themselves, plus a lot of good fiction.

That said, the quoted comment isn't the brightest thing he ever said. After all, "Even Homer nods." There are anachronisms in all sorts of published works. There's a clock in Julius Caesar too, and even an out-of-town wool merchant would have known that clocks were invented after Caesar. Ortolan88 21:05 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)

On second read the sentence doesn't seem that out of place. However lets not stray too far and buy into the logical fallacy of Appeal to authority. This is the exact type of thing user:MichaelTinkler left over. BTW, I know of a few PhD physicists and economists that think evolution is a load of bunk. I say, so what? --mav

I meant I didn't have any credentials to write half the stuff I write, except I look it up, think about it, and try hard to get it right. Ortolan88

Among his however-many books Asimov wrote, he did write on Shakespeare. Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare -- Zoe

Oxfordian

Uh oh... an Oxfordian has struck! I don't know enough to NPOV this. Can anyone help out? john 01:47 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In fact, this whole page seems to have been taken over by anti-Stratfordians. Come on, surely there's someone knowledgeable about this who can fix it? Anybody? john 08:23 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually I am not really an Oxfordian and I did not "strike" like a natural disaster or something. I was merely trying to insert accurate information and reduce some of the slanted wording of the original article. The information on de Vere was incomplete, inaccurate, and strongly biased in favor of William of Stratford. I know much more about the Oxfordian arguments than about those for Marlowe, Bacon, etc., so I didn't presume to edit anything about which I was poorly informed. I was careful to present facts as facts (at least as far as we can know them when we are all relying on the research of others) and to indicate supposition as such. (That's more than was true for the original, by the way in which opinion was called "fact." I'm not referring to the opinion of who the correct author is---no one really knows for sure. I am referring instead to the line in the article that said that it was a fact that de Vere's poetry was mediocre. How can that be a fact?) I am new to Wikipedia. Maybe I'm out of line in adding information to someone else's article, but after reading the introductory material, etc., for Wikipedia, I was under the impression that that was precisely the purpose. Am I wrong?

By the way, this page IS about the authorship controversy, isn't it? This IS the correct place to present the arguments, right?

Yes, arguments about the authorship controversy go here. But I felt that the article, as presently edited, was pretty strongly biased towards the Oxfordian or anti-Stratfordian viewpoint. Given that almost all actual Shakespeare scholars agree that Shakespeare was the man of Stratford (when somebody brought up the question in one of my college English classes, the professor basically laughed it off), it seems to me that the Stratfordian side ought to be represented as the orthodox position first, that then the anti-Stratfordian positions ought to be expounded upon, and that then counter arguments from the Stratfordians can be presented. I dunno, let me look over the article and see what to do. john 20:08 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, this is the place to recite the arguments. But a neutral point of view means we do not leave the impression that because there are two sides of an argument, they are of equal validity, or present flawed arguments as thought they were reasonable. John was requesting a restoration of some sort of balance of the viewpoints based on the evidence rather than the vigor of their supporters, which I hope we have made a start towards. The Anti-Stratfordians are a vanishingly small group of people, at odds with reputable Shakespeare scholars: we should not leave the impression that there are two equal groups with equally valid arguments slugging it out in the ditches: that would be a disservice to those who expect accurate information. -- Someone else

I made some changes myself and toned down both "sides" quite a bit, trying to be meticulous about NPOV. I don't think it serves any useful purpose to present the controversy as a war between hostile sides, although undoubtedly some people feel that way. People tend to get quite emotional about this subject, and it IS fascinating. I think maybe my knowledge of the arguments for de Vere might be better placed on the page devoted to de Vere himself than on the more general "controversy" page. Does that seem more appropriate to you? As I said, I'm new at this, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes or violate protocol. I just thought a page entitled "Shakespeare authorship" implied a treatment of the controversy, not a validation of one point of view and ridicule of others. But like I said, maybe this page is the place for GENERAL information about the controversy, while pages on the individual alternative candidates would be the place for specific arguments. What do you think about that approach? By the way, I'm not surprised that your college English professor laughed off the idea of the controversy. English teachers are loathe to consider anything that even suggests Shakespeare may have been someone other than the man they've been loyal to since high school literature class. I AM an English teacher, and my position is this: my loyalty is to the AUTHOR, whoever he may be! The mystery is just fascinating to me. I would be just as pleased to find out that "Willie did it" as I would be to find out that "De Vere did it." I just can't ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence for de Vere. It may all be coincidence---but WOW! what a coincidence! Hey, how do you sign these things? I'm not trying to be anonymous---just thought I set up a signature thing but it apparently isn't working.

to sign, use three tildes "~~~" or to sign and add a time-stamp, use four tildes "~~~~" -- Someone else 20:37 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think the De Vere arguments are better placed here than on the de Vere page. I agree with you that the page should treat the controversy, but it seems to me that the "mountain of circumstantial evidence" is hardly that, given that there are numerous Stratfordian arguments that pretty much demolish all of it. And that the Oxfordians have rarely responded except by putting up the same arguments over and over again. But obviously, you disagree. Basically, I agree with Someone Else that NPOV does not mean that two unequal arguments should be presented as having equal validity. And I'm getting really sick and tired of these damned edit conflicts whenever I try to write anything! john 20:40 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You miss the whole point, as does Someone Else. The question of validity of the different sides is the basis of the entire controversy. If one side were clearly valid and the other was not, there would BE no controversy now, would there? Again, I think a page entitled "Shakespeare authorship" implies a discussion of the controversy. You guys just want a page that should be called "Shakespeare Did It." Just out of curiosity, how much research have you actually done into the arguments for de Vere? There is indeed a mountain of evidence, albeit circumstantial. However, I'm running up the white flag and retreating from Wikipedia. It isn't worth this hostility for me to try to inform people who may not ever have been made aware that there is controversy about the topic. I don't need this headache. Have fun. --- Tsunamimome 21:10 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not hostile at all. And the page as it is does inform people that there's a controversy. But it's a very marginal controversy. No major scholars of Shakespeare believe that anybody other than Shakespeare wrote it, as far as I know. So, yes, this page should inform people about the controversy, and about what the Oxfordians say, and what the Baconians say, and so forth. But it should also present what the Stratfordians say in response, which imo generally demolishes the Oxfordian (and other anti-Stratfordian) arguments.

In any event, if you'd like, feel free to add in some more detail into the Oxfordian arguments (I'm familiar with some of them, but not all). And don't let old stratfordian curmudgeons like me (while, I'm not really old, except in spirit, perhaps) drive you away from the wikipedia. We're not trying to make the page into a "Shakespeare wrote it" page. We're trying to make it into a page that accurate reflects the state of the debate. And the state of the debate is that most scholars believe that Shakespeare wrote it, but that a small, but vocal, minority strenuously disagrees. Their arguments certainly ought to be presented on this page, and you ought to put down as much as you'd like. But be aware that others will edit it, and probably change around some of your points. That's kind of how this thing works, and you grow to accept the fact that you won't get exactly what you wanted on every page. In any event, there's no hostility on my part, and you oughtn't let a disagreement over one page turn you off the whole wikipedia. Stick around for a while and see if it gets better. ;-) john 22:27 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tsunamimome, it would be sad to have someone leave Wikipedia on the basis of one experience. You might want to try editing an article you have no particular feelings about (try Special:Randompage) to see if it's more enjoyable. -- Someone else 22:52 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"John was requesting a restoration of some sort of balance of the viewpoints based on the evidence rather than the vigor of their supporters, which I hope we have made a start towards. The Anti-Stratfordians are a vanishingly small group of people"

I'm just curious what the basis for this claim is? I have studied the authorship question intensively for nearly fifteen years now, and interest in the case for Oxford's authorship of the Shakespearean canon has never been higher than it is today, in the opening years of the 21st century. We could discuss some of the facts which substantiate this conclusion, but since your claim was proffered first, perhaps you'd like to back it up with some kind of factual reasoning. --BenJonson 21:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Passive voice

As early as the eighteenth century doubts about Shakespeare's authorship were expressed, This construction in the passive voice ('Legend has it...') is so often used to cloak spurious information, that I'm skeptical. Any authentic reference? Anti-Stratfordian literary snobbery is much more characteristic of 19th century attitudes. Early 18th century still saw 'touched-up' Shakespeare, corrected for contemporary theatrical tastes. Wetman 18:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wrote this line a while back, admittedly it was a bit slapdash at the time as I was more concerned with organising the TOC. I've emended it and added the references I had in mind. The information comes from John Michell's book. 144.138.194.183 13:39, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ogburn legit?

I was considering for a while incorporating some pro-Oxford material on this page ultimately derived from Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare. However, I have found several instances in which his claims are refuted, and a recent search to determine whether or not he is a respectable source is inconclusive (some say he's an excellent writer and extremely persuasive; others that he manipulates and ignores evidence that compares unfavourably with his theories). So would it be O.K. to include these arguments, or not? Brutannica 02:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he's a well-known advocate of the view and you list references on the quality of that reference, that would be entirely on topic! - David Gerard 08:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ogburn is at least as reliable, in any given instance, as the academic authorities his book cites for the purpose of confirmation or refutation.--BenJonson 21:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Marlowe

I must have words with someone regarding this issue. To be specific to change the entry to reflect some measure of uncertainty, and coincidence between Marlowe and Shakespeare. Like:

"Marlowe's death does indeed appear suspicious, but no part of this scenario is supportable by anything other than conjecture. In any case, Marlowe's work is stylistically and intellectually quite different from Shakespeare's."

One might expect stylistic differences from a possibly alive Marlowe that was living in a new culture (Italy), and learned from his mistakes in order to not endanger Shakespeare. Such as to set the plays in the past so that any perceived criticism of the current rich and powerful could be easily deflected.

As to intellectually you may need to be more precise, but I would submit that perhaps parts, such as segments spoken by common men, were indeed written (re-written) by Shakespeare in a collaborative effort. Certainly there are numerous similarities (and outright copying) of verses from Marlowe. Of course it can be argued Shakespeare borrowed from a famous playwright he knew, but that is one POV.

As to the images caption:

"Christopher Marlowe has been cited as a possible author for Shakespeare's works, but was dead during most of Shakespeare's career."

I think that should be changed to presumed dead, and something should be mentioned about Venus and Adonis being published a mere 12-13 days after Marlowe's death. (Initially submitted anonymously, then after Marlowe is dead the name Shakespeare is added.)

My information comes from a Masterworks documentary I watched on TVO some time ago. I recorded a few minutes of it, unfortunately I don't have the entire thing. Also I have yet to find an online reference to this documentary. Aha... a little Googling and success.

