Tag Archives: Stratfordian Theory

The Shakespeare Oxford Society and the Shakespeare Fellowship Present The Toronto Shakespeare Authorship Conference October 17-20, 2013

The Shakespeare Oxford Society and the Shakespeare Fellowship announce that their 2013 Joint Conference will take place in Toronto, Canada from October 17 to 20, 2013. SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS

The Joint Conference will take as its theme “Shakespeare and the Living Theatre.” It will be presented with support of the Theatre and Drama departments of York University and the University of Guelph, two major Canadian universities. REGISTRATION FORM

Conference organizer Professor Don Rubin of Toronto’s York University stated “The man who wrote under the name of Shakespeare, was clearly a man of the theatre. We know that William of Stratford had connections to the Globe but few people know that the 17th Earl of Oxford, also had significant theatre connections to both adult and children’s companies of the period.” “We are hoping that the Conference will offer new understandings of these connections as well as insights into theatrical conditions of the time and put to rest the idea that William of Stratford was the only candidate in the authorship debate with strong and profound theatrical involvement.”

There will be a variety of papers on related subjects presented as well as a trip to Canada’s internationally-acclaimed Stratford Shakespeare Festival to see a production of Merchant of Venice with Brian Bedford. These include an open public debate on the authorship question between Stratfordians and Oxfordians, a screening of at least one new film about the authorship question and keynote speakers from the world of the living theatre. The conference will also include the annual general meetings of both organizations which, because of the proposed merger of the two organizations, should not be missed.

The conference will be held at the Metropolitan Hotel in Toronto; registrants may receive a conference rate of $135/night at the hotel by calling 800-668-6600 or by e-mail at reservations@tor.metropoliton.com. Please mention Reservation ID#269-931 or the SOS or the SF. This hotel room rate will be good for up to three days before and after the conference for those who wish to extend their visit to Toronto.

Advertisements

Katherine Chiljan’s New Authorship Book — Pre-Order on Amazon.com: Shakespeare Suppressed: The Uncensored Truth About Shakespeare and His Works

Congratulations to my friend Katherine Chiljan.  Her new authorship book will be released on September 1, 2011, and is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com.  Here’s the book cover graphic … followed by a link to the Amazon.com page.

http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Suppressed-Uncensored-Truth-About/dp/0982940548/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313618470&sr=1-2

Here’s some basic information about the book and the author.  Sounds like a great read.   And great timing in advance of the worldwide release of the Roland Emmerich movie, Anonymous.   Let the Shakespeare authorship debate begin!

About Shakespeare SuppressedWILLIAM SHAKESPEARE is the most celebrated and most read poet and dramatist in history, but his personal life and artistic life is a mystery. How did he obtain the extensive learning and experience displayed in his works? When were his plays written and why were his works so often pirated by printers? Although publicly lauded during his lifetime, why was Shakespeare s death not noticed by those in the literary world near the time that it had occurred? These are only a few problems that the Shakespeare professor cannot answer definitively after two centuries of scholarship.

Much contemporary evidence, however, is available that can shed light on many of these problems evidence that gets ignored because it does not fit the experts picture of Shakespeare. This evidence overwhelmingly indicates that William Shakespeare was the great author s pen name, and that he was a nobleman. It shows that he wrote decades earlier than believed, and initially for the private entertainment of Queen Elizabeth I and her court.

The pen name idea is easy enough to grasp, but it becomes more complex and tangled by the fact that there was another man, christened William Shakspere, who lived during the same period. A resident of Stratford-upon-Avon, this man was involved in acting companies and theaters in London.  Not one shred of evidence, however, proves the Stratford Man was the great author during his lifetime, and neither he nor his descendents ever made such a claim. These two very different men merged into one identity after both of their deaths, and it was no accident, as this book will explain.

The lack of hard facts about Shakespeare and his career has caused the experts to write biographies full of fiction and fantasy. Those who love and appreciate Shakespeare deserve better. Fully documented, Shakespeare Suppressed is a valuable resource for those who want to learn the unadulterated truth about Shakespeare and his works. The book debunks the experts case for the Stratford Man as the great author, and exposes the misleading preface of the First Folio. Features an appendix detailing 93 too early allusions to the plays that destroy orthodox composition dates, and 27 plates.


About the Author

KATHERINE CHILJAN (BA History, UCLA) is an independent scholar who has studied the Shakespeare authorship question for over 26 years. She has debated the topic with English professors at the Smithsonian Institution and at the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco. Chiljan served as editor of the Shakespeare-Oxford Newsletter, and edited two anthologies: Dedication Letters to the Earl of Oxford, and Letters and Poems of Edward, Earl of Oxford.

Sweet Will of Stratford — “Beachcombing” Blogger Gets Into The Authorship Issue

Dear Fellow Shakespeare Lovers!  Several days ago a friend sent me a link to a blog called Beachcombing.  As you’ll see, there’s a lengthy discussion and a few responses from readers (including a long submission from me) about the authorship question.  Just passing this along.  See link to the blog below along with my somewhat long-winded post in response to some points made by Beachcombing.   Beachcombing is decidedly Stratfordian but he seems reasonable, respectful, and even somewhat open-minded.  Enjoy!  Matthew

Link To Beachcombing Blog:
http://beachcombing.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/sweet-will-of-stratford/
Here’s the post I submitted with a few comments from Beachcombing.

