Monday, November 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
I would like to personally congratulate this speaker on his well-reasoned case. I would also like to draw his attention to the fact that
ReplyDeletea) Wolsingham was trained in the most advanced intelligence/security Stazi state: Venice.
b) Shakespeare's references to Venice (Iago) and Venetian banking elites (unfortunately over-focussed on Jews as the main perps in Merchant of Venice), are negative, except the potential of a state to do the right thing (Merchant of Venice, but note: the right thing is done outside of the ordinary legal system).
c) Even if they've identified the wrong man as Shakespeare, there is some suggestion in modern research, that in the plays he's pro-Catholic, or at least supports them as a counter force http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBJbnSUPung to the growing "eyes and ears" model of Elizabethan Venice collusion.
It was Venetian advice which insisted Henry VII could and should not compromise with the Pope, which was not a mere religious issue, but a geopoliticking manoeuvre which kept continental and English infighting going, to keep Venice safe and prosperous. This influence had grown also through actual need later, most obviously through Wolsingham and William Cecil. (Elizabeth needed an assassin guard who was dedicated to her -- Wolsingham -- even if it was bad for England's people in the end, to have such influences on the court).
d) Cecil was very pro Venice. He functioned mostly selfishly in intention, but with these connections also benefitting, to manipulate the crown and rouse up dissent in a controlled chaos, in false flags. (His progeny & friends were involved in the Guy Fawkes disaster false flag, which ushered in a new almost complete destructive era of Civil War and European Continental war). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfvmt4HONbU
I thought I would flesh out some of these issues, which the current speaker, Mr. Norwood's, points could contain/be informed by; they are not contradictory.
The links above are not perfect (the first link is specifically on Shakespeare and the Catholics; the 2nd link is in fact part 1 of a long talk about Cecil and Shakespeare and Fawkes later). The whole talk is necessary to understand the Cecil/Shakespeare issues and Guy Fawkes later, though parts of it go into 9/11, to connect the issues to the current life.
The talk is quite stunning overall. Hope Mr. Norwood bothers with it (in full) sometime, despite the fact that some of the issues are not directly his Shakepearean issues.
Thank you so much! Amazing show and overview. Wonderful!
Clare,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much indeed for your kind words. Also, I appreciated the amount of thought you invested in your commentary.
For the general subject of Italy and Shakespeare, a marvelous new book explores in detail the individual sites and local color of Renaissance Italy appearing in Shakespeare’s plays. The book is:
Richard Paul Roe, “The Shakespeare Guide to Italy—Retracing the Bard’s Unknown Travels” (Harper Perennial, 2011).
While Roe does not address the political context of Italy that interests you, the centerpiece of the volume is nonetheless the city of Venice. The excerpts from the plays (especially “Othello” and “The Merchant of Venice”) are especially informative in demonstrating how the author of Shakespeare’s literary works could only have written them from a first-hand experience of visiting Italy.
To follow up on your discussion of Francis Walsingham: Elizabeth’s nickname for Walsingham was the “Moor,” which lends support to your analysis in (b) above. Also, Walsingham’s daughter was married to BOTH Sir Philip Sidney and, after his death, to the Earl of Essex!
It is simply mind-boggling how small was the world of the courtly élite in the Elizabethan age. The fingerprints on the plays and poems ultimately reflect the aristocratic inner circle, leading to Cecil and Walsingham and, ultimately, to the most highly educated poet of that courtly world: Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.
Thanks again for your comments,
James
First a confession: I fell asleep [no reflection on the program] about halfway thru and won't have a chance to listen again for awhile. Consequenrtly I don't know if my concerns were addressed in the portion I missed. So quickly then:
ReplyDeleteBen Jonson and others said they saw S' writing those plays in the famous tavern [can't remember name] which the Globe Theater people frequented. Was he lying?And if so why?
Queen E' made S' poet laureate, does James believe that S' was deceiving E' on this? Or does James believe the queen was part of the conspiracy? And if so why?
S' was born Catholic and was part of the resistance. He was closely associated with Lancaster [Catholic rival for the throne] and spent a good deal of time in the latter's castle. Once, so the story goes, he just escaped when Protestant forces raided, his bed was still warm. Anyway, some have speculated that it was during this period that S' learned about the world by availing himself of Lancaster's considerable library, and may have even traveled to the continent pursuant to his work on behalf of Lancaster. I have no idea if this is true, but it might explain his education etc.
James says that he doesn't believe that multiple people wrote these plays cuz there is a single evolving intellect at work. i agree, but we know S' worked with others on the writing of the English Book of Common Prayre. It is known what passages he crafted ["may my right hand lose its cunning"] and they are spectacular, and, it seems to me, written by the same guy who wrote the shakespeare plays. The voice one hears in Timon or Coriolanus or MacBeth is recognizable in the BCP in my opinion. I guess you can argue that it too was ghostwritten for him by the same hand which wrote the plays/sonnets, but this would mean several people were lying about it, and that strains my credulity.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteYou have raised good, traditional issues that merit discussion. Here are my responses to your inquiries:
(1) The Mermaid Tavern. We have nothing more than posthumous, anecdotal evidence that Will Shakspere spent time in the Mermaid Tavern of London with drinking buddies like Ben Jonson. And there is nothing even in the anecdotes that suggests he was writing his plays in this pub. During the lifetime of Will of Stratford, there is not a single piece of evidence indicating that he was a writer of any kind, let alone the works of "William Shakespeare."
