Wed 28 Oct 1998: Nigel Davies to David Roper
[Note by RW 25 years later, 2 Sept 2023: Davies is often used as a Jewish surname]
Sir, I was intrigued by your article on this that has been published at
www.big-lies.org/de-vere-shakespeare/edward-de-vere-david-roper.html
I offer the following observations:
- Contrary to Jonson's claim that Shakespeare needed
no monument, he seems actively to have contributed to the one placed inside
the Holy Trinity Church at Stratford.Do you not feel that this is ample testimony from an exceptionally reliable
literary figure and witness that William Shakespeare of Stratford was William
Shakespeare? Why would the literary Jonson be interested in erecting a monument
to a so-called "grain merchant"? Why would he be buried actually within the
church instead of the churchyard? Why would he have a monument at all?
- When Sir William Dugdale first published a picture
of the monument in his Antiquities of Warwickshire, his etching showed the
figure of Shakespeare, from the trunk upwards, clutching hold of a sack of
farm produce, possibly wool, since the four corners of the sack have been
tied together in the manner of that time.I think any impartial, objective comparison of the Dugdale etching and the
actual monument shows a large number of material discrepancies that strongly
indicate the etching was made from (faulty) memory rather than on-site. Much
like many other Dugdale etchings that are inaccurate representations of what
they portray.
Why do you presume that Dugdale's etching shows a sack
of farm produce? It is evidently a silk cushion on which Shakespeare is resting
his quill and parchment. Dugdale shows Shakespeare "fiddling" with his hands
in the same pose but evidently failed to etch in the quill and parchment.
For your proposition to be accepted as plausible has to mean that the alternative
is at least equally plausible. I really can't reconcile your reference to
the literary Jonson being party to the creation of the monument and Jonson
not being party to ensuring the monument is as we see it today.
- Nicholas Rowe's Life of Shakespeare (1709) contained
a similar etching, re-affirming the presence of the bagged substance.Yes, a copy of Dugdale's original. Repeated errors do not a fact make.
- The coat of arms Shakespeare had acquired was also
depicted, together with a skull whose lower mandible was missing.Without the actual monument as reference would you, presented with the Dugdale
etching, be able to state unequivocally that it shows a skull? It looks nothing
like a skull though it is attempting to portray such. Unless you believe
the skull was a later modification as well.
- On either side were two cherubs, each holding out
an artefact...the other was a spade, confirming the yeoman stock with which
this same man had been associated.Your subjectivity is leading yourself way up the garden path. The spade and
hour-glass (with the hour-glass cherub also sitting on a skull) traditionally
denote life-long Labour and eternal Rest.
- Nestor is the arthritic old man appearing in Troilus
and Cressida. When he is not remembering his lost youth, he is heard "applying"
his leader's speech, (e.g. I. iii). Even if we dig deeper and consult Homer's
Iliad, there is little more to be gained. At best, Nestor never rises above
the stature of a legendary old man around whom myths were woven.Nestor was King of Pylos in Greece, the oldest and most experienced of the
chieftains who went to the siege of Troy. Hence the name is applied as an
epithet to the oldest and wisest man of a class or company. Hence, an entirely
fitting accolade to Shakespeare. Subsequently, other literary figures have
been ascribed that accolade, e.g. Samuel Rogers (1763-1855) for instance,
was referred to as the "Nestor of English poets".
- That Shakespeare should next be likened to Socrates
is so far distant from an attribute that The Encyclopaedia of Shakespeare
(which claims to answer anything about Shakespeare) refuses to mention
it.Socrates called himself "the midwife of men's thoughts". Cicero said of him
"he was the first to teach the proper study of mankind is man". A fitting
linkage to the author of "What a piece of work is a man!" et al.
- To allow Virgil to become acceptable, a story was
devised which told how he had acquired his gift of poetry from another
source.Virgil was the greatest poet of ancient Rome. He was called the "Mantuan
Swan" (nice linkage to the "Swan of Avon" there, eh?). In the 14th. century
Dante portrayed him in his "Divinia Commedia" as the personification of human
wisdom. A perfectly excellent accolade to Shakespeare.
