Skip to main content

Wikipedia says happy UN-birthday to Shakespeare

Happy UN-birthday to Shakespeare today. Anti-Strats get a nice present from the traditionalists at Wikipedia with the main page devoted to today's featured article on the Shakespeare Authorship Question at: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Despite Wiki's elimination of all anti-Stratfordian voices from editing the article, the essay's prominent placement indicates the vitality of the issue and provides a slap in the face to Stratfordians on what is traditionally celebrated as Shakespeare's natal day. 
An example of the biased SAQ essay:
At the core of the argument is the nature of acceptable evidence used to attribute works to their authors.[26] Anti-Stratfordians rely on what they designate as circumstantial evidence: similarities between the characters and events portrayed in the works and the biography of their preferred candidate; literary parallels with the known works of their candidate; and hidden codes andcryptographic allusions in Shakespeare's own works or texts written by contemporaries.[27] By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies. All these converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship.[28] These criteria are the same as those used to credit works to other authors and are accepted as the standard methodology for authorship attribution.
This is inaccurate because those who write about the authorship in no way rely on circumstantial evidence; they are assiduous in their search for truth through primary sources and rigorous analysis. Even a casual perusal of the work of Charleton Ogburn, Joseph Sobran, Mark Anderson, Roger Stritmatter, Diana Price, Bonner Miller Cutting, Earl Showerman and Nina Green to name only a few authorship researchers prove the mendacity of this commentary.


Wiki says: "By contrast, academic Shakespeareans and literary historians rely on documentary evidence in the form of title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies. All these converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship."


Stratfordian research contrasts absolutely. Their highly touted title pages, register pages, accounts, and testimonies refer to a writer, but never to a writer from Stratford. And, as for as stylometric studies -- there is nothing to compare the style of the Stratford man with, because nothing exists that he wrote. If traditionalists want to eliminate candidates based on the fact that they do not meet the criteria of stylometric analysis, the Stratford man would not even be in the running.


"All these converge to confirm William Shakespeare's authorship."
Yes, all their "documentary evidence" confirms that William Shakespeare was a writer -- but that evidence says absolutely nothing about who was behind the pseudonym, William Shakespeare. The academy cannot continue to pretend that the argument for the traditional attribution will hold.

Popular posts from this blog

New Anonymous film trailer posted on YouTube

A second film trailer for Roland Emmerich's film, Anonymous, was posted on YouTube August 5, 2011. Emmerich's historical thriller about the Shakespeare authorship controversy is scheduled for wide-release in the U.S. October 28, 2011. A preview will be screened on Sept. 7, 2011 in downtown Portland, Oregon as part of the Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre's annual conference September 6-9, 2011. Anonymous will also be featured at the Toronto International Film Festival to be held September 8-18, 2011.


Emmerich's film has Stratfordians aflutter, fearing examination of the traditional attribution of Shakespeare's plays may damage the brand. Instead of welcoming interest in Shakespeare's life and times, they are boarding up the windows against a flood of inquiry. The previously taboo topic of Shakespeare authorship is now allowed in the hallowed halls of Stratford-on-Avon so that a rear guard action against apostasy can be mounted. Paul Edmondson, Head of Resea…

Ros Barber's new Shakespeare authorship book out November 24, 2013

by Linda Theil



Ros Barber'sShakespeare: The Evidence --The Authorship Question Clarified will be published Nov. 24, 2013. Info at https://leanpub.com/shakespeare. Video promo for the book (above) is available on YouTube at Shakespeare: The Evidence.

Promo material on the publisher's page says:
Whether you are a firm believer that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, or suspect that he didn't, this book aims to enable readers to gain a more comprehensive knowledge of the problems at hand, clarify their thinking, and identify weaknesses in, and logical rebuttals to, the arguments of their opponents, as well as potentially strengthening their own.Ros Barber, PhD is the author of The Marlowe Papers (St. Martin's Press, 2013) that won the Hoffman Prize in manuscript in 2011.

UPDATE 11/17/13: A note published today by Ros Barber at http://rosbarber.com/shakespeare-evidence/ says the first installment of the Shakespeare: The Evidence ebook will be published on November 26, 2013.
UPDATE …

Warren creates index of Oxfordian newsletter and journal articles

Sailors in the Shakespeare authorship sloop are an independent crew used to charting their own course, but even among this notoriously self-confident coterie, James Warren astounds us with his initiative.

The Sacramento native has lived overseas for the past 20 years, most recently in Pakistan and Vietnam, serving as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State. When he became interested in the Shakespeare authorship mystery, he created a tool that he needed for his research. Warren explains: I became aware of the authorship issue about five years ago, and since then focused on acquiring and reading many books on it and Edward de Vere. I hadn’t paid much attention to the (Shakespeare Oxford Society and Shakespeare Fellowship websites. . . . However, after joining the SOS and SF earlier this year, in March I learned about the SOS newsletter, SF’s Shakespeare Matters, The Oxfordian, Brief Chroniclesand other publications all at the same time, and was almost overwhelmed by t…