
	Where results make sense

Topic: Stratfordian

Related Topics

Shakespearean authorship

Irvin Leigh Matus

Amleth

Queenie

Hamlet

Edmund Grindal

Elizabethan theatre

Elizabethan theater

Pseudonym

Clown

Maximilien Robespierre

James I of England

Punch and Judy

Levee

Auschwitz concentration camp

	The Shakespeare Authorship Question
		Stratfordian Defense: This is the most common attack for Oxfordians, and is weak.
		Stratfordian Defense: This is a complicated question to answer.
		Stratfordian Defense: Aside form the fact that the actors in what had been Chamberlain's Men had been in the King's service for nearly ten months at the time, this unpersuasive hypothesis also ignore one key accountwhich makes it certain that the actors' pervious patron was Lord Hunsdon.
	members.tripod.com /~FiveofSpades/shake.html (1806 words)

	Shakespeare, IN FACT / Reviewed by Richard Whalen (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		Stratfordians rarely cite either one despite their seemingly direct comment on Shakespeare.
		Matus simply accepts the traditional chronology of Stratfordian scholars without noting their own caveats: Evans (and Levin) says it is "beset with hazards and uncertainties"; Barnet calls it "highly uncertain" and "informed guesswork".
		Matus makes the usual Stratfordian arguments: Dugdale made a mistake in showing a sack instead of a pillow and omitting the pen and paper, and no changes were made in the early 1700s.
	www.everreader.com /matuswha.htm (2927 words)

	The Use of Fallacies in the Shakespeare Authorship Question (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		Stratfordian writers love to throw around terms like "fact" and "proof" in order to persuade the unwary reader that everything about the Stratford man is settled and proved when the opposite is actually the case.
		Stratfordians will repeatedly say that they have long since disproved anti-Stratfordianism in general and are so weary of having to go through all of it again.
		Stratfordians consistently avoid being put in the position of having to prove Shaksper wrote the works because they are unable to do so.
	www.webcom.com /wboyle/logic.htm (10512 words)

	Shakespeare in American Communities (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		Stratfordians insist that Shakespeare was one man, the son of a glove-maker from Stratford-upon-Avon, who moved to London in his twenties and made a career of acting and playwriting.
		The principal problem in the authorship debate is that once we step outside the Stratfordian perspective, the theories do not work to disprove other theories; the field is one of negative scholarship.
		In fact, Joseph Hall and John Marston, writers of satirical verse, wrote that Bacon was the poet in question, and it is believed that the suppression of their works in the 1590s was due to this indiscretion.
	www.shakespeareinamericancommunities.org /about/was.html (3973 words)

	mlanguage
		Academics who support the Stratfordian Theory, might have tumbled to the import of this information even without the special knowledge of the DPL's and the DP's, but they tend to be "ivory tower" types who have lost their contact with nature.
		And that his first daughter, Susanna, who married a doctor, could sign her name, but there is evidence that she could do little more than that) We must evaluate this fact in the light of the CPH hypothesis and the DP data and then let the chips fall where they may.
		Stratfordians like to doctor this little passage, but the truth is, that as written, it clearly indicates that if invited to write, our Stratford Shakspere was in pain.
	www.sirbacon.org /mlanguage.htm (6807 words)

	Tober Summary 2 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		Some Stratfordians attribute apparent scholarship to inexplicable "genius" (24), whereas others argue that Shakspere was, indeed, "learned," but by virtue of an excellent grammar school education in Stratford (25).
		Some Stratfordians contend that Shakespeare's early plays contain many errors re aristocratic life, but that his knowledge improves as his social status rises (with his success) (27).
		Another Stratfordian explanation is that Shakspere had ample opportunity to observe the aristocracy and that "common people" knew much about aristocratic life, anyway (27).
	online.tarleton.edu /etober/engl1123/summary_2.html (376 words)

	Bibliography from Shakespeare, Who Was He?
		Especially valuable is a Stratfordian chronology of the plays ''according to the most commonly accepted date or dates," with comments on the records and derived sources.
		Schoenbaum, Distinguished Professor of Renaissance Literature at the University of Maryland and Director of the Center for Renaissance and Baroque Studies, is the most prominent authority and defender of the Stratfordian faith in the late 2Oth century.
		A careful examination of nearly all the Stratfordian and Shakespearean documents, by one of half dozen leading Shakespearean scholars of all time; plus the text of most of them and a short narrative biography; an invaluable reference tool.
	www.shakespeare-oxford.com /whalbib.htm (1709 words)

