Shakespeare authorship thread.

[Any of N]

Argument #5: The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt

When an anti-stratfordian makes a claim and an orthodox scholar contradicts it, whom are you to believe? If you are not steeped in the history and arts of Elizabethan England, you might understandably lean in the direction of the mainstream. We all like to think that we're making fact-based decisions, but most of us have to rely on others to tell us what the facts are.

Given this reality, it's useful to know who else holds the position. A prominent, credible person on one side doesn't prove anything, but it may alert us to the possibility that a view is worth considering. Maybe, just maybe, the facts do indeed hold up. And so an anti-stradfordian by the name of John Shahan ran with this basic idea and created a website that lists many of the doubters of Shakespearean orthodoxy.

Go to this link to see the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt (here). Everyone who agrees with the declaration is invited to add their name to the roll. I have no affiliation myself, but the site helps me make a very basic point about "who believes this sort of thing."

Here are a few among the famous, past and present, with easily recognizable names.

Mark Twain Henry James Walt Whitman Ralph Waldo Emerson       Sir John Gielgud William James Lord Palmerston Harry A. Blackmun* Lewis F. Powell, Jr.*

Sir Derek Jacobi  Mark Rylance John Paul Stevens*

* Former Justice of the US Supreme Court

The website lists over 3,900 iconoclastic souls who have signed on, including 668 academics. The historical figures that they list, including the above in the left column, were selected based on known writings and other sources. You'll note especially the former Supreme Court Justices, the prominent writers, and the Shakespearean actors.

I encourage everyone who is intrigued to check out the site. All of the names are available for viewing. They also include a concise list of reasons for their reasonable doubt that go well beyond the few select arguments I am making here in this thread.
 
This particular argument, the one made here within this post, is indeed indirect. Nevertheless, I think it is as valuable as any set of specifics on either the Stratford guy or Edward de Vere. And speaking of de Vere, I will be making a concise case for him soon.


Source

The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition. "Home of the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare"  DoubtAboutWill.org

[Any of N]

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.

Sonnet II When forty winters shall besiege thy brow And dig deep trenches in thy beauty’s field, Thy youth’s proud livery, so gaz’d on now, Will be a tatter’d weed, of small worth held:           ...

Sonnet XXIX When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state, And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, And look upon myself, and curse my fate, ...

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.

From Oxford's preface to Cardanus Comforte ... Wherein I may seem to you to play the part of the cunning and expert mediciner or Physician, who, though his patient in the extremity of his burning Fever, is desirous of cold liquor or drink to qualify his sore thirst, or rather kill his languishing body, yet for the danger he doth evidently know by his science to ensue, denieth him the same. ...

From Sonnet CXLVII My love is as a fever, longing still For that which longer nurseth the disease, Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill, The uncertain sickly appetite to please. My reason, the physician to my love, Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, Hath left me, and I desperate now approve Desire is death, which physic did except. ...

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)

[Any of N]

jackydee , that completes the areas I wanted to cover: five reasons against William Shakespeare of Startford-upon-Avon and five reasons in favor of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford . I have some more thoughts about some of the points you raised, and I'll bring them up at some point, assuming we still keep going with this.

With the case for Oxford presented, please proceed to fire away.

[jackydee]

Oct 8, 2017 0:05:59 GMT Any of N said:

jackydee , that completes the areas I wanted to cover: five reasons against William Shakespeare of Startford-upon-Avon and five reasons in favor of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford . I have some more thoughts about some of the points you raised, and I'll bring them up at some point, assuming we still keep going with this.

With the case for Oxford presented, please proceed to fire away.

I know more about the life of Shakespeare than I know about the life of Oxford. I can't really refute you point by point on Oxford. What I will say is that Oxford's known literary career is the literary career of most Elizabeth noblemen; they wrote poetry at a young age then stopped. It should come as no surprise that Oxford's known literary output dried up as he became older. Many nobles had links to the theatre, had access to substantial libraries and knew of the inner politics and relationships at the Elizabethan court. None of this is limited to Oxford alone.

If the case for Oxford was so compelling then we would have no competing candidates for the real Shakespeare. Instead, we have dozens - Marlowe, Bacon, Florio, Stanley and many, many others.

I would agree with you that there is no need for the author of the Plays and poetry to be a particularly nice guy. This is a 200 year old romantic notion. We should expect the author to have experienced a wide array of emotions but he needn't have lived an admirable life. The author not being a nice guy includes men who prosecuted others in court for trifling sums of money.