(2) Poet Laureate. The author William Shakespeare never received the honorific title of poet laureate. Will Shakspere of Stratford was granted a coat of arms, which had nothing to do with literary achievements. The coat of arms meant simply that Will’s rank in the Elizabethan society was that of a “gentleman.”
(3) Access to Library. There is no evidence to support the contention that Will Shakspere of Stratford had access to the library of Alexander Houghton in Lancashire. There is a reference to a “William Shakeshafte” in the employ of this Catholic family in Lancashire. In the will of Alexander Houghton, “Shakeshafte” is left a bequest of some clothes and musical instruments. But there is no way to confirm that “Shakeshafte” is the same as William Shakspere from Stratford. Above all, there is no evidence suggesting that Will Shakespere of Stratford had any education or would have any interest in books. The evidence is so thin during the formative years of William that scholars refer to them as the “lost years.”
(4) Book of Common Prayer. This influential book redefined the liturgy in the new Anglican Church after Henry VIII had broken with the Church of Rome, and it was revised early in the reign of Elizabeth I. But this was long before either William Shaspere of Stratford or Edward de Vere could have been contributors. The version of the Bible that came to prominence in the Elizabethan age was the so-called Geneva Bible. A beautiful copy of this Bible was purchased by Edward de Vere and includes his annotations and underlining of key passages. This volume is in the collection of the Folger Library in Washington, D.C. Roger Stritmatter’s groundbreaking research has identified key words, phrases, and images in Shakespeare’s works corresponding to the underlined passages in De Vere’s copy of the Bible.
(5) Collaborations. The argument for a “group theory” of Shakespeare’s works is not persuasive. The long narrative poems and Sonnets are almost universally acknowledged as the work of a single author. Because theatre is a collaborative art, it was inevitable that some of the play manuscripts would be revised and edited by actors in the production process.
Shakespeare is often compared to Michelangelo as a multifaceted genius and artist. Michelangelo’s talents included skills in painting, sculpture, architecture, and engineering. His working method included delegating tasks to journeymen and assistants. A monumental project like the completion of the Sistine Chapel involved delegation of assignments to assistant painters. But no one doubts that the overarching artistic choices were made by Michelangelo: this monumental work of genius is the Sistine ceiling of Michelangelo. And the same is true with the plays and poems of Shakespeare--a universal genius in narrative poetry, sonnet form, comedy, history, tragedy, and satire.
I'm really looking forward to listening to this. I remember being impressed with some of Joe Sobran's material on this issue a few years ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sobran.com/oxfordlibrary.shtml
Let me just start out by saying that James Norwood is a phenomenal speaker. I recently engaged in the Shakespeare authorship question through a class given by James. I don't know anyone who has throughly examined this subject based on the facts more than he. I was thrilled to listen to the podcast as I don't think there is a more intelligent broadcast to listen to than this one. It full of sound evidence to show who the real Shakespeare is....Edware De Vere. The real challange in delving into this emotional subject is to open your eyes and look at the proof. Too many people in our society go through life with their eyes shut AFRAID of the truth. We are sheltered by press and government keeping us from truth and therefor hindering us from thinking with our own brains. Wake up people, stop letting fear hold you back and walk proud letting your voice be heard. Say what you mean and mean what you say! Thank you James Norwood for opening up a door others were to afraid to open!
ReplyDeleteTo the praises of the other commentators, I would add that as much of the exchange was ad lib, it was the best short verbalization of the facts and issues I have ever heard, and the fairest. The identity of the central figure in English literature remaining a question mark for four centuries, with much folderol as a cushion for His Blankness, shames our culture. I agree with the speakers' sentiment that falsity is a ubiquitous disease among nations. There will be no redemption for them or us until the truth is spoken and heard. We are not citizens if we accept the role of stooge, whether regarding history or contemporary events.
ReplyDeletepart one:
ReplyDeleteJames. I have the feeling that I'm in the Twilight Zone and Rod Serling is about to post something in this space.
re #5 JFTR: I didn't argue for collaboration, I argued the opposite. It's hard enuf to believe one person could write like that, let alone a committee.
re #4: If there are 17k words in Shakespeare, then it certainly would be possible that ANYTHING one could underline would correspond to 'keywords' etc.
de Vere's underlining of them signifies what? Are you suggesting the fact he found something in it worth underlining and later similar subjects appear in Shakespeare's work implies he was the author of them? Much of what you have presented has been interesting and worthy of contemplation, this however seems a reach. One has to consider what was going on in England at the time, the religious divide was THE great issue, and the BCP was a political statement. It is not surprising that its themes should also appear in the works of contemporaneous playwrights.
