Post by Any of N on Sept 26, 2017 5:32:02 GMT
I'm going to rearrange my planned ordering of the arguments a bit, as this one addresses many of your counterpoints, jackydee.
Argument #2: The Stratford Guy's Very Weak Link to the Works
Among all the purported true authors of the Shakespeare canon, only one enjoys any direct evidence. That would indeed be the conventional choice, the man born and buried in Stratford-upon-Avon. When you take a close look, though, the connection doesn't seem very definitive.
The First Folio was the initial "full" printing of Shakespeare's plays, coming out in 1623. In it, there are multiple tributes written by various people, such as Ben Johnson and Leonard Digges. It is these two writers who provide the evidence, but it comes in a total of two lines. Seven words, really. (Emphasis mine below.)
From Jonson's tribute:
From Digges' tribute:
Taken together, along with knowledge of the Stratford guy's birthplace and connection to the theater, the link is established. And this link provides much opportunity for conventional scholars. Such as, and following from our discussion...
So that's a lot riding on seven words, and no one should be surprised that their veracity has been questioned. The 24 writers in Price's comparison sample don't depend on anything like that regarding their literary activity.
Rather than going deep into the hole with the fishiness of the Folio tributes, I ask you to consider the following scenario. My words, but it has been conjectured before by others:
The weak connection to the Stratford guy opens the door for this type of conjecture. Because if he didn't write them, something unusual made us think he did. Not bizarre, just unusual and perhaps mundane like the above. But we wouldn't even go down this path if the link to the conventionally purported author was strong, like a researcher might reasonably expect.
I'll try to address your other points in a later post.
Sources:
Argument #2: The Stratford Guy's Very Weak Link to the Works
Among all the purported true authors of the Shakespeare canon, only one enjoys any direct evidence. That would indeed be the conventional choice, the man born and buried in Stratford-upon-Avon. When you take a close look, though, the connection doesn't seem very definitive.
The First Folio was the initial "full" printing of Shakespeare's plays, coming out in 1623. In it, there are multiple tributes written by various people, such as Ben Johnson and Leonard Digges. It is these two writers who provide the evidence, but it comes in a total of two lines. Seven words, really. (Emphasis mine below.)
From Jonson's tribute:
Of Shakspeare's mind and manners brightly shines
In his well torned and true filed lines;
In each of which he seems to shake a lance,
As brandisht at the eyes of ignorance.
Sweet Swan of Avon ! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appear,
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James !
In his well torned and true filed lines;
In each of which he seems to shake a lance,
As brandisht at the eyes of ignorance.
Sweet Swan of Avon ! what a sight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appear,
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James !
From Digges' tribute:
Shakes-peare, at length thy pious fellows give
The world thy Works: thy Works, by which, out-live
The Tomb, thy name must: when that stone is rent,
And time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,
Here we alive shall view thee still.
The world thy Works: thy Works, by which, out-live
The Tomb, thy name must: when that stone is rent,
And time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,
Here we alive shall view thee still.
Taken together, along with knowledge of the Stratford guy's birthplace and connection to the theater, the link is established. And this link provides much opportunity for conventional scholars. Such as, and following from our discussion...
- Being derived from a collection of the plays, it allows for any authorship listing of "William Shakespeare" to be taken as referring to the Stratford guy.
- The First Foilo thus serves as a kind-of death notice for a writer.
- Now we can count the dedicatory verses and tributes in the First Folio as evidence of literary activity, too.
- And as the Shakespeare name is also on the Sonnets, Southampton is established as his patron.
So that's a lot riding on seven words, and no one should be surprised that their veracity has been questioned. The 24 writers in Price's comparison sample don't depend on anything like that regarding their literary activity.
Rather than going deep into the hole with the fishiness of the Folio tributes, I ask you to consider the following scenario. My words, but it has been conjectured before by others:
A nobleman writes the Shakespeare canon and wishes to remain anonymous, even after his death. It's called "the stigma of print" and anyway, he's loaded the works with naughty inside references of court and other sensitive information, so he's locked into his decision.
After he dies, his family wishes to preserve the works while maintaining his anonymity. It's not a major difficulty. They choose the Stratford guy to serve as a front, choose various writers to provide tributes, and publish the plays when they deem the timing to be appropriate. The Stratford guy receives payment to keep his mouth shut. Maybe he had also served a similar purpose before the death of the real author.
The "conspiracy" is quite small, and nobody wants to cross the nobility. Few commoners would even care. Other nobles are discrete about such matters. Many would be embarrassed if the truth came out in this instance, particularly.
The weak connection to the Stratford guy opens the door for this type of conjecture. Because if he didn't write them, something unusual made us think he did. Not bizarre, just unusual and perhaps mundane like the above. But we wouldn't even go down this path if the link to the conventionally purported author was strong, like a researcher might reasonably expect.
I'll try to address your other points in a later post.
Sources:
- Diana Price again. See above
- Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, politic worm blog.
- Various others. I may update later.