- the implication is that Shakespeare, being likened
to 'Virgil' for his 'Art', had managed to acquire a similar reputation for
himself under comparable circumstances. It is certainly a thought that would
have occupied the mind of the inscription writer,How can you be so arrogant as to speak on behalf of the inscription writer
with such "certainty"? You are finding what you want to find to discredit
the eulogy. I am fairly sure that the "Mantuan Swan" nickname for Virgil
was not going through the mind of the inscriber when he wrote his eulogy
for the "Swan of Avon" but it demonstrates clearly how "facts" can be seized
upon depending on the seeker's motives and objectives.
- There seems to be a cryptic message hidden amongst
its words whose revelation might shake them from their bed of
complacency.Like the cryptic messages that "prove" that de Vere was the true author?
And the others that conversely "prove" that Francis Bacon was the true author?
Ans the others that "prove" that Marlowe was the author? And the others that
"prove" that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, e.g. "The Merry Wives of Windsor"
is an anagram of "Firm rev[elation]: WS is the wordy one". And the others
that "prove" that I am the author?
- In a cryptogram, of which this inscription is an
obvious example, even to the challenge at its commencement, words may
legitimately die; that is, fade away, until only a single syllable from each
one is left. Those remaining are then grouped together to form a solution
to the original puzzle. Quite clearly, this strategy does not apply to Quick
Nature. But, if we translate these words into Latin; and a hint at changing
into this language has already been suggested by the prior transposition
of a noun and its subordinate adjective (something not found in English),
then the matter is seen very differently. This is because 'Quick Nature'
becomes: 'Summa Velocium Rerum' (for the use of velox in this context, cf.
Horace, Cicero et al.). Next, by letting these words die, or fade away, the
syllables that remain are Sum Ve Re. Or, SUM VERE, since grouping them together
is permissible when a solution is forthcoming. Turn these words back into
English, and we have "I Am Vere".This is the most hilarious bending, shaping, and re-organisation of letters
to contrive a non-existent cryptic that I have ever seen. Well done. And
here I was thinking my "The Merry Wives of Windsor" was good.
- Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the leading
court poet and playwright of his day.Excuse me. Please support that assertion with factual supportive evidence.
- Frustrated at being unable to publish or perform
his plays outside of court, because of his nobility, he had every reason
to seek an outlet for his work amongst the lower classes.Really? How can you be so certain? Why didn't he leave a will revealing his
true identity and works?
- In Henry Peacham's 250 page book on education (1622),
he placed de Vere at the head of those poets who had made Elizabeth I's reign
a Golden AgeNormal protocol to place noblemen at the head of lists they are included
in.
- but never once does he refer to Shakespeare.But you must be aware of the other lists that exist where Shakespeare is
identified (as well as de Vere) clearly identifying them as 2 separate human
beings.
- It would explain, too, the public silence when he
died;Lack of surviving records do not mean silence.
- and it would also explain why Jonson and others were
intent that he should never receive the honour of a Westminster Abbey
burial.Nonsense. There are many revered people from English literary history who
have not been buried in Westminster Abbey and/or waited decades before they
were memorialised, e.g. Blake, Keats, Byron, Shelley. Few poets are actually
buried there. This was due to the Dean determining who was and wasn't and
during Shakespeare's period poets being looked dimly on due to the unconventional
lives they led. Many other notables haven't been buried there. Winston Churchill
was buried at Bladon instead. You refer to Shakespeare's cases in this and
other arguments as though he was treated uniquely when many, many people
of similar stature were treated the same.
An extraordinary and entertaining analysis by you
desperately lacking objectivity & pure facts but abundant in crypto-mania
and distortion. Look not upon a monument, or etching, or portrait constructed
by others after the event but on the works and the evidence of the man
himself.
14 Nov 98 from David Roper to Nigel Davies
Dear Mr Davies,I would like to thank you for your observations relating
to my article concerning the Stratford monument. It allows me the opportunity
of considering possible objections and refining my approach if necessary.
