[Ansteorra] Bardic PSA- RECALL NOTICE

[Casey Weed]

I've now read four different anti-Stratfordian books and skimmed a couple
others.  All of them to a one use two or three of the same [bad] arguments:

1. The Classist Argument- The Glovemaker's Son wasn't smart enough or
well-bred enough or well-educated enough to have written the plays.  I've
already picked this one apart but it's essentially an argument from silence
and so, fallacious from the start.  And we have tons of examples of genius
coming from the common man elsewhere.  And it's insulting, as you point out.

2. The Biopic Argument- You can see elements and incidents from the life of
[insert conspiratorial candidate here: Oxford, Bacon, Bess, Neville, aliens,
time travellers, Thad the Gardener] in the plays.  This is a dead argument
two ways: first, biopic writing styles didn't come about as a style until
the 18th/19th century.  At a time when an onstage acted sin was still
considered by most a fairly grave thing and when literature could get you
killed or excommunicated this makes sense.  "Edmund: A Butler's Story" with
all it's intimate details and factual links to Blackadder's real life is
written, mythically but accurately, during the REGENCY.  Secondly, if you
choose to ignore the stylistic problem biopic writing presents, this sword
cuts both ways: there are several anecdotes from life and times of the
Glovemaker's Son that fit very nicely in the plays.  There is a court case
from Stratford, for instance, recording a drowned cousin of W.S. in a stream
while picking flowers (Ophelia, anyone?).  This class of argument,
coincidentally, is often put forth by some decedent of the proposed 'real'
writer... imagine that.

3.  The Cipher Argument- There is a Hidden Code in the writing that uncovers
the Real Truth.  This is the worst of the hogswallop- mostly founded on
pseudo-scholarship by a loon named Penn Leary- and it doesn't pass any
reasonable test.  Basically, you can find "evidence" in any body of writing
this large that anybody wrote anything.  See:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bacpenl.html and follow the "What else did
Bacon write?" link.  You'll be happy to know that if you believe Bacon wrote
the cannon that you can also give him credit on the same grounds for having
penned Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha, Tarzan of the Apes, and the Federalist
Papers.

It's just a sign of our times.  Our culture is having a love affair with
conspiracy these days and it's become vogue to pick out the icons of an age
and try to look for fleas in the manes of lions.  The saddest part is
watching people you admire in another aspect buy into this crap due to the
absence of training in Rhetoric and Debate coupled with a complete ignorance
of historical fact.  Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of amazing talent... who
fervently believes the Earl of Oxford wrote at least ten plays after his own
death.  Acting genius; historically illiterate.  Ask any of the people who
are actual scholars in the field (and I have done this in person or by
proxy)- Dr. Andrew Gurr (author and leading world scholar on W.S.), Dr.
James Loehlin (UT Chair, author of 12 books on W.S., runs Shakespeare At
Winedale), Dr. Joe Stephenson (Chair at Abilene Christian University)- and
they all react the same way: "Are you kidding me?  Shakespeare the actor,
the playwright, and the glovemaker's son from Stratford are one and the same
and no reasonable person who has looked at the evidence thinks otherwise."





On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:18 AM, mikea <mikea at mikea.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 09:41:57AM -0500, Katerinka Ikonnikova wrote:
> > I'm currently reading a book "The Truth Will Out" (by Brenda James &
> > William D. rubinstein) which puts forth Henry Neville as the author in a
> > very frustratingly arrogant way. Again, the main argument is that someone
> > of Shakespeare's class & education couldn't possibly have written such
> > works. Yet Neville was smart enough & traveled enough.
> >
> > Has anyone else read this? I find the argument that he was, for all
> > intents & purposes, too stupid to write them very cruel. I also find the
> > authors style of writing very arrogantly matter of fact. I'm trying to
> > get through the whole book but I keep having to put it down repeatedly
> > out of annoyance.
>
> Assuming what one wishes to prove, rather than demonstrating convincing
> evidence of its truth/existence/validity, is not new; I wish it would die
> out, but it suits the purposes of a certain type of writer/researcher
> altogether too well.
>
> Thanks for pointing out Yet Another Author to avoid.
>
> --
> Mike Andrews        /   Michael Fenwick    Barony of Namron, Ansteorra
> mikea at mikea.ath.cx  /   Amateur Extra radio operator W5EGO
> Tired old music Laurel; Chirurgeon; SCAdian since AS XI
> Listowner, SCA-Laurels
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>