Much Ado About Something:

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/
• http://www.muchadoaboutsomething.com/making.html

RoyBoy 23:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Though I know a little about the Authorship subject, I try not to involve myself too much because, IMO, the roots of the controversy rest largely in:

• People's basic love of believing that what you thought you knew isn't true, and if you accept a different explanation, now you are smarter than everyone else. Shakespere=Oxford interesting. Shakespeare=Shakespeare borrrrrrrrrrrrringggg.
• Academic bigotry: "Gee, this Shakespeare guy wrote better than I did, even though I have a PhD in English Lit. If he had a lesser education, then maybe other people who don't have a PhD might be smarter than I am. So Shakespeare must have been someone of higher breeding and quality, just like me!"
• Too much free time. Oops, I guess that applies to me and everybody else on Wikipedia. ;-)
  

A great problem with most of the arguments that Shakespeare <> Stratford is the extent to which facts are bent so that they fit the argument, so now, if Marlowe's being dead is an embarassment, well, maybe he wasn't dead at all! I think it's shameful that public TV, which always complains it doesn't have enough money, attaches its good(?) name to speculations to drum up interest in its work. As to Marlowe, maybe we should stop reading the "what-ifs" and read his plays. Yes, his work is more like Shakespeare's than some others of his time (IMO, others disagree), but, aside from the inconvenient fact that he was almost certainly dead while "Shakespeare's" work continued in its familiar style, why in the world would Marlowe market his very best work under the name "Shakespeare" and put fine but lesser works (Jew of Malta, Edward II) under his own? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a convincing argument that Marlowe was killed at the tavern, which includes a reference to a spy report filed by one Thomas Drury against a Richard Chomeley who appeared to have been inspired to assasinate the Queen by Marlowe's atheism. The Privy Council also had an informer Richard Baines who said that Marlowe claimed "as good a right to coin as the Queen of England." So Marlowe appears not to have had friends in high places who were prepared to support a secret life abroad. Perhaps the article is already too long to include this argument and accompanying references. barryispuzzled 01:45 2 September 2006

Shakespeare WikiReader

This page has been reviewed and judged to be ready to be saved in static form as part of the William Shakespeare WikiReader. If you believe that the version of this page which was checked ([1]), is not suitable for static reproduction, please raise your concerns on the WikiReader talk page The bellman 10:26, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

The Fake Signature

I made quite a number of changes in this page, to try to shore up the objectivity of tone, and include a more complete, accurate, and less biased account of the Shakespearean authorship question, a topic I've studied as an element of intellectual history for almost fifteen years now (I hold a master's degree in Anthropology and a PhD in Comparative Literature). I have one further comment, which is indicative of the further changes which will be required to make the page something which anyone at Wikepedia can stand behind: where in the hell did we get that graphic of the alleged Sh. signature? That is not a legitimate signature, but some kind of hoax. Please, if we're going to reproduce a graphic of that importance, we should be sure to use something which is legitimate. There is no source listed for this graphic, it is *not* a legimitate Sh. signature,...hm...looks like someone got creative and we fell for it. Let's do something about that, can we? And please don't flame me as an "Oxfordian." My personal conviction is not the issue. The issue is producing a document which can 1) not fall prey to this kind of hoax and 2) accurately reflect the true state of the intellectual debate, which the page as previously edited certainly did not. --BenJonson 21:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BenJonson's claims to objectivity are disingenuous. Here are two whole paragraphs he removed without a word of explanation. Notice that both undermine the Oxford case -

"Shakespeare's colleague Ben Jonson stated that Shakespeare knew "small Latin, and less Greek," which by the standards of the day implies that Shakespeare the actor was likely to have studied both at least partially. This supports the argument that he did indeed attend a school at some time."

...

"The supposed connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays is conjectural at best, for instance, and the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest. Near contemporaries, like John Dryden, indicated that Shakespeare got many details wrong in his depiction of life at court, meaning that Oxford's court connections do not support the case for his authorship very strongly. Oxford died in 1604, perhaps the most convincing argument against Oxford's authorship, as ten of Shakespeare's plays are most likely written after Oxford's death, and several specifically refer to events later than 1604 — e.g. The Tempest, which alludes to a 1609 shipwreck in Bermuda."

The edits over the last couple of days need to be reviewed. They also include a number of dubious links.68.118.61.219 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "true state" of the debate is debatable. Oxford is the current darling of a portion of the academic crowd, who study hints and esoteric connections the way the Romans studied the entrails of birds (poor birds!). Can you imagine if Oxford and not Shakespeare had a son named "Hamnet"? Why it would have been proof positive as to who Shakespeare "really" was! :) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of tendentious edits have been made to tilt this article towards the Oxfordian theory: [2]. PRiis 06:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that too many actual academics are very interested in the authorship debate in general, or in the Oxfordian theory specifically. It is mostly the domain of enthusiastic amateurs. I remember in an English class undergrad when somebody brought up the authorship question and the professor basically ridiculed it. Academics think enough stupid things without accusing them of being responsible for this nonsense. john k 16:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The title of this section is 'Thre Fake Signature'. No-one seems to be addressing this problem. I certainly don't recognise this as one of the authentic Shakespeare signatures. It's not even in secretary hand. Does anyone know where it comes from? Paul B 12:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well apart from the obvious answer, www.PDimages.com (I guess you mean where did they get it from), it can also be found at ox.ac.uk so perhaps they've been hoodwinked too. Other examples such as [3], [4] and [5] all look completely different. I've seen the one on on the red seal in the British Library, but I have a vague recollection that the caption they had mentioned some caveat as to whether that signature was actually Shakespeare's. Given the doubt, why not just replace the image with a better sourced version? The best one I can find is in the .pdf document from the National Archives, although they make strong copyright assertions and want to charge reproduction fees. -- Solipsist 13:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was probably taken from here: www.pdimages.com/01520.html-ssi Paul B 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How strange - it's all over the web. Anyway, I've replaced it with a 'real' signature (the one from the will that says 'by me William Shakespeare' (just to be really clear!)). The Singing Badger 16:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bacon History

After checking some details added to the Francis Bacon article, I decided to update a couple of the reference links on this page. Someone might want to follow up on the link to http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/shakespeare030.html. A note at the top of that page says the article is from the 1911 Britannica. If that can be verified it might be an idea to bring the text into Wikipedia and update it with comments on some of the more recent books. -- Solipsist 07:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which Smith suggested Bacon?

The Bacon suggestion was first made by William Henry Smith in 1856, unfortunately there were two famous WH Smiths around at the time . I am sure it was the junior William Henry Smith (politician) due to the fact that the same WH smith became the first president of the BACONIANA society in 1886 [6] , when the senior William_Henry_Smith (businessman) was dead. GameKeeper 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stritmatter article

I removed the following because it doesn't explain what Stritmatter's argument actually is, and as such is rather unhelpful. If replaced, it would be better to offer a brief summary of his argument.

The utility of this theory of the poem's composition has recently been challenged, however, by Oxfordian writer Roger Stritmatter in a University of Tennessee Law Review article, "A Law Case in Verse: Venus and Adonis and the Authorship Question."

The Singing Badger 23:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Additions to the article

I've been adding to and rearranging this article quite a lot recently. Although I think Shakespeare was Shakespeare I've been trying to explain both sides clearly and fairly. I'd be grateful if others could check my work and ensure its accuracy. The Singing Badger 00:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Stratfordian codes

Refreshing though it is to see hidden cipher theories used to support Shakespeare's authorship, I don't think David Basch's article "Shakespeare Memorials To Friends [www.ziplink.net/~entropy/sha-mar2.pdf] makes a strong case, so the references to it as an authoritive source need to be altered. Paul B 17:20, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

Pronoun confusion

Just reading here. The section beginning his life has a confusion, at least to someone not knowledgeable on the subject:

"He [Shakespeare] is believed to have divided his time between London and Stratford, and to have retired there in 1613 before his death in 1616. His father, and apparently at least one of his [elder or younger Shakespeare?] daughters, were illiterate." 69.194.28.81 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It means Shakespeare's daughters. I'll fix it. The Singing Badger 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

From Paris to Spain

I find the following passage rather perplexing:

As for All's Well That Ends Well it has been pointed out that the Pyrenees were infested with bandits, so that the preferred route to Spain was indeed across the Italian Alps, and then by sea; water transport, as witnessed in Arthur Throckmortons's unpublished continental diary, was always the preferred mode of transport at the time (see Ralegh and the Throckmortons by A.L. Rowse, London 1962).

Yes, I can see that sea-travel may preferred, but that does not explain why one would go via Italy. I thought the Italian Alps were also "infested with bandits". Why avoid one bandit-infested area for another one, just for the sake of a longer journey and a sea-trip to boot. The evidence quoted simply says that ships were "the preferred mode of transport", not that travelling over the Alps was preferred to travelling over the Pyrenees. However I haven't read Rowse's book, so don't know if this citation is disingenuous or not. Paul B 17:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, surely somebody in Roussillon would get a boat from the south of France, not Italy?! I had a look at Rowse's book but it's long and without a page reference I didn't know where to start. I have thus removed the sentence (it's preserved above) pending a better explanation of this subject. The Singing Badger 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Anti-Stradfordian

This article is certainly biased and NPOV. It states all the refuted claims of anti-Stradfordian, but it doesn't state the counter-argument posited by Stradfordians. For example, they mention that Shakespeare's hand is shaky. Stradfordians counter by stating it was a style known as "secretary hand", which is radically different from the "italic style" we know today. Mandel 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean it is POV. Where does the article say that S's "hand is shaky"? If you wish to add more pro-S arguments go ahead. Paul B 08:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And here I thought it was POV the other way. Starting with the allusion to "consiracy theories" and continuing with the characterization of one side as "Anti-Stratfordians" who "argue" things and the other side as "mainstream scholars" who "point out" things. The tone strikes me as one of the Stratfordians saying "we're reasonable and rational, and they're just a bunch of nut jobs." But I don't have enough invested in the issue to try to change it. Such is Wikipedia. Back to my watchlist.... Jwolfe 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, add more of the Pro-Stradfordian arguements. Personally, I think the arguments of this who think Shakespeare was someone else are rather weak so I'd welcome more on the other side.--Alabamaboy 12:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the section Mandel mentioned about the 'shaky hand' but it's a commonly used argument so I will add it in (with a refutation). Jwolfe's comment on the 'argue' vs. 'point out' wording is a good one, and is an example of unconscious prejudice by myself and others; I will endeavour to make the wording more neutral. As for 'conspiracy theory', I think this is a defensible phrase: anti-Stratfordians argue that a conspiracy of silence concealed the true identity of Shakespeare in his day - in addition, they often claim that there is a conspiracy in modern academia to silence those who propound anti-Stratfordian views. That's my 2 cents. The Singing Badger 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving 'Academic authorship debates'

This page is longer than the recommended article size. I think the section 'Academic Authorship Debates' needs moving to its own page. Can anyone think of a good title for that page? The present one is rather questionable (not only academics are concerned with the issues). I think Shakespeare's collaborations might be better. Any opinions? The Singing Badger 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I moved it. The page is still too long though. Maybe separate pages on Marlovian and Baconian theory are needed. The Singing Badger 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just published a book on the Baconian Theory. If the administrator is happy to set up the page, I will happily (with my good friend QBrute) develop it and make an effort to contact other authors so that their views are accurately represented. barryispuzzled

You don't need to ask permission, you can do it yourself. Read Starting a new page for details. You'll need to try to write in such a way that you represent the views of those who disagree with the conclusions drawn in your own book, but have fun! The Singing Badger 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentences

I removed the following because it's simply a list, without an explanation of what, if any, new information these people presented. These sections on the candidates need to be concise because they're just summaries. I put them in the bibliography at the bottom. Maybe add them to Oxfordian theory? The Singing Badger 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Another direct result of Ogburn's book was the 1989 Frontline documentary, The Shakespeare Mystery, a close look at the Oxford case narrated by Al Austin and Judy Woodruff. A recent exponent of de Vere's case is Mark Anderson, in his 2005 book "Shakespeare" By Another Name.

Mark Anderson

An anonymous user keeps adding prominent references to Mark Anderson's recent Oxfordian book "Shakespeare" By Another Name (2005). The reason I keep removing them is that there are numerous books about Oxford, and there is no reason to single out this one book at the beginning of this article. The anon user claims that Anderson's book is the first popular biography of Oxford in 85 years and thus warrants special treatment. In fact, Joseph Sobran's Alias Shakespeare was published only 8 years ago. The book thus only deserves a special mention in this article if it has transformed the field of Oxfordian studies as much as Charlton Ogburn did. I recommend that the anon user place the reference in the longer article, Oxfordian theory. The Singing Badger 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are numerous prominent Oxfordians and Stratfordians and to single out a reltaive newcomer looks like advertising to me. -- Cecropia 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

The following excerpt needs a citation (or so it says)

"In 1957, William F. Friedman, considered by many to be the greatest cryptologist of all time[citation needed], and his wife Elizebeth, also a cryptologist noted for her US Government work on "rum runners" ciphers [3] published a refutation of the cryptogram theories, in particular the Baconian theories. They argued that the messages claimed to have been encrypted in the texts by one (or both) of the authors were entirely implausible cryptographically and in some cases impossible."