There are, however, logical difficulties with your dissent and perhaps you
should think upon these at your leisure.1) Jonson would not be interested in erecting a monument
for any grain merchant - but a grain merchant who had received an annuity
for lending his name and lower class status to a nobelman's literary output
is a different matter. An indifferent act by de Vere, many years earlier,
intended to gain a wider audience for his court plays was to have far-reaching
ramifications. One of which was the eventual assumption in public of the
title to Shakespeare's works. Only an inner circle of writers and court officials
knew the truth.2) Shakspere's burial in the chancel was in keeping
with his position as a wealthy merchant. Even so, no one bothered to inscribe
his name on his gravestone, but then his family were all illiterate, and
those among his former friends who could write, apparently never saw the
need to identify this man for posterity.3) Jonson's interest in the monument was that of an
honest man. He recognised the greatness of de Vere's plays which, for family
and political reasons were being ascribed to a man he detested. (Consider
Jonson's treatment of Shakspere in "Every Man Out of His Houmour".4) Perhaps you are unaware that the original monument
to which I refer was re-furbished in the 18th century. The current monument
has adapted a cushion from the original sack - a compromise between truth
and expediency. Have you ever tried to write on a piece of paper supported
by a cushion? Also, in the 16th century it was the practice to bag wool by
folding sacking cloth over it and securing the four corners with knots. This
I perceive to be the case in Dugdale's original etching.5) Jonson's references to Shakespeare, both regarding
the monument and the First Folio, are without exception ambiguous, They could
as well apply to de Vere as to Shakspere. But, one does need an open mind
to allow these ambiguities room to breath.6) If Rowe copied from Dugdale, then the point I make
is inconsequential. But, if Rowe copied from the original, which would be
the natural thing to do when writing about the man he thought had written
the plays, then this becomes confirmation of my point.7) The spade and the hourgalss are further examples
of the ambiguity that prevails. The skull is not an entirely uncommon feature
at burial sites. I am only surprised that you take exception to what is really
very obvious.8) I am slightly bemused by your reference to Nestor.
In 1621, he was known as the arthritic old man in Shakespeare's "Troilus
and Cressida". Subsequent references, several centuries later, are irrelevant
to what was said at the time.9) I repeat - Socrates wrote nothing, but he enjoyed
a reputation for greatness. Socrates was therefore a fitting choice when
portraying another man who had written nothing, but who likewise enjoyed
a reputation for greatness.10) If you liken Virgil to Shakespeare, you are in
a minority, even amongst those who share your view concerning Shakespeare's
identity. Even his most faithful apologists are embarrassed not to have Ovid's
name on the monument.11) And, by the way, "Swan of Avon" refers to the Wiltshire
Avon. It was where de Vere retired to as a guest of Mary Herbert, Countess
of Pembroke. Her home, Wilton House, now altered, once stood on the banks
of the Avon. She was an acknowledged favourite of the poets, writers and
philosophers of her time. In company with Thomas Nashe, de Vere revised many
of his old plays there before bringing them to London for performances. It
was these that led him into obtaining the services of William from Stratford.
Furthermore, de Vere's hostess was also the mother of that "Incomparable
Paire of Brethren, William Earle of Pembroke ... and Philip Earl of Montgomery"
who became later associated with the publication of Shakespeare's works.
The relationship between these two families also developed to the point where
both brothers became affianced to de Vere's two daughters. Only one of the
marriages came about, Lord Burghley thwarted the other one.12) Sadly, you mistake arrogance for certainty. You
see, the Stratford Monument's inscription carries a second, confirmatory
message that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere. This message has been encoded
according to strict mathematical principles. It reads:- "So Test him, I Vow
He Is Ed. De Vere." It is signed by Francis Bacon and cannot be ignored,
for Bacon was the chief cryptographer of his day: a man who had written a
book on coding devices that same year. I have not yet included this part
of the monument's secret on the Internet. I must, however, point out that
you are guilty of selective attention. Have you really forgotten the opening
words of the inscription? Words which challenge every passer-by to read if
they can who has been placed in a wall monument that is too small to contain
human remains.13) You should know that I have shown the Latin concealment
of de Vere's name to several scholars of that language. They see no problem
with it. The Elizabethans were a devious lot, and this is an example of their
love for concealment. It is also evident in their buildings, their furniture
and their paintings. If this makes you laugh, then I regret to say that you
are the poorer for it.14) If there was proof, both necessary and sufficient,
that William Shakspere could even read and write, I would have given up the
cause long ago. But no one has ever been able to satsfy both conditions.