My main pushback against you at this point in the debate Any of N is the blurred line between big conspiracy and small, tight conspiracy. The big conspiracy is imo quite easy to dismiss, and you don't quite disassociate yourself from the big conspiracy. If more than a few literate men knew of the conspiracy I'd fully expect them to write it down or gossip about it. This would especially be the case in the years after Oxford's death when incurring Oxford's wrath would have not been a factor. Yet precisely nobody writes the rumour or gossip down.

I look forward to your next reply.

[Any of N]

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.

[jackydee]

Oct 9, 2017 2:59:31 GMT Any of N said:

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.

Smoking gun in favour of Shakespeare; I don't think we have one. I believe I have admitted the evidence in favour of Shakespeare isn't as good as it could be. However, imo the evidence in favour is kinda typical of Elizabethan playwrights. We are having to rely largely upon the testimony of Elizabethans themselves. And we have plenty of such evidence. Dozens upon dozens of Elizabethans saw Shakespeare as the author. I would place contemporary evidence far above the evidence of 19th century amateur sleuths. Below is from Jonson. This is probably the closest we will ever get as to how contemporaries viewed Shakespeare. This contemporary view wasn't particularly flattering of Shakespeare's output as a playwright. Here Jonson is praising and condemning what we would today call Shakespeare's creativity and he's writing this long after Oxford's death. Can you tell me why you think Jonson would be keeping up the facade 30 years after Oxford's death?


I remember, the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out line. My answer hath been, would he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who choose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory (on this side idolatry) as much as any; he was (indeed) honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions; wherein he flowed with that facility that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped: Sufflimandus erat, as Augustus said of Haterius.[1] His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been 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 did never 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.

 
With regards to that 1604/5 Christmas season; other than Ben Jonson no playwright was much celebrated at court. Even Jonson was celebrated as a poet rather than a playwright. Shakespeare was therefore typical of Elizabethan playwrights. Elizabethan playwrights were relatively unimportant. I would probably compare Elizabethan theatre to the Hollywood silent movie era. Theatre and silent movies were both the pop culture of their day. Few serious minds were celebrating the "artistic achievements" of theatre. Shakespeare's biography is typical of Elizabethan playrights, or at least it's more typical than atypical. He's middle class, not university educated and not particularly celebrated.

Oxford is the most popular alternative candidate at this specific moment. A century ago it was Bacon. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pages were written claiming that Bacon was the author. For a while the popular alternative was Marlowe. In another 50 years it will be another candidate. This leads me to suspect the evidence for these alternate candidates isn't evidence at all.

[Any of N]

jackydee

That quotation by Ben Jonson is exactly what I had in mind when I said it could just as easily apply to someone behind a pseudonym. To paraphrase: He should have edited his writing more. His friends were overly effusive in their praise. He talked too much sometimes. He occasionally made ridiculous statements. But don't get me wrong. All in all, he was a good guy.

Compare to Gabriel Harvey on Oxford:

Your British numbers have been widely sung, while your Epistle testifies how much you exceed in letters, being more courtly than Castiglione himself, more polished. I have seen your many Latin things, and more English are extant; of French and Italian muses, the manners of many peoples, their arts and laws you have drunk deeply. Not in vain was Sturmius known to you, nor so many Frenchmen and polished Italians, nor Germans. But, O celebrated one, put away your feeble pen, your bloodless books, your impractical writings!

A little apish hat, couched fast to the pate like an oyster,
French cambric ruffs, deep with a witness, starched to the purpose ;

Delicate in speech ; quaint in array ; conceited in all points ;
In courtly guiles a passing singular odd man.

The second quotation is only thought to be about Oxford, but there's a good argument for it. The point here is to look at the personal detail. He wrote works in Latin and English. He had influences from France, Italy and Germany. He wore funny clothes (with specific details mentioned). He talked like a real snob among snobs. Set aside the praise and criticism Harvey directs at Oxford for now. The point is about the quality of the information. Why nothing like this for "Shakespeare"? (Not blotting out a line and not thinking that Cesar ever did wrong seem comparatively superficial.)

Regarding the social status of playwrights at the time, again, seven of the Shakespeare plays were being performed at court for the King. Might he not have been impressed? If they were pop culture for the time, I don't think they were considered low-brow entertainment. Not the productions for the King's court.

Back to Ben Jonson. When he wrote that passage in 1630, Henry Wriothesley (the likely Fair Youth) was four years dead but his widow would survive for another 25 years. At least two of his children were still alive. Oxford's son in-law, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby was still living.  Thus there was still good reason not to rock the boat and upset Nobility who still wanted Oxford's "name to be buried where his body is."

