Reply to Marie's earlier post on "blood"

Hi Marie
You posted a comment recently, that I can't now find, which brought to mind Shakespeare's lines from his other play about a maligned king whose reputation has been unfairly trashed by Shakespeare. You, know, the one we can't mention by name where the protagonist says:
"I am in blood
Stepped in so far that should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."

I have a theory that the continuing controversy surrounding who was Shakespeare and who actually created the plays and poems is a punishment for his transgressions in demonizing Richard III. And part of that is to have his reputation questioned.
Elaine

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2012, 0:06
Subject: Reply to Marie's earlier post on "blood"

> I have a theory that the continuing controversy surrounding

> who was
Shakespeare and who actually created the plays and poems

> is a
punishment for his transgressions in demonizing Richard III.

There's no continuing controversy surrounding who was Shakespeare any more than there's a continuing controversy over whether the moon landings took play.  There *is* a small band of eccentrics (to put it kindly) who insist on propagating what's essentially a piece of 19th Century Romantic wish-fulfilment that has no academic credibility whatsoever.

We know more about Shakespeare than we do about John Webster and John Ford, and if anyone cites Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi (I'm really disappointed in him), I'll raise you Ian McKellen, Judi Dench, Harriet Walter and Antony Sher.

And, honestly, if anyone's being posthumously punished, it's probably the Earl of Oxford, who has to endure having a follower called John Thomas Looney...

Jonathan



________________________________



 
Hi Marie
You posted a comment recently, that I can't now find, which brought to mind Shakespeare's lines from his other play about a maligned king whose reputation has been unfairly trashed by Shakespeare. You, know, the one we can't mention by name where the protagonist says:
"I am in blood
Stepped in so far that should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er."

I have a theory that the continuing controversy surrounding who was Shakespeare and who actually created the plays and poems is a punishment for his transgressions in demonizing Richard III. And part of that is to have his reputation questioned.
Elaine

Jonathan

>>>There's no continuing controversy surrounding who was Shakespeare any more than there's a continuing controversy over whether the moon landings took play.  There *is* a small band of eccentrics (to put it kindly) who insist on propagating what's essentially a piece of 19th Century Romantic wish-fulfilment that has no academic credibility whatsoever.

I note your points but why only quote actors? The debate is quite fierce in academic circles and the lines of demarcation tend to divide between the traditional view (Jonathan Bate, Stanley Wells, James Shapiro although his writing is preferably to his recent TV series on James I) and other viewpoints such as those who consider Marlowe as a possibility, and even paint a scenario where he survived Deptford in 1593 and continued to write under an alias using Shakespeare as a front man. Ros Barber has just published a novel in blank verse called The Marlowe Papers supporting this theory. In fact, this theory is gaining ground over Oxford or Bacon.
Your statement that there is no continuing controversy ignores the fact that debate is continuing. Just look at the number of books published each year on Shakespeare; it is big business because there is a mystery at the heart of it.
As regards to Oxford's reputation, don't lose any sleep over him, he was an obnoxious person who treated people abominably which included his wife or children and succeeded in alienating many. The person who wrote Shakespeare had the ability to understand human nature and transcend time, someone as selfish as Oxford would be incapable of either. The same applies to Bacon.

Actually Shakespeare's life is quite shadowy and there are aspects of it that are unknown and are conjecture such as the date and circumstances of why he left Stratford and came to London and his life in London. Also how often he returned home to Stratford. What is known tends to be reiterated and reinforced as we have so many gaps in other areas of his life. There are only six signatures of his and three of those are on his will written shortly before he died. There are no copies of any plays in his hand and even his acting career is shrouded in mystery. Robert Greene's comment of " an upstart crow" that has been attributed as being about Shakespeare has another interpretation; he may have been targeting Edward Alleyn, the actor, and Greene's ire may have been towards actors who spoke the lines written for them by the playwrights.

Agreed there is not much about Webster or Ford, but I could mention some other writers of the period who we know a lot more about.

Jonathan Bate had it right when asked who wrote Shakespeare, "God" he answered. Can't argue with that.
Elaine

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2012, 0:06
> Subject: Reply to Marie's earlier post on "blood"
>
> > I have a theory that the continuing controversy surrounding
>
> > who was
> Shakespeare and who actually created the plays and poems
>
> > is a
> punishment for his transgressions in demonizing Richard III.
>
>
>
> We know more about Shakespeare than we do about John Webster and John Ford, and if anyone cites Mark Rylance and Derek Jacobi (I'm really disappointed in him), I'll raise you Ian McKellen, Judi Dench, Harriet Walter and Antony Sher.
>
> And, honestly, if anyone's being posthumously punished, it's probably the Earl of Oxford, who has to endure having a follower called John Thomas Looney...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>  
> Hi Marie
> You posted a comment recently, that I can't now find, which brought to mind Shakespeare's lines from his other play about a maligned king whose reputation has been unfairly trashed by Shakespeare. You, know, the one we can't mention by name where the protagonist says:
> "I am in blood
> Stepped in so far that should I wade no more,
> Returning were as tedious as go o'er."
>
> I have a theory that the continuing controversy surrounding who was Shakespeare and who actually created the plays and poems is a punishment for his transgressions in demonizing Richard III. And part of that is to have his reputation questioned.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>

> I note your points but why only quote actors?