	Shakespeare In Love
		My theory is that in the Stratfordian seminaries (including Yale and Harvard) it is litany rather than literature that packs the intellectually nubile minds into the classroom.
		It could be one of two things: a Stratfordian attempt to direct attention away from Oxford, who was a favorite at court; or more probably (since no one in Hollywood would stoop so low) a signal flare that all was not well in Culver City.
		The pre-eminent skill of the Stratfordian “scholars” who have locked arms around their “dumb man” is in in-effing the ineffable, un-knowing the unknowable, and lubricating their shaky hegemony with gratuitous insults for anyone who prefers history to mythology.
	www.humilitypress.org /a_little_room/shakespeare_in_love.htm (2278 words)

	The search for identity
		The “Stratfordian” will return to “Do not get involved in the Authorship Question – it is a red herring, a waste of time.” Stratfordian orthodoxy continues, “Whether you read or attend a performance, you need to hear the subtle sounds of Shakespeare’s keen perceptions, insights and...
		They claim that the Stratfordians (believing vehemently in one author, or maybe, just maybe, one with a bit of collaboration) have denied, ignored, ridiculed or trivialised the subject.
		Yet Stratfordian laughter is not unexpected when 40 or more Elizabethans are now included in the ‘heretic’ list of possible authors of/contributors to “the real Shakespeare”.
	www.shakespeareidentity.co.uk /search-for-identity.htm (963 words)

	Introductory Chapter
		That the Stratfordian could not have written it was proven, for him, by the inability of the Stratford townsfolk Wilmot interviewed (a century-and-a-half after Shakespeare’s death) to tell him a single thing about the poet.
		They are thus irrelevant (as are the at least equally large number of big names on the Stratfordian side who contribute nothing but invective and the party line).
		Unfortunately, for a long time few knowledgeable Shakespeareans deigned to argue seriously with the opponents of Shakespeare, hiding in the premise that to argue with them was to dignify them, which they don’t deserve.
	www.bobgrumman.com /IntroChap.html (2399 words)

	Sobran's --- Shakespeare Authorship (Reply to Kathman)
		He treats the Oxfordian Charlton Ogburn as a fool, but overlooks the egregious vulnerabilities of the eccentric Stratfordian Alan Nelson, since Nelson is on his “side.” Kathman seems to feel that the Stratfordian “side” can’t afford to make the slightest concession to the heretics.
		Kathman is intelligent enough to realize that citing Stratfordian scholars to prove the Stratfordian position is circular reasoning, but he is eager to show that the traditional view is held by all the Best People.
		But Stratfordian scholars who want to exclude the Sonnets from consideration are like lawyers who, realizing that a certain document is damaging to their client, seek to have it ruled inadmissible in court.
	www.sobran.com /replykathman.shtml (2542 words)

	Beginner's Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Problem
		All of the evidence in the Stratfordians' arsenal is posthumous; it is, moreover, entirely consistent with the skeptics' hypothesis that there was a concerted effort in Tudor and Jacobean times to keep the authorship hidden.
		We will let the respected Stratfordian scholar, Sir Edmund K. Chambers, rebut the first argument when he concedes that the entire dating process of Shakespearean composition is "conjectural." And we suspect that the alleged "inferiority" of Oxford's acknowledged verse is a value judgment rendered by those opposed to giving Oxford any credit.
		Stratfordians would have us believe that, with so many different candidates having been put forward as the true Shakespeare, we should therefore subscribe to the absurd notion that, since it is obvious that all of the candidates substituting for William Shakspere of Stratford cannot be the author, therefore none of them can be.
	www.shakespeare-oxford.com /guide.htm (3313 words)