Also I have heard that shakespeare co-wrote the BCP from multiple sources. It's shocking to hear you say that it's not true. Recently I saw an episode in a series hosted by john romer about religion. He says S' co-wrote the BCP and quotes passages from it and attributes them to S'. The quote I used above, according to Romer, was written by S'. You say no. Okay, I guess I need to do a little research myself.
re #3: Yes it is very unlikely that Shakeshafte was Shakespeare, but you have to understand that S' was a spook. He did espionage work for Lancaster and the Catholic cause. There would be no record of him. {S's work in this regard continued throughout his life according to some. It is said that he rerquested a Catholic priest on his deathbed. Don't know if that's true but as he became rich--for not writing the Shakespeare plays I guess--he gave lotsa money to Catholic fronts and even purchsased houses that were later revealed to be Catholic safehouses. Walsingham, Marlowe et al were on one side, S' and Lancaster on the other. The fact that there are no records of him at Lancaster is predictable. However his later involvement in Catholic causes and underground suggest, and many a biographer conclude, that S' was an important man for Lancaster and the Catholic cause.
re #2 I stand corrected, but it is said he wrote speeches for the queen, including a ship christening and other state affairs. If true--and you have me doubting my own name now--were these ghostwritten too?
part two:
ReplyDeletere #1: You say there is not a bit of evidence that he was a writer. That's astonishing. How about that he is credited with writing the best plays ever written? You say he didn't, and you may be right, but I would say that there is a hell of a lot of evidence that S' was a writer, centuries of it. Is there more evidence that spencer, jonson, or Marlowe were writers? and if so what is it? How does one go about the business of proving that Milton wrote Paradise Lost? DNA residue on his quill? Video footage? That S' was the author of the best dramas ever written was widely believed at the time. It is what he and his family claimed, what jonson claimed, what theater-goers were told, what he won his coat of arms for. Alright James, you might be right about his not being the author, but to say that there is no evidence he is is just astonishing, easily one of the more remarkable things I've ever heard.
I saw a play performed by the local seattle shakespeare company 2 or 3 years ago called the life and writing of ben jonson [or something like that]. And the entire script was pieced together from jonson's writings. there was a scene in which he talks about seeing Shakespeare at the Mermaid scribbling away. I no longer have the playbill, but each bit was cited.
I guess I should ask for my money back.
According to Wikipedia: ' "Although no attendance records for the period survive, most biographers agree that Shakespeare was probably educated at the King's New School in Stratford,[11] a free school chartered in 1553,[12] about a quarter-mile from his home. Grammar schools varied in quality during the Elizabethan era, but the curriculum was dictated by law throughout England,[13] and the school would have provided an intensive education in Latin grammar and the classics." It would have beeen odd indeed if he hadn't attended school.
You may be right James, but you haven't come close to proving your case as far as I am concerned. But you raised some doubt.
Andwhat a cad S' must have been to accept the credit--and all the proceeds--from those plays if he didn't write them. I wonder what he was thinking as he defrauded England into giving hin that coat of arms. Did he think "ya know if ol' Liz finds out about this she might have me decapitated...."
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI’m listing below a selection of books that provide a good foundation for understanding the authorship question. I do not regard Wikipedia as a useful resource for a complex topic like this one. Also, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address (Lavatch@comcast.net), and I will be happy to respond in detail to all of the points raised above in your posts.
--James
Anderson, Mark. “Shakespeare” by Another Name. Gotham, 2006. Also e-book is now available on Kindle.
Beauclerk, Charles. Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom: The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth. Grove Press, 2010.
Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1920.
Meyer, G. T. The Tudors: The Complete Story of England’s Most Notorious Dynasty. Bantam, 2011.
Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare. EPM, 1992.
Price, Diana. Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem. Greenwood Press, 2000.
Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare. Free Press, 1997.
Elizabeth Nash, PhD, writes:
ReplyDeleteDr. James Norwood's defense of Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford, as the true author of William Shakespeare's magnificent works is both articulate and convincing. He adds weight to his arguments by an historical overview of those who also have questioned the authenticity of William Shakespeare of Stratford as their author--i.e., President John Adams, Friedrich Nietsche, Sigmund Freud, Sir John Gielgud and Sir Jacob Jacoby. The Oxfordian theorists have a superb spokesman in Dr. Norwood who has given us much food for thought. He should be conducting workshops on the Shakespeare controversy for both academicians and interested general readers.
Elizabeth Nash, PhD
University of Minnesota
part one:
ReplyDeleteJames, I'm not sure why you are reluctant to post your answer here. I don't object to exchanging emails, but don't see the need for moving the debate out of this forum.
Received an email from a friend who knows more about this topic, particularly Jonson, than I and he says that there is a hell of a lot more from Jonson than just the "Swan of Avon" on Shakespeare, which is consistent with the play I saw.
In his Timber, J' relates quite a bit about S', including an exchange with some actors who told J' that S' "never blots out a word" (meaning he doesn't need to rewrite--it all just flows out of him)to which J' famously responded sarcastically. According to my friend, there's quite a bit about S', including personal anecdotes, in Timber. That there isn't much in the Folio is not probitive.
part two:
ReplyDeleteI too do not regard Wikipedia as reliable [eg recent johann hari affair], but it is not enuf to dismiss the content because the source isn't the best. What in the bit I quoted do you dispute? That he attended the KNS? That he studied Latin and the classics? That there was a standardized curriculum? It is not difficult to determine whether theree was a KNS in Stratford at the time; nor whether there was a standardized course of study; nor whether it included Latin etc. This is what matters.
part three:
ReplyDeleteYour list of suggested reading unfortunately includes the vulgar propagandist Joseph Sobran, whom I believe that, much like his mentor William F. Buckley, was an intelligence officer. Sobran was a professional disinformationist, a genuinely despicable man who has zero credibility.