Im not sure how to add it to the references list but The codebreakers, the comprehensive history of secret communication from ancient times to the internet - David Kahn (revised edition 1996) ISBN 0684831309 states on page 21 "Friedman was (and is) the worlds greatest cryptologist". I hope this can help. As im not that frequently on the english language wiki, questions are better served on my dutch discussion page which can be found at nl:Overleg gebruiker:Khx023 - Khx023 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! The Singing Badger 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And thanks to you for going through the tedious process of writing out the full citations. I was far too lazy. Paul B 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything to procrastinate real work. :) The Singing Badger 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Too Many External Links

The external links section of this article is growing way, way too massive and needs to be trimmed along the lines that Wikipedia is not a link farm. Most of these links appear to be linkspam and little more. Any issue if we cut them down to a handful of useful links. In addition, any book that is NOT a reference should not be listed in the external links. If a book IS a reference, then it should be listed in the reference section. Either way, though, all books should have any promotional link to Amazon.com or other places deleted. Comments?--Alabamaboy 18:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• 100% agree. I started reading through this stuff yesterday. Some of it is great and some is useless. I see the Singing Badger has started on this exercise. AndyJones 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did 'Orthodox' and 'Baconian' but the wiki was being slow so I got bored. Might have a go later... The Singing Badger 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So, if you're bored why don't you sing a little and then come back and badger some people? :) BTW, do you think badgers will replace ferrets as the new "in" pet? -- Cecropia 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Finished now. I only removed those sites that were purely promotional; sites that were promotional but also included substantial information remain; I think that's fair enough. The Singing Badger 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge "List of people theorized to have written Shakespeare"

• I vote yes to merging. It's not a long article. AndyJones 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah. It could be longer, but doesn't need to be a separate article until it is. The Singing Badger 13:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, and even if we listed the 63 people mentioned by Mitchell it wouldn't swamp this article. AndyJones 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge.--Alabamaboy 14:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Gday. Anonomous guest here- I vote no to merging, but I would, however, love to see the list far more complete than it is. In the Shakespearean Authorship page, there's a reference to 'over 50 more' authors, which aren't actually listed anywhere in Wikipedia, which is very frustrating and annoying and whatnot... It'd be very nice to have something like a definitive list on the page, and keep it seperate from the other pages.

Overhaul

This page is being flagged as too long. I therefore did a big overhaul today. I shortened the sections on Oxford and Marlowe by moving the more detailed information to Oxfordian theory and Marlovian theory respectively. My concept is that this page should primarily be concerned with the general anti-Stratfordian ideas (i.e. should there be an authorship debate at all?), and the sections on Oxford, Bacon and Marlowe on this page should be summaries of the basic arguments for and against, so that the details of those arguments can be set out at greater length on the separate pages. The page is still being flagged as too long, unfortunately, but it's better than it was (38 Kb as opposed to 44). The previous state of the page can be studied here : [7]; in case anyone dislikes what I have done. The Singing Badger 15:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Malcom X? 50 others?

The article reads, in part, "Other candidates proposed include William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby; Sir Edward Dyer; or Roger Manners, 5th Earl of Rutland (sometimes with his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Philip Sidney, and her aunt Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, as co-authors); and at least fifty others, including Queen Elizabeth (based on a supposed resemblance between a portrait of the Queen and the engraving of Shakespeare that appears in the First Folio). Malcolm X argued that Shakespeare was actually King James I". (emphasis supplied). Please could someone give authority for the two emphasised propositions, or I shall delete them. (Great article by the way. For what it is worth I don't think it is too long.) --165.146.132.30 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't logged in: --Adam Brink 15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea about the number of proposed candidates, but Mr X apparently expressed scepticism concerning Shakespeare's authorship on the grounds that if Shakespeare were such a good writer why didn't King James ask him to help out with his Bible? Mr. X appears on the Oxfordian website among the Honour Roll of Sceptics for this great thought.[8] Why James would want a translator with no known theological training - and with small Latin and less Greek - Mr. X does not say. Perhaps the story that Shakespeare was James has been extrapolated from this. Paul B 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I looked up Mr. X's Autobiography, and yes, it seems that he thought it was James wot done it:

They say that from 1604 to 1611, King James got poets to translate, to write the Bible. Well, if Shakespeare existed, he was then the top poet around. But Shakespeare is nowhere reported connected with the Bible. If he existed, why didn't King James use him? And if he did use him, why is it one of the world's best kept secrets? I know that many say that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare. If that is true, why would Bacon have kept it secret? Bacon wasn't royalty, when royalty sometimes used the nom de plume because it was "improper" for royalty to be artistic or theatrical. What would Bacon have had to lose? Bacon, in fact, would have had everything to gain. In the prison debates I argued for the theory that King James himself was the real poet who used the nom de plume Shakespeare. King James was brilliant. He was the greatest king who ever sat on the British throne. Who else among royalty, in his time, would have had the giant talent to write Shakespeare's works? It was he who poetically "fixed" the Bible -- which in itself and its present King James version has enslaved the world.

Paul B 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Turning to the question of 50 others, John Mitchell lists 63 people speculated to have written some or all of Shakespeare, on pp.37-38 of "Who Wrote Shakespeare" (1999 Thames & Hudson Ltd., London ISBN 0-500-28133-0). AndyJones 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So that's what they get up to in prison. Thank you for the excellent response! --Adam Brink 08:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Anwar

I believe its tottaly irrelevant to mention what ,mr anwar says about Shakepearean authorship..Any one could come up with such weird claims which has no basis at all, and i dont think wikipedia is the place for that kind of jokes..Mr Anwar or the so called arab leader ,whom he quoted are definitely not scholars..And its only made this great article a silly one by quoting them.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwazaki (talk • contribs)

The story appears to be a sort of Muslim urban myth. See here [9]. Other sources suggest that Qaddafi's reference to the story was simply a joke. [10] For what I can gather the idea does seem to have originated in the 19th century as a serious suggestion by an idiosyncratic Arab intellectual called Ahmad Faris al-Shidyaq (1804-87)[11] Paul B 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oxford's faked death

The following is copied from my talk page:

Dear Mr. Barlow,

As a source of this claim of Mr. Streitz, who is a political theorist and writer, I have only seen him make the argument in his review pages at Amazon.com. A link might be provided to these reviews. They are informal reviews written by customers. I do not consider Mr. Streitz to be an able literary theorist, though I am interested in his theory about Oxford's death. Oxfordianism must come to terms with Freudianism, either by alligning itself with Freud or by breaking with his view to form a new theory of biography and sexual trauma. The Wikipedia article is a helpful venue but the question remains whether there is room in this tiny section to discuss such controversies as the incestuous sexual life of Elizabeth the first and Henry VIII and the treatment of these things in the plays of Shakespeare. Second, it would have to be recognized that the plays present a salutary philosophy such as that of Epicurus or Buddhism. Such a view of Shakespeare if properly conceived would be nothing short of a revolution in academe and theory in general.

Yours, Chris Gontar

reply - I don't think that Amazon reviews constitute publication in the sense that is relevant to Wikipedia. I don't really understand why Oxfordianism "must come to terms with Freudianism". I was not aware that Elizabeth was invloved in an "incestuous sexual relationship"! The idea that the plays articulate a distinctive "philosophy" was first expressed, I think, by Delia Bacon. Can you provide citations? Paul B 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, please note that Amazon.com reviews do not constitute published work (because they have not been through any editing process), and as such do not belong on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Original research. The Singing Badger 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by QBrute

QBrute, User:172.142.56.12 has recently made numerous changes to the article. Some of them may be defensible, but many seem to be attempts at sneakily slanting the article toward the anti-Stratfordian case (e.g. altering 'Shakespeare' to 'Shakspere' and then deleting the sentence that presents evidence against the significance of such spellings). Just for the record, this was the state of the page before these edits. I don't have time to check them all now. The Singing Badger 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. The article as I met with it was not written as an attempt to present the reader with facts but to present an attack against anti-Stratfordians. It is completely justified to refer to the Stratford man as Shakspere for that was his original documented name. He has equal standing to all authorship candidates, the task being to show that a particular candidate was Shakespeare the author and clarity prevails with this distinction. Several inaccuracies were present. It was stated that Bacon was not alive when the First Folio appeared in 1623 when he was. The definition of Shakespeare authorship was given as a "conspiracy theory" implying that in every case, a group of authors or conspirators shared a secret. The thrust of the anti-Stratfordian case is misrepresented: it is not to show that Shakspere was illiterate but to cast a reasonable enough doubt on his claim to justify considering an alternative candidate. In support of a Stratfordian point, what kind of argument is it to simply invoke the fact that a certain view is agreed upon by most scholars? This is not evidence but an assertion that if the academics say it is true then it must be. For an encyclopedic article I found the judgmental comments and under-representation of alternative views distasteful. In short, this was a gratuitous rant against anti-Stratfordians with no attempt at a balance which it now possesses.

If you find errors and distortions it is of course right to correct them, and I'm with you on that. This page should present both sides of the case fairly. If commonly-held viewpoints are missing, they have the right to be there. But you should not assume they have been censored, it's just that no-one has included them yet. Looking over your edits, I see that some of them are fine, but others are clearly designed to lead the reader the other way. For example, unexplained deletion of material, unexplained removal of documented information that doesn't support the anti-Stratfordian position, POV descriptions of books and and bizarre unsupported claims such as "Henry Chettle (masquerading as Robert Greene), Ben Jonson, and John Marston doubted his authorship credentials" (really? when? says who?). I want to assume good faith, but I believe you need to read the Wikipedia principles of no original research, of verifiability, and of neutral point of view. At the very least, give reasons for your changes in the edit summary box. You know a lot about Bacon, clearly, and it would be great to work with you, but you need to understand these principles. The Singing Badger 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. The use of judgmental statements such as "bizarre" is not science but you can ask me to support my assertions by all means. I will happily provide a Word document link in the article to the Chettle/Marston/Jonson argument. The reference to the Northumberland MS in the Bacon section is deleted because it is a weak argument and proves nothing. For example, Bacon and Shakespeare as different men could simply have used the same scrivener. Line 20, there is no cunning in changing the Stratford man's name to Shakspere because I assert that he was also documented as Shakespeare. As stated, it is a necessary distinction to provide clarity. Line 20, he was "referred to specifically as a writer" 23 times. No he was not. Nowhere on any quarto does it say "Willam Shakespeare of Stratford". It says "William Shakespeare". Was this Shakspere, Marlowe, Bacon, Oxford ...? "No contemporary document connects any other person with the plays". This is a sweeping statement and it is wrong. The Gesta Grayorum gives a commentary on the Gray's Inn Revels 1595-5 where the Comedy of Errors was performed. There is evidence that Bacon wrote it and in it there is a complicated "greater lessens the smaller" metaphor in the last paragraph that appears both in Bacon's speech on the Union of the Kingdom of England and Scotland (1603) and Act 5, Scene 1 in the Merchant of Venice , predating both. This single example is enough to justify deletion.

Do you see how you are being equally judgemental? You have decided something 'proves nothing', so you delete it without making any explanation. Sometimes you could well be right, but if you at the very least explained your changes in the edit summary box, your changes would be easier to evaluate.

To answer some specific points:

1. Referring to Shakespeare as 'Shakspere' is a tactic used mostly by Oxfordians to suggest that the man from Stratford spelled his name differently to the author of the plays. This theory of different spelling has been comprehensively disproven, as the source you deleted demonstrates. Regardless of your own reasons, the use of 'Shakspere' is misleading to the reader. 'Shakespeare of Stratford' and 'the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare' are more long-winded but more neutral terms.
2. Shakespeare does not have 'equal standing' to the other candidates. His name is on the front cover of most of his works, and he is thus the prima facie candidate. The job of anti-Stratfordians is to disprove this prima facie case.
3. The case against Shakespeare is always presented as a secret, protected by silence, and/or by codes. It is thus a conspiracy theory. Maybe this seems like loaded term, but some conspiracy theories have proven true.
4. The article did not claim that Shakespeare had to be proven illiterate, it said the fundamental question is whether he was incapable of doing so (i.e. because the works were too sophisticated for a middle class Warwickshire man).
5. The 'sweeping statement' was badly worded, I agree. It should have said 'directly connects'. Certainly, some documents can be interpreted as connecting other writers with the plays. But none directly do so.
6. Shakespeare was referred to as a writer because his name appears on the title pages of quartos. Those plays were performed by the King's Men. The King's Men included an actor called William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare was that actor-dramatist because he died in Stratford willing money to that company. Denying this is unusual even among anti-Stratfordians.
7. All statements must have citations. And these citations cannot be your own original research. They must be published (not 'Word documents').
8. I know the article isn't perfectly sourced yet. If you find an uncited statement that needs a source, add {{fact}} after it, and a citation request label will appear, to alert the reader. The Singing Badger 19:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence against Shakspere

QBrute. I disagree with point 2. I want to see your evidence. Shakspere could not have written The Tempest because he could not have had access to Strachey's secret letter. He could not have gained entry to Gray's Inn to either write or perform Comedy of Errors because the Inns of Court had a policy at the time (as did Oxford and Cambridge Universities) of excluding outsiders. They also did not need external writers because most of the later dramatist were resident there and all too willing to oblige with a play. Titus and Andronicus according to Edward Ravenscroft was not his but brought by a PRIVATE AUTHOR to be acted. In these cases he is less than equal to Oxford and Bacon (who had strong Inns of Court connections). Did you write this article? Point 7. My work is published. But what difference does it make? An argument should be judged on its own merits not on whether or not is it published! Point 6. I do not doubt that Shakspere claimed authorship by placing his name on the work. But with reasonable doubt expressed with regard to Shakspere as author, the Stratfordian must then offer proof for authorship as every other candidate must. For example, where are his letters and manuscripts against which stylistic comparisons can be made? This can be done successfully for Bacon because we have his Promus and his published work which carry striking parallels with the Shakespeare work.

