I was thrown from my horse when I was 16. The horse had been spooked by a loud moped that had come up from behind. Apparently I was knocked out because the first thing I remember after being bucked is me in the passenger seat of my car and my 14yo cousin driving me home. Fortunately it was just a few miles of country road to my house since he had never driven a car before.
I started a twitter war by making this joke on a complete unrelated tweet, "Yeah, but it's still not possible that the Earl of Oxford could have written some of Shakespeare's plays after he was dead." This tweet caused someone else in the twitterverse to lose his mind. He went off on how the dating of the plays was inexact and how much of an idiot I am and blah, blah, blah. I responded with "Bless your heart." ]
This brought in another Oxfordian who was more reasonable to calmly explain to me how the dating of the plays was inexact and that Stratfordians were always moving the goalposts. I then explained that I was somewhat of a Stratford agnostic. It's not that I refuse to entertain the possibility that William Shakespeare was not actually William Shakespeare. I will admit that maybe he wasn't but that is beside the point I made. Shakespeare might not be Shakespeare, but Shakespeare is definitely not Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. I repeated that de Vere died before at least one of the plays was written. My more reasonable twitter person started in on the shipwreck in The Tempest and how there were lots of shipwrecks and how could it ever be definitively proved that the shipwreck Stratfordians say inspired The Tempest is shaky at best. I responded with, "Tempest, Shmempest, the proof is in Macbeth." Oxford died in 1604. Macbeth was written after the Gunpowder Plot was foiled in 1605. IMHO, the Porter's speech, especially his use of the term equivocator, is a direct reference to the Gunpowder Plot. I am far from the only one who feels this way. When I explained this bit to my Oxfordian opponent, he started referencing earlier use of the term equivocation. Then it was my turn to mention the moving of goalposts.
But, then, out of kindness, I allowed that perhaps the term equivocation was in broad use prior to the Gunpowder Plot (despite what some historians have to say about it) but the Banquo character and the scene where the weird sisters tell him he will get kings but be no king himself was obviously written for James I. And my Oxfordian then proved himself to be a complete idiot by arguing that point with me. Seriously? James I, according to Holinshed, (the source material for most of Shakespeare's history plays), was a direct descendent of Banquo (a historical person). He did not take that as proof that Macbeth was written during the reign of James I. Yeah, pound sand, dude. So, Elizabeth I died in late March, 1603. James I was coronated in June, 1603. Oxford died in June, 1604. Oxford certainly did spend much of his last year currying favor with the new king. Could he have written Macbeth in that time frame? I mean, yes, he had time, I guess. But he didn't do it.
There has been statistical text analysis done on Shakespeare, by the way. We mostly on have poetry samples from people that have been put forth as the actual author (there are many, Oxford has the most supporters). Text analysis excludes any of the other well known playwrights of the time from also being Shakespeare. The poetry is less conclusive because there isn't as much of it from Shakespeare. What samples we do have from Oxford are from his early life and Oxfordians will claim that the reason we don't have later samples is because he was too busy being Shakespeare. What text analysis has shown is that Shakespeare is remarkably internally consistent. His known poetry correlates very highly with his other known poetry, more highly then almost all other poets of the era. Shakespeare is Shakespeare is Shakespeare throughout his career and Oxford's early work does not correlate with Shakespeare.
One other knock against Oxford - and almost all other potential authors put forward - Shakespeare was famous in his own time. His plays were published with his name attached which was uncommon at the time. I do not for one minute believe that a man with power, even if he had to hide the fact that he was the Bard during his lifetime, would not have left documents claiming authorship to be revealed after his death. So, if it wasn't Shakespeare, it was not a member of the nobility. And if it wasn't a member of the nobility, why the need for secrecy? Yeah.
So why do I admit to being an agnostic? Two things: 1) that highly correlated with himself stuff leads me to believe he had either a collaborator or an editor. Two people writing together will often be more internally consistent than one person alone. 2) Shakespeare is Shakespeare and not Middleton or Webster or Ben Johnson or even Marlowe because of his female characters. His women are women, actual living breathing people. That's not true of most female characters written by other playwrights of the time. Heck, it's not even true for many male playwrights ever. Or novelists (Dickens comes to mind here.) So, if Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare or if he had a significant collaborator, that person was a woman.
The article in The Atlantic a couple of years ago about Emilia Bassano sent chills down my spine. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...assano/588076/
I say I'm a Stratfordian agnostic but that's not exactly true. I think William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon was Shakespeare, but I think a woman contributed to his work in some way, and I now think that woman was Emilia Bassano.
I just killed it in my audition for Tartuffe. I know from experience that doesn't always translate into getting cast, but, I've never been cast when I didn't kill it in auditions, so.
Unfortunately, the weekend doesn't mean the work ends.
If it’s Saturday morning, it’s grocery shopping time!
Getting ready for a nice long hike by the river. Should be crisp but clear. Been looking forward to this all week.
preparing my equipments for subzero grilling of prime steaks tonight, possible Blue Devil victory dinner?
Nobody really questioned his authorship until a couple of centuries after his death. We have more information on the lives of other well known playwrights of the time. But there is evidence, nothing completely definitive, but enough evidence to support the belief that Shakespeare was known as a playwright during his lifetime. Too many people who did leave records would have known if Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare for it to be completely believed that he wasn't. It is, however, plausible to me, that he had a behind the scenes collaborator/editor/assistant, like I said before. And again, I completely believe that if he did, that collaborator/editor/assistant was a woman and I believe that because you will never convince me that a man would have kept quiet about it - he would have demanded credit. Women in the 16th century? Not so much.
I'm at work.
Goods news (I guess) - I have a job.
I am as pedantic as a mug. My phone has installed an update which fails to recognize Proper nouns for some reason. But I am hiking and I am not going to kill myself To fix the Abhorrent Lack of Understanding Of what constitutes a proper noun. I am so angry. I apologize that this is distracting.
I'm not sure How to classify it on a likelihood scale, but your argument sounds reasonable and compelling. I agree that Many who Believe He was Completely uninvolved are operating Under the assumption That Those who believed he was the sole author are the ones who have to prove Their Theory, And that Simply isn't the way This works. Since these works are already attributed to Shakespeare, the onus for Proving The Works Were authored by Someone else Is on those Who believe that to be true. You have to operate under the assumption That He wrote them until absolutely proven otherwise. The most compelling arguments for Him at least Having assistance are The Ways that female characters are depicted (Which is so Different from his contemporaries) And his Italianate Influences . Perhaps There was a Better Working knowledge of Italy, and especially Classical Italian History Because the Renaissance Moved From Italy Towards The rest of Europe And Italian Cultural hegemony Was so pervasive That even Someone who had not Traveled to Italy Had a Significant working knowledge Of Italian History. But The subject of the article's Italian heritage, Intricate working knowledge of The Royal Court And proximity To the orbit of Shakespeare Is at least suggestive that if he Had a collaborator, It Could have been her.