This does not mean that de Vere didn't write the Shakespeare plays, but for those of us, like the host of this blog, who try to extract the truth from all the bs that Sobran and Buckley and the whole team over at the National Review endlessly spew [eg their support for the Warren Commission], citing him does not help yr case.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI would like to be thorough in responding to all of your questions. In addition to e-mail, I have SKYPE, and we could either text-message or discuss the topics in much greater detail than is possible a blog format.
I look forward to hearing from you.
James
part four:
ReplyDeletere Nash: First, this sounds like a blurb for a book, has the ring of marketing about it.
I do not find her comments particularly [oh let's be kind] helpful. That James is articulate is irrelevant, it's the content of the argument that matters. It is insufficient to say that she finds his argument compelling--am I now to abandon my dissent simply because Elizabeth Nash is persuaded when I am not? She's gonna have to do a lot better than that.
It adds absolutely no weight to James' argument that Mr. Alien and Sedition Act and Mr Zarathustru and Mr. Penis Envy et al agree with him [if in fact they do]. Newton was an alchemist, does that mean you can change base metals into gold? Charles Manson believes in global warming, does that mean it's not true? I mean really, what a silly thing for an academic to say.
Yes James is a superb spokesman, and he makes a good argument, but the underlying facts of the matter, any matter, are not effected but the skill with which they are presented. Again this is a surprisinmg thing to hear coming from an academic.
James did not convince me. However, he did raise doubts. I acknowledge that what he says may be true, and I thank him [and JF]for his presentation. If it were a criminal case and i was in the jury and S' were the defendant, with the standard being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt how would I vote? Not guilty.
part five:
ReplyDeleteA decade or two ago somebody at Harvard [i think] did a computer analysis of the S' debate. They compared the S' writings to the known writings of de Vere, Marlowe, Bacon and I believe about a dozen others. They concludeed that there were too many differences in style between de vere [or any other candidate] and S' writings.
some years later, using different methodology, another team did the same thing and came to the same conclusion--they eliminated de Vere too.
No, this is not proof, but it is more compelling to me than anything James presented on the similarities between the Shakespeare canon and devere's known writing.
Okay James, you can get my email address from JF. I've had problems in the past with making my e-address public. It may take me some time to respond as things are really heating up with OccupySeattle, but I will eventually.
ReplyDeleteDave,
ReplyDeleteAs per my posting of 3:01pm today, I gave out my e-mail address to you. I never requested any personal data from you, nor will I be asking Professor Fetzer to provide me with your e-mail address. Again, you are welcome to contact me at:
Lavatch@comcast.net
If you are interested in learning more about the different topics related to the Shakespeare authorship question, I would be more than happy to work with you.
I am by training and profession a teacher. One of the keys to success in this topic is patience. Because I have spent twenty years in studying this issue, I honestly believe that every one of the issues you raise in your postings above requires careful, detailed scrutiny, prior to drawing conclusions.
If you are interested in probing beneath the surface level of the various topics, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
All best wishes,
James
Dave Fryett,
ReplyDeleteJoe Sobran was fired from National Review because he was a patriot who insisted on making a distinction between America's and Israel's interests, and did not agree with emerging neo-conservative consensus that a good American is defined by his readiness to wage war on Israel's enemies.
I believe you are quite wrong when you call him an intelligence officer, professional disinformationist, genuinely despicable etc., but even if it were true, it appears he went straight 20 or so years before his death and devoted the rest of his life to writing against the police state and the war party principally.
If Kevin Barrett, who lost his career for similar reasons of conscience, was able to calculate the loss in projected lifetime earnings at around $2.5M, I cannot imagine Sobran's losses were very much if any the less.
Could you not give the guy a break -- even if he once was all that you claim -- which assertion I doubt?
http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/welliott/shakes.htm
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the show as much as everyone else -- thanks fellas. I’ll check out at least one of the books you recommend, Dr Norwood.
ReplyDeleteAt the following link are some examples of Edward de Vere’s writing side by side with strikingly similar passages from Shakespeare. When I read it a few years ago I thought Sobran must really be onto something but never studied the question further …
http://web.archive.org/web/20071106225505/http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=121
Nick Dean;
ReplyDeleteThe management perception of the intelligence apparatus is much more sophisticated than that. The fact that there appeared to be a schism doesn't mean there was one. Controlling both ends of a debate corrals it within what are acceptable parameters. A good example is the Occupy- movement. With the sublime exception of the Oakland Commune, the Occupiers are calling for a so-called Robin Hood tax ( in previous incarnations called the Tobin tax) which would charge speculators (euphemistically referred to as job-creating investors) a scant one percent per. This is an outcome Wall Street doesn't want but can live with if it diffuses the groundsweel of discontent threatening to dislodge them. It's a perpetuation of the abominable practice masquerading as serious reform. The speculation in commodities, particularly foodstuffs is genocidally inhumane. Millions die globally as a result of the lucrative, high-stakes wagering done by the world's uberrich, the same uberrich whose unchecked gambling prerogatives Sobran supported to his dying breadth. I say Sobran is a shill and you say he's a true believer in this remorselessly undemocratic, plutocratic outrage called free markets. From my point of view either is just plain squalid.