Lots of people work on this article (which is a work in progress, like all of Wikipedia). I'm just trying to summarize the reasons why not everyone is an anti-Stratfordian. 'Stratfordians' do not accept that there is reasonable doubt about Shakespeare. In regards to your points there, (a) Cite a source saying that Strachey's letter was secret (and by the way not everyone agrees that Strachey's letter was used to write The Tempest, Stratfordians and antis included) (b) Cite a source saying that Inns of Court excluded outsiders: Twelfth Night was performed at the Middle Temple Hall by the King's Men, so this seems unlikely (c) Have you read most academic plays of that time? They're really boring. I'd rather have Shakespeare even if he was an outsider :) (d) Yes, Ravenscroft did say that. Is it true? Who knows. Many people have tried to apologize for Titus Andronicus over the years... (e) Why should we expect Shakespeare's letters to have survived? This is no evidence against him. He was a less important man than Bacon.

Yes, in theory work should be judged on its merits. But Wikipedia's policy is gto summarize published work, not permit everyone to say anything. Read no original research and verifiability pages (I'm not accusing you, just making the point).

The fundamental point here is: please cite your sources and explain your reasons for changes made.The Singing Badger 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. All your answers can be found in Cockburn, Nigel, The Bacon Shakespeare Question and one of your own, Stanley Wells (Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, p.470) seems to think The Tempest was based on Strachey's letter. Since this authorship question has provoked so much debate over the years, I think that all candidates (including Shakspere) should be treated on an equal footing and have their case presented. In this way, the evidence regarding the whole issue can be fairly weighed. Of course, part of the case for Shakspere is that his name is on the work. I think it is irrelevant to imply that since x scholars agree or disagree on a certain point then the case is established (e.g. phrases like "most scholars agree" frequently appeared in the article). The weight of an argument depends on how well it accounts for the known facts not on how many scholars subscribe to it. My research does not uncover the name of the company that played Twelfth Night at the Middle Temple Hall in Feb 1602 (and John Manningham, a student present at the event does not record the company in his diary). Where did you get the idea from that the King's Men played it? You respond to the Ravenscroft testimony with "Is it true? Who knows." It's an admissible report of contemporary testimony. Do you only admit evidence you like the look of? I am now satisfied that the article reads fluently, is non-judgmental, and has a reasonable balance of views.

'Touche! I guess we should all think first and talk later. By the way, Ravenscroft says Titus was brought by a "private author to be acted and he [Shakespeare] only added some master-touches". In other words, Ravenscroft regards Shakespeare as a master-dramatist... Anyway, I will go through each of your changes and keep what seems fair. If you make errors, I'll correct them. If I make errors, you correct them. That's how it works... and it never ends... The Singing Badger 13:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ravenscroft is not "contemporary testimony". He thought that Titus was a heap of rubbish, so quoted some unnamed old bloke who supposedly knew that Shakespeare just a added a few bits to some dross written by someone else. The influence of the Strachey letter is widely, but not universally, accepted, but I know of no evidence that it was in any sense "secret". Paul B 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth is this claptrap about Terence? As far as I know no-one actually thinks that "Scipio" (which Scipio anyway?) wrote Terence's plays! And how could Cicero have witnessed this, since he wasn't even born for another hundred years? Paul B 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Ravenscroft, who is not contemporary, is reporting contemporary testimony and if a witness reported what another at the scene of the crime told him this would be admissible in court. Regarding the Strachey letter, if you take a look at the reference in the Bacon section you will see the directive issued to Sir Thomas Gates, governor of the Virginia colony. The phrases "no one actually thinks" and "not universally accepted" are not arguments just a head count of who agrees or disagrees. Terence belonged to the literary group headed by the Roman general Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. The charge put to Terence that he received assistance in the composition of his plays was not defended by him. For example, see http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/terence001.html . I'm wondering here if "witness" requires a medieval interpretation such as "opinion".

OK, I've checked the original. Ascham says that two plays were published as Terence's but were really written by Scipio and Laelius. There is no suggestion in Ascham's text that Terence didn't write any plays, just that two Roman aristocrats published under his name. This is certainly good evidence that an Elizabethan writer thinks such actions by aristocrats are plausible - but it tells us nothing reliable about Terence himself. Paul B 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually a witness reporting what someone else told him he'd seen is hearsay, and is not admissible in court. Ravencroft is saying that Titus is rubbish and so is unlikely to be by Shakespeare. His source is unnamed and quite possibly invented. Even if he's real, he could have been talking rubbish. We don't know. A head count of who agrees and disagrees is relevant to Wikipedia because we report on scholarly consensus and apportion "due weight" to points of view in relation to their status within that community. The quotation from the directive tells us nothing about the letter, nor does it suggest that it was secret. It only says that letters may be "boxed up and sealed" and sent to the council first. There's no suggestion that this makes all communication secret or that the council will withold all letters it receives. Re Terence -receiving help is quite different from concealed authorship. I receive help from my wife with my writings - and vice versa. George Eliot received help from Lewes, but it's quite a different matter to say that Lewes wrote her novels. Paul B 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I think you're adding to Ravenscroft's testimony. Ravenscroft says "I have been told by someone anciently conversant with the stage that it was originally not his but brought by a private author to be acted". There is nothing in this to suggest the source is "quite possibly invented" or that Ravenscroft was "talking rubbish" - this is just an expression of your hope! Testimony works by accepting what people say as true unless there is a reason not to. Proof in court relies on the agreement of several testimonies. I can happily develop the point about the secret letter. First, I think taking care what "relacions" [accounts] come into England strongly suggests a policy of censorship. It was not in the interests of the Virginia Company to make this letter public because it detailed the murder and insurrection in the colony and council members wanted to both attract new investors and uphold the value of their own shares. It was later watered down for publication as A True Declaration of the State of the Colony of Virginia (registered 8 November 1610). In fact, the Strachey letter only came to light in 1616 (after the first performance of The Tempest) when it was found among the recently deceased Richard Hakluyt's papers (whose name was on the First Virginia Charter). In your added article piece on Terence the impression is created that Terence lived in Elizabethan England especially since you talk about what was "commonplace in Elizabethan England". Perhaps, it should read "Roman dramatist Terence" and the point changed to what Elizabethans thought. I am no expert on Roman literature so I leave you the last word on Terence.

It's not my "hope". since its largely irrelevant to Shakespearean authorship in the sense in which you are using the word, though it is relevant to the debates about collaboration. It's a widespread view that many of Shakespeare's early works were collaborative. Ravenscroft argument is consistent with this. Still, his source is very tenuous. As I said, it's some unnamed old bloke who is supposedly "conversant with the stage" speaking nearly a century after the play was written. And there is reason to be suspicious of R's alleged informant, because R has a particular POV, as we say, and because "some bloke I met said..." is always pretty poor evidence. Kathman discusses the likelihood of Shakespeare's access to the Strachey letter. [12]

Regardless of whether Ravenscroft's source was reliable, Ravenscroft is describing Shakespeare as an expert dramatist touching up the work of an inferior amateur. It thus doesn't support the anti-Stratfordian position, which is that WS was the talentless frontman for a secret playwright. The Singing Badger 23:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute(to Paul Barlow). Naughty! With "nearly a century" you misrepresent a fact to fit your viewpoint. Ravenscoft's quote is from 1687, 76 years after the first known performance of The Tempest, so it is not impossible that a witness to the Titus handover was still alive. As I said, you are adding to Ravenscroft with "his source is very tenuous" instead of having the humility to admit that this is fair evidence against Shakspere authoring a play that appeared in the First Folio. You are also ignoring a fact to fit your viewpoint because as I have also said, it would not have been in the interests of the Virginia council members to divulge the contents of Strachey's letter. It is pure speculation - an unwarranted extrapolation from the coincidence of Shakspere's name with another on a business document - that Shakspere knew members of the Council well enough for them to exchange this information. (I have many documents in my possession bearing my name and that of others I have had little or no acquaintance with. My landlord whom I see once every six months has his name alongside mine on an important tenancy agreement but that does not mean I would exchange confidential information with him.) I recommend that you refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions from an insufficiency of factual evidence. It is "a widespread view" is not evidence. Are you David Kathman? (to Singing Badger) Ravencroft's own opinion about Shakspere's "master touches" many years after his death has no more potency than my neighbour's. However, his report of a contemporary witness account has an altogether different status.

Naughty? We were discussing Titus, so what's the first known performance of the Tempest got to do with it? Titus is dated to the early 1590s, published in 1594. 1687 is 93 years after the latest possible date. You don't get much nearer to a century. Try not to make false accusations. Paul B 01:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. OK, I'm tired, it's 2am here, I looked up the wrong play. A thought that occurs to me, though, is that Ravenscroft's testimony is 71 years after Shakspere's death so it is not impossible that the "some anciently conversant with the stage" was/were alive in Shakspere's lifetime. Nevertheless, I think that it would have had greater weight if Ravenscroft had named his source.

QBrute. The following was added to the Overview. I deleted it. "For instance, Ben Jonson knew Shakespeare personally, reacted to him in often-passionate ways, and yet never appears to have doubted his authorship of his works, at least if his words are not wrenched out of context. Moreover, the fact that Shakespeare did not receive a university education, which is one of the main reasons that doubts of his authorship were born, should be considered in light of the fact that Jonson, one of the greatest classical scholars of the age, also never graduated from university. The orthodox view posits that consipiracy theories may well have grown out of the prejudices of the undemocratic past, which assumed that only noblemen or the university educated could write such impressive works, though such theories have taken on a life of their own." This does not serve the balance of the article nor is it intended to inform but is a blatant attempt to use the Wikipedia article as a forum to propagate the Stratfordian position. The line "yet never appears to have doubted his authorship" is misleading because he raised doubts about the quality of Shakspere's writing and the level of his wit. With offensive phrases like "at least if his words are not to be wrenched out of context" and "prejudices of the undemocratic past" someone is attempting to restore the article to its original rant against anti-Stratfordians.

QBrute. I agree with JWolfe's earlier comments in Pro-Anti-Stratfordian with regard to the reference to "conspiracy theories". In whatever way one tries to analyse the content of this phrase, it creates a negative "feeling" in the reader with its connotations of paranoia, mental instability and absence of reason. I am aware that one or two contributors have a hidden agenda to use this article as a platform to propagate their Stratfordian views and have no interest in preserving a balanced article. I am committed to serving the impartial reader by ensuring that all views are well represented and that the article is not cleverly slanted with well-chosen phrases to imply that only Stratfordian views are reasonable. I can identify one of these people as having the username Paul B (also uses AngusMclellan) from the article edit history. I notice also that the style of employing phrases that imply that only Stratfordian views are reasonable is used by David Kathman (e.g. this example is taken from his website Introduction [[13]] "Yet professional Shakespeare scholars ... generally find Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even worth discussing." I wonder if as Paul B. he has no intention of letting Oxfordians discuss them here either.) My suspicion is supported by an article from the columnist Joe Sobran who has given his impressions of David Kathman's subliminal messaging methods [[14]].