I think much of this debate eventually comes down to a set of judgment calls. Anti-stratfordians say this-or-that was unusual for the time and place. Those defending orthodoxy say, no, not really. An impasse is hit, nothing is resolved, and no alterations of orthodoxy occur. Yet many of us look at the case and think something is terribly out of joint.

[jackydee]

Oct 10, 2017 4:59:53 GMT Any of N said:

jackydee

That quotation by Ben Jonson is exactly what I had in mind when I said it could just as easily apply to someone behind a pseudonym. To paraphrase: He should have edited his writing more. His friends were overly effusive in their praise. He talked too much sometimes. He occasionally made ridiculous statements. But don't get me wrong. All in all, he was a good guy.

Compare to Gabriel Harvey on Oxford:

Your British numbers have been widely sung, while your Epistle testifies how much you exceed in letters, being more courtly than Castiglione himself, more polished. I have seen your many Latin things, and more English are extant; of French and Italian muses, the manners of many peoples, their arts and laws you have drunk deeply. Not in vain was Sturmius known to you, nor so many Frenchmen and polished Italians, nor Germans. But, O celebrated one, put away your feeble pen, your bloodless books, your impractical writings!

A little apish hat, couched fast to the pate like an oyster,
French cambric ruffs, deep with a witness, starched to the purpose ;

Delicate in speech ; quaint in array ; conceited in all points ;
In courtly guiles a passing singular odd man.

The second quotation is only thought to be about Oxford, but there's a good argument for it. The point here is to look at the personal detail. He wrote works in Latin and English. He had influences from France, Italy and Germany. He wore funny clothes (with specific details mentioned). He talked like a real snob among snobs. Set aside the praise and criticism Harvey directs at Oxford for now. The point is about the quality of the information. Why nothing like this for "Shakespeare"? (Not blotting out a line and not thinking that Cesar ever did wrong seem comparatively superficial.)

Regarding the social status of playwrights at the time, again, seven of the Shakespeare plays were being performed at court for the King. Might he not have been impressed? If they were pop culture for the time, I don't think they were considered low-brow entertainment. Not the productions for the King's court.

Back to Ben Jonson. When he wrote that passage in 1630, Henry Wriothesley (the likely Fair Youth) was four years dead but his widow would survive for another 25 years. At least two of his children were still alive. Oxford's son in-law, William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby was still living.  Thus there was still good reason not to rock the boat and upset Nobility who still wanted Oxford's "name to be buried where his body is."

I think much of this debate eventually comes down to a set of judgment calls. Anti-stratfordians say this-or-that was unusual for the time and place. Those defending orthodoxy say, no, not really. An impasse is hit, nothing is resolved, and no alterations of orthodoxy occur. Yet many of us look at the case and think something is terribly out of joint.

I find it hard to believe that Jonson was writing about a pseudonym when Jonson specifically said he love the man[Shakespeare] just short of idolatry(at a time when idolatry meant something). Jonson seems to be praising both the writer and the physical person. He gives a variety of reasons for his admiration and love, and they all suggest a physical man Shakespeare who Jonson witnessed personally and was close to. It's not exclusively an artistic admiration, it's the personal love of a friend. If person A were to say they loved you, Any of N, do you think it reasonable for me to conclude person A knew you?

Oxford wrote Latin & English and had influences from Italy, Germany and France? Sorry, but this could describe any two bit Elizabethan writer or Noble. Anyone with literary pretentions knew Latin. They all had continental influence. Oxford was by no means exceptional as a writer or Noble in having these influences. Everything in Elizabethan England that was considered cultured was continental.

Theatre and Playwrighting was considered relatively low brow. The Bodlean library refused to purchase playbooks considering them too low brow. Plays were printed on the cheapest possible paper. Poets were admired far above playwrights. The majority of playwrights are buried in graves now lost to us. This suggests they were not highly celebrated. Jonson is buried in Westminster Abbey only because he asked to be buried there  and was ignominously stuffed into the Abbey in an upright position. A number of 20th century dictators and leaders watched early Hollywood movies. I believe Hitler, Stalin & Churchill were all avid movie watchers. They all had private screenings of films. Yet few people would consider what these leaders were watching as high brow entertainment worthy of study or celebration. The highest in the land often watch their own era's pop culture.