If it was Clare Kuehn posting above I hope she returns ...
ReplyDeleteClare, please post here a link to the video proving fakery that you talked about the last time you were on the Real Deal. I tried to find the video as you described it but I think there's more than one series of 'September Clues' out there and the vid I found didn't match your description.
Cheers ...
James;
ReplyDeleteI didn't suspect that you were looking for personal information, just curious about the move off-site.
You made what was largely a good presentation. I enjoyed listening to you and JF. I now give more credence to the idea that Shakespeare wasn't the author of the Shakespeare canon than I did in the past (largely due to the serious flaws in the Bacon and Marlowe theories). But am I now prepared to say with confidence that de Vere is the author of Shakespeare's works? No. You failed to convince me that Shakespeare was a fraud, and you only established that de Vere could have been the author, not that he was. But because of yr presentation, I am now open to the idea.
As for continuing the dialog: I have no objection, altho it is clear that you are more keen on this topic than I (my not having spent 20 yrs researching it). Greater is my love for the works than my concern for who wrote them. But I have raised some questions above, and if you care to address them by email then go ahead, I'll be happy to read them. JF gave you my address, have at it.
Dave Fryett,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there appeared to be a schism doesn't mean there was one.
Argument?
undemocratic ... outrage called free markets
How are property rights, voluntary exchange, and prices determined by supply and demand 'undemocratic'?
Could I recommend four great books on William Shakespeare?
ReplyDeleteShakespeare The Biography - Peter Ackroyd
The Lodger - Shakespeare on Silver Street - Charles Nicholl
1599 A Year In the Life Of William Shakespeare - James Shapiro
William Shakespeare His Life And Work - Anthony Holden
'nuff said
To EBC and the Readers of this Blog:
ReplyDeleteThe four books recommended above (Ackroyd, Nicholl, Shapiro, and Holden) are works that embellish the same, tired story of the Stratford man that has been taught to students for hundreds of years.
My goal in this podcast was to attempt to provide information that might be helpful to young people in understanding the complete story of Shakespeare and, above all, in developing essential critical skills in coming to terms with a complex issue like the authorship question.
I have read all four of your recommended titles, and I have learned new and important information from each of those works (especially Shapiro's "1599"). Additionally, I have in the past adopted two of those books as required reading in a course I taught on the Shakespeare authorship question. However, it is my strong recommendation for those interested in pursuing this topic to read the works listed in my blog posting of November 15 in conjunction with the Stratfordian books.
So, in response to your flippant closing remark (“nuff said”), I would say the following: reading the four Stratfordian works alone and then closing off the conversation is doing a disservice to those whose interest in the authorship topic might have been sparked by the recent film.
If the student reads both the Stratfordian and Oxfordian books, he or she will be in a much better position to make an informed, educated decision.
James
Again!! Could I recommend four great books on William Shakespeare?
ReplyDeleteShakespeare The Biography - Peter Ackroyd
The Lodger - Shakespeare on Silver Street - Charles Nicholl
1599 A Year In the Life Of William Shakespeare - James Shapiro
William Shakespeare His Life And Work - Anthony Holden
'nuff said
Could I recommend four great books on William Shakespeare?
ReplyDeleteShakespeare The Biography - Peter Ackroyd
The Lodger - Shakespeare On Silver Street - Charles Nicholl
1599 A Year In the Life Of William Shakespeare - James Shapiro
William Shakespeare His Life And Work - Anthony Holden
'nuff said
To James Norwood and the readers of this blog......Who else?
ReplyDeleteCould I recommend four great books on William Shakespeare?
Shakespeare The Biography - Peter Ackroyd
The Lodger - Shakespeare On Silver Street - Charles Nicholl
1599 A Year In the Life Of William Shakespeare - James Shapiro
William Shakespeare His Life And Work - Anthony Holden
'nuff said
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
ReplyDeleteStephen Butler 29 September, 2011
Just out of sheer interest, I have had a look at the contributors here who subscribe to
questioning the authorship of Shakespeare. Here is a summary of who they are:
James Norwood, Ph.D is a middle school teacher (English/Language Arts and Drama). He is very passionate about true education reform that reaches all students and all parents. Dr. Norwood has a PhD in the area of curriculum and instruction. American.
Prof. William Rubenstein writes books on the wealth-holding classes in modern Britain, making use of probate and other taxation records and on the history of Jews. – an American Dr Heward Wilkinson is an Independent Psychotherapist and Consultant.
Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. is psychiatrist. – American.
KATHERINE CHILJAN (BA History, UCLA) - an American.
William Ray is retired from his work as a rural carrier with the US Postal Service.
American.
Paul Streitz is a graduate of Hamilton College and has an MBA from the University of Chicago, and had co-written musicals. American.