These articles are meant to be neutral, expressing all major points of view. If you find distortions, correct them, but don't introduce your own, which is what you were doing.

'Subliminal messaging'?! Sobran's accusation is that Kathman claims to look at 'historical evidence' but ignores the 'fact' that the Sonnets are coded depictions of the Earl of Oxford. But interpretations of hidden meanings in poems can never be regarded simply as 'historical evidence'. Kathman discusses straightforward evidence that does not require 'interpretation': title pages, records of performances, epitaphs, etc. etc. If a book cover says "by William Shakespeare" that is straightforward evidence that must be acknowledged and disproven if one believes it to be untrue. Sobran thinks it is straightfowardly true that the Sonnets depict the Earl of Oxford, so he regards them too as historical evidence. But reading between the lines of a Sonnet is a very subjective thing: it's an interpretation, not a fact. Others have different interpretations - Marlovians read the Sonnets as depictions of Marlowe's relationships. Stratfordians either see them as depictions of Shakespeare's love-life, or else as simply fictional. The trouble with all these interpretations is that none can be easily proven or disproven because poetry is by its very nature open to multiple interpretations. So interpretations of the hidden meanings of poems are *not* the same as straightforward historical evidence. If Sobran has written an entire book on Oxford without even thinking about this difference, it's no wonder he's baffled by David Kathman, but it's also no wonder that real historians don't take him seriously.

If we have a hierachy, historical evidence comes first, below it is interpretation (which can be *useful*, but less conclusive), and then beneath that we have wilful misreading. You are deliberately *misreading* Ravenscroft. He says quite clearly that an old man told him 'Titus' was improved by Shakespeare after being given it by a "Private Author". You have decided that Ravenscroft misunderstood the old man who was actually saying something rather different. But how do you know this? Not from the words on the page. It's just wishful thinking on your part. The Singing Badger 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

18 plays

QBrute. I have read your Titus objection several times and still do not understand your point. I challenge the certainty of the assertion in the Shakespeare's Will section that "most of these 18 plays were indeed published by his fellow actors after his death" implying that they owned Shakespeare's unpublished and/or unperformed work thus accounting for their absence in the will. Did Shakspere the businessman simply write these plays and hand them over to the King's Men without attempting to profit from them? Surely no one believes that. If he sold them to the KM where is the documentary evidence? It is being assumed that since Heminge and Condell supplied eulogies to the First Folio then they must have owned ALL the plays but that is an addition to the facts. Now there is some evidence that Ben Jonson produced the FF. "... the men who made the folio for the press (and Jonson may well have been one of them) remade Shakespeare in Jonson's image. ... The scribes who prepared the copy for the Shakespeare folio abandoned the "light pointing" or "playhouse punctuation" of the quartos and adopted the so-called logical pointing that Jonson had employed in his Workes (1616). The extensive use of parentheses, semicolons and end-stopped lines in the 1623 folio owes more to Jonson's example than to Shakespeare's habits of composition." Riggs, David, Ben Jonson: A Life (Harvard University Press: 1989), p.276. So the following possibility arises. Another man possessed these 18 plays, employed Jonson to produce the FF, and used his friendship with the King's Men to obtain the rights to publish the plays they owned. Heminge and Condell were promised the royalties (and they DO urge the public to buy in one eulogy). The Cryptograms section of the article has an interpretation of Jonson's opening FF eulogy that coincides with this view. Jonson uses the phrase "insolent Greece or haughtie Rome" in his second eulogy but in a later work says that Bacon "hath filled up all the numbers [verses] and performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughtie Rome ... so that he may be named and stand as the mark and acme of our language." Jonson, Ben, Timber or Discoveries (Cassell: 1889), p.60-1. (I notice that he does not say that Shakspere of Stratford stands as the mark of our language.) I cannot of course provide all my evidence for Bacon in this short space so I confine myself to the following point. It is not certain that the King's Men owned these 18 plays.

William Shakespeare was an actor and sharer in the King's Men. In other words, he did own the plays but he owned them jointly with about 12 or so other actors (including Heminges and Condell). That's how all playing companies worked at the time: for a good book about this, check out The Shakespearean Stage by Andrew Gurr. He thus made plenty of cash out of the plays: after every performance, the sharers split the profits, so Shakespeare the businessman was no doubt very pleased with himself. When he died, they would have remained in the company's property. There's no mystery about any of this. As for Jonson, I dare say it's possible that Jonson edited the plays for the Folio (although Riggs' viewpoint would be contested by most bibliographers who find the Folio texts a mixed bag of very different provenances - does Riggs really mean all the plays or just a few?). Since Jonson himself professed friendship with Shakespeare this seems a simple reason why Heminges and Condell would have asked him to help assemble the Folio. And as for the Bacon quote - was Bacon averse to swiping the occasional good line from a fellow writer? The Singing Badger 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. If you reread this you'll see that this is Jonson's quote not Bacon's. How do you know that these plays were submitted to the King's Men? For a moderator you do not come across as impartial! You're not a friend of Kathman's are you?

I apologise for misreading! But Jonson repeating himself is even less remarkable. And I'm not a moderator, there are no moderators. You and I are equal. The Singing Badger 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Regarding the "apples and oranges" piece in the Shakespeare's will section. One of the issues is whether or not Shakspere, assuming these 18 plays were in his sole possession, would want his family to profit from them by leaving them in his will. Another motive could have been to engrave his name in history (possibly Bacon's motive). Yes, libraries (in particular Sir Thomas Bodley) sneered at poetry but quartos were being published and profit being made.

The dates do not tie in with Ravenscoft's source being contemporary so it's doubtful that he's reporting contemporary testimony. Interesting debate though. Very interesting. It's about time someone smart kicked this article into shape cos a while ago it was very Stratfordian POV. By the way, I work at the Bodleian library (mention of Sir Thomas Bodley). Signed, Bodleyman.

I agree with you Bodleyman, fresh perspectives are always helpful and this is very interesting.:) The Singing Badger 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How do we know the 18 unpublished plays were submitted to the King's Men? Well, in 1611 Simon Forman recorded seeing Macbeth, The Winter's Tale, and Cymbeline at the Globe (which was where the King's Men performed). That's 3 of them. In 1613, the Globe burned down during a performance of Henry VIII. That's another. Measure for Measure was performed at Whitehall by "his majesties players" (i.e. the King's Men) according to the Revels Accounts. That's five. Richard Burbage, chief tragedian of the King's Men is recorded to have performed the role of the "grieved Moor" - if that's Othello, we have a sixth. That still leaves 12 of the plays whose performance venue cannot be proven absolutely, but we can see a pretty obvious pattern here, especially if we add in all the other published plays that were written for the Chamberlain's or King's Men. Furthermore, Shakespeare was the chief dramatist of the King's Men: such dramatists usually wrote for only one company (see G.E. Bentley, The Profession of Dramatist, p. 120 for evidence). Of course all of this assumes that Shakespeare was the author. Presumably QBrute is concerned that this is a biased assumption. But think of it this way:

1. . If Shakespeare was not the true author, we would not expect to find plays in his will.
2. . If Shakespeare was the true author, we would still not expect to find them in his will (because they would have been owned by the company)
3. . Their absence thus proves nothing either way.

The Singing Badger 16:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I'm sorry but I had to laugh when I saw the wholesale changes made to the page! It's like suggesting to a small boy that he smashed a window and, angry at being found out, he smashes another right in front of you, confirming what you thought all along! I have one suggestion. If Paul B. and The Singing Badger are going to use this article to propagate David Kathman's views it should be renamed "David Kathman's authorship theory" and not retain a title that misleads visitors into thinking that it represents all views and that the evidence has been carefully argued and checked.

Wow. That's a remarkable response. Rather depressing too, since I had actually replaced some passages written by you that someone else had deleted. I thought some of the stuff you added was useful and was trying to incorporate it better. Now my faith in human nature has been trodden into the mud. Anyway, I suggest that anyone reading this thread draw their own conclusions about the behaviour of the participants. The Singing Badger 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. ... and you change one comma on this page and I'll change it all back again! Good game!

Mr Qbrute, I owe you a huge apology. I was studying an older version of the article to compare it with your changes, and I must have inadvertently saved the old version instead of the current version. Since we appear to be on very bad terms by this point, I suspect you will not believe this. If you study the edit log, you will see, however, that I was indeed trying to feed in your material which I thought someone else had deleted. I think this demonstrates my sincerity. Once again, I apologise profusely for angering you with my stupid mistake. The Singing Badger 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. OK, you changed it all back. So I forgive you! Big hug! Let's continue working together to improve this article. Despite appearances, I respect the points you bring up because they help me clarify my own ideas. At least, you're willing to debate them which is refreshing.

An olive branch. My thoughts exactly. The Singing Badger 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I read your piece on the 18 plays. The point as I see it is this: Are there any plays at all that were unperformed and unpublished? There only needs to be one. So how about Coriolanus or Timon of Athens? So would we expect the King's Men to automatically own this or would Shakspere have retained it? Assuming Shakspere wrote only for the King's Men there is a difference between the individual and the company which curiously in law is treated as a separate individual. (I was once part owner of a company to produce short films. I wrote many scripts some of which we made and so became owned by the company. The rest still exist on my computer and were never seen by anyone. Would the company own them if I died tomorrow? No way! They're mine! I owned shares - actually worth pigsh*t - in the company but the company had no rights over my personal property.) This is not my only problem with his will. Take a look at Bacon's will in Spedding, James, (Ed.), Life and Letters [of Bacon], Vol. 7, (1872) p.230. He wrote it himself. He didn't need to go to the expense of employing a lawyer. With the wealth of legal phrases in Shakespeare I don't get why Shakspere didn't write his will himself. It's evidently a standard will written by a lawyer and I expect it to indicate in some way that he was a writer but it doesn't. As for Jonson repeating himself ... he's describing Bacon as "the mark [point to be aimed at] of our language" in the context of "filling up the numbers" (writing verse) - Bacon not Shakspere of Stratford even though Jonson worked on the FF! Not only that, but he's using a figure "performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughtie Rome" which he uses in Shakespeare's First Folio in referring to the drama of the Greek and Roman civilisations. That surprised me when I first encountered it and it's one reason why I think his FF tributes are not to be taken at face value. My view is that if Bacon wrote Shakespeare then Jonson knew and was paid by him to organise the FF and keep quiet - he was later employed by Bacon in translating Bacon's Essays into latin. (Note also that the FF appeared at a time - 1623 - when Bacon was putting together his publications for posterity: he lost office in 1621, then we get History of the Reign of Henry VII, 1622; his masterwork De Augmentis Scientiarium, 1623; a treatise on war with Spain, 1624; followed by his latin version of the Essays, 1625; and he died in 1626. The FF appeared in this productive period. Why not in 1616 after Shakspere died or maybe just before?) I'd love to believe that Shakspere wrote the plays because it would save me a lot of work and there are other things I could do. The trouble is, the more I learn and think about the issue the odder it seems!