On the other hand, de Vere could read and write in English, French, Latin
and Italian, as could the real Shakespeare. De Vere had also visited most
of the locations Shakespeare writes about in his plays. He therefore had
first-hand knowledge of them. Francis Meres, writing in "Pallidis Tamia",
comments that:- 'The best for Comedy amongst us ... is Edward Earle of Oxforde'.
This, in part, justifies my statement to which you take exception.15) The fact that Shakespeare and de Vere can be mentioned
together, logically speaking, means nothing. Any person ignorant of their
identity as a single writer would fall into the trap of mentioning both.
Any person who knew it to be an open secret would be expected to comply with
the wish to continue treating it as such.16) It is quite evident when referring to Westminster
Abbey that you are in some desperation. Why else should you try to escape
into future centuries for relief from what is a matter of fact. Stick to
the point and the time interval. Beaumont, Spencer and Jonson were buried
in Westminster Abbey with immediate effect. Shakspere's death occurred during
this same interval. His decease was totally ignored by everyone, except his
immediate family. They, you will recall, did not even put a name on his
grave.Respectfully, yours,
David Roper
Sun 15 Nov 1998: Nigel Davies to David Roper
Thanks for your comments. I share your interest in discussing other people's
points of view to either strengthen my current views, or even change them.
Before responding to each of your points I'd like to make 2 main observations:
1. You do have a habit of making definitive statements on matters that are
no more than speculative interpretation. I know it's difficult to do any
thing more with de Vere who has literally no tangible evidence, but I think
it's important in any debate to distinguish between what is fact and what
is interpretation.
2. A monument is a product of the efforts of people other than the subject
so critical assessment of the merits of any monument, inscriptions, or lack
of them, is a criticism of those people, not the subject. If no related records
survive over the next 400 years, people make well look upon the Rushmore
Monument bewildered as to who those people are and the lack of explanation
as to what they did in life, and even their names, i.e. what was blatantly
obvious to the subjects' contemporaries. This would be an unjust criticism
of those that had made the effort to memorialise the subject in the first
place. The same is true of virtually any other monument or gravestone of
anyone of note (JFK, Jimi Hendrix) or lack of monument (Leonardo da Vinci,
John Lennon).
>1) Jonson would not be interested in erecting a
monument for any grain >merchant - but a grain merchant who had received
an annuity for lending his >name and lower class status to a nobelman's
literary output is a different >matter.What evidence do you have to support this speculation?
>An indifferent act by de Vere, many years earlier,
intended to gain a >wider audience for his court plays was to have
far-reaching ramifications.De Vere was a patron of the arts. He operated his own company of actors,
Oxford's Boys, who performed outside of court at public theatres. He was
lease-holder of the Blackfriars Theatre. In 1580 the Earl of Warwick's company
transferred to Oxford's service. In 1600 Oxford's servants performed two
plays. In 1602 Oxford and Worcester amalgamated their companies and were
licensed to play at the Boar's Head. Oxford was publicly active in the theatre
for decades. Examples of his own efforts at literature have survived. All
this is tangible evidence of de Vere's conspicuous lack of desire to be both
disassociated from the art of writing literature and having no visible connection
with t he performing arts in theatre.
Why would Oxford want to widen his audience for his
court plays by staging his plays through a rival acting company such as
Shakespeare's Chamberlain's Men and the King's Men when he already had the
vehicle to have them performed in public? Your argument is
oxymoronic.
Was it beyond the wit of the court to recognise that
the plays being performed in public were the same plays that had been premiered
for them at court?
The plays were initally published anonymously. If de
Vere's principal objective was anonymity and disassociation from the plays
why didn't he do the simplest and most effective of things that required
zero effort by just continuing to publish anonymously?