	Tober Summary 1 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		One reason Michell gives for the validity of the "Authorship question" is that despite the conventional wisdom and literary scholarship that supports the Stratfordian position, an immense body of work by "serious writers" exists to challenge that position (9).
		Moreover, Michell claims the purpose of his book is to give those doubts a fair, unprejudiced presentation so that readers may draw their own conclusions on the subject (11).
		The Stratfordians, of course, call both men "Shakespeare," whereas those who take the Authorship question seriously--such as Michell--distinguish between "Shakespeare," the poet/dramatist, and "Shakspere," the man from Stratford-upon-Avon (15-16).
	online.tarleton.edu /etober/engl1123/summary_1.html (205 words)

	SHAKSPER 2003: New Stratfordian Discoveries
		Given that Ben Jonson was a rather jealous man, it's been doubted that he would frame his admiration of the Bard with such a reverent speech.
		As noted in a recent issue of "New Stratfordian Studies (Aug., 1988), most scholars are inclined to say that Ben Jonson wrote the inscription on the Stratford monument in Holy Trinity.
		A couple of issues ago, in the 1993 number of "New Stratfordian Discoveries" it was pointed out that Shakespeare was fond of anagrams, his best effort being to anagram AMLETH into HAMLET.
	www.shaksper.net /archives/2003/1996.html (951 words)

	Who actually wrote Shakespeare?
		There is no reason to expect that there would be many references to any commoner of Shakespeare's times in those records that have withstood the ravages of time, inasmuch as they are concerned largely with legal matters.
		That Stratfordians would dispute that there are any points raised against their position that they haven't fully answered numerous times is merely additional evidence that they are "no less victims of their own beliefs than the Baconians or other dogmatists" (257).
		On the Shakespearean authorship question, the concrete evidence is entirely on the side of the Stratfordians.
	www.onlineshakespeare.com /michell.htm (3211 words)

	Irvin Leigh Matus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		This view is called Oxfordianism, and is currently the most popular alternate theory of the authorship of Shakespeare's works.
		In Shakespeare, In Fact (Continuum, 1999), Matus examines Oxfordian claims in detail and presents criticism of them while providing evidence for the Stratfordian position.
		Also in the Shakespeare realm, Matus wrote Shakespeare, the Living Record (Palgrave Macmillan, 1991), a travelogue of modern day England pertaining to persons and places mentioned in Shakespeare.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Irvin_Leigh_Matus (167 words)

	A Little More than Kuhn, and Less than Kind (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		Or at least a little embarrassed for the ever-declining state of Stratfordian scholarship.
		Fortunately, a comprehensive study of Stratfordian dogma in the twilight years has already been written.
		Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) might as well be titled The Structure of Shakespearean Revolutions for the author's sagacity in illuminating the history of the authorship controversy.
	www.webcom.com /wboyle/kuhneleg.htm (1791 words)

	Hollywood's the thing... ("Shakespeare in Love" and "Elizabeth") (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-22)
		On the surface, an Oxfordian, being informed of two largely Stratfordian offerings of this topic, may be his usual disgruntled self.
		Supposedly Stratfordian screenwriter Tom Stoppard denies being compelled by the authorship debate, although he does admit to having perused No Bed for Bacon, and earlier days when he pondered the alternative theories of Bacon and Marlowe, before dismissing it as groundless.
		But his is not a conventional mind and knowing, as he must, the amount of time and effort expended to amass his wealth of knowledge, it is difficult to imagine him supporting such an incomprehensible tale.
	www.everreader.com /quealy1.htm (1799 words)

	The URL of Derby
		The terms "Stratfordian" and "orthodox" refer to those who believe Shakspur wrote the plays, and "anti-Stratfordian" refers to those who do not.
		As we will see in the following pages, even Stratfordians associate him with several plays—The Merry Wives of Windsor, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Love's Labour's Lost, and the history plays—and no other candidate is so well indicated by any play at all.
		Allusions to Shake-speare by his contemporaries, explained away by Stratfordians and ignored by most anti-Stratfordians, fit William Stanley best.
	www.rahul.net /raithel/Derby (1023 words)

	From Mapplethorpe to Oxenford
		Far from doing anything of the sort, both Greene and Jonson are part of the standard Stratfordian case.
		To further suppose that the name “Aetion” (“eaglet” in Greek) derives from a feature of the coat-of-arms of the subject is to multiply unlikelihood by improbability.
		While a single letter is thin evidence, the common opinion is that Derby did indeed write, or try to write, plays, presumably for the theatrical company that he patronized, though they, like nine-tenths of Elizabethan drama, have not survived to the present day.
	members.tripod.com /stromata/id468.htm (6013 words)