Ben Jonson converted to Catholicism in the aftermath of the GunPowder Plot. Jonson was not scared to speak truth to power(more often though he snarked about the powerful behind their back). Again, we have absolutely nothing from Jonson doubting that William Shakespeare was the author. Nothing either from the literary establishment in the theatre or at court.

edit: btw I know this is not part of the debate, but Jonson's dislike of the Caesar line has always irked me. It's a fantastic line, one that I could expect to come out the mouth of any 20th century dictator.

[Any of N]

jackydee said:

I find it hard to believe that Jonson was writing about a pseudonym when Jonson specifically said he love the man[Shakespeare] just short of idolatry(at a time when idolatry meant something). Jonson seems to be praising both the writer and the physical person. He gives a variety of reasons for his admiration and love, and they all suggest a physical man Shakespeare who Jonson witnessed personally and was close to. It's not exclusively an artistic admiration, it's the personal love of a friend. If person A were to say they loved you, Any of N, do you think it reasonable for me to conclude person A knew you?

I definitely think he knew the man personally, but the man in question was the Earl of Oxford. He's expressing both admiration and catty criticism about a friend and rival, it seems to me. Oxford being a nobleman doesn't precluded his interaction with commoners, not at all. Jonson used the pseudonym because that was what Oxford wished and because he's probably get into trouble if he wrote out his real name.

Oxford wrote Latin & English and had influences from Italy, Germany and France? Sorry, but this could describe any two bit Elizabethan writer or Noble. Anyone with literary pretentions knew Latin. They all had continental influence. Oxford was by no means exceptional as a writer or Noble in having these influences. Everything in Elizabethan England that was considered cultured was continental.

It didn't describe every writer, and it's the type of detail that can help identify or learn about someone. He was influenced ny Sturmius and his work refeleted it. That kind of detail.

Theatre and Playwrighting was considered relatively low brow. The Bodlean library refused to purchase playbooks considering them too low brow. Plays were printed on the cheapest possible paper. Poets were admired far above playwrights. The majority of playwrights are buried in graves now lost to us. This suggests they were not highly celebrated. Jonson is buried in Westminster Abbey only because he asked to be buried there and was ignominously stuffed into the Abbey in an upright position. A number of 20th century dictators and leaders watched early Hollywood movies. I believe Hitler, Stalin & Churchill were all avid movie watchers. They all had private screenings of films. Yet few people would consider what these leaders were watching as high brow entertainment worthy of study or celebration. The highest in the land often watch their own era's pop culture.

The point I was trying to make is about the favorable notoriety that those performances would generate. While it was unseemly for nobles to openly participate in the theater, it's hard to imagine watching Shakespeare as slumming (or if you prefer a more mile expression, a guilty pleasure). Consider King Lear's "To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow" speech, Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy, and many others. That's exalting the royalty in a very classy way. Do you at least think that the Stratford guy might want to take advantage of such a wonderful opportunity? Maybe drum up a new patron or two? Be toasted among other commoners? Even today, publicists take advantage of private viewings for VIP's.

Ben Jonson converted to Catholicism in the aftermath of the GunPowder Plot. Jonson was not scared to speak truth to power(more often though he snarked about the powerful behind their back). Again, we have absolutely nothing from Jonson doubting that William Shakespeare was the author. Nothing either from the literary establishment in the theatre or at court.

On the topic of Ben Jonson' reliability, let me remind you about his testimony regarding his dating of Titus Andronicus which helps move the corpus of plays backward in time about five years. To your point above, let me ask: if Jonson, the royal court, and the rest of the literary establishment were all so sure about the identity of Shakespeare, why didn't they write more about the Stratford guy? He was a commoner. He supposedly wrote all those poems and plays. The sonnets were, at the very least, prone to being interpreted in a controversial manner. Seven plays were performed at court. He openly dedicated two long narrative poems to the Earl of Southampton. Sounds like an interesting guy who would merit more than the very rare vague comment. Why isn't there anything that verifies his literary activity? (See Argument #1.)

I admit, I don't have all the answers as to why Shakespeare's true identity (as Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford) didn't slip out at some point not too long after his death. There are theories and conjecture that help explain why, and I've presented a few. And there is at least a set of situational factors that can be cited that provide motives and methods. What are the reasons for the missing records regarding the orthodox view?      