7 April 2011: Beachcombing got a fascinating email from Matthew C.  Matthew writes that ‘I certainly encourage you to do some more reading on the subject.  You seem to only scratch the surface and you leap to conclusions based on limited information.  So keep at it. My line about this issue:  Traditional scholars including the academic establishment have been Barding Up The Wrong Tree for a few centuries.’ Matthew then takes Beachcombing’s argument apart bit by bit starting with some well made points about Beachcombing’s misuse of the word ‘fact’. Then, Matthew deals with Beachcombing’s allegation that Shakespeare could have travelled in the missing years. ‘You’re engaging in rank speculation… There’s not an actual fact lurking anywhere in what you say.  You speculate that he might have gone to Italy.  Yes, he might have.  He might have gone to Russia or China for that matter.  You assume that he wasn’t in Stratford with his family.  Yes age 21-28 are crucial years for an aspiring author.  Can you provide any evidence at all that he wasn’t simply living in Stratford?  He was, after all, married.  He had a wife and three children who lived in Stratford all these years.  Why do you claim ‘we don’t know where Shakespeare was between 1585 and 1592?’  What you’re really saying is there’s no evidence he was in London … or anywhere else on the planet.  So why couldn’t he have simply been living in Stratford?  Without any evidence to the contrary – and given the presence of his young family in Stratford – wouldn’t the fair assumption be that he was living there as well?  Your assumption that William of Stratford was off traveling to Italy and soaking in knowledge and experience is based on … well … nothing … except for the need to cram some worldly experience and knowledge into him.  If you’re going to posit some other theory, you really need to come up with some evidence to support it.’ Then Beachcombing gets in trouble over his comments that Shakespeare’s learning was shallow: ‘Here you’re engaging in a strange effort of ‘dumbing down’ Shakespeare so his learning comes closer to what might be feasible or believable for what we know about the actual life of William of Stratford.  Nice try out of desperation but really unfortunate.  And repeating the old canard about the Bohemian coast is simply sad.  A little bit of research on your part would reveal adequate evidence that Bohemia did in fact include a seacoast at different points in history.  It’s too bad you feel the need to denigrate Shakespeare’s knowledge in an effort to prop up the Stratfordian theory.  We need not idolize Shakespeare but let’s not resort to taking him down a few notches simply to force the square Stratfordian peg into a round hole.’ Matthew then adds. ‘There’s one topic you address briefly that deserves a great deal more attention – the Sonnets.  Both the content of those poems and the publication in 1609 strongly suggest, to my mind at least, that this was a posthumous publication.  Traditional scholars have not been able to explain the poet’s complete absence from the publication process, the absence of a dedication from the poet, and his complete silence about the publication (one way or another) after 1609.  The reference to ‘our ever-living poet’ in the dedication provides powerful prima facie evidence that the poet was, in fact, dead at the time of publication.  William of Stratford, of course, was very much alive until 1616 … and yet he remained completely silent about the Sonnets … and no scholar has yet provided any credible explanation as to how Thomas Thorpe could have acquired and published these very personal poems against the will of the poet himself.  There are more or less convoluted theories but posthumous publication offers a reasonable, Occam’s Razor explanation for the publication itself, the dedication, and the poet’s strange absence during and silence after publication.’ Then finally Matthew moves on to the question of Shakespeare’s daughters. ‘Finally, one quick point about raising illiterate (or perhaps semi-literate) daughters.  Your rather dismissive comment that this does not surprise you is, again, an attempt to dumb down the Bard.  Just think for a moment about all of the witty, highly educated heroines in Shakespeare’s works.  It’s hard to imagine that the poet would not want his own daughters to be able to appreciate not only his works but the wonderful world of literature that education opened up for him.  It’s remarkable to me that you would discount this “fact” so glibly.  There’s no indication that any members of the “Shakespeare” family who resided in Stratford for many years after 1616 took any interest in or asserted any connection with the life and works of William Shakespeare.  I would also ask why it is that we have no evidence that the rather well-to-do William of Stratford donated any money to the King Edward VI grammar school that supposedly gave him his start?  Nothing in the man’s will hints at anything remotely literary (as I’m sure you know).  But I’ve always been baffled by the absence of a bequest to the school in Stratford that supposedly provided his educational foundation.  One would expect him to have been eternally grateful to his school – if indeed he attended the school and learned so much from the year or two most scholars assume he spent there.’ Leaving aside, for a moment, the whole question of whether or not Shakespeare of Stratford was Shakespeare the author the one thing that strikes Beachcombing from the several emails he’s received is the passion with which both sides address this argument. It is enough to make a sleepy bizarrist retreat into his rabbit hole: back to zombies, unicorns and werewolves. Seriously, thanks to Matthew for this long contribution!