>Only an inner circle of writers and court officials
knew the truth.This conspiracy theory is amongst the most bizarre explanations of de Vere
having any association with Shakespeare's plays - a conspiracy whose total
success is consistent with it never have been a reality. Do you not think
it odd that there was not one leak of this alleged conspiracy by anyone in
on it, ever? No surviving private correspondence revealing the plot, no will,
literally nothing.
>2) Shakspere's burial in the chancel was in keeping
with his position as a >wealthy merchant.On the contrary. The chancel is bereft of any other "wealthy merchants".
Conversely the other effigies in the chancel are of notaries, e.g. Sir Thomas
Carew. Shakespeare was also not the wealthiest businessman in Stratford -
there were several in the town who owned more land, and property and business
as town records testify. At the height of his riches he only owned the "second
largest house" in Stratford.Why would the town erect a monument in the church
to the 19th. most successful businessman in Stratford and neglect those who
by recorded fact were more successful in business and wealthy than Shakespeare?
Where is the monument to the man who owned the largest house in Stratford?
Nowhere, because they didn't honour grain merchants, they were honouring
the local man that made good, not a grain merchant.
>Even so, no one bothered to inscribe his name on
his gravestoneHis gravestone is surpassed by a monument on which his name is engraved.
I don't believe those who made the effort to honour Shakespeare felt they
had to treat their audience like retards by plastering his name on everything
in t he church that related to the man just to spell out the blatantly obvious
of who he was.
>but then his family were all illiterateAbsolute, jaundiced, sweeping statements only discredit your own argument;
they don't strengthen it. There is surviving documentation containing Susanna's
signature that proves at least a writing capability on her behalf. Lack of
other surviving documentation does not "prove" other family members were
illiterate, it merely proves that we can not say. The only evidence we have
that Christopher Marlowe was literate is a single signature on a witness
document signed at Canterbury. No-one is so foolish as to claim that on this
evidence and the lack of other surviving documents that Marlowe was illiterate
and did not write "Doctor Faustus" and his other plays.
>and those among his former friends who could write,
apparently >never saw the need to identify this man for posterity.They clearly identified the man. His name "Shakspeare" is explicitly on the
monument. Where is Jefferson's name on the Rushmore monument?
>3) Jonson's interest in the monument was that of
an honest man. He recognised >the greatness of de Vere's plays which,
for family and political reasons were >being ascribed to a man he
detested.What evidence do you have for this extraordinary, emotive remark? All
contemporary evidence directly contradicts this statement including Jonson's
reference to the man who acted in his own plays, that he "loved the m an,
and do honour his memory on this side idolatry as much as any" and Shakespeare
being godfather to Jonson's child. Note: Jonson says he honours the man,
no t your allegdly pseudonymous name.
>(Consider Jonson's treatment of Shakspere in "Every
Man Out of His Houmour".Would you care to elaborate on yet another of your theories devoid of factual
evidence?
>4) Perhaps you are unaware that the original monument
to which I refer was re>furbished in the 18th century.Yes, just as the Statue of Liberty was refurbished recently as with all statues
and monuments that start to show their age. Perhaps you are aware that the
commissioning documents for the refurbishment explicitly state that t he
monument was refurbished "true to its original form".
>The current monument has adapted a cushion from
>the original sack - a compromise between truth and expediency.On what do you base such a claim? Presumably Dugdale's etching? Have you
compared the etching with the monument we see today and noted the number
and variety of inconsistencies between the etchings? Have you viewed Dugdale's
other etchings, such as Charles I statue with the raised horse's leg in the
etching being completely different to the one raised in the actual statue?
And Carew's effigy that shows the 2 figures reversed and transposed while
all other items resemble what we see now? Dugdale's diagrams are clearly
unreliable unless you believe that the majority of the monuments and statues
that Dugdale made etchings of have all been serially altered. The common
factor here is that Dugdale's diagrams are not only examples of mediocrity
but materially inaccurate too.