Only because Rylance and Jacobi are probably the most high-profile Oxfordians. One problem is that the authorship controversy is, indeed, infiltrating academia, but more as a pseudo-subject growth industry. I'm clearly from the trad side - I dd my MA under Stanley Wells in 1993 - but I don't think there's any even remotely plausible counter-argument to this position (unlike the Ricardian controversy, where there is significant primary source textual information).

Cheers

Jonathan

Hi

I think Rylance is hedging his bets somewhat as he is also paying court to the Marlovian theory. Yes, it is a profitable income spinner for academics when you consider how much is published on Shakespeare in one form or another; for example biographies, his world, the theatre, society etc. It's a pity however, that his contemporaries are so overlooked. Apart from Marlowe and Jonson the others are sidelined somewhat as extras although Stanley Wells did write a book about his contemporaries called Shakespeare and Co.
I have an open mind regarding who wrote the plays and don't think it matters one way or another; they exist; it's just a pity from the Ricardian point of view that he chose to present Richard in the way he did. I suspect though, in years to come, some bright spark will come up with interpretation that exonerates Shakespeare and that it was a protest play against Tudor repression, if they haven't already done so! I have heard it said somewhere that More substituted Richard for Henry Tudor in his narrative history (I use the word history loosely and with irony in this case!)
The theory surrounding Shakespeare is a hypothetical "what if" he didn't write them, then who did, unlike the situation regarding Richard which is one of trying to correct an injustice.
Elaine

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> > I note your points but why only quote actors?
>
> Only because Rylance and Jacobi are probably the most high-profile Oxfordians. One problem is that the authorship controversy is, indeed, infiltrating academia, but more as a pseudo-subject growth industry. I'm clearly from the trad side - I dd my MA under Stanley Wells in 1993 - but I don't think there's any even remotely plausible counter-argument to this position (unlike the Ricardian controversy, where there is significant primary source textual information).
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

The whole argument falls apart when you see that Oxford died in 1604. Are the followers saying he had Tempest, Lear, and all the later masterpieces stuck in a draw somewhere?
I personally don't care who wrote the works. The majority were by one man, and they have such a vast understanding of humanity and human nature as to be magical.
Paul


On 30 Nov 2012, at 22:51, ellrosa1452 wrote:

> Hi
>
> I think Rylance is hedging his bets somewhat as he is also paying court to the Marlovian theory. Yes, it is a profitable income spinner for academics when you consider how much is published on Shakespeare in one form or another; for example biographies, his world, the theatre, society etc. It's a pity however, that his contemporaries are so overlooked. Apart from Marlowe and Jonson the others are sidelined somewhat as extras although Stanley Wells did write a book about his contemporaries called Shakespeare and Co.
> I have an open mind regarding who wrote the plays and don't think it matters one way or another; they exist; it's just a pity from the Ricardian point of view that he chose to present Richard in the way he did. I suspect though, in years to come, some bright spark will come up with interpretation that exonerates Shakespeare and that it was a protest play against Tudor repression, if they haven't already done so! I have heard it said somewhere that More substituted Richard for Henry Tudor in his narrative history (I use the word history loosely and with irony in this case!)
> The theory surrounding Shakespeare is a hypothetical "what if" he didn't write them, then who did, unlike the situation regarding Richard which is one of trying to correct an injustice.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>>> I note your points but why only quote actors?
>>
>> Only because Rylance and Jacobi are probably the most high-profile Oxfordians. One problem is that the authorship controversy is, indeed, infiltrating academia, but more as a pseudo-subject growth industry. I'm clearly from the trad side - I dd my MA under Stanley Wells in 1993 - but I don't think there's any even remotely plausible counter-argument to this position (unlike the Ricardian controversy, where there is significant primary source textual information).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hear, hear, Paul!



My mother always said the kerfuffle about "who wrote Shakespeare" was
because some people refuse to accept that masterpieces of the playwright's
art could have been written by a commoner. Hence lighting upon Oxford, whose
known works, as I recall, were pretty second-rate.