[jackydee]

Oct 12, 2017 3:33:36 GMT Any of N said:

jackydee said:

I find it hard to believe that Jonson was writing about a pseudonym when Jonson specifically said he love the man[Shakespeare] just short of idolatry(at a time when idolatry meant something). Jonson seems to be praising both the writer and the physical person. He gives a variety of reasons for his admiration and love, and they all suggest a physical man Shakespeare who Jonson witnessed personally and was close to. It's not exclusively an artistic admiration, it's the personal love of a friend. If person A were to say they loved you, Any of N, do you think it reasonable for me to conclude person A knew you?

I definitely think he knew the man personally, but the man in question was the Earl of Oxford. He's expressing both admiration and catty criticism about a friend and rival, it seems to me. Oxford being a nobleman doesn't precluded his interaction with commoners, not at all. Jonson used the pseudonym because that was what Oxford wished and because he's probably get into trouble if he wrote out his real name.

Oxford wrote Latin & English and had influences from Italy, Germany and France? Sorry, but this could describe any two bit Elizabethan writer or Noble. Anyone with literary pretentions knew Latin. They all had continental influence. Oxford was by no means exceptional as a writer or Noble in having these influences. Everything in Elizabethan England that was considered cultured was continental.

It didn't describe every writer, and it's the type of detail that can help identify or learn about someone. He was influenced ny Sturmius and his work refeleted it. That kind of detail.

Theatre and Playwrighting was considered relatively low brow. The Bodlean library refused to purchase playbooks considering them too low brow. Plays were printed on the cheapest possible paper. Poets were admired far above playwrights. The majority of playwrights are buried in graves now lost to us. This suggests they were not highly celebrated. Jonson is buried in Westminster Abbey only because he asked to be buried there and was ignominously stuffed into the Abbey in an upright position. A number of 20th century dictators and leaders watched early Hollywood movies. I believe Hitler, Stalin & Churchill were all avid movie watchers. They all had private screenings of films. Yet few people would consider what these leaders were watching as high brow entertainment worthy of study or celebration. The highest in the land often watch their own era's pop culture.

The point I was trying to make is about the favorable notoriety that those performances would generate. While it was unseemly for nobles to openly participate in the theater, it's hard to imagine watching Shakespeare as slumming (or if you prefer a more mile expression, a guilty pleasure). Consider King Lear's "To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow" speech, Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy, and many others. That's exalting the royalty in a very classy way. Do you at least think that the Stratford guy might want to take advantage of such a wonderful opportunity? Maybe drum up a new patron or two? Be toasted among other commoners? Even today, publicists take advantage of private viewings for VIP's.

Ben Jonson converted to Catholicism in the aftermath of the GunPowder Plot. Jonson was not scared to speak truth to power(more often though he snarked about the powerful behind their back). Again, we have absolutely nothing from Jonson doubting that William Shakespeare was the author. Nothing either from the literary establishment in the theatre or at court.

On the topic of Ben Jonson' reliability, let me remind you about his testimony regarding his dating of Titus Andronicus which helps move the corpus of plays backward in time about five years. To your point above, let me ask: if Jonson, the royal court, and the rest of the literary establishment were all so sure about the identity of Shakespeare, why didn't they write more about the Stratford guy? He was a commoner. He supposedly wrote all those poems and plays. The sonnets were, at the very least, prone to being interpreted in a controversial manner. Seven plays were performed at court. He openly dedicated two long narrative poems to the Earl of Southampton. Sounds like an interesting guy who would merit more than the very rare vague comment. Why isn't there anything that verifies his literary activity? (See Argument #1.)

I admit, I don't have all the answers as to why Shakespeare's true identity (as Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford) didn't slip out at some point not too long after his death. There are theories and conjecture that help explain why, and I've presented a few. And there is at least a set of situational factors that can be cited that provide motives and methods. What are the reasons for the missing records regarding the orthodox view?      

On another occasion(in a conversation with William Drummond) Jonson criticised Shakespeare's limited classical education. In fact Jonson's go to criticism of Shakespeare was his mediocre learning. We have 1st and 2nd hand reports of Jonson talking to others at court(incl the poet Sir John Suckling) about Shakespeare. Every time he snarks about how poorly educated Shakespeare was, yet admits Shakespeare had talent. These reports from Jonson do not seem to describe one of the best educated Elizabethan nobles, they are more likely describing a school educated country lad who had failed to attend University. So even in private Jonson is arguing with others about Shakespeare, and at all times he gives the impression of supporting the view that the writer had a 2nd rate education.