Conversely, Dugdale's writings are unequivocal. Accompanying
his etching he writes of Stratford: "this antient town...gave birth and sepulture
to our late famous Poet Will. Shakespeare, whose Monument I have inserted
in my discourse of the Church". Note the explicit reference to "late famous
Poet" and the conspicuous absence of any reference to "grain merchant".
>Have you ever tried to write on a piece of paper
supported by a cushion?I don't believe the monument was supposed to be a fully-functioning, life-size
model, hence the absence of an ink-pot too. It's supposed to be a monument
so is ornated by cherubs, plaques, columns, etc. A satin cushion is hardly
out of place in the context.
>Also, in the 16th >century it was the practice
to bag wool by folding sacking cloth over it and >securing the four corners
with knots. This I perceive to be the case in >Dugdale's original
etching.The Dugdale etching shows the subject grasping something that more resembles
a pillow to his stomach and would be out of place even if it was a monument
to a grain merchant.
>5) Jonson's references to Shakespeare, both regarding
the monument and the >First Folio, are without exception ambiguous, They
could as well apply to de >Vere as to Shakspere. But, one does need an
open mind to allow these >ambiguities room to breath.I would be interested in how you arrive at this conclusion because I don't
see any ambiguity nor anything to identify de Vere in them. We are all
open-minded. If de Vere were the true author of these works then I would
be one of the first to insist that they were attributed to him. I have no
personal advantage in them being ascribed to the wrong person. The problem
is that approaching t his subject with an objective, impartial way and gleaning
the man from the works rather than super-imposing a persona onto them reveals
that all the available evidence thus far presented is consistent with the
man from Stratford and there is a disturbing paucity of tangible evidence
in favour of de Vere. The de Vere case relies on fantasical conspiracy theories,
ludicrous pseudonym theory that correlates with a known, living man active
in the same profession in the same city, and explicit references in Shakespeare's
works that exclude any noble man 66rom candidacy.
>6) If Rowe copied from Dugdale, then the point
I make is inconsequential.Any comparison of the two demonstrates that they have the same perspective
and the same many and varied inaccuracies making Rowe's etching an obvious
copy of Dugdale's.
>7) The spade and the hourgalss are further examples of the ambiguity
that >prevails. The skull is not an entirely uncommon feature at burial
sites. I am >only surprised that you take exception to what is really
very obvious.
My objection is not to the presence of a skull but that
I defy anyone who is shown the skull of Dugdale's etching readily identifying
it as a skull. Dugdale's skull is not just totally dissimiliar to the skull
on the monument, on its own merits it is unrecognisable as a skull. Another
example of the mediocrity of the Dugdale etching itself in style as well
as content.
>8) I am slightly bemused by your reference to Nestor.
In 1621, he was known as >the arthritic old man in Shakespeare's "Troilus
and Cressida". Subsequent >references, several centuries later, are irrelevant
to what was said at the >time.I am utterly bemused by your ignorance of the origins of Shakespeare's Nestor,
the many favourable references in Shakespeare's own works to Nestor, and
your narrow-mindedness in claiming that Elizbethan knowledge of Nestor would
be confined to just Troilus & Cressida, published after Shakespeare's
death. You see "old man" Nestor. Shakespeare himself saw far more substance
in the man than old age:
Nestor featured in Homer's Iliad as the oldest and wisest
of the Greek generals and since then had a classical reputation for judicial
wisdom. The age aspect correlates adequately (though I accept, not perfectly)
with Shakespeare's death at the age of 52 in an age where the life expectancy
(as explicitly referred to in Shakespeare's own plays) was no more than 60
- he didn't die a you g man like Marlowe. The wisdom aspect speaks for
itself.
Shakespeare's own Henry VI Part 3 refers to Nestor in
Act 3 Scene 2: "I'll play the orator as well as Nestor".
In The Rape of Lucrece, Nestor is referred to: "As but
for loss of Nestor's golden words".
You seem to have a selective preoccupation with the
age of Nestor rat her than his fame for judicial, oral and literary wisdom
that is represented in Shakespeare's own plays and in the Iliad dating from
centuries before him.