Gimme the Bard of Stratford-on-Avon any day!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 7:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Reply to Marie's earlier post on
"blood"





The whole argument falls apart when you see that Oxford died in 1604. Are
the followers saying he had Tempest, Lear, and all the later masterpieces
stuck in a draw somewhere?
I personally don't care who wrote the works. The majority were by one man,
and they have such a vast understanding of humanity and human nature as to
be magical.
Paul

On 30 Nov 2012, at 22:51, ellrosa1452 wrote:

> Hi
>
> I think Rylance is hedging his bets somewhat as he is also paying court to
the Marlovian theory. Yes, it is a profitable income spinner for academics
when you consider how much is published on Shakespeare in one form or
another; for example biographies, his world, the theatre, society etc. It's
a pity however, that his contemporaries are so overlooked. Apart from
Marlowe and Jonson the others are sidelined somewhat as extras although
Stanley Wells did write a book about his contemporaries called Shakespeare
and Co.
> I have an open mind regarding who wrote the plays and don't think it
matters one way or another; they exist; it's just a pity from the Ricardian
point of view that he chose to present Richard in the way he did. I suspect
though, in years to come, some bright spark will come up with interpretation
that exonerates Shakespeare and that it was a protest play against Tudor
repression, if they haven't already done so! I have heard it said somewhere
that More substituted Richard for Henry Tudor in his narrative history (I
use the word history loosely and with irony in this case!)
> The theory surrounding Shakespeare is a hypothetical "what if" he didn't
write them, then who did, unlike the situation regarding Richard which is
one of trying to correct an injustice.
> Elaine
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
<jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>>> I note your points but why only quote actors?
>>
>> Only because Rylance and Jacobi are probably the most high-profile
Oxfordians. One problem is that the authorship controversy is, indeed,
infiltrating academia, but more as a pseudo-subject growth industry. I'm
clearly from the trad side - I dd my MA under Stanley Wells in 1993 - but I
don't think there's any even remotely plausible counter-argument to
this position (unlike the Ricardian controversy, where there is significant
primary source textual information).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The whole argument falls apart when you see that Oxford died in 1604. Are the followers saying he had Tempest, Lear, and all the later masterpieces stuck in a draw somewhere?
> I personally don't care who wrote the works. The majority were by one man, and they have such a vast understanding of humanity and human nature as to be magical.
> Paul


Considering the duplication of names that we encounter in the slightly earlier times, I'm quite willing to believe that William Shakespeare didn't write the plays, but another man by the same name did. ;-)

Katy

This is very true and has been repeated many times, take Mozart for example.
George
PS
What news if any from the DNA results?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 2, 2012, at 6:22 AM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Hear, hear, Paul!
>
> My mother always said the kerfuffle about "who wrote Shakespeare" was
> because some people refuse to accept that masterpieces of the playwright's
> art could have been written by a commoner. Hence lighting upon Oxford, whose
> known works, as I recall, were pretty second-rate.
>
> Gimme the Bard of Stratford-on-Avon any day!
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 7:16 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Reply to Marie's earlier post on
> "blood"
>
> The whole argument falls apart when you see that Oxford died in 1604. Are
> the followers saying he had Tempest, Lear, and all the later masterpieces
> stuck in a draw somewhere?
> I personally don't care who wrote the works. The majority were by one man,
> and they have such a vast understanding of humanity and human nature as to
> be magical.
> Paul
>
> On 30 Nov 2012, at 22:51, ellrosa1452 wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I think Rylance is hedging his bets somewhat as he is also paying court to
> the Marlovian theory. Yes, it is a profitable income spinner for academics
> when you consider how much is published on Shakespeare in one form or
> another; for example biographies, his world, the theatre, society etc. It's
> a pity however, that his contemporaries are so overlooked. Apart from
> Marlowe and Jonson the others are sidelined somewhat as extras although
> Stanley Wells did write a book about his contemporaries called Shakespeare
> and Co.
> > I have an open mind regarding who wrote the plays and don't think it
> matters one way or another; they exist; it's just a pity from the Ricardian
> point of view that he chose to present Richard in the way he did. I suspect
> though, in years to come, some bright spark will come up with interpretation
> that exonerates Shakespeare and that it was a protest play against Tudor
> repression, if they haven't already done so! I have heard it said somewhere
> that More substituted Richard for Henry Tudor in his narrative history (I
> use the word history loosely and with irony in this case!)
> > The theory surrounding Shakespeare is a hypothetical "what if" he didn't
> write them, then who did, unlike the situation regarding Richard which is
> one of trying to correct an injustice.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I note your points but why only quote actors?
> >>
> >> Only because Rylance and Jacobi are probably the most high-profile
> Oxfordians. One problem is that the authorship controversy is, indeed,
> infiltrating academia, but more as a pseudo-subject growth industry. I'm
> clearly from the trad side - I dd my MA under Stanley Wells in 1993 - but I
> don't think there's any even remotely plausible counter-argument to
> this position (unlike the Ricardian controversy, where there is significant
> primary source textual information).
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>