Can you tell me of any other Elizabethan writer who did not know Latin? Im sure those non Latin educated writers were very, very few and far between in Elizabethan England. Just as Latin & Greek were considered basic education, everything about classic Greece and Rome was venerated. Modern Italy & France were loved and hated in almost equal measure. Writers having intimate knowledge of continental Europe culture was widespread.

I admit that from the limited records we have Shakespeare doesn't appear to have been especially self promoting at Court. This imo is simply a very minor mystery, it is nothing sinister or especially surprising. Whatever business model Shakespeare was using it worked wonderfully well. The business model seems to have been as a promoter of theatre for the masses. Almost every other playwright died in poverty or near poverty. Whatever self promoting Shakespeare did at court it was self promoting enough for his and his company's financial wellbeing.

Jonson's dating of Titus Andronicus. Jonson was writing over two decades later. It should come as no surprise he may have gotten a few dates and facts wrong. Jonson got into the theatre business nearly a decade after Titus Andronicus was written. I think he's just misdating things he had no direct knowledge of.

Elizabethan society was not particularly interested in the biography of playwrights. The only exception to this are the likes of Marlowe and Jonson. Marlowe because of his controversial life and death, and Jonson because he was Jonson(the greatest of the greatest in Elizabethan letters). Shakespeare, I suspect(and hear I am admittedly speculating) was considered old hat by the later half of his career. He had went out of fashion. No-one was copncerned with writing about him. This is how the vast majority of Elizabethan playwrights were viewed. Most of them, like Shakespeare, we know very little about. Shakespeare was not the exception he was the rule.

The missing records? Other than a few bits and pieces there aren't many missing records. It really would be hoped that we had a letter or two either by Shakespeare or to Shakespeare. We unfortunately don't have anything substantial in that regards. We may even hope to have a few books owned by him. We don't. What I would say is that I know of two instances where much was perhaps lost. First, the fire at the Globe theatre in 1612(?). Secondly, Shakespeare's daughter accused someone of entering New Place and stealing goods. I think she specifically states books and papers were taken. If so then it suggests these books and papers were not held in the best of conditions after their theft.

[Any of N]

jackydee said:

Can you tell me of any other Elizabethan writer who did not know Latin? Im sure those non Latin educated writers were very, very few and far between in Elizabethan England. Just as Latin & Greek were considered basic education, everything about classic Greece and Rome was venerated. Modern Italy & France were loved and hated in almost equal measure. Writers having intimate knowledge of continental Europe culture was widespread.

Another drop is the ocean of oddities. How is it that the greatest writer of English in his day was one of the few with "small Latin and less Greek"? I suppose it's also a minor mystery that his parents were illiterate (or barely literate). Or that his daughters were illiterate while his leading female characters were typically highly literate. Or that a commoner businessman who wrote for the public stage and who sued over a £6 debt didn't self-promote. Or that he didn't raise a ruckus when his sonnets were stolen and published.

Non sequiturs are legion. Consider the curse on his gravestone at Holy Trinity Church at Stratford-upon-Avon. Don't you think that something a little more... artful... would end up as Shakespeare's final epitaph? (Comparison lifted from Ogburn.)

Doggerel on Shakespeare's headstone at Holy Trinity Church: Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare, To dig the dust enclosed here. Blessed be the man that spares these stones,      And cursed be he that moves my bones

Example of Shakespeare's virtuosity (from Richard II) This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands,-- This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

Cursed be he that moves my bones?  

It's been about a decade since I stopped following the controversy closely. Going back to it again has me reflecting on the intractability of the standard view. All the facts have been around for a very long time. This debate, it seems to me, is all about the interpretation of the evidence. In science generally a new set of experiments will be conducted. In many areas of history a new set of records will be unearthed. In short, there will be new findings to spur new thinking. In Shakespeare Studies the standard view has long set in, and I don't know what the impetuous might be that could trigger a major change in outlook.

By way of comparison, back in the 1990's there was a contrarian view circulating that HIV did not cause AIDS. It had an intriguing argument, but new research put the kibosh on the debate. Sorry, Peter Duesberg, HIV really is the culprit. (Part of the deal was the finding that some people possess immunity due to an absent protein receptor.) On the other hand, in the very early part of that decade, there was a contrarian view circulating that AIDS would not explode into the heterosexual, non-IV drug using population. The contrarians were compared to Holocaust deniers. Then a new CDC report came out that refuted the earlier models. (The disease, it turned out, was more demographically and geographically stratified than formerly believed.) In both cases, new data made the difference. 