As we can see, none of the above contributors are scholars of early modern literature or
history. They are all American and most of them have written a book/books on the subject. Do we see a pattern? To my mind, it would appear that this subject is a favourite of Americans, who enjoy reading and writing about Shakespeare, but have no solid background in the history or culture of the period. They have also found a lucrative opportunity in a new, and growing industry that works in competition with the already established one of Shakespearean studies.
Dr. Leahy is not American and he is a Shakespearean scholar, but he doesn't mind getting 'into bed' with people of dubious background, including those from the thespian world, to promote his course.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
" The four books recommended above (Ackroyd, Nicholl, Shapiro, and Holden) are works that embellish the same, tired story of the Stratford man that has been taught to students for hundreds of years."
ReplyDeleteYou, sir, are an embellisher of drivel and uncorroborated poppycock and gab. I am amazed that Jim Fetzer gives you the time of day - never mind a podcast to spout your unsubstantiated stuff and nonsense.
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeleteIn your long string of postings on this blog, you have not succeeded in raising a single issue related to the Shakespeare authorship topic. Rather, you have listed websites and offered recommended readings (the same titles appearing in four different postings). Collectively your comments read like a screed, as opposed to thoughtful discourse.
In your writing, you are making use of what is called an ad hominem argument, namely, to attack the other person when you feel threatened or defensive. That is the typical method used by so many of Stratfordian scholars who are challenged by people who have serious doubts and concerns about the true identity of Shakespeare.
In your personal attack on me, you have attempted to inform the readers about me through a summary of my credentials that include teaching in “middle school” and having earned a degree in “curriculum and instruction.” In point of fact, I have never taught in “middle school,” and my doctorate was in drama. My credentials were reviewed by Professor Fetzer at the beginning and reiterated at the end of the podcast. Did you even listen to the program? And did you ever attempt to verify the information you were posting second-hand from another blog?
An ongoing problem with understanding the identity of Shakespeare is the same kind of distortion of facts that has misled and confused people for four hundred years. Sadly, people have simply taken the story of the Stratford man on upon faith in exactly the same way as you have skewered my credentials. This is the kind of lazy thinking and writing that I have sought to discourage in the work of my students.
For the readers of this blog, it is very instructive to read your postings, which help to shed light on why there has been and continues to be a Shakespeare authorship “problem.”
I have posted the same post four times for emphasis. This hardly qualifies as a long string or a "screed" as you call it and is, curiously,if it comes to that, not unlike your unchallenged effusions and bluster. I recommended four books which you saw fit to disparage, rubbish and dismiss. Have you written any books on Shakespeare? You do not need to teach me Latin. Latine loqui scio. I know what "ad hominem" means. May I assume that psychology was also one of your teaching subjects along with English/Language Arts and Drama? The true identity of Shakespeare
ReplyDeleteis already known. I have no doubts on this. The material I posted as regards your
qualifications was taken from a webpage.It is not mine - as can be clearly seen by anyone who has the eyes to see or read it - properly. If the credentials are not accurate, I apologize for any distress caused. Please take it up with the named author at the webpage given. However, if
the credentials were inaccurate, then one wonders why you did not challenge them at the
time they were originally posted. Your name and contribution to the same webpage are clearly visible. Please visit the webpage and acquaint the author of the "credentials" with the facts. There is no "ongoing problem" with me concerning the authorship of William Shakespeare's plays or, indeed, any of his works.
Calen o custure me
* One has had to delete the earlier post because of an unseemly grammatical error.
One cannot abide grammatical errors.
** One has had to delete the earlier post because of an unseemly syntactical error.
One cannot abide syntactical errors.
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you.
In your previous postings, you recommended four books, and I indicated that I had read those books and derived benefit from them all.
I have also listed some recommended readings in my posting of November 15. Those books include:
Anderson, Mark. “Shakespeare” by Another Name. Gotham, 2006.
Beauclerk, Charles. Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom: The True History of Shakespeare and Elizabeth. Grove Press, 2010.
Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1920.
Meyer, G. T. The Tudors: The Complete Story of England’s Most Notorious Dynasty. Bantam, 2011.
Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious William Shakespeare. EPM, 1992.
Price, Diana. Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem. Greenwood Press, 2000.
Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare. Free Press, 1997.
My question to you is as follows: how many of the titles above have you read, and what are your objections to the authors' research skills, methodologies, and findings about the authorship of Shakespeare’s works?
James
Actually , you have asked two questions - neither of which one will answer.
ReplyDeleteMay one ask you a question which one had asked earlier and which you seem to have overlooked?
The question was: Have you written any books on Shakespeare?
" The four books recommended above (Ackroyd, Nicholl, Shapiro, and Holden) are works that embellish the same, tired story of the Stratford man that has been taught to students for hundreds of years."
ReplyDeleteThis is hardly the language of civilized debate and criticism. How can you justify this intemperate, uninhibited and, indeed, ingenuous outburst of spleen and bile?
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any idea how foolish and comical are the comments you have posted above?