Unperformed plays. It's not easy to say what was performed and what wasn't. Performance records from the period are fragmentary. Yes, there are records of performances at court, and the printed quartos usually say something like 'as it has been diverse times performed at the Globe'. And sometimes we even get diary records like Simon Forman's or John Manningham's. But if we want a day-by-day account of what was on stage at the Globe, it doesn't exist: any such records were lost centuries ago. So, you're right that there's no record of Coriolanus or Timon being performed. But that doesn't mean they weren't. The question of who owned an unperformed play is therefore entirely hypothetical and I don't think it's possible to know the answer (although do try ploughing through Bentley's The Profession of Dramatist, there may be something about it in there). My assumption is that if WS wrote a play, he submitted it to the King's Men for performance. Did they reject any of them? We don't know. What happened to the playtext if they did? We don't know. The Singing Badger 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Will. There could be many reasons why he got a lawyer to write it. For example, he could have been dying: he hadn't written any poetry or drama for three years despite being only 52 years old, so he may well have been incapacitated. Without a time machine there are things we simply can't know, and I don't think it's fair to leap to conclusions.The Singing Badger 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bacon: I think what you're saying is this: (1) Jonson praised Shakespeare in the FF (2) Jonson used the same phrase in a later work when praising Bacon (3) Jonson regarded Bacon as the greatest of writers, and didn't say the same thing about Shakespeare. I can accept all this. I can't see why it's evidence that Jonson thought Bacon was Shakespeare. Jonson was bound to think Bacon a better writer than Shakespeare. Jonson was a classicist: he believed in the importance of classical learning, and in following the classical rules. Shakespeare didn't: his plays break all the Aristotelean rules that Jonson thought so important. It stands to reason that Jonson would admire a writer like Bacon more than a lasseiz-faire dramatist like Shakespeare. But thinking Shakespeare a lesser writer is not the same as thinking he didn't write the plays. Whenever Jonson criticized Shakespeare, he criticized the plays themselves, not the man. So why would Jonson hold his idol Bacon responsible for creating inferior plays? The Singing Badger 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I think we have a very different perception of what is probable based on how other humans would behave under similar circumstances. Do you really believe that a writer submits everything he has written? Talk to some writers and find out. Bacon felt he was dying when he wrote his first will, in fact he was bedridden, but it didn't deter him. Take a survey of people who have written wills. What percentage are too far gone to write a page of text when they sign it? Jonson is talking about Bacon writing verses and about the drama of Greece and Rome when Bacon has not explicitly published anything like this. So why is Jonson talking about it then and, in relation to verse writing, calling Bacon the mark of our language while borrowing a phrase from the FF? Doesn't this seem even 1% odd to you? What can I say? Get hold of a copy of Nigel Cockburn's book The Bacon Shakespeare Question or my colleague Barry Clarke's The Shakespeare Puzzle and take a look at the other historical evidence. These are both serious and up-to-date investigations into the case for Bacon. Then if you still think Shakspere did it ... fine! At least you checked out an alternative and reinforced your views. I don't know what else to suggest ... One thing that I am clear about. This article is written by democracy and I can argue points and present evidence until my teeth fall out but the democratic view is that Shakspere did it and inevitably that's the message this article will tend towards ... and that's why my section on Greene, Jonson and Marston (with citations) from the Overview has now gone ...

It hasn't gone, I just moved it to a section called 'Comments by contemporaries'. It would be great if you could fill this section out some more, the sentence about cryptic comments in the Folio remains ... cryptic. I moved them because I don't think specific arguments belong in an overview: in the overview I just introduced the basic principles about Shakespeare of Stratford, then introduced the four basic sources of anti-Stratters evidence. Specific evidence then comes further down. The Singing Badger 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Just seen it. Looks like you've done a good job with your reorganising. I recommend delaying reading what I write (I don't know how that's possible!) because I tend to save my immediate response then go back again and again rewriting it until I'm happy with it.

No time for a lengthy response yet, but a quick request: do you have more accessible sources? The Clarke and Cockburn books you've been citing are not widely available, especially for non-Brits, so verification of the claims is difficult. I realize one author is your colleague, so let me stress that no disrespect is meant, but it is a problem. Baconian theory has a long history: is it possible to cite better-known books that might appear in libraries worldwide? The Singing Badger 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare's will: It is not true that a man who could sign his name could be too ill to write his will. A close acquaintance of mine suffered a crippling stroke: he could talk (very slowly) and if given a pen could sign his name (slowly), but writing down his last will and testament by hand would have been far beyond him by that point. I have no idea whether Shakespeare might have suffered something similar but it's entirely possible. Regarding the lack of manuscripts mentioned in it, a good correlative is to read the wills of other playwrights. There are at least ten reprinted in Playhouse Wills, ed. Brock & Honigmann. None of these playwrights mentions manuscripts in their wills either. Shakespeare is entirely normal in this regard. There is no mystery. The Singing Badger 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Oh dear ... I'll repeat what I said earlier. We have a different perception of what is to be expected (probable) based on how other humans would behave under similar circumstances. And don't you mean 'could not be too ill to write his will'? The point is not whether a circumstance is possible but whether it is probable. 21:34 2 September 2006

Jonson and Bacon: You write: Jonson is talking about Bacon writing verses and about the drama of Greece and Rome when Bacon has not explicitly published anything like this. So why is Jonson talking about it then and, in relation to verse writing, calling Bacon the mark of our language while borrowing a phrase from the FF? I say this is a misreading of the relevant passage. Let's read what Jonson actually says, in context:

• Jonson is talking about English Ciceros, that is, eloquent men. Jonson says "We have had many" English Ciceros. He goes on to list them, including Thomas More, Thomas Wyatt, Surrey, Philip Sidney, etc. So far, it looks like a list of poets, but Jonson is actually referring to all types of written eloquence, not just poetry: we can see this when he says "Sir Philip Sidney and Mr. Hooker (in different matter) grew great masters of wit and language" - Sidney was a politician and poet, but Hooker was a theologian, not a poet. Jonson goes on to list several politicians, like the Earl of Essex, who weren't poets (of them, only Raleigh is vaguely associated with poetry). To summarize: he's listing political and religious figures who write well, not just poets and certainly not dramatists.
• Next, Jonson admires "Lord Egerton, the Chancellor, a grave and great orator, and best when he was provoked". Again, he admires Egerton not for poetry, but for oratory, that is, for writing speeches.
• Now we come to the bit you quoted: Jonson says "his learned and able (though unfortunate) successor [i.e. Bacon] is he who hath filled up all numbers, and performed that in our tongue which may be compared or preferred either to insolent Greece or haughty Rome."
  • Now, as far as I can tell, "hath filled up all numbers" is interpreted by you (and other Baconians) as meaning 'has written poetry'. Certainly, 'numbers' can mean poetry. But it can also mean simply 'numbers'!. If so, Jonson is saying that Bacon is so great he has swelled the number of Ciceros enormously: to paraphrase clumsily: 'Bacon has filled up all the available slots in the English Cicero list'. If so, this fits perfectly with the next sentence, in which Jonson says "In short, within his [Bacon's] view, and about his times, were all the wits born that could honour a language or help study. Now things daily fall, wits grow downward, and eloquence grows backward; so that he may be named and stand as the mark and ακμη [acme] of our language." In other words, Bacon has 'filled up the numbers' of Ciceros, and we can expect no more in the future.
  • Presumably you find the word 'performed' important. But this is not a reference to drama. Even if Bacon did write plays, no-one thinks he performed in them, do they? It's obviously referring to the oratory already mentioned in reference to Bacon's predecessor, Egerton. Jonson is admiring Bacon's great rhetorical speeches, in other words. Exactly what he's famous for.
  • So, the lines 'ancient Greece and haughty Rome' do not refer to drama in this context. They refer to writing in general, and probably rhetoric specifically.
• To summarize: in a list of eloquent politicians, Jonson finds Bacon the best. Certainly, the comparison is apt: Bacon was an English Cicero - a rhetorician and prose writer of genius. But Shakespeare's works don't belong in this list - the name 'Shakespeare' referred to a writer of drama and poetry, not political speeches. Given all the above, I find Jonson's self-plagiarism uninteresting in this context. Writers often do it. Read all of Oscar Wilde: he was a genius but he repeated himself constantly. It doesn't mean there's a secret message. The Singing Badger 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Ok, so you posit an obscure interpretation of 'numbers' as being the most likely explanation and you extenuate the fact that Jonson used the 'ancient Greece haughtie Rome' in the First Folio. I also notice that in your article change on the degree of secrecy of the Strachey letter, you completely ignore the position of the share holders on the council who stand to lose if details of the murder and insurrection on the colony get out. Read what is in the letter! I reiterate yet again that I think you have a biased perception of what is probable and I think that you are more interested in being seen to be right that in seeing what is right. So how does this work? Last man standing has proved his candidate did it?! 22:44 2 September 2006

Think logically, the common sailors on the ship that brought the letter would have seen the state of affairs in Jamestown with their own eyes and news of the insurrection would have been common knowledge in London within hours of those guys hitting the taverns. The Virginia Company's shares plummeted after 1610 because everyone in London knew the colony was a disaster. The 'secret' of the insurrection could not have been kept.

Anyway, I no longer have time for this conversation and I think both of us should concentrate more on the article than on the talk page, so thank you for the interesting thoughts. The Singing Badger 14:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Overview

QBrute. I changed the Overview. Sorry, but that really was full of hidden assumptions. The Lord Chamberlaine's Men was NOT the only company to perform Shakespeare plays. Read the Gesta Grayorum. The Comedy of Errors was performed at Gray's Inn in 1594 and Shakespeare's company was not there (see also citations in Bacon section). Contrary to the implication in the Overview, anti-Stratfordians do NOT accept that the Stratford man was the actor-playwright. Also the anti-Stratfordian objections were under-represented: there are doubts about certain plays and doubts expressed by certain contemporaries. The issue is NOT whether he was incapable of writing the plays because with so few facts about him, that cannot be proved (except in the sense that another candidate accounts better for the evidence). It is whether sufficient doubt exists to merit the consideration of another candidate. The Stratford monument originally portrayed a woolsack not a pen for Shakspere - Stratford council later changed it. I haven't altered the piece on this but I think it's economical with the truth (unintentionally).

Fair enough re: companies although I changed it to 'most' of the plays and will look into this more. Yes, I am aware of the monument issue, which is why I worded it thus: the monument was recognized as a tribute to a poet called Shakespeare as far back as 1631, due to the the inscription on it (comparing WS to Virgil and saying his writing leaves "living art"). I know there is a theory that the monument was been changed over time, but it's a myth; since you're allergic to David Kathman, you'll have to look at the Review of English Studies (1997) article by Diana Price which debunks it (and Price is an anti-Stratfordian!) - this online article summarizes Price but misses some of the key points so don't rely on it too much. Sure, this interesting debate should be in the article somewhere, but as you can see, it's too digressive to belong in the overview and is actually irrelevant to the central point that the words on the monument call Shakespeare a writer and were recognized as such from the early days.The Singing Badger 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that there's a fascinating piece in the August 18 TLS providing further evidence for refurbishment of the monument. Suggests a pre-existing monument to John Shakespeare may have been remodelled in the 1620s to refer to his son instead. Still doesn't support anti-Stratfordianism, just suggests WS's colleagues were cheapskates (and still idealises Dugdale too much IMHO) but worth a read. The Singing Badger 15:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. I've never really considered the Stratford monument as any kind of evidence. It represents the opinion of the Stratford council which to me carries no greater weight than that of Stratford's local milkman (if they had one).

I read the overview and picked out some grammatical errors. Changed them. Hope that's OK. Bodleyman

Hey Qbrute, I looked your name up on the internet? Is this you? [15] Bodleyman

QBrute. Hi Bodleyman. I am different things to different people. To Alabamaboy (who is quick to make assumptions about me) I am the devil, to my Oxford students I am God, to the readers of my books I am an enigma ...

Academic attitudes

QBrute. (To The Singing Badger, the Birmingham-Canadian astronomer!) While this discussion has been profitable in improving the article I don't feel like I have succeeded in awakening your curiosity to check out the Bacon theory one bit. I think that's a pity because one cannot be seeing the complete picture by focussing, like academics do, only on Shakspere. I started like everyone else by accepting the Shakspere claim, then started to investigate Marlowe, then Bacon. As for the Oxfordian difficulty with the Earl's early death, I thought it murdered their claim in the cradle. I have no interest in the spiritualist/ciphers angle on Bacon, only in his philosophical ideas and its relation to the Shakespeare work. After that, if Bacon left his name in the work well that's interesting. I once spent a whole weekend exchanging messages with Professor David Kastan, General Editor of the Arden Shakespeare, trying to get him to check the facts relating to Bacon. I wanted him to know what I know. He wasn't interested. He was only interested in defending Shakspere. It was almost as if he felt I was attacking the basis of his well being. I thought that I had some very good counter arguments to his points but far from encouraging him to investigate further, it deepened his resolve to stand firm. In the end he excused himself from continuing the discussion accusing me of being entrenched. I thought that he didn't want to investigate an alternative candidate in case there was enough evidence to overturn the icon he had been championing all his academic career. And I have encountered this again and again with academics. However, it's also true of almost all Baconians, Marlovians and Oxfordians and to me it resembles religious zealotry rather than a scientific enquiry. As for me, if I found evidence for a better candidate than Bacon I'd switch again as I have done in the past. Immanuel Kant said that the process of change in a system of thought first demands the teachers to change. This results in a resistance to that change from the population they have been indoctrinating. If the teachers can overcome this obstacle, evolution will occur. I have no doubt it will. But not yet ...