With Shakespeare, what we have is what we have. When I read the arguments, pro and con, I am impressed with the best parts of the anti-stradfordian view. Not everyone will agree. I accept that and think I understand the reasons. (Reasonable people will disagree. I think is comes down to a different set of mental thresholds for judging the evidence.) I personally will consider all sorts of unconventional theories on just about any topic, but I typically come out on the conventional side. This mystery, though, I think is exceptional, and I've tried to convey why.

This is a fun and challenging debate, but I think I need a break. I will give you the final word for now.

[jackydee]

Oct 14, 2017 3:44:29 GMT Any of N said:

jackydee said:

Can you tell me of any other Elizabethan writer who did not know Latin? Im sure those non Latin educated writers were very, very few and far between in Elizabethan England. Just as Latin & Greek were considered basic education, everything about classic Greece and Rome was venerated. Modern Italy & France were loved and hated in almost equal measure. Writers having intimate knowledge of continental Europe culture was widespread.

Another drop is the ocean of oddities. How is it that the greatest writer of English in his day was one of the few with "small Latin and less Greek"? I suppose it's also a minor mystery that his parents were illiterate (or barely literate). Or that his daughters were illiterate while his leading female characters were typically highly literate. Or that a commoner businessman who wrote for the public stage and who sued over a £6 debt didn't self-promote. Or that he didn't raise a ruckus when his sonnets were stolen and published.

Non sequiturs are legion. Consider the curse on his gravestone at Holy Trinity Church at Stratford-upon-Avon. Don't you think that something a little more... artful... would end up as Shakespeare's final epitaph? (Comparison lifted from Ogburn.)

Doggerel on Shakespeare's headstone at Holy Trinity Church: Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare, To dig the dust enclosed here. Blessed be the man that spares these stones,      And cursed be he that moves my bones

Example of Shakespeare's virtuosity (from Richard II) This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands,-- This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

Cursed be he that moves my bones?  

It's been about a decade since I stopped following the controversy closely. Going back to it again has me reflecting on the intractability of the standard view. All the facts have been around for a very long time. This debate, it seems to me, is all about the interpretation of the evidence. In science generally a new set of experiments will be conducted. In many areas of history a new set of records will be unearthed. In short, there will be new findings to spur new thinking. In Shakespeare Studies the standard view has long set in, and I don't know what the impetuous might be that could trigger a major change in outlook.

By way of comparison, back in the 1990's there was a contrarian view circulating that HIV did not cause AIDS. It had an intriguing argument, but new research put the kibosh on the debate. Sorry, Peter Duesberg, HIV really is the culprit. (Part of the deal was the finding that some people possess immunity due to an absent protein receptor.) On the other hand, in the very early part of that decade, there was a contrarian view circulating that AIDS would not explode into the heterosexual, non-IV drug using population. The contrarians were compared to Holocaust deniers. Then a new CDC report came out that refuted the earlier models. (The disease, it turned out, was more demographically and geographically stratified than formerly believed.) In both cases, new data made the difference. 

With Shakespeare, what we have is what we have. When I read the arguments, pro and con, I am impressed with the best parts of the anti-stradfordian view. Not everyone will agree. I accept that and think I understand the reasons. (Reasonable people will disagree. I think is comes down to a different set of mental thresholds for judging the evidence.) I personally will consider all sorts of unconventional theories on just about any topic, but I typically come out on the conventional side. This mystery, though, I think is exceptional, and I've tried to convey why.

This is a fun and challenging debate, but I think I need a break. I will give you the final word for now.

It wasn't at all odd that Shakespeare had "small Latin and less Greek". We don't know the exact extent of Shakespeare's Greek and Latin. His schooling would suggest a decent knowledge of Latin & Greek but without the expertise of a University education. Shakespeare was not an oddity. Roughly 50% of Elizabethan Playwrights(as opposed to writers dedicated to poetry) went to university. If 50% of Playwrights could get by without a university education(limited Latin & Greek) then there is nothing odd that Shakespeare could too.

I see nothing strange as to why Shakespeare would sue over a £6 debt but not create a ruckus over the sonnets being published without his consent. I may have erroneously claimed earlier that the sonnets were stolen. However they probably were not. These sonnets were being distributed privately in manuscript form. They were probably published from these distributed manuscripts. Writers had to put up with this stuff all the time. There was very little they could do about it. At most they could grumble in public or in private, but they could take no legal measures.

