Recent Posts

jthou, I'm thinking she probably ran off, too. That would mean that the tracking dog got it wrong, but that's hardly impossible.

At what point are we allowed to speculate that she had mental health issues? There's the petty theft that led to her ouster at West Point. There's the credit card theft that she used for ordering pizza that got her in trouble at her new college. There's the manner in which she wrecked her father's car. There's the manner in which she wrecked her own car shortly thereafter. It all sounds like more than just a little rough patch.

I use the Pale Moon browser and the videos play okay after I allow certain java scripts to run. You might have to experiment with different browsers and settings. An ad blocker could be causing issues for you.

On the missing evidence...

This is something I've wondered about a lot, off and on, over the years. Why didn't anybody leave behind any unambiguous evidence about Oxford writing Shakespeare or suspecting the same? Anyone who doubts the conventional view must wander down the rocky path of possibility eventually. Some of the theories discussed by anti-stratfordians seem outlandish to me, and so I have focused here on some of the more plausible alternatives. Again, I do not think that a big nefarious wide-ranging conspiracy is necessary, but the full answer is very much in doubt.

I'd say that as a general rule, people may well reject a strong circumstantial case -- about anything -- if they also perceive there to be conspicuous absence of direct evidence. In other words, if there damn well should be a smoking gun, and absolutely no smoking gun can be found, then good luck trying to convince a jury. That seems to be the state of the authorship debate for over two centuries now, as well as a challenge for me with you, jackydee.

But there is also another important consideration for this aspect of the authorship debate. The orthodox camp has its own problem with missing evidence as we have already seen (Arguments #1 and #2). Standard biographies of Shakespeare simply do not provide good reasons for the state of the evidence. With such a imputed life as his, one should expect to find much in the written record that describes Shakespeare the man. Instead we have legal documents, property transfers, a last will and testament that is of no help, and some sparse commentary about Shakespeare the writer that could just as easily be about any person behind a pseudonym. Except for those brief seven words (discussed in Argument #2) that tie the artist to the dry records about the Stratford guy.

Here is an example of how conspicuous the absence of personal information can be. For the Christmas season of 1604 and 1605, King James I commissioned seven plays by Shakespeare to be performed at court. There were eight total performances as one was done twice. You might think that the author would be much celebrated and discussed. You might think he would have been there at the performances with is presence being recorded. You might think he would have provided verses lauding the new king as did other poets. Yet no such records have ever been found, despite the Stratford guy leaving other records of his activities. In 1604 he rented a room in London, sold malt to another businessman in Stratford, lent money and sued for money owed in Stratford. A William Shakespeare was also issued red cloth with other "players" to be worn during King James's procession.

For me this is a case of dueling sets of conspicuous absences. Something was going on that we can only guess about. So I do not personally require a full explanation to be persuaded.  


On Oxford as being a better POI...

Oxford is by far the most popular alternative claimant for authorship, with multiple societies, journals, newsletters, websites, and books focused on his case. No other alternative comes close his the level of attention. Other nobles of his era pass the preliminary criteria, but their claims are lacking beyond that. We might view Oxford as initially a young noble who initially dabbled in the arts like many of his peers, but he took it much farther than any other, and maintained extensive participation throughout his life.

I suspect that everyone here is already watching the multi-part documentary on the case on the Oxygen channel. In case you haven't, here's a link.

www.oxygen.com/the-disappearance-of-maura-murray

She left West Point because she was caught stealing from the Fort Knox gift shop. They let her make it look like she left on her own accord.

A Brief Case for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

The case for the Earl of Oxford as Shakespeare is quite detailed and extensive. If anyone is interested in learning more, my sources below will provide a good start for this unending topic. What I seek to do here is merely to highlight some of the strongest arguments and hopefully whet your curiosity.

Since this is a message board for an un-caught serial rapist and killer, it may be instructive to relate the quest for the true author with what we do here. So let's pretend that we've already rejected the orthodox attribution as a miscarriage of justice and that we're now looking for the true "offender". Very brief summaries of five evidence categories are presented below.