This is really academic though. Who should and should
not have been included in an epitaph is very subjective and rests on the
literary talents of those writing the epitaph, not the man himself. Those
responsible appear to have just been preoccupied with selecting greats from
both classical Greece and Rome .
>9) I repeat - Socrates wrote nothing, but he enjoyed
a reputation f or >greatness. Socrates was therefore a fitting choice
when portraying another man >who had written nothing, but who likewise
enjoyed a reputation for greatness.True. But an imaginative interpretation as to why he was selected. Conversely,
Jonson's dedication mentions: Aristophanes, Terence, Plautus.
>10) If you liken Virgil to Shakespeare, you are
in a minority, even amongst >those who share your view concerning
Shakespeare's identity.I don't subscribe to the herd mentality. Comparing Shakespeare to Virgil,
the greatest of Roman poets, is entirely appropriate particularly given the
Virgilian motifs that occur in Shakespeare's own works such as The Rape of
Lucrece. If he was being compared to the patron saint of bricklayers, or
something, you'd have a point, but this is entirely subjective hair-spliiting.
>11) And, by the way, "Swan of Avon" refers to the
Wiltshire Avon. It was where >de Vere retired to as a guest of Mary Herbert,
Countess of Pembroke ...Perhaps you should quality check your research. De Vere lived on the Bilton
estate on the River Avon. The problem is that he sold Bilton in 1581, 23
years before he died, 42 years before Jonson's dedication. It was a comparatively
trivial feature of his life dating way back that does not justify you claiming
the Jonson's tag "sweet swan of Avon" as relating to him, especially when
Shakespeare is directly linked to Stratford-upon-Avon at birth, throughout
his life, and at death.
>12) Sadly, you mistake arrogance for certainty.
You see, the Stratford >Monument's inscription carries a second, confirmatory
message that Shakespeare >was Edward de Vere. This message has been encoded
according to strict >mathematical principles. It reads:- "So Test him,
I Vow He Is Ed. De Vere."Well, if you want to wander into the minefield of ciphers and anagrams only
blame yourself when you maim yourself with your own argument. You surely
must be aware of the Friedmans' (US defence agency cryptographers) classic
book on alleged ciphers in Shakespeare that consummately demolishes the
cipher/anagram claims. Did you know that encodings "according to strict
mathematical principles" "prove" that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare? And
"prove" that de Vere wrote Shakespeare? And "prove" that Shakespeare wrote
Shakespeare? And "prove" that de Vere wrote Edmund Spenser's Faerie Queene?
And prove that de Vere wrote several episodes of Star Trek?
Did you know that an anagram of "William Shakespeare"
is "Will is a sham, a keeper" "proving" that he is indeed a fake? And another
one is "Please! I'm Earl. W.S. a hik" "proving" that de Vere is indeed the
true author and that WS is just a country bumpkin? And that an anagram of
"The Merry Wives of Windsor" is "Firm rev[elation]: WS is the wordy one"
"proving" that WS is indeed the true author after all? And that Hamlet's
famous soliloquy "To be or not to be: that is the question, whether 'tis
nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"
is an anagram of "In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent
hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten"?
I admire your industry in this cipering but it only
generates a hearty laugh rather that scholarly credibility.
>14) If there was proof, both necessary and sufficient,
that William Shakspere >could even read and write, I would have given
up the cause long ago .But this is where you go so wrong. There is proof that he could write in
the form of his signatures which are the only surviving records due to them
being legal documents which would expect to remain preserved. We have proof
that he could read - how on earth could he have performed in plays throughout
his life if he couldn't read and understand a script? We have nothing of
Christopher Marlowe but one signature. Ben Jonson was a notorious self-promotor
who compiled his own folio in 1616. Despite the obvious care and attention
he took in compiling his own works we have no surviving original scripts.
Lack of the original documents that we would all like from 400 years ago
does not prove anything expect that we don't have them.
>On the other hand, de Vere >could read and write
in English, French, Latin and Italian, as could the real
>Shakespeare.And as could many others, hence the number of candidates put forward as
alternative authors exceeding 60, to date.