I believe you exaggerate the illiteracy of Shakespeare's parents and children. We really don't know the extent to which they could read or write. The evidence is fragmentory and to some extent contradictory. Far more Elizabethans could read than they could write. Reading was becoming a requirement in much of Elizabethan society, writing was not. I would place the family's literacy on the average level of the emerging Elizabethan middle class. I would hope Shakespeare took great care in the education of his children. However, we really don't know if he was such a father. Everything else being equal I place Shakespeare as a traditional Elizabethan conservative man(his Will is traditional). The education of his son was probably more important than the education of his daughters. Having said that we do have a handsome signature of Susanna's and her epitaph describes her as intelligent - this intelligence is described as coming directly from her father. This is not evidence of Shakespeare's authorship but it is evidence that suggests the family were viewed as intelligent enough for middle class Elizabethan society.

Shakespeare's epitaph: we don't know who wrote the epitaph. It may or may not have been Shakespeare. Neither do we know how much importance Shakespeare placed on epitaphs. There is no linear link between how great a writer is and the beauty and importance they place upon epitaphs. Shakespeare may not have given a damn about his own epitaph. Having said this the epitaph(whoever wrote it) worked to perfection. The epitaph was fit for purpose. It alone has ensured his burial spot was not disturbed or moved.

Thank you for the debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed. I suspect though that neither of us have budged an inch.

[cityofchill]

I've enjoyed reading your back-and-forth, your arguments, and thank you both for taking the time to post your knowledge on this topic. I've certainly learned a lot. While I think the anti-Stratfordian argument is interesting, I don't find it sufficiently compelling. Perhaps I am biased and need some incontrovertable evidence to sway me from my position. But honestly, I don't care who wrote the poems or plays and have ne emotional attachment to a name. If the author was not Shakespeare, it wouldn't change my appreciation of the works attributed to him so it's not like I want to believe Shakespeare was the author. I'm open to the possibilities. I just don't find the arguments against authorship to be sufficiently compelling when compared to the arguments for.

Thanks again, gentlemen, for sharing your thoughts with the board. It has been a pleasure to read your debate.

[jthou]

Just wanted to echo chill's sentiments. I have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion as I've done only the very slightest reading on this argument but it has been a fascinating read and an entertaining back and forth. Great job to both of you jackydee and any of n.

[Any of N]

Revisiting The Dating of the Plays

Returning to this topic briefly as I was never happy with my coverage of the dating issue. I used to go back to the authorship question every year on the holidays, and this thread has me reviving that old habit. Hopefully you won't mind.

Below is a table containing strictly conventional information. For each Shakespeare play, we have the year of composition and the year it was performed for the first time, according to estimates from scholars. In most cases we have a range of years. The last column shows the age of the Stratford guy at the time of composition, also usually a range.


A few quick points:

• For the most part, the plays were written shortly before their initial performances, suggesting that they were dashed off very quickly for immediate commercial use. That's according to convention. In cases where the dates don't quite jibe, like with Twelfth Night, it's because the two columns came from different sources and there will be small variations. (See below.) I went with what I could readily find. The close proximity of the composition dates with the performance dates will hold up with the use of any conventional set of sources.
  
• If the Stratford guy was indeed the true author, his output was spectacularly prodigious, pumping out timeless classics in a steady torrent.
• He was also producing some very mature work at an early age, with Richard III and Merchant of Venice coming out during his early 30's. If we move the dates back in time by five-plus years as discussed in Argument #3, his precocity becomes even more striking. Some might say suspiciously so.
• The orthodox biographies don't really allow for the compositions to be pushed back in time and thus you won't see it. Shakespeare's "lost years" spanned from when he was 21 to 28 where no records exist of his life. If he was writing early versions of the pays, the evidence has been lost. Prior to that he was living in Stratford-upon-Avon with his wife and three children.
  

Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, on the other hand, was 14 years older than his distant cousin. His biography allows for him to be writing plays for the Queen's court at an early age, with the requisite education and leisure time. If we consider Oxford to be the true author, the door swings open for "William Shakespeare" to be re-writing and revising his own plays, with the chronology above representing the end results. That's along with writing new plays, of course, but the prolificacy descends closer to the level of mere mortals. The initial, rudimentary versions of his plays may well have come out in a very different order.

I have ordered  book that provides an Oxfordian re-dating of the plays, so I might summarize that at some point. jackydee , I'm yielding the floor to you, if you're still game.

Sources

Please refer to the sources cited previously in other posts. The dates came from the following.

Dates of composition: Encyclopedia Britannica: Chronology of Shakespeare’s plays

Dates of first performances: Shakespeare Online: The Chronology of Shakespeare's Plays