Skip to main content

Home/ Edward de Vere & William Shakespeare/ Group items tagged authorship

Rss Feed Group items tagged

ken meece

The Monument by Hank Whittemore : 0966556453 : 9780966556452 - BetterWorldBooks.com - B... - 0 views

  •  
    "Customer Reviews * Rating Most important work on Shakespeare in a century Aug 5, 2005 (48 of 56 found this helpful) It is gratifying to read so many other reviews that agree on the importance of Hank Whittemore's latest book, The Monument, on Shakespeare's Sonnets. What Whittemore has accomplished is nothing short of breath-taking. He has achieved in the literary realm what Thomas Kuhn so excellently described for science 40 years ago: a paradigm shift, where it takes a totally fresh view, unemcumbered by the assumptions and prejudices of a given field of inquiry, to solve what are otherwise perceived in the profession to be unsolvable questions. Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, coincidentally exactly 100 years ago, is the best example of such a paradigm shift, where the only solution to the conundrums plaguing physics was Einstein's assertion that time itself was not constant, and neither was mass. The difference in the case of Whittemore's work is that despite massive evidence that Shakespeare's Sonnets remain to this day a virtually totally impenetrable enigma, very few mainstream scholars even appear to recognize this fact. I have recently read the work of the only four scholars, so far as I am aware, in the last 50 years who have published either a paraphrase of, or extended comments on, ALL 154 sonnets. They are to be commended for recognizing the importance of treating the entire sonnet sequence as a whole, but in each case, in my view, they are a miserable flop at explaining the meaning of the sonnets. What Whittemore recognized is first, that the sonnets are ONE unified, coherent, internally consistent, document. Whatever is said in one sonnet MUST relate to all the other sonnets. So long as there are (apparent) contradictions between one's interpretations of different sonnets, so long is that interpretation fatally flawed. Second, he not only agreed with many scholars that Sonnet 106 is about the death of the Queen, the pea
ken meece

frontline: the shakespeare mystery: Al Austin - 0 views

  •  
    Four hundred years after the premiere of Hamlet, the authorship question remains a mystery
ken meece

Contrary views: a debate about the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt | Shakespeare Author... - 0 views

shared by ken meece on 24 Aug 09 - Cached
  • No one had any reason to doubt the Stratford man's authorship of the works during his lifetime because apparently nobody thought he wrote them in the first place!
  • “… when he died in 1616, no one seemed to notice. Not so much as a letter refers to the author's passing.”
  • Not until seven years after he died did a document appear pointing to him as the author. Nobody seems to have known who “Shakespeare” was, and most probably did not care. There is little reason to think that the author was a prominent person during his lifetime. The Stratford monument is so ambiguous that Stratford's residents had little to question. Some think it was originally erected as a monument to William's father, John Shakspere.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The earliest attempt to write a biography of the Stratford man was Rowe's effort in 1709.
  • A survey instigated by the New York Times last year found that of the 265 Shakespeare professors surveyed, 17 percent were either on the fence (11%) or agreed that there is good reason to doubt that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and poems.
ken meece

Oxfordian theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 0 views

  •  
    The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), wrote the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.
ken meece

Edward De Vere's Concealed Authorship of the Shakespeare Canon and the Necessary Taboos... - 0 views

  • It is simply clan instinct to believe and cogitate in terms that are acceptable, to fit in, to feed and run with the herd, to sniff which way the wind is blowing, sense what direction the closest hooves are shifting, as it is very often a matter of personal advantage and survival. Rebellion can be fatal to iconoclasts. On the other hand, clay pots crack and crash on their own after a time.
  • The academic refusal to debate who "Shakespeare" actually was, on evidentiary grounds, exhibits the ultimate, the atom bomb, of early childhood resistence, denial. Granted the stakes in terms of professional status are high, should the strategy of resistance fail. We need hardly mention economic ramifications, for instance adjustments in the Stratford-on-Avon industry, long ago typed lectures that must be abandoned, and revised historical texts if the De Vere paradigm gains credence. As Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding."
  • Schopenhauer's dictum, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • implicit in each is the ability to communicate both on the surface and secretly simultaneously, without revealing either source or subject.
  • since the Stratford Monument, the Sonnets dedication, and Jonson's introductory verse to the First Folio all contain a code that contradicts the Shakspere authorship propounded on the surface, we must infer a strategy to expediently conceal but ultimately reveal De Vere as the author of his work--why then did the De Vere circle's political cunning fail to succeed?
  • Edward De Vere, whose intimate relations with Queen Elizabeth I were the talk and tattle of the aristocracy in 1573-5, and eventually the pitiful subject of Sonnet 33 as well as the non sequitur statement in 'The Merchant of Venice' ["The truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but at the length truth will out."], well could have fathered Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, who resembled him and Elizabeth closely, and bore no resemblance to Mary Browne and the Second Earl of Southampton.
  • So at the outset, De Vere's poems to Wriothesley make sense to me as the private advice of a loving but desperate father who knew his son, though illegitimate, stood the best chance to succeed Elizabeth in the Tudor lineage if he married her trusted Secretary's grand-daughter. The first group of Sonnets, up to Sonnet 26, unify around his father's--a loving vassal's--advice. The paradoxically devoted but familiar homage throughout this work is consistent and unmistakable.
  •  
    It is simply clan instinct to believe and cogitate in terms that are acceptable, to fit in, to feed and run with the herd, to sniff which way the wind is blowing, sense what direction the closest hooves are shifting, as it is very often a matter of personal advantage and survival. Rebellion can be fatal to iconoclasts. On the other hand, clay pots crack and crash on their own after a time.
ken meece

Shakespeare-Oxford Society » History of Doubts surrounding the authorship of ... - 0 views

  • J. Thomas Looney, British schoolmaster and scholar, evolved the theory of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as author in his book, “Shakespeare” Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford
ken meece

Agenda for Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference - 0 views

1 - 17 of 17
Showing 20 items per page