Oxford Passes the Preliminary POI Criteria

Like all high-ranking noblemen of the time, Oxford received extensive education. He had access to two of the largest libraries in all of England, those of his tutor Sir Thomas Smith and of his guardian and father-in-law, William Cecil. This provided him access to works thought to be key sources for multiple plays of Shakespeare.

Oxford's affiliation with the theater is well-documented. He was a patron of playwrights, employed two as secretaries (John Lyly and Anthony Munday), and maintained a company of actors. Poetry which appeared under his own name still survives, and he wrote other works as a literary patron, such as the prefaces to translations for The Courtier and Cardanus Comforte.

His lifespan (1550-1604) also corresponds well to the adjusted dating of the plays. (Refer to Argument #2.) The greatest output of plays in 1593-1604 corresponds to Oxford's fifth and sixth decades of life. Thus we have a pattern of a mature author writing mature plays such as Hamlet, Othello, and King Lear.

Oxford's Life Aligns with the Sonnets

It is true that we don't know for a fact if the sonnets are autobiographical or mere poetic exercises. Yet it is intriguing to find a nobleman whose life fits well with the internal story. The evidence strongly suggests Oxford was bisexual. He was married twice, fathered five legitimate children, and had at least one illegitimate child. He also was accused multiple times of sexual liaisons with other males (by Charles Arundell and Henry Howard after de Vere accused them of treason, and by Oxford Don Gabriel Harvey in written works.)

Oxford had a likely connection to Emilia Lanier, a strong candidate for the Dark Lady, through a sister in-law. He also had an almost-certain connection to Henry Wriothesley, the likely Fair Youth. Wriothesley was being urged to marry his (Oxford's) daughter in the early 1590's, corresponding to the suspected time of composition for the sonnets.

Just as importantly, there were Oxford's scandals. At 30 he was accused of everything under the sun by Arundell and Howard, including that bit about the horse. (This was during a formal trial with the accused men literally fighting for their lives. Special circumstances, if ever there were any.) A year later in 1581, he impregnated one of the Queen's maids of honor. For that he spent time in the tower and was banished from the court for two years, never fully regaining his former lofty courtier status.

During his life, Oxford lost most of his inherited lands and was ruined financially. In 1586 he started receiving a £1,000 annual annuity from the Queen. Going back to the 1590's again, Oxford was in his 40's and suffering from a series of disgraces. Henry Wriothesley was in his late teens to early twenties. See the two sonnet passage below for an illustration of the parallels.


Oxford's Preface to Cardanus Comforte

In 1542 the Italian polymath Gerolamo Cardano published his De Consolatione. Composed in Latin, the book is a series of philosophical meditations on dealing with disappointment. Some orthodox scholars believe it to have inspired Hamlet's soliloquy. In 1573 Thomas Bedingfield's English translation was published with the 23-year old Oxford serving as the sponsor. In his English prose preface, Oxford praises Bedingfield in terms that foreshadow Shakespeare addressing the Fair Youth. He "admonishes" Bedingfield for not wanting to publish his work and of thus hiding his literary virtue. This device is much like Shakespeare urging the Fair Youth to marry and procreate so as not to conceal his beauty from the world.

The preface is infused with figurative language, themes, and metaphors which parallel those used by Shakespeare. I have one quick example below, but you can check out my sources and links for many more. (See particularly Sobran's book and Hank Whittemore's blog.) I suppose I could also create a chart if anyone is interested, but that would probably be overkill for this forum.


Oxford's Bio Allows for a Hidden Writing Career

Whenever somebody comes along with a POI for the EAR-ONS, one of the first things I want to know is if the guy had the time to perform the crime spree. Presumed time availability is an often overlooked consideration, it seems to me, and we can apply the same type of thinking to the Shakespeare authorship mystery.

The recorded life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, does indeed present to us an apparent gap in activity. This gap was one of the criteria that led to his initial identification as a "POI" in the first place. We're talking about a period of apparent low activity, not a complete blank in the record. This corresponds to Oxford for roughly the last 15 years of his life. No more dedications or other literary works. No more travels abroad. No military participation. No other time-intensive activity.