Dude, people are busy. I'm busy. Poor David Scott Kastan must be unbelievably busy supervising the entire Arden Shakespeare project on top of his teaching load; you should be grateful he gave some of his spare time to a stranger. I'm interested in these theories, they help one learn more about the period even if one is unconvinced by them, but there's work, kids, washing up. I may look up your ideas shortly. I may not for many weeks. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all.The Singing Badger 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. Why should I be grateful to David Kastan for giving me his time? I think he should be grateful to me for giving him my time. Why? Because in his position of influence, he has a duty to posterity to find the truth of this matter, and I am offering unpaid assistance to that end. With regard to your earlier point about the Cockburn and Clarke books, the Clarke book can easily be found on the amazon site, the Cockburn book Contents (over 500 pages) is less assessible but nevertheless merits inclusion because of its rigor. (I cheerfully passed over the temptation to interpret this point as an attempt to supress the historical evidence contained therein.) By the way, I like your "If it be now ..." quote.

QBrute. Just located a free download page for Clarke's book which I added to Bacon books.

Comment on status of article

I recently received an e-mail from an academic colleague in Oxford, UK, to read through this article and check it for factual accuracy. As far as I can see, the present state of research into the authorship theory is accurately portrayed and most points have citations given. As stated elsewhere here, I think the case against Marlowe could be expanded but perhaps there is no space. barryispuzzled

Single quotes vs double quotes

Why does the article use both single quotes and double quotes? Is there a pattern to the usage?

Not that I'm aware of. If it bothers you, please make them consistent. The Singing Badger 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Double standards

QBrute. I think it is a good idea to apply the Strachey letter to all authorship candidates. We're in agreement on that one. However, I notice that in the Overview we have "The position of conventional scholarship is that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and was entirely capable of doing so" without any mention of dissension by scholars. However, in the Strachey letter section, when there is an example of a point unfavourable to the Stratfordian position, an example of an objector is given even though it's stated "Most [scholars] regard it as a clear source for The Tempest". Why the need to argue with that statement? This is clear bias and double standards. If one intends to rely on scholarly authority be consistent!

But the overview is an overview: it doesn't mention anybody by name, Strafordian or anti, because it's a generalized summary. In the Strachey section I mentioned Lindley because he's written 2 books on The Tempest and his dissension is thus notable. It would be great if there were a lot more specific citations to scholars mentioned by name, IMO. It would be even better to describe their reasoning in detail. All this takes time. The Singing Badger 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. How about for the Overview 'The position of conventional scholarship is that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and was entirely capable of doing so, although some scholars disagree.' No, I'm not serious. I don't actually care what scholars think, I want to examine the evidence for myself. Ideally, it would be good to give a list of supposed correspondences between The Tempest and the Strachey letter and let the reader decide. It's much better than you and I trying to defend our positions in the article itself ... Is there space in the article? I doubt it. Could the reader be sent to a website page? Maybe ...

Ha! Funnily enough, there is a website that sets out the Strachey parallels in full [16], but you deleted it from the article [17], perhaps because it was written by the prince of darkness himself, David Kathman. Could you stomach sending your readers there ... ? Or will you send them to a site that sets out the same parallels but is written by a Baconian? Tut tut tut, these double standards... The Singing Badger 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

QBrute. First, I agree that 'unperformed' is speculative. The irony of your above comment doesn't quite work because I felt that David Kathman had been over-enthusiastic about his perceived consequences of the Strachey letter, although he deserves credit for his research. As I have already underlined, the main aim of the Virginia Company was to attract new investors and encourage new people to get on a ship and colonise the place. Would the company really have authorised circulation of an uncensored internal document that pointed out the trouble in the colony? The answer to that might not be found on any document but knowledge is not only about documents, it is also about an assessment of the probability based on precedent or even antecedent (and that's how a court case works). So I feel that the charge of 'double standards' is unjustified. To me, it's not about being Baconian or Stratfordian it's about a balanced interpretation. In fact, I would welcome a webpage that simply sets out the parallels without attempting to interpret the consequences. 14:34 4 September 2006

The Shakespeare Puzzle not reliable

This comment is about QBrute's use of The Shakespeare Puzzle by Barry Clarke. QBrute has been using this book to make his arguements about changes to this article and others. While QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes, The Shakespeare Puzzle is not considered a reliable source based on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, specifically the self-published sources section. In short, this book was self published by the author at Lulu.com and as a result "has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking (and) no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The only exception to this rule is for "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" but since Clarke's field of expertise is puzzles, this exception doesn't count.

As said before, QBrute is free to seek consensus on these changes. Any use of this book, though, should not be permitted. In addition, QBrute, I don't think you are the devil. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppets

Unfortunately, it also appears QBrute has been using sock puppets in this discussion and Baconian theory. In short, the evidence suggests that QBrute is also User:Barryispuzzled, who is Barryispuzzled admits on his user page, Barry Clarke, author of The Shakespeare Puzzle. The use of sock puppets to try and influence discussions and edits around articles is not permitted. User:Barryispuzzled is free to try and seek consensus on these proposed changes but he can not promote his own book in so doing. In addition, he should stop using sock puppets to seek these changes. Until this use of sock puppets is stopped, I am supporting User:The Singing Badger on these proposed edits. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, juast for the record I'm not opposed to all of QBrute's edits and he has been doing some useful work, so it's not a question of 'me against him'! He has been using some 'proper' sources alongside his reliance on The Shakespeare Puzzle. But if he has been trying to promote his own book, his edits should be evaluated carefully with that in mind. The Singing Badger 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. I too noticed that User:Barryispuzzled has made some good edits and I really like the Baconian theory article he created. That said, the use of sock puppets is not permitted and he can't promote his book here or use it as a source. Still, User:Barryispuzzled obviously knows a lot about this subject and I welcome him to edit here. Just don't break Wikipedia guidelines while doing so.--Alabamaboy 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(Shaking head in disbelief) Look, all I care about is the quality of these articles as the Talk section will attest to. I'm not interested in other people trying to get me involved in their personal issues by a projection onto me of bad intent. The Baconian theory article is constructed from my book and the quality of the arguments throughout the book is consistent with the Baconian article. What do you want me to do, write out the whole book here with its citations? Really? So why not let people have the gift of being able to check all the facts themselves in a free download? Do you really think that after years of researching this issue, giving a free download gives me some kind of personal reward? It's a shame the hard work of myself and The Singing Badger has now been brutalised by reverting the article to a lesser version ... how depressing for those of us who have put in so much genuine effort. Sure, you're right, rules are rules ... (Puzzle Master 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm leaving this article, it is not worthwhile for me to police it. I don't like the moderator Alabamaboy's negative attitude to me and I don't like the fact that one can spend a week discussing and improving this through the Talk section and then some other guy who doesn't even bother reading the Talk gratuitously changes it to an inferior state (and there are several people doing this, including the moderator). If people want to continue regurgitating uncritical views from textbooks then who am I to spoil their fun. As others commented before I arrived, this article was very biased. Well, now it can revert to that state. I'm outta here. (Puzzle Master 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

It is a shame you feel that way. With regards to the free download, that is a self-promotional link as defined by Wikipedia and not allowed. As for people making changes to the article, that is how Wikipedia works. You must gain consensus for any edits you make. With noncontroversial edits, consensus usually results automatically b/c no one changes your edits. With controversial edits, you need to discuss the changes on the talk page and work toward consensus. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments by contemporaries

I tried to make this section clearer by drawing the relevant quotations out of the footnotes and into the text. However, I must confess I found it hard to understand the anti-Stratfordian interpretations of these lines; I've tried to explain them, but they seem (to me) astoundingly tenuous (in particular the Jonson and Marston ones). I think we need a properly published source to prove that these really are common anti-Stratfordian arguments. If, in contrast, these interpretations can be found only in Barry Clarke's self-published book, I'm afraid they would have to be deleted. The Singing Badger 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A present to The Singing Badger. Now that you have the full argument in your possession (see below) I should like to see your proof that it only appears in my book (it doesn't) before you delete it from the article. I cannot help you with sources here because I've abandoned editing this article. I can understand your urge to delete a confused anti-Stratfordian argument but I cannot imagine that you would want to delete a perfectly well-argued one (complete with historical references) - unless you are trying any possible trick to represent your man in a better light ... but I know you better than that! :) By the way, I admire the work you've been doing here. Are you a published scholar? I'd love to know what books or articles you have had published (on anything at all). (Puzzle Master 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

GREENE ARGUMENT. The first reference to Shakespeare the actor appears in an autobiographical pamphlet from 1592. When the Cambridge-educated dramatist Robert Greene died on 3 September 1592 at the age of 32, his friend and fellow playwright Henry Chettle edited together some of his papers. Seventeen days later, they were published under the title A Groats-worth of Witte. One article, addressed to three unidentified playwrights, was entitled “To those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plaies, R.G. wishest a better exercise, and wisdome to prevent his extremities.” The first, “thou famous gracer of Tragedians” and follower of a “Machivilian … Diabolicall Atheisme” was almost certainly Christopher Marlowe; the second, “yong Juvenal, that byting Satyrist” was most likely the leading satirist of the time, Thomas Nashe; and the third, “sweete St. George” could easily have been George Peele. After admonitions to the three, they are served with a warning to beware of a particular player:

"Base-minded men all three of you, if by my miserie you be not warn’d: for unto none of you (like mee) sought those burres to cleave: those Puppets (I meane) that spake from our mouths, those Anticks garnisht in our colours. … Yes, trust them not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers(a), that with his Tyger’s hart wrapped in a Player’s(b) hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and beeing an absolute Iohannes factotum(c), is in his owne conceit the only Shake-scene in a countrey. O that I might entreat your rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses: & let these Apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired inventions." Key : (a) see below, (b) actor’s, (c) Jack-of-all-trades

Apart from the “Shake-scene” wordplay, the fact that identifies Shake-speare the author is the “Tyger’s hart wrapped in a Player’s hyde” which is derived from a speech by the Duke of Yorke in Henry VI, Part 3, which Shakespeare in his “Player’s hyde” appears to have claimed to have written. Queen Margaret has murdered the Duke of York’s young son Rutland, and soaking a handkerchief in his blood, offers it to the Duke for consolation. Some time later, the Duke of York is captured by the Queen and as he faces his execution he confronts her inhumanity:

Yorke. … Oh Tygres Heart, wrapt in a Woman’s Hide,

How could’st though drayne the Life-blood of the Child,

To bid the Father wipe his eyes withall,

And yet be seene to beare a Woman’s face?