	Phlit: A Newsletter on Philosophy and Literature: Shakespeare, Southampton, Elizabeth I, etc.: 2005-7C
		As the son of the queen, Southampton was the heir to the throne, the prince, Prince Tudor, royal, a future king.
		The Sonnets, as many Stratfordians have perceived, are addressed to Southampton (at least, many of them are); they describe the poet’s love for his son, his royal son.
		Alan Nelson, a prominent Stratfordian who wrote a biography of Oxford, told me in an e-mail that Oxford was “deeply involved in the occult...
	www.ljhammond.com /phlit/2005-07c.htm (9573 words)

	Querulous Notes (2004)
		Dickson's eyes, these shards add up to an irrefutable case, which, he fantasizes, has created a violent schism within the Shakespeare establishment, now divided between "those Strats obsessed with the idea of a secret Catholic Bard" and those "obsessed with denying that the Strat man was a secret Catholic.
		Even Wells and Wood would not deny my characterization of a profound Stratfordian schism over the Catholic Question...because their own remarks at the back-to-back lectures at the Smithsonian in late October were open admissions of this split over the evidence.
		Veal and Kathman in earlier remarks represent species of Stratfordians who want to deny that there is this schism because they know that the anti-Strats and Oxfordians can capitalize on it to add to show how it widens not closes the huge gap between the Strat man and the literary works.
	stromata.tripod.com /id459.htm (8540 words)

	A New Stratfordian Champion
		The Stratfordian “method”, reduced to its simplest terms, begins with the evidence that happens to be extant and draws from it what conclusions are possible.
		Since the “Stratford man” cannot be demonstrated to have possessed those indicia, he cannot be the Author, and all positive evidence in his favor must be the product of misapprehension or falsification.
		The first follows the Stratfordian path, assembling contemporary statements that identify the Author as “William Shakespeare”; William Shakespeare as an actor, member of the Lord Chamberlain’s and King’s Men, and part-owner of the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres; and the theatrical personality as a native of Stratford-upon-Avon.
	stromata.tripod.com /id476.htm (4680 words)

	The Holloway Pages: Shakespeare's Stratford Monument
		The theory is that when the monument was restored in 1749, the present monument was substituted for the original.
		Somehow the figure of Shakespeare was altered (or replaced, depending upon the theorist), the "wool sack" became a cushion, and the pen and paper were wedged into Shakespeare's hands to add verisimilitude to the "hoax" that the Stratfordian Shakespeare was the author of the plays.
		Anti-Stratfordians claim that since no one complained about the errors in the Hollar engraving and its copies, their silence is proof that the engravings accurately depict the "original state" of the monument.
	www.hollowaypages.com /Shakespearemonument.htm (1178 words)

	"Shakespeare" By Another Name by Mark Anderson
		In academic circles, and occasionally in the public eye, a battle is being waged over the identity of the author we know as William Shakespeare.
		Though numerous theories have been put forward, the action is mainly between “Stratfordians” and “Oxfordians.” The prevailing view: Shakespeare is himself—an actor and impressario of that name who was known to have lived in London and died in Stratford-on-Avon, where a monument of his likeness was erected in his honor.
		The Stratfordians, stubborn defenders of orthodoxy, will resist the inescapable conclusions prompted by this book, just as they have resisted, dismissed, and laughed off the arguments of Looney, Ogburn, and others.
	www.shakespearebyanothername.com /blog.html (8202 words)

	The Social Affairs Unit - Web Review: Is Sir Henry Neville the true author of Shakespeare's plays? William D. ...
		Mr Veal would not dream of questioning it if some other date were specified, but would certainly accept it as valid primary evidence.
		He has done so here only because it is inconvenient to Stratfordian orthodoxy.
		The reason for questioning the December 28, 1594, date for a performance at Court by the Lord Chamberlain's Men is not "because it is inconvenient to Stratfordian orthodoxy" but because another company is recorded, in the same set of documents, as performing on the same day.
	www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk /blog/archives/000600.php (3451 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)