So, yes, he appears to have had the time to produce the literary output of Shakespeare, including revisions and rewrites. (Think again of the Ur-plays from Argument #3.) This came after the early period of his life where he had established his talents. Thus we have a pattern of what looks likes gross underachievement, if he were not Shakespeare or otherwise not engaged in any under-the-radar activity.


Oxford's Life Circumstances Shed Light on the Authorship Mystery

Another criteria I look for in an EAR-ONS POI is an explanation for how the offender stayed hidden. How did he avoid getting caught? A particular profession, skill set, or other known set of talents that sheds light on our guy's effectiveness is a huge plus. On the flip side, it's a big red flag if the guy's characteristics makes us think he should have been caught early on.

Regarding Oxford as a possible Shakespeare, we have the scandals mentioned earlier. If Wriothesley was the Fair Youth of the Sonnets, then disclosure of the true author would have destroyed his political career as well. This adds to the motivations for keeping things under wraps.

Then there was Oxford's relationship to the Cecils. William Cecil was Oxford's guardian when he became a ward of the crown, then later became his father in-law. Robert Cecil was William's son and thus Oxford's brother in-law. Both served as secretaries of state and were top advisers to the crown. They also managed the crown's spy rings and had the ability to censor publishing. Robert Cecil had reasons to hate Oxford, including the mistreatment of his sister and the possible basing of the Machiavellian king in Richard III on his character. There is also the simple matter of being associated with the notorious Oxford through marriage. (Oxford's daughters were his nieces.) Anything that kept the gossip mill at bay was a plus. Please note that this is not what we typically think of as an wide-ranging conspiracy. This is a matter of powerful men pushing a few buttons, at a time when the information flow was already restricted.

I wrote earlier that it would have been relatively easy for a nobleman's family to preserve his hidden authorship. That works for the short term. For the long term, maybe we do need more explanations for the seemingly missing records. I don't like to go down that path, and I'm not one to look for big conspiracies. To satisfy me, you need to provide a plausible scenario. With Oxford, we have his family connections and his proximity to the center of power to consider. We have scenarios with discernible means and motivations, and the methods for concealment appear straightforward and achievable.

To bring us back to the EAR-ONS case again, let's consider the VIP Theories. I tend to avoid them, but I will keep an open mind under the right circumstances. First, show me an otherwise strong POI. Then demonstrate his association with powerful people (specific people you can name) and explain their motivations for hiding his guilt. Then provide plausible means for how a cover-up was carried out. Then convince me he hasn't been eliminated already. Then I will entertain a "conspiracy theory" even if it sounds a bit outlandish at first. But here's something else to keep in mind. Oxford came up as a candidate because his life seemed to fit, not because of a any search for a cover-up.


In Closing

Oxford has a lot going for him as an authorship POI, even though he wasn't the most likable or upstanding citizen. It may be a lot worse than that, judging by the character assessments made by certain orthodox scholars. Yet there's nothing that demands that the true author be unflawed. Given the myriad of reasons for thinking so, perhaps Joseph Sobran was right when he declared: "Oxford is as guilty as sin" of committing the Shakespeare canon.



Sources

Joseph Sobran, Alias Shakespeare (1997)

Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, politicworm (Shakespeare Authorship blog)

Nina Green, The Oxford-Authorship Site

Hank Whittemore, Shakepeare Blog, book: 100 Reasons Shake-speare was the Earl of Oxford (2017)

Charlton Ogburn, The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality (1992)

Richard F. Whalen, Shakespeare--Who Was He? (1994)

You can guess where my mind is going with this. Is the confusion caused by the ambiguity of the language? CODIS is the search software. The FBI's National DNA Index System (NDIS) is informally called CODIS. Most states have their own DNA Index System databases which are probably also referred to informally as CODIS.

I'd have to go back and find the source, but I thought it was accepted that the EAR-ONS profile was automatically run against the NDIS database every two years. (I think that's the cadence but I'm not sure.) If another criminal's profile is uploaded to the NDIS, then the answer should be yes, it will eventually be compared to our guy's profile.

On the other hand, if a criminal's profile is only uploaded to a particular state's database and not to the NDIS, then the answer would be: not necessarily.  It will depend on which state and other factors.