>De Vere had also visited most of the locations
Shakespeare writes >about in his plays. He therefore had first-hand knowledge
of them.He did not, by any stretch of the imagination, visit "most" of the locations
in Shakespeare's works but I agree that de Vere travelled extensively in
Europe. So, why do Shakespeare's works show such deficiencies in basic knowledge
of the Continent consistent with someone who has never even visited there?
Why in The Winter's Tale does he write of a shipwreck on the coast of Bohemia
(landlocked Hungary)? Why in Two Gentlemen of Verona does he write of travelling
by ship between the two inland cities of Verona and Milan? Why in The Taming
of the Shrew does he write of Tranio's father being a sailmaker in Bergamo
when Bergamo is in the foothills of the Italian Alps, over 80 miles from
the nearest coast?
>Francis >Meres, writing in "Pallidis Tamia",
comments that:- 'The best for Comedy >amongst us ... is Edward Earle of
Oxforde'.And conspicuously no mention of Tragedies and Histories.
>15) The fact that Shakespeare and de Vere can be
mentioned together , logically >speaking, means nothing. Any person ignorant
of their identity as a single >writer would fall into the trap of mentioning
both. Any person who knew it to >be an open secret would be expected to
comply with the wish to continue >treating it as such.Extraordinary that no leak from anyone occurred either during or after to
the point that it is literally unbelievable.
>Beaumont, Spencer and Jonson were buried in Westminster
Abbey with >immediate effect.You're comparing apples with oranges. Burial in the Abbey was at the discretion
of the Dean and at the time of Beaumont's burial in 1616 only those of royal
blood or nobility were eligible. Beaumont's burial was indeed the turning
point though. You should heed your own advice though in analysing the particular
timeframe:
Beaumont himself was the son of Sir Francis Beaumont,
a justice. He w as from an ancient family of title and extremly well connected.
He had achieved some stature in literature and by way of his father's Knighthood
and his family's noble connections was eligible for burial in the
Abbey.
Spenser's career included him being Secretary to John
Young and Secretary to Lord Grey and gaining professional status within
Leicester's household. He attained the rank of Lord Deputy by going to Ireland
as well as becoming Bishop of Rochester, no less. He consorted with nobility
including the Earl of Essex and as a result of the increase in his social
stature to the point of becoming a Bishop, I think his eligibility to be
buried in Westminster Abbey is rather obvious.
Jonson was conferred as the Poet Laureate in 1616, 21
years before his death, with a pension granted by James I. He actually lived
on the Abbey premises and when directly asked by the Dean what he could do
for him as he approached his death he explicitly asked to be buried in the
Abbey (consistent with his well-known self-promotion) which the Dean granted
as a privilege to one who had been resident in the actual Abbey for several
years and had achieved the status of Poet Laureate.
William Shakespeare of Stratford achieved no higher
social status than "Gent.". He was not of royal blood nor did he attain any
noble status so it is only to be expected that he wasn't buried there as
he was not eligible in his time.
All the others had social status classifying them as
nobility so making them eligible. By Jonson's time, 21 years after Shakespeare,
his status as Poet Laureate, with Charles I now on the throne with his
reassessment of t he value of the products of the English Renaissance, and
Jonson's personal friend ship with the Dean, he achieved his objective of
immortality.
I wonder whether you've ever read "The Walrus was Paul"
by Gary Paterson. It was inspired by the rumours in the US in 1969 of Paul
McCartney having died in a motor accident and The Beatles having replaced
him with a lookalike and soundalike. There is incontravertible circumstantial
evidence presented in the book that Paul McCartney did actually die in 1969.
Ciphers, anagrams, audio clues in Beatles songs, backmasking, photographs,
events, everything possible to conclusively prove it. Except, as the author
admits, it never happened. It's all "evidence" that can be interpreted, bent,
shaped, moulded to "prove" the conclusion you desire rather than what is.
Best regards.
Click here to return to Shakespeare SubsiteClick here for Table of Contents to Rae West's entire website
This site IS big-lies.org WAS www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton. This file first uploaded 99-01-13