(1590-2 Henry VI, Part 3, Act 1, Scene 4)

The “Tyger’s hart” casts Shakespeare as ruthless and predatory and the charge that he “supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you [three dramatists]” is evidently referring to his claim to authorship. Greene had previously used the crow and feathers metaphor in the dedication to his Myrrour of Modestie (1584) “But your honour may thinke I play like Ezops Crowe, which dekt hir selfe with others feathers, or like the proud Poet Batyllus, which subscribed his name to Virgils verses, and yet presented them to Augustus.” This fable of Aesop’s, The Crow, the Eagle, and the Feathers is directed “… against people who boast that they have something they do not.” The recommendation that dramatists should “never more acquaint them [the players] with your inventions,” makes it clear that the accusation is one of plagiarism. An Elizabethan actor usually worked from a prompt script consisting of pages cut and pasted together into a scroll. This gave his own lines and the cues that preceded them. So it was unusual for an actor to possess a complete script (“invention”) and the complaint appears to be that Shakespeare not only had access to them but was asserting his authorship of them. There was some doubt at the time as to whether Greene actually composed this piece. The dramatist Henry Chettle was accused of hiding behind the deceased Greene’s name to propagate his own views, especially since the publisher William Wright had entered it in the Stationers Register “upon the peril of Henrye Chettle,” thereby awarding Chettle full responsibility. Chettle subsequently published Kind Hart’s Dream [registered 8 December 1592] in which he reveals that: "About these three months since died M. Robert Greene ... his Groatsworth of Wit, in which a letter written to diverse play-makers, is offensively by one or two of them taken …" We note that Chettle says that the letter was written to the ones who took offence not about. This means that he is referring to any two of Marlowe, Nashe, and probably Peele. He continues: "With neither of them that took offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I never be ..." This sounds like the diabolical atheist Marlowe. Our problem is, who was the other one? Chettle informs us that: "... myself have seen his demeanor no less civil than he excellent in the quality he professes: besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art …" In the hope of neutralizing the Groatsworth attack, some have claimed that this apology was intended for Shakespeare but there is nothing here that suggests that it is him. In fact, it is much more likely to have been Thomas Nashe because there is good evidence that he had already taken offence to the Groatsworth before Chettle’s apology was published. In the second edition of Pierce Penilesse His Supplication to the Devil [registered 8 August 1592; 1st edition published 8 September 1592; 2nd edition almost immediately after] Nashe had identified the Groatsworth to be a “scald lying trivial pamphlet ... given out to be my doing”. That Nashe was suspected is confirmed by Chettle’s claim that the misdeed was “not mine nor Maister Nashes”. Aside from being accused of authoring an offensive pamphlet, Nashe’s anger seems also to have arisen from his friend Greene's name being tainted “with pamphleting on him after his death”. (Puzzle Master 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, as I said, I understood that one. It's the Jonson and Marston ones that confuse me. The Singing Badger 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

JONSON ARGUMENT. The following note was discovered amongst Ben Jonson’s papers after he died in 1637. It was published in Timber: or Discoveries, made upon men and matter (1641) and represents a clear expression of Jonson’s perception of the relationship between Shakespeare and Shake-speare: "I remember, the Players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing, (whatsoever he penn’d) hee never blotted out line. My answer hath beene, ‘Would he had blotted a thousand,’ which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most faulted." Our first observation is that “in his writing” is qualified by “whatsoever he penned” as if Jonson is counselling caution as to what should be attributed to the actor. We then have “Would he have blotted a thousand” which is clearly identified as a “malevolent speech.” This appears to mean that whatever Shakespeare wrote was so poor that Jonson felt it deserved to be blotted out. Jonson evidently felt that the actor’s writing (if it existed) was unworthy of commendation. He continues with a comment on Shakespeare’s spontaneity: "… wherein he flow’d with that faculty, that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopp’d: Sufflaminandus erata; as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his owne power; would the rule of it had beene so too. Many times he fell into those things could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him ‘Caesar, thou dost me wrong.’ He replied, ‘Caesar never did wrong but with just cause’: and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." Key : (a) he had to be repressed This is a telling reference to the Roman orator Haterius who had a reputation for confusing his words. With “would the rule of it had beene so too,” Jonson does not confirm the level of intelligence one might expect from the author of the Shake-speare work. Julius Caesar was first printed in the First Folio (1623) where the following appears at the end of a 14-line speech by Caesar:

Caesar. … Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause

Will he be satisfied

(1599 Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1)

The two most likely interpretations of Jonson’s comments are as follows: (a) The line that he heard the actor recite was from an earlier version of Julius Caesar (which does not survive), Shakespeare correctly recalled it, so Jonson was instead criticising the writing. Since the actor was the object of the ridicule, Jonson was then attributing the writing to him. Caesar’s speech must have been modified later for the First Folio. (b) There was no earlier version of Caesar’s speech and it originally existed as given in the First Folio. The actor had incorrectly recalled the line and replaced it with an ill-considered version. Jonson was therefore ridiculing the recollection not the writing.

Fortunately, there is some evidence to allow us to decide between these alternatives. In 1625, Ben Jonson’s comedy The Staple of News was acted by “His Majesty’s Servants” containing the line that had made Shakespeare such an object of ridicule for Jonson. The Induction (or Prologue) has the following exchange between Prologue and Madame Expectation:

Prologue : [We ask] That your Ladyship would expect no more than you understand.

Expectation : Sir, I can expect, enough.

Prologue : I fear, too much, Lady and teach others to do like.

Expectation : I can do that too, if I have cause.

Prologue : Cry you mercy, you never did wrong, but with just cause.

In consideration of case (a), it is reasonable to assume that Jonson would have been aware of the correction to the line in Julius Caesar, especially since there is evidence that he worked on Shake-speare’s First Folio and his two eulogies suggest some empathy for the writer at that time. Two years later The Staple of News appeared. It seems unlikely that Jonson would now continue to ridicule the deceased author because not only had the line now been corrected for the First Folio, but he had demonstrated his respect for him only two years earlier. This leaves us case (b), where the First Folio version of Julius Caesar was the original one and the actor incorrectly recalled a line that was not his. The implication is that Jonson perceived Shake-speare the author and Shakepeare the actor to be different people, for while one might forgive the real Shake-speare for forgetting one of his own lines, one would not expect him to give a “ridiculous” substitute in its place.

The use of Jonson's comment from Timber strikes me as inherently POV, since it elides the words that clearly indicate that Jonson is speaking of Shakespeare as an author: "He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature, had an excellent phantasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility, &c."Jlittlet 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I could use these words to describe my neighbour who fancies himself as a stand-up comedian. He hasn't published a single comma! (Puzzle Master 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

MARSTON ARGUMENT. The final years of the 16th century were punctuated by satirical comedy with rival dramatists attacking each others work. When the long poems Venus and Adonis (1593) and The Rape of Lucrece (1594) were published, their title pages carried a dedication to Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton. After much protestation of his unworthiness of such patronage, the author “William Shakespeare” leaves his name. In the third satire of John Marston's Scourge of Villanie (1598), Marston the satirist refers to Shake-speare’s The Rape of Lucrece and in identifying himself with the Roman satirist “gloomie Juvenal” and his disastrous fortune, appears to be directing his protest at Shakespeare the actor:

"M. is clearly thinking of the tradition, deriving from the scholiast, about Juvenal: that he lampooned Paris, an actor, whom Domitian was in love with, and that the emperor in revenge appointed the satirist to a minor post in Egypt where he ended his days in miserable exile."

In stating that his “satyrick vain” would not be silenced, Marston must also have anticipated disastrous consequences for himself and, in fact, his satires were destroyed by the authorities less than a year later. The “nobilitie” can only be the Earl of Southampton to whom Lucrece is dedicated.

Shall broking pandars(a) sucke(b) nobilitie?

Soyling faire stems with foule impuritie?

Nay, shall a trencher slave(c) extenuate,(d)

Some Lucrece rape?(e) And straight magnificate(f)

Lewd Jovian Lust? Whilst my satyrick vaine

Shall muzzled be, not daring out to straine

His tearing paw?(g) No gloomy Juvenall,(h)

Though to thy fortunes I disastrous fall.

Key: (a) pimp or procurer, (b) attract, (c) player or villain, one who feeds off others, (d) make light of, (e) possible theft, also alluding to Shake-speare’s The Rape of Lucrece, (f) praise, (g) possible allusion to the Groatsworth “tyger”, (h) Roman satirist whose work Marston parodied In other words, could a “foule impuritie” such as Shakespeare the actor, who is characterized as a broker and procurer, have attracted the patronage of such fair noble blood as the Earl of Southampton? Lines 3 and 4 might also be claiming that Shakespeare the “trencher slave” has made light of his abduction of The Rape of Lucrece work.

A present to The Singing Badger! Now that you have the full arguments in your possession (see above) I should like to see your proof that they only appear in my book (they don't) before you delete them from the article. I cannot help you with sources here because I've abandoned editing this article. I can understand your urge to delete a confused anti-Stratfordian argument but I cannot imagine that you would want to delete a perfectly well-argued one (complete with historical references) - unless you are trying any possible trick to represent your man in a better light ... but I know you better than that! :) By the way, I admire the work you've been doing here. Are you a published scholar? I'd love to know what books or articles you have had published (on anything at all). Bye. (Puzzle Master 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Are you seriously asking me to hunt through every single anti-Stratfordian book in search of similar arguments?! If you got them from some other book you must be able to remember! Just tell us!! The Singing Badger 23:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To The Singing Badger. The Shakespeare Puzzle is (in my view) an extraordinary collection of historical evidence and arguments some of which have previous sources and some of which have never been seen before. Anyone above a certain level of intelligence can recognise the quality of this work. However, since all University Presses are committed to the Stratfordian view it is impossible to get them to look at it never mind assess it for publication and I think that is a pity (for scholarship). Do not imagine for one second that the book is a profit-making exercise. No one with a free download wants a hard copy and I am in debt from the copyright fees paid on the British Library images. My agenda is simple. I want other people to have this evidence and that is why the free download is available. I suspect that it is your agenda to delete all references to this work and deny people access to this evidence. You could cite Wikipedia's self-publishing guidelines as justification but I hold you responsible having elected yourself as the executioner. And you want me to help you with the article?! Are you serious?!(Puzzle Master 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)) The argument that the Shakespeare authorship problem is best approached by people with published work and academic titles in English literature is ridiculous. Any fool can look up historical facts in a library. However, this is a actually a scientific investigation, an archeological dig, a historical puzzle, demanding an ability to recognise connections between diverse facts, and I believe my credentials in science and puzzles are more appropriate than most who believe they have the authority to correct these articles. (Puzzle Master 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Please don't make this personal between you and the Singing Badger, whose comments above reflect the policies of wikipedia on this point, not some quirky individual view. I'm not doubting that your book is great: but then you did write it - I think my books are great, too. But please understand we cannot allow people to use wikipedia for promotion: we are one of the top 20 sites in the world, so everybody wants to get promotion here and we are fighting a constant rearguard action. Also, nobody is demanding that you help with this or any other article: contribution here at Wikipedia is entirely voluntary. All "we" are saying is that comments which aren't sourced in accordance with our poicy at WP:V are likely to be removed from the article. We are only suggesting that you source them if you want them to remain. Can I also just say that I'd be sorry if you left wikipedia. I've been very impressed by the recent work done by you and by Qbrute here and at Baconian theory, and there's no question that your involvement has made a positive improvement to the encyclopedia. I hope you stay. AndyJones 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And while I'm here, kudos to The Singing Badger for taking up the gauntlet on behalf of wikipedia, and doing such detailed work, with sensitivity to the new editors and existing editors, and to the pro- and anti- Stratfordian POVs. AndyJones 09:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this barnstar jointly to the recent editors of the Shakespeare Authorship page, especially Qbrute, Barryispuzzled aka Puzzle Master, The Singing Badger and Alabamaboy for their professional handling of the rewrite. AndyJones 09:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to AndyJones for such a kind gesture of the Barnstar. Of course, QBrute is Barryispuzzled aka Puzzle Master! As stated above, in general, I think The Singing Badger has done some great work on these articles and (as I have told him) I welcome his attempts to find counter arguments. Let's keep giving people the facts. (Puzzle Master 10:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

To do list

This article is getting better but it's far from perfect and I'm too busy to work on it. I have thus written a to-do list (see top of page). Feel free to edit it, and add to it. When Barry reads this list, he will think I'm getting at him. I'm not, I'm just enforcing policy. Much of his work can stay on the page if he is prepared to acknowledge the people who originated the ideas he has written about. The Singing Badger 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is tantamount to saying that irrespective of the coherence of an argument, the state controls all knowledge and that only those arguments approved by the state can contribute to it. This is where we differ. I want to know the truth and share it with others, whereas you have appointed yourself as judge and jury for the state. This has an additional pay-off because you can invoke state authority to oppose all opposition to your uncritical Stratfordian views. It must be great having so much power! (Puzzle Master 10:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Also, with respect to self-published work, I cite the Wikipedia guidelines ... "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." My name is in Wikipedia (well-known), I have written a regular column for The Daily Telegraph (professional journalist) and my work has been published by Dover, Cambridge University Press and Mensa (reliable third party sources). Notice that this does not state that the professional journalist need have work in a relevant (Shakespeare authorship) field. So I protest immunity your honour. (Puzzle Master 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

This argument not even close to convincing. Your book fails WP:V and its inclusion breaches WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. Nothing more to debate, here. AndyJones 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is AndyJones and Alabamaboy the same person? Would you like to explain your reasoning why it fails WP:V because obviously neither or us should rely on our own personal authority? (Puzzle Master 12:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC))