Justice Stevens Claims Shakespeare Was A Fraud

Wall Street Journal:

In his 34 years on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens has evolved from idiosyncratic dissenter to influential elder, able to assemble majorities on issues such as war powers and property rights. Now, the court's senior justice could be gaining ground on a case that dates back 400 years: the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[MarcusAB]

For a raving Salon.com review of a PBS film that promoted Marlowe as the true author,

http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html

Also,

http://www.marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

[MarcusAB]

Marlowe was facing the Whitgift Inquisition . . .that's why he went "underground." That's not conspiracy theory . . .Marlowe was set to be indicted by the Privy Council on a host of questionable charges--atheism, blasphemy, etc--in May 1593. What awaited him if found guilty? Torture and death, ala what they did to Kyd. All the reason to make a run (and write in secret!).

And check out the cast of characters who were with Marlowe in the "tavern." Robert Poley . . . a very experienced agent, for one. That's a fact.

If you consider Marlowe's intelligence background and his friends in high places(consider how Francis Walsingham - Elizabeth's spymaster - wrote to Cambridge and ordered them to grant Marlowe his MA when they wanted to deny the degree to him), he could have pulled this off. The Cecils, the Walsinghams - Marlowe's "handlers". . . he had the wherewithal to stage a death . . . but he couldn't sway the out-of-control and very powerful Archbishop Whitgift.

Staged death? Believable if you consider Marlowe's shadowy background and very good connections.

The PBS documentary Much Ado About Something covers all this, as does The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection blog.

As for Marlowe-Shakespeare and the style issue, I would suggest googling "Mendenhall Experiment and Marlowe-Sh­akespeare.­" Too detailed to discuss here. Thanks.

[Gasparilla]

Even if Marlowe did pull a vanishing act, which is a long shot, that does not prove one thing.

[Wide Stance]

"That's not conspiracy theory" = qualifying statement.

You are concerned that the reader will judge for themselves? If the facts were compelling you wouldn't be so concerned.

[MarcusAB]

for starters, from the Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection bloogspot: "the themes of exile and banishment, the use of disguises, faked deaths, and mistaken identities can be found in Richard II, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Measure for Measure, King Lear, Coriolanus, The Winter’s Tale, All’s Well That Ends Well, and Cymbeline. There are faked deaths and resurrections in Romeo and Juliet, The Winter’s Tale, Much Ado About Nothing, and All’s Well That Ends Well."

The Shakespeare sonnets are chock full of references to the state of exile.

I admit, circumstantial, but it's a heck of a lot of circumstantial.

More info at marlowe-sh­akespeare.­blogspot.c­om

Something doesn't compute with Shakespeare dying and not leaving behind one book in his will; and the silence over his death - lack of encomiums - is quite stunning.

[Seahorse]

I’d recommend the following three books for anyone who would like to better understand who Shakespeare was and how he lived and worked:

Will in the World: How Shakespeare became Shakespeare – Stephen Greenblat

A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599 - James Shapiro

The Lodger Shakespeare – Charles Nicholl


Among actual scholars, there is no controversy regarding the identity of the Bard. The truth is far more interesting and engaging than all these silly theories.

[BobsNotWorking]

My two cents? The aristocrats are wrong. They can't see how deep their notions are rooted. While there are plenty of exceptions, in the over-all there is little of value that has aristocratic roots. Almost everything that strikes a cord in humanity has a "commoner" for a mother or father.

[MarcusAB]

Poets corner at Westminster has a question mark before Marlowe's 1593 "death."

Why? Hmmm.

I would recommend Pinksen's Marlowe's Ghost, which explains how the traditional explanation that Marlowe was killed in a tavern brawl simply does not compute.

[DPinksen]

The case against Shakespeare of Stratford is quite strong, and Justice Stevens knows it. The problem here is that his solution - the Earl of Oxford - is unable to fill the void. The poetry left behind in Oxford's name, the work of a mature man, is so far beneath the literary genius evidenced in Shakespeare that there's little point in continuing. It's an instant deal-breaker.

However, there is one - and only one - candidate who can fill the void - Christopher Marlowe. The early efforts of Shakespeare are universally regarded as attempts to imitate the style of Marlowe. Harold Bloom said this about the relationship between Marlowe and Shakespeare:

"Yet Marlowe, himself a wild original, was Shakespeare’s starting point, curiously difficult for the young Shakespeare to exorcise completely.… And yet that means the strongest writer known to us served a seven-year apprenticeship to Christopher Marlowe,"
(Harold Bloom, Bloom’s Major Dramatists: Christopher Marlowe, 2002 p.10)

Unlike the case for Oxford, which requires ignoring literary evidence and scholarship, it takes only a small shift in perception to re-interpret mainstream scholarship as evidence that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare.

[HateToImpose]

Except Marlowe died in 1594, so you have to create a giant conspiracy.

[MarcusAB]

Elvis Mitchell of the New York Times gave a very favorable review to Much Ado About Something, the PBS Frontline documentary that promotes the Marlowe-as­-Shakespea­re theory.

I would also recommend this Salon.com piece on the movie and the "grand conspiracy" theory.

http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare/index.html

Also, http://www.marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com has all the material related to the theory.

Let's not forget, of all the authorship candidates, Marlowe was an actual playwright! And, the most celebrated one before his "died" in 1593. He could also crank out material fairly quickly, as shown by how quickly he wrote the second part of Tambulaine. He was translating Ovid while in college; theology major at Cambridge . . . one bright cat!

And he was a spy . . . don't think he had the skills to escape the torture racks that were awaiting him after he was accused of atheism, etc.? I can't emphasize more that Marlowe was set to be indicted by the Privy Council on a host of questionable charges--atheism, blasphemy, etc--in May 1593. What awaited him if found guilty? Torture and death, ala what they did to Kyd. All the reason to make a run (and write in secret!).

[DPinksen]

The death was actually reported in 1593, but you've made a valid point. This is a huge hurdle. But not an impossible one.

About ten days before Marlowe was reported dead, he was arrested on suspicion of heresy, released, but required to report to the court daily.

On May 30, 1593, Marlowe met with three associates in the English intelligence network (including Robert Poley, a high level operative) for an all-day meeting - in private - at a safe house on the outskirts of London. The day before that, a list of charges against Marlowe that included blasphemy, treason, and heresy - all capital offenses - had been delivered to the court. Marlowe's life was in danger. This was not a social occasion.

Late that evening the Queen's Coroner was summoned, and, after an inquest, Marlowe was declared dead and a body deposited in a mass grave for plague victims. Marlowe was never seen again. On a positive note, he did not have to endure the torture and execution that awaited him when he returned to face the new charges against him.

The coroner's report declared Marlowe's death a case of self-defense, but no scholar who's read the account accepts it at face value; they all say it was a cover-up - for a murder. There was a cover-up, but, here again, only a slight shift in perspective is all it takes to imagine a quite different outcome.

[Gasparilla]

The whole issue is can't see the forest for the trees. Speculation based on speculation.

[USA2Sense]

READ - The Mysterious WIlliam Shakespeare : The Myth and the Reality - by Charlton Ogburn

[MarcusAB]

Let's do a shout out for Christopher Marlowe, the only real playwright among the bunch! The Marlowe-Shakespeare blogspot has all the info you need at marlowe-sh­akespeare.­blogspot.c­om!

You want evidence? Boatloads point to the shadowy spy and genius playwright!

[zanzig]

I'm with you; Christopher Marlowe is the only one who fits on all the evidence, as the author of the plays.

[Gasparilla]

How about the evidnee that Marlowe died well before a lot of the plays were written and produced?

[Gasparilla]

meant to say "evidence"

[HateToImpose]

Are you saying Christopher Marlowe wrote the Merry Wives of Windsor?

[USA2Sense]

Go Stevens - I am an Oxfordian also - in reality if one reviews the facts of Wm of Stratford-on-Avon there is so much information that he did not have the education or language capabilities to write all of the Shakespearean works..........and when he died - he did not leave ONE book in his estate..........how could anyone who was supposed to have written as he wrote - and was supposed to have been a wordsmith as he was supposed to have loved and used words - to NOT have ONE BOOK is unbelievea­ble.......­....and he NEVER traveled - or attended court circles - yet was conversant with court etiquette and manners, and conversant with countries from Denmark to Italy -

I'm definitely with Stevens - the works ascribed to William Shakespeare actually were written by the 17th earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.

