4 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Concerted Criticism at Last,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? -- Exposing an Industry in Denial (Paperback)
Such an exposure (debunking Shaxper the ignoramus and his mendacious defenders) has been mandatory for generations. All those heretical scholars who contributed deserve our warmest praise. There have been many admirable heretics who have exposed the Shaxper puppet, but never have so many assembled to challenge prejudice with fearless truth. Well done to all. A landmark publication, and certain to incommode complacent Shaxperians.
Their sinecures are doomed!
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 12 Aug 2014 23:06:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Aug 2014 23:08:23 BDT
No need to be so dismissive of Shaxper. Anybody wanting a "front-man" to pass off his works would be unlikely to choose an illiterate fool to do so. What we know of the Stratford man suggests he was a smooth operator who built up a considerable fortune for himself and became a prominent figure in his own community. A recent book by Sabrina Feldman expounds a theory that I have toyed with in the past, that he was, indeed, a writer but not the one that people generally think he was. She suggests that some of the apocryphal works published as being by William Shakespeare...rumbustious, entertaining works with about as much literary merit as the average "Carry on" script..were genuine works by the Stratford gentleman. It certainly makes sense that an aristocratic author would choose a writer with theatrical experience and connections to act as his "mask", especially one with good business sense and enough fondness for the Dosh to make him keep his lips sealed. If my own choice of who the Bard was is correct, Shakespeare would have played in his theatrical company and had the same initials as the actual author!
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Aug 2014 07:46:25 BDT
Hi Israel, Shaxper was illiterate, couldn't produce a signature. He was connected with theatre: he was a shareholder. He was also employed to bully young graduates into surrendering their plays for a pittance. He lived for financial profit. Ms Feldman is wrong: a man who cannot write a letter would be hard put to be writing plays. He was actually had up for 'affray' (bullying with others). He may have achieved a business notoriety, but he was still a bully, a philistine and an ignoramus. Thank you for taking the trouble to write. BD.
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Aug 2014 18:05:34 BDT
No, we don't know all that. Such positive statements adopt the same trick that many in the Stratfordian camp use; they think that by saying something they believe forcefully enough it will perform the magic trick of making it so but it only fools the gullible. Where's the evidence for the claim about the young graduates? I'd love to know if there is anything more than mere conjecture behind such a claim.
There is extant a letter addressed to Shakespeare ( To my Loveinge good Frend and contreyman Mr. Wm. Shackespere deliver thees.) from Richard Quiney requesting financial help. It's hardly likely that a letter would be sent to someone who couldn't read it. Also, it's most unlikely that a man would be employed as an actor who couldn't learn lines without having to be coached verbally. Who would waste time on him if others better-equipped could fill his shoes? And what author Looking for somebody to act as a front-man would choose a complete illiterate? It doesn't make any sense at all. There is more evidence suggesting his literacy (who has proved that none of the signatures are his own?) than there is against it. Just because little or nothing exists now, it doesn't follow that it never did. After all, the plays must have existed in manuscript at one stage but have completely disappeared.
Bad character also isn't confined to the illiterate lower classes. Caravaggio was a murderer; so too was the composer Gesualdo. Francis Bacon, the artist, burgled properties in his younger days. Just because Shakespeare was a gang-member it doesn't disqualify him from being the author of patched-up plays which were popular at the time (cf. Poor Poet Ape by Ben Jonson).
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Aug 2014 13:53:13 BDT
You charge me with lacking evidence but you offer no evidence for your refs to Caravaggio, Gesualdo, Francis Bacon. Also, I seem to remember that Quiney's letter addressed to Sh. was never sent. It was found in his possessions not Sh.'s. The real author of the Sonnets and therefore of the literary canon used the name of Shakspere as a pseudonym. When he died he was denied memorialization by his family because he had burlesqued two monarchs and had blotted his escutcheon by his activities as a homerotic doe. There was a huge cover-up. That is why Shakspere heads the list of actors. It is very questionable if he was ever given roles; perhaps walk-on parts. I had a book published in 2007, 'Let Shakspere Die!'. If you type the title in Amazon you should be able to fetch up details. It contains copious evidence for the authorship of Roger Manners, the Earl of Rutland (1576-1612). If you give me your email address, I could send you a few proofs if you can't download my book. Here with these emails I couldn't send you an attachment.
Good hunting. Brian Dutton.
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Aug 2014 15:49:15 BDT
Surely you don't expect me to provide evidence for what exists in a number of biographies of these men? In nearly forty years of studying the Shakespeare question I've never read a word about the matter you raise. So little is known about Shakespeare that people surmise all sorts of things to create a biography that, in reality, are completely lacking in fact. If you know of any evidence of graduates who claimed to have been bullied into surrendering their plays I'd love to be informed of it. Whether Quiney's letter was sent or not seems to me irrelevant to the fact that he sat down and penned a letter to someone he knew with the obvious intention of sending it.
As for Rutland, he seems to have left even less of a literary paper-trail than William Shakespeare. I don't know of a single example of, or contemporary suggestion that he ever wrote a line of verse, let alone whole dramas.I've read Several books on Roger Manners, including the Sykes volume which employs the services of Sherlock Holmes to track down the perpetrator of the deception. All I can say is that "The great detective" did a less than thorough job on this particular case as he overlooked handwriting samples, references by contemporaries and an unambiguous acrostic contained in the First Folio which all point to the real author of the Shakespeare canon. The only thing that could shake my faith in this particular candidate would be if I found an example of handwriting that displays the same resemblance to, and features the same unique (I believe) idiosyncracies, it and that of Hand D in Thomas More (often regarded as the only surviving "Shakespeare" autograph.) I have never seen a reproduction of Rutland's handwriting to make this comparison, so if you know of any I would be pleased if you could inform me where it can be found.
Jeffrey (Israel a nom-de-plume!)
In reply to an earlier post on 15 Aug 2014 20:43:15 BDT
I can't find the ref. to Shak bullying young graduates into surrendering their plays cheaply. It's not on my computer, so it's obviously in a book somewhere. I'll send it you when I drop on it. It is probably in Greenwood or Sykes or Porohovshikov. It took me quite a while looking for it. Actually, I quite forgot about my blog on Facebook where you will find if you type in Brian Dutton a number of proofs of Rutland's authorship. Most are extracts from my new book for which, although exhausted, I'm writing (slowly) an Intro. I should be most interested to know what you think of the articles. My claim is that I have solved the Sonnets (which are largely cryptic) with irrefutable evidence. See what you think of the sample on Facebook: even what is there is indisputable. My work has been ignored by the scholars to whom I sent copies, and rejected by 'The Shakespeare Quarterly'. Apropos heretical writings re the SAP (Sh. Auth. Problem), literary criticism has always been feeble and very pee-cee. I think my Facebook pages will astonish you. I hope so. Thank you for writing to me. Too tired to say any more. Best wishes, Brian.
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Aug 2014 12:11:42 BDT
It's not that I'm uninterested in what you say on Facebook, in fact I'd love to read your posts, it's just that I have a pathological aversion to joining sites like it. Can I access your article without having to register?
I must say, I tend to avoid biographies constructed from the sonnets...there must be at least 1001 completely different versions of "Shakespeare's" life contained in them. The last such book I read thought it proved that Marlowe, who had not died in a brawl, had written them. I'm not so sure that all the sonnets come from the same hand. If I read the first dozen or so as a complete innocent I'd think I was reading the urgings of a proud, but concerned, father (or close family member) urging his son to marry! Lately, in the popular press there have been articles "proving" that the "Bath" sonnets show Shakespeare had VD, completely ignoring the fact that they are free renditions of originals contained in the Greek Anthology.
I have to say I am much more interested in evidence when it comes to the Shakespeare problem than wild theories as I've read enough of those over the last few decades to make my head dizzy. In all those years I've discovered just three pieces of real evidence (not 100% conclusive, I admit) that point to the 6th Earl of Derby as being the real author of Shakespeare's works. I'm open to other evidence suggesting alternative people though, so if you can provide me with a direct link to your posts I shall be interested to read them. I have to say I consider Rutland to be one of the weaker candidates, although it's possible he could have contributed to those works that might have been collaborative efforts.
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Aug 2014 17:31:10 BDT
I created a Facebook blog out of desperation. Having worked on the SAP for some 19 years, I have been unjustly rejected. The theories that you have read are 'wild' because they are mistaken: attempting to argue a case on assumptions will never pass muster. The proof of my case for Rutland is drawn from the partial biography he reveals cryptically in the Quarto Sonnets (the original document), NOT a modern translation, which is deliberate policy of Orthodox scholars who wish deceive the reader into believing that they have the same meaning. Sonnets 105 and 125 were written by the Earl of Southampton, and the two final sonnets, 153 and 154, were probably written by some guy that Rutland knew, and whom, undoubtedly, scholarly research could discover. There is a strong possibility that Rutland died of syphilis, so he cannot be completely ruled out as the their author. How do you distinguish the SAP evidence from wild theories? Only the Rutlanders - Demblon (Belgian writing in French), Porohovshikov (Russian writing in English), Sykes, and Gililov (Russian, in translation) - provide sound evidence - reasonable for reasonable people. But Orthodoxy is irrational, and they have been allowed to continue to peddle their Shaksperian moonshine because a weak literary criticism has allowed it. They assert that there is no convincing evidence to dethrone the Stratfordian. My decryption of the Sonnets has, however, provided that irrefutable evidence. I'm surprised that you accept the evidence of Lord Derby in preference to Sykes, who is much more convincing (particularly with the evidence he found in the castle of Kronborg Slot, in Elsinore, Denmark: and where Rutland was James the First's ambassador to King Christian IV; and which evidence revealed by Sykes caused him (Rutland) to make changes to his first draft of 'Hamlet'; evidence enough for thinking that Sykes had solved the SAP). In the Sonnets Rutland did not collaborate with anybody. He did with plays for the theatre often required rush jobs involving three or four authors; but there were not many of those either. Marlowe, as you know, was killed in 1594, and Oxford died of the plague in 1604. In any case, the poetic style of both is cosmically inferior to Rutland's imagistic power. I've just discovered that I'm unable to send you an attachment. Can you not get someone to fetch up my Facebook blog and, perhaps, print it out for you? I'm desperately busy just now with my Intro to my Book Two. If you do, I warn you in advance: many of Rutland's sonnets are often indecent, and sometimes obscene. But they are redeemed by wit, hilarity and pathos; and he does name himself as the author, often enough to stand as complete proof against the Orthodox chicanery. Good hunting.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›