Yesterday, Anonymous's screenwriter retorted in the Times that Shapiro wrongly portrayed positions of U.S. Supreme Court justices who held a famous 1987 authorship moot court.
Screenwriter John Orloff said:
[Retiring justice John Paul] Stevens went even further, saying: "I have lingering concerns. . . . You can't help but have these gnawing doubts that this great author may perhaps have been someone else. . . . I would tend to draw the inference that the author of these plays was a nobleman. . . . There is a high probability that it was Edward de Vere [the Earl of Oxford]."
I would hardly characterize these as opinions "unanimously for Shakespeare and against the Earl of Oxford."
This is only the first salvo of the fights that Anonymous will undoubtedly inspire.
Pop some popcorn, please. The previews have apparently already begun.
(Creative Commons photo by Pascal Vuylsteker)
Mark,
ReplyDeleteCheck out my new commentary on Shapiro's gaffe in re/ the "notorious" hyphen. I can't imagine what he was thinking: http://shake-speares-bible.com/
Keep up the great work. My best to Penney and the little ones.
To Mark and Ben-Jonson,
ReplyDeleteIt's extraordinary--strike that, it's disgraceful--that such sloppy scholarship should be propagated by "heavyweights" in any discipline. My question: which Stratfordian will publicly acknowledge and bemoan this error? (not holding my breath.)
Any thoughts on The DeVere Code? I haven't purchased or read it yet, but surely many have. I hope it avoids weak arguments and makes strong ones!
Hi John and Bert,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the encouragement! You do wonder when the bigwigs will really start to realize that the ship is sinking and start lowering some liferafts. So far the herd mentality prevails.
I am not a fan of any of the Oxfordian cryptography I have seen, including The De Vere Code. The book is very well written and professionally produced, but I am not confident that the cryptography it contains would be accepted by cryptography professionals, and there is no evidence in the book that the author sought to test his theories against their opinions. I believe that if a truly sound cryptological solution to the authorship question was discovered, at least some of the experts in this field would jump off the fence in a minute and endorse it. So far that has not happened with any of the Oxfordian cryptology. In their defense, I will add that the Oxfordians who are doing cryptology are much closer to an authentic scientific method than that employed by the Baconians. I just don't think its quite "there," though. I could be wrong and Bond or someone else gets some kudos from those who really are experts in the field, I may have to modify my stance.
Cheers,
Ben
there is money and interests in the matter.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fight for power, not just literature. It is politics.
It'll need time for the "conventional wisdom" to be changed.
The authorship solution vested on de Vere enhances the pleasure and interests of Shake-speare's works by a 100%.
You read, for instance, "Timon of Athens" and you see why it was written and who it alluded to.
Ricardo et al.,
ReplyDeleteYes, there is money involved. I am a great fan of Google Earth. Tonight, I spent some time visiting various places, including Stratford-on-Avon. It jogged my memory of an actual visit back in 1995 when I was overwhelmed by the throngs of tourists and the stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., all thriving because of the connection. Lots of money to be had...and lost.