[Gasparilla]

What does "conversant" mean? There is nothing, nothing to indicate it was de Vare. Just a lot of pompous speculation about how Shakespeare was too ignorant.. Tell me why de Vere did not claim credit then or after his death? He was writing both plays and sonnets. Why wouldn't he claim the others?

[UncleJimbo]

Look people,in the largest sense Shakespeare was a guy working in Show Business! He put together shows based on previous works,histories and other sources! He polished them up,changed some things around but in the end he's the author of the body of work we have today! That's my two pence!

[Gasparilla]

Correct. How did those four lads from Liverpool with no musical training write all those songs? Maybe it was some mysterious musical genius who didn't want his family to find out.

[BobsNotWorking]

Indeed.

[UncleJimbo]

That my Friend is THE excellent analogy! In 7 or 8 short years the Beatles wrote all that incredible music,progressing from She Loves You to Sgt. Peppers to Abbey Road and beyond! They influenced and were influenced by all sort of other music and other musicians! They were a product of an enlightened age and so to I believe was Shakespeare! He just put stuff together better than enyone else,just like the Beatles!

[Birdman]

What difference does this make? Is this all the Supremes have to do, debate who authored Shakespeare plays? I guess if Stevens thinks this is important maybe we need to seriously look at term limits for the High court.

[sizogee]

Are you serious? You're upset that a justice has a hobby? What would you have him do when he's not working?

I heard that Justice Kennedy watched a baseball game last week. Let's get our pitchforks.

[billbb]

I knew he was a looney, now he's proved it. The late Isaac Asimov did a very interesting article on this once... There are science mistakes in the Shakespeare plays (based on the science known at the time) that are exactly the sort that a writer educated in a common school would make, but not the sort a scientist like Sir Francis Bacon, the usual suspect as the "true" author of Shakespeare, would ever make.

[JoeAmerican]

Very fun to hear these debates are taking place. Unfortunately I can think of much greater conspiracies they could spend their intellectual capacities solving.

[ivegotblisteronmefingers]

here's my deal
this basically a human interest story
a sidebar
by the same token I believe that it may point to a very good argument for term limits on justices

[ivegotblisteronmefingers]

I was not angry since I came to france
yet another tempest in a teapot
and dee veer didn't write that one either
a freakin saxon
isn't this the same justice that shows up w/gilbert and sullivan robes to the highest court on the land?
away wi you ya rouge!

[paulita]

I thought that was Judge Renquist though I could be wrong.

[SamEllison]

Rehnquist had the racing stripes.
He brought them out on special occasions,
like inaugurations, impeachments.......

[ivegotblisteronmefingers]

now that I think on it, you are correct
still why is this guy arguing @ the authenticity of shakespeare
doesn't he have, like cases and stuff

[Gasparilla]

The allegation is that de Vere would not it known that he was the author because it would bring shame to his family because theatre was condsidered a less than desirable occupation. Except that he wrote sonnets and wrote produced and acted in plays at the time under his name. So he decided not to take credit for plays that were superior to his?

[klondiker]

Fair enough. I buy your argument about de Vere. But, de Vere is not the only candidate who is proposed as the original writer. He is not even the most famous one. Francis Bacon is the one that most anti-Stratfordians cite.

[Gasparilla]

Except Bacon also wrote poetry under his own name. Read that horrible prose in this link and tell me why he would not claim ownership of far superior work.
http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2009/02/not-bacon-by-isabel-gortazar.html

[Gasparilla]

I meant to say poetry not prose.

[HateToImpose]

I've heard Oxfordians claim that De Vere deliberately wrote bad poetry in order to throw future historians off the scent. Seriously.

[UncleJimbo]

Bacon....With Eggs! Peabody's Improbable History!

[AgathaX]

Only as a student did he ever do anything under his own name. And then only with his peers as an audience. There is a big difference between acknowledging work as a youngster to those closest to you, acknowledging things put on for a broader audience when you are old enough to have put away childish things.

Instead of harping on one argument or another, put away preconceptions and read the arguments for de Vere as a whole. If you have concerns that some argument is faulty: raise questions, get clarification, raise more questions, suggest alternatives. Don't sneer. It does not support your position.

[HateToImpose]

Oxfordians sneer all the time. For example they regularly call Shakespeare an "undereducated country bumpkin" despite the well-attested fact that he was a literate middle-class professional who later became a gentleman with extensive property and a coat-of-arms. Sneering is the fundamental starting point of Oxfordianism.