From The Archives: Parts I and II of About.com’s Interview With Matthew Cossolotto About The Shakespeare Authorship Question

Dear Friends:  I was doing some web surfing and I came across this two-part interview on About.com.  I had forgotten all about this but now that I see it again I think it’s worth sharing on the SOS Online News.  I’m pretty sure this interview took place before the SOS Online News was launched.  I think the interview bears repeating.  Sometimes it’s worth remembering that the authorship debate does receive considerable attention.  And not only from scholars intent on dismissing the topic — like James Shapiro in his book Contested Will.  So I thought I’d post portions of the interview here with links to the full Q&A.  I also wanted to take this opportunity to express my thanks again to Lee Jamieson at About.com for doing the interview and recognizing that the Shakespeare Authorship Question deserves to be given serious consideration.   Enjoy!   Matthew

Part I:  Shakespeare and De Vere

An Interview with Matthew Cossolotto About The Shakespeare-De Vere Relationship

By , About.com Guide

The Shakespeare authorship debate1 has been raging for years and the circumstantial evidence for one candidate is particularly compelling: Edward de Vere2, 17th Earl of Oxford.

In this two-part interview3 we ask Matthew Cossolotto, Shakespeare Oxford Society4 president (2005-2009), to defend the case for Edward de Vere by answering some common Stratfordian questions.

In the first installment we ask Cossolotto to consider the Shakespeare-De Vere relationship and ask how William Shakespeare5 from Stratford-upon-Avon6 fits into the De Vere story.

About.com: There is documentary evidence that a man called William Shakespeare existed? How does this man fit into the authorship case for Edward de Vere?

Matthew Cossolotto: There’s no question that a native son of the town of Stratford-upon-Avon with a name similar to “William Shakespeare” did in fact exist. Nobody questions his existence. The issue is whether this “William of Stratford” – as I like to refer to him – was in fact William Shakespeare, the great poet and playwright.

As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out as to the exact role that this William of Stratford played in the Shakespeare story. More research is needed. There are several theories: he may have been go-between, a play broker, or a front man for the real author. Personally, I don’t think he ever played the traditional front man role as the public face of the writer during his lifetime.

About.com: So you don’t believe the conventional story: that William Shakespeare left Stratford-upon-Avon to become a prominent actor on the London theater scene?

Matthew Cossolotto: No. There’s virtually no contemporaneous evidence that William of Stratford was an accomplished or prominent actor on the London stage7. Did he play a few bit parts in some plays? Perhaps. But that does not prove he was William Shakespeare, the great poet and dramatist. It simply suggests he might have been recruited to play a kind of stand in role – perhaps because his name was so similar to the famous Shakespeare name

In fact, the evidence suggests that William of Stratford spent most of his time in Stratford-upon-Avon and very little time in London. After his death in 1616, William of Stratford began to play what I think of as the “fall guy” role. As Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth Night:

Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them.

After his death, William of Stratford had greatness thrust upon him.

Partisans of the Stratford theory are fond of circular reasoning. “Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare” is a frequent refrain. But partisans of the Stratfordian theory deny even the possibility that “William Shakespeare” could have been a pseudonym. So they shut down the debate and close their minds instead of opening their minds – Maybe I’m naïve, but I always thought true scholarship required an open mind.

READ MORE Of PART I

Part II: Was Shakespeare a Pseudonym for Edward De Vere?

An Interview with Matthew Cossolotto About The Case for Edward De Vere

By , About.com Guide

Edward de Vere1, 17th Earl of Oxford, has emerged as the strongest candidate from the Shakespeare authorship debate2.

In the second part of our interview with Matthew Cossolotto, Shakespeare Oxford Society3 president (2005-2009), we discuss why Edward De Vere would have needed a pseudonym.

About.com: Why did Edward De Vere need to write under a pseudonym? Why not simply use his real name?

Matthew Cossolotto: There were undoubtedly a host of reasons Edward de Vere did not publish his works under his real name. One likely reason is that he may well have been prevented from doing so by the powers that be at Court. In Sonnet 66, Shakespeare complained of “art made tongue-tie by authority.” That’s one theory.

De Vere may well have chosen to remain anonymous and employ a pseudonym because it gave him greater creative freedom and the ability to speak truth to power. If de Vere was revealing embarrassing or even scandalous facts about powerful figures at Court (Queen Elizabeth, Lord Burghley, the Earl of Leicester among others) he may well have concluded that discretion was the better part of valor and not put his name on his works.

About.com: So potentially, it would have been dangerous for de Vere to put his name to the plays and poems we now attribute to William Shakespeare?

Matthew Cossolotto: Yes. Sometimes I think of de Vere as the “deep throat” of Elizabeth’s Court. Remember, there was no such thing a freedom of the press in those days. If de Vere’s writings could be construed as critical of the government or specific individuals, especially the Queen, he would not have lasted very long.

In addition, there was something of a social taboo that tended to discourage high-ranking noblemen – Edward de Vere was the 17th Earl of Oxford after all – from publishing works of drama and poetry under their own names. My feeling is that this was not a hard-and-fast sort of thing. I wouldn’t argue that this so-called “stigma of print” was the only reason the Earl of Oxford opted against publishing under his own name. I’d say it’s one of the factors that should be taken into account.

READ MORE OF PART II