11.November 2013
Felicity Morgan an Shelfi:
And..."When you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman." -- Rupert Goodwins
Shelphi 10 Nov 2013
If you knew anything at all about the Shakespeare Authorship Conference or about Oxfordian scholarship, you would see that our movement is inspiring many brilliant scholars and young students who are disillusioned with the status quo and professors who tell them to believe a preposterous, outdated mythology. A few close-minded people who knew nothing about the legitimate questions of authorship complained about our event, which was actually a well-attended inclusive, welcoming, scholarly and professional event that presented some of the most innovative thought in the fields of Elizabethan history and Shakespearean studies. All this defensiveness and divisiveness on the part of Stratfordians just makes the old theories look stale. Much ado? Oxfordians stand on the side of evidence which the other side, entrenched and fat with cash just ignores or insults because they think they do not have to read the now countless arguments that undermine their house of cards. http://www.shakespearefellowship.org
9 November 2013
Those who are unable to acknowledge or to understand the immense significance and prevalence of 'ambiguity' as a Jacobethan literary technique should refrain from pontificating on the subject –
Alexander Waugh 8 November 2013
Dear Dom, thank you for your explanation of 'in on the non secret." I cannot speak for all Oxfordians, or non-Stratfordians, but as far as my own understanding goes you have it right. I do indeed contend that Oxford concealed himself behind pseudonyms which, in 1593 and 1994 included the name 'William Shakespeare' and that this name was also used by him for plays printed from 1598. So I agree with you there. I also agree that a) the true identity of the man behind this pseudonym and/or b) the fact that 'William Shakespeare was a pseudonym was widely known in literary circles. I say 'literary circles' because we do not know what people were saying in court circles or in other circles, but at least we have records from printed literary circles. So to name just some of those authors who reveal knowledge of what you call the 'non-secret' in their printed works: 1. Anonymous author of Willobie (1594), 2: William Covell in Polimateia (1595); 3. John Weever two epigrams (c. 1595), 4. Joseph Hall (as above), W.K. (John Marston) as above; 5. Thomas Edwardes (1595), 6. Richard Barnfield (1598); 7. William Barksted (1607), 8. Davies of Hereford (c. 1611) - need I go on - even the post 1623 lot are plentiful William Davenant (1637), Richard Brome (1638), John Warren (1640) and on and on. The fact that you and your co-religionists will hotly deny each and every one of these references is really neither here nor there, what is interesting is that anti-Stratfordians have spotted them, and if these allusions were there for anti-Strats to spot in 2013 then they were certainly there for sharp-eyed Elizabethans and Jacobeans to spot at the time. the print hasn't changed.
Your explanation of Labeo being W.K. still needs special pleading. For even if Pigmalion was circulating in MS before it was published (I happen to agree with you about this), but what makes you suppose that the MS bore a pseudonym? Pseudonyms are generally used to conceal a writer's name for a work in print. Do you have other examples of MS copies bearing pseudonyms. How do you explain that Marston reveals 'Labeo' to be 'Shakespeare' with a direct reference to Venus and Adonis? So I am sorry. I do not wish to be rude, but on this particular issue I remain of the view that "Labeo = W.K." is, if not 'silly' as per my previous, highly unlikely and very untidy.
Alexander Waugh 8 November 2013
According to the ancient biographer, Santra, the African slave, Terence, was a front man for the play writing praetor, Quintus Flavius Labeo. Santra wrote that Labeo was more likely to have been the true author of Terence's plays than Laelio or Scipio. Quintus Flavius Labeo was a scion of one of the oldest and grandest families of Ancient Rome and a Consul of the Republic. John Davies of Hereford, who wrote the poem 'To our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare' would have known this as it is revealed in Suetonius's much read 'Life of Terence.' So too would Joseph Hall who, in his Satires, rails against a contemporary poet who is hiding like a cuttle fish in his ink, behind a pseudonym. Hall obscures the identity of this poet behind the name 'Labeo.' In the 'Metamorphosis of Pigmalion's Image' (1598) John Marston identifies Hall's 'Labeo' as Shakespeare. I notice some Baconians have attempted to link Hall and Marston's 'Labeo' to the Roman lawyer, Antistius Labeo, but the nobleman, Quintus Fabius Labeo, as a nobleman-playwright linked to spurious works of Terence is surely more likely than a lawyer in this context. The similarities between this Quintus Fabius Labeo and Edward de Vere are pretty obvious. Attempts to link Hall's Labeo references to Bacon's motto 'mediocre firma' are specious because Hall's passage in which the motto is quoted is not concerned with 'Labeo'. I mention all this, not to correct you. Your mention of Scipio and Laelius is of course correct and is also mentioned by Suetonius, but I believe that the Labeo-Terrence-Shakespeare connection makes an even stronger case for Shakespeare as 'Our English Terence' than do Laelius and Scipio.