First, you repeat your reading list in four separate posts…for emphasis! Then, you proceed to delete multiple submissions you have written due to “unseemly syntactical error.” Then, in your final, polished versions, you write sentences such as, “you have asked two questions - neither of which one will answer.” Will the QUESTIONS not answer, or will YOU not answer the questions?????
At this point in our exchange, I would be tempted to invoke the words of Macbeth, “Hold, enough!” or even your pedestrian phrase “‘Nuff Said.”
However, I simply find too much entertainment value in your comments. So, please, by all means, keep writing your screed, which offers a superb record of the closed-mindedness of those clinging to a myth like Will Shakspere of Stratford.
I’ll be happy to describe my Shakespeare authorship manuscript and answer all of your questions in a future posting. At this moment, however, I’m virtually falling off my chair in strenuous, side-splitting laughter at your most recent communication about “intemperate, uninhibited and, indeed, ingenuous outburst of spleen and bile.” Take a look in the mirror (or reread your postings on this blog), and you will see all of those attributes.
James
Do you have any idea of the spectacle you present to other readers of this blog as you wriggle and squirm like a fish caught in a net? Your obvious inadequacies as regards the usage and nuances of the English language are only too apparent. Your inability to grasp the meaning of the simple English sentence: " Actually , you have asked two questions - neither of which one will answer." betrays a certain lack of linguistic instruction and education on your part and speaks volumes of your lack of literary skills. You would be much better engaged if you would cease and desist from posting your insane theories, presumptions, speculations and, dare I say, guesses on the authorship of the plays and other works of William Shakespeare! I should hope that when you have recovered from your hopefully cathartic bout of insane laughter that you will have somehow thrown off your demented and deranged ideas and purged yourself of these preposterous and psychotic hypotheses, suppositions and surmises.
ReplyDeleteIf that be the case, then I have, indeed, brought sanity and peace of mind to an otherwise lost and deluded soul....and for this, James, you will, one day, thank me.
I bid you good day.
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeleteIt is painfully apparent that you have not read any of the literature on the Shakespeare authorship question.
Additionally, you have failed to offer for discussion a single point, issue, or topic pertaining to Shakespeare.
I’ll be happy to respond to any question you raise. But thus far, you have been incapable of articulating anything of substance pertaining to the podcast.
Regarding your own writing style, you might consider addressing what is called “hyperbole.” Some of your phrases and word selections (“demented and deranged ideas,” “insane theories, presumptions, speculations,” “preposterous and psychotic hypotheses, suppositions and surmises”) speak volumes about your own grasp of the subject.
If you can’t get the discussion focused on the Shakespeare authorship question, then you should simply get a life!!!
James
It is totally obvious that you are a complete and utter charlatan and mountebank.
ReplyDeleteYour absolute lack of language skills is amazing in someone who claims to be a middle school teacher of English and drama. Your gutter language ( Get a life ) shows you up for what you really are:
A foulmouthed buffoon.
I am dismayed that an incoherent and inarticulate fraud and impostor such as you has somehow become associated with, or rather, infiltrated the ranks of those real and respected students involved in the legitimate and authoritative study of Shakespeare and of his life and works.
Unless you can keep a civil tongue in your head, I should prefer if you were not to post
again on this subject.
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeleteUnless you are willing to actually discuss the content of the podcast, I concur that this interchange should end.
Specifically, what point raised in the podcast would you like to discuss?
James
" The four books recommended above (Ackroyd, Nicholl, Shapiro, and Holden) are works that embellish the same, tired story of the Stratford man that has been taught to students for hundreds of years."
ReplyDeleteMy goal in this podcast was to attempt to provide information that might be helpful to young people in understanding the complete story of Shakespeare and, above all, in developing essential critical skills in coming to terms with a complex issue like the authorship question.
*******************************************
*******************************************
If your goal in the podcast was " to attempt to provide information that might be helpful to young people in understanding the complete story of Shakespeare and, above all, in developing essential critical skills in coming to terms with a complex issue like the authorship question.", then, please elaborate on the following post from you:
" The four books recommended above (Ackroyd, Nicholl, Shapiro, and Holden) are works that embellish the same, tired story of the Stratford man that has been taught to students for hundreds of years."
What was your "goal" in posting the above?
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeleteI would offer the following example as one of the shortcomings of the four books by Ackroyd, Nicholl, Shapiro, and Holden. I contend that these pseudo-biographies do not present a complete picture of the author of Shakespeare’s literary works.
The example is from Anthony Holden’s popular biography, “William Shakespeare—The Man Behind the Genius.” On p. 2, Holden writes the following that serves as the premise for the entire biography:
“In truth, as I maintain at the outset of this book, we know more about the life of Shakespeare than that of any of his literary contemporaries...”
In itself, this statement is accurate: we do know a great deal about the life of William of Stratford. However, Holden does not convey to the reader that the evidence we have from the lifetime of William provides no documentation of his activities as a writer (correspondence, records of payments, tributes, etc.) The sum total of the evidence reflects a life of a businessman. Holden then proceeds to describe in detail the various business and legal transactions that shed no light on the author of Shakespeare’s works.
So, to answer your question: My goal in raising concerns about Anthony Holden’s biography is that the words used by the author (though not inaccurate) are misleading, and they do not offer a convincing portrait of the life of an author—one who turns out to be the greatest in the English language.
Can you identify any evidence from Holden’s biography that suggests that William of Stratford was a writer?
James
This is more like it!
ReplyDeleteCan you give quotations from the other three books. I assure I have read all four of them and have them ready to hand.
Qualtitie calen acusture me! Art thou a gentleman?
what is thy name? discuss.
O, Signieur Dew should be a gentleman:
Perpend my words, O Signieur Dew, and mark;
O Signieur Dew, thou diest on point of fox,
Except, O signieur, thou do give to me
Egregious ransom.
Good that you have chosen Holden's book first.
Can you confirm what Holden has to say about AND if you concur with his interpretation of the meaning of Pistol's " Qualtitie calen acusture me " of which many have categorized " calen acusture me " (in particular) as gibberish.
I should be interested to know your views on the linguistic standing of the words " calen acusture me ".
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeletePlease correct me if I am mistaken, but it was my understanding that our discussion was addressing the overall scholarly worth of Anthony Holden’s popular biography. While you have placed this book on your list of the top four biographies of Shakespeare, I have termed Holden’s book a “pseudo-biography” that does not provide a persuasive portrait of the life of the author.
Is this a fair summary of our recent exchanges?
If so, let’s keep the discussion on track with our goals. While an interesting topic, Pistol’s speech is a digression. This passage is from a literary work ("Henry V") and does not constitute the kind of primary evidence that will help us to understand who wrote Shakespeare's works.
My last question to you was to extract from Holden’s book any evidence from the lifetime of William of Stratford that suggests he was an author. By evidence, I do not mean extractions from Shakespeare's plays.
It is obvious that you admire Holden’s book. So, please take your time in reviewing the book and select any passage that advances our conversation about the evidence.
I’ll be checking back later, and I look forward to learning of your selection.
James
Having searched through Holden's tome one cannot find the reference to the words "calen acusture me" which makes one think, one may have read them in James Shapiro's 1599 - A Year In the Life Of William Shakespeare. Nevertheless, one is still interested in your take on what the words " calen acusture me " actually mean.
ReplyDeleteOne apologizes for this aberration.
No. It is not fair and yes, you are mistaken. Holden's book is not my favourite book and our " discussion" was not to address the overall scholarly worth of Anthony Holden’s popular biography ". I should say that " 1599 A Year In the Life Of William Shakespeare " by James Shapiro is my favourite book followed closely by " Shakespeare The Biography " by Peter Ackroyd and " The Lodger - Shakespeare on Silver Street " by Charles Nicholl. The initial list was random. I should have thought every word Shakespeare wrote constitutes " the kind of primary evidence that will help us to understand who wrote Shakespeare's works." How you can deduce that I admire Holden's book is beyond me. I hope these are not the same "powers" of deduction that you apply to all your research.
ReplyDeleteOK, EBC:
ReplyDeleteWe have once again lost the thread of our discussion on the Shakespeare authorship topic.
Also, with all due respect, I believe your tone could be less hostile and accusatory. Can we keep this discussion from getting so personal and confrontational?
I have asked you to place on the blog any evidence in the lifetime of William of Stratford that suggests he was the author of the plays and poems attributed to Shakespeare. Our main text for discussion is Holden's biography, which was one of the four books you recommended.
What evidence does Holden present that suggests that William of Stratford wrote the plays and poems of Shakespeare?
James
Why you have latched on to Holden's book which you have proclaimed " ex cathedra " as being a “pseudo-biography ”, may be revealing. Perhaps you also consider it an inferior "soft target"? Let us choose another book from my random list to get the "discussion" back on the rails. I suggest either " Shakespeare The Biography " by Peter Ackroyd or " The Lodger - Shakespeare On Silver Street " by Charles Nicholl
ReplyDeleteEBC,
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and use Ackroyd, "Shakespeare The Biography."
The edition that I have in my library is the hardcover version (Doubleday, 2005, 572 pp.).
I look forward to your selection,
James
James!
ReplyDeleteExcellent choice! There is plenty of "meat" on Peter Ackroyd's "Shakespeare The Biography". I shall start reading it again keeping in mind what you have written and said here. Let us here resolve to come again most carefully on our hour that I may serve you my choicest cuts of red meat which I shall have colloped for your delectation or detestaion. My only hope is that your digestive system will still be in working order when you have finished. On the other hand I may be the one with the stomach-ache. The preparation of this repast will, of course, take some time. I shall get back to you in 2 - 3 weeks.
All the very best, James!! You are a prince, a scholar and a gentleman!
EBC
Dear EBC,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much indeed for your cordial reply. I too look forward to discussing Ackroyd's book. This does promise to be a delectable repast! Thanks also for not serving ME as the main course!
Also, in 2-3 weeks, I will not be checking in with this site as frequently. So, please do not hesitate from contacting me at my e-mail address for a faster reply:
Lavatch@comcast.net
Thanks again, and I look forward to a lively discussion!
James
I found the show fascinating. The commentary that is found here however is dull and looks more like trolling and baiting. Good on James for patience, and thanks Dr. Fetzer for the always informative show. The stuff we neverhear about in school!
ReplyDelete