'Next' Letter

[xman]

In John Byrne's 1994 Next Men #26, the author intentionally misassigns a Shakespeare quote to Edward DeVere in obvious support for his candidate in the 'Alternative Authorship "Controversy" '. A Richard III quote I believe. As some may be aware, a decade after it's cliff hanger ending we are now beginning to get the relaunch from IDF Publishing. In the second issue, this month's issue, we find one of our heroes in the presence of "The Earl of Oxford, though thou may'st call me Edward". So here it comes.

I'm a rather huge Shakespeare fan, have looked at the issue of authorship very closely and am bothered by such suggestions. (accusations?) I wrote Byrne before on the issue in 1994 and I know he read my letter. I'm thinking of writing him again. Let's say that for John Byrne this subject is a lost cause, that he has his belief structure in place and simply cannot change. The issue, for the sake of the audience, should be presented fairly. If my letter is published or at least quoted, people who may be wondering about 'authorship' might have access to the credible data as well as the ... okay, I'll call it a conspiracy theory. I have some of the important data regarding the dates and debunking the argument, but I could use some suggestions about which logical fallacies may be in his way and leading him to support the bogus claim.

X

 

[Memeticemetic]

Well, without seeing any of his arguments I don't see how any of us could give feedback on the logical fallacies he may be using. I'd also be interested in seeing you letter to him. Care to share some links?

 

[lrkun]

Need more facts. ^-^

 

[xman]

Sorry, I guess I had assumed that everyone was familiar with the 'authorship' debate.

The basic premise is that Shakespeare was not the actual author of the works commonly attributed to him. That he didn't have the education, political savvy, connections etc. to have been so competent. Over the centuries, many different alternates have been proposed including, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and even Queen Elizabeth herself. Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, near contemporary to William Shakespeare is another. There is a 'Society', and its antithesis.

I definitely want to make a soft approach so as not to put up all the red flags that normally get put up when someone's cherished belief is questioned, but I want to get the author's attention too. In a positive way so that something may be presented of the relevant facts.

 

[lrkun]

I see. How did you know that the author intentionally misassigned the authorship with regard to the quote in question?

 

[xman]

I see. How did you know that the author intentionally misassigned the authorship with regard to the quote in question?

I recognised the quote in his work which he specifically credited to the Earl. It was used outside the story line. It was a quotation chosen to punctuate the telling of the story. It was a quotation which was well used, intended to evoke something compelling to the story, BUT it had been attributed incorrectly, outside the cannon, written by the 'contentious' authorship candidate, Edward DeVere 17th Earl of Oxford ... if I am remembering all things perfectly. It was many years ago and my comics have been moved by SWMBO. Gonna take a few more hours to be more precise than that.

 

[lrkun]

I recognised the quote in his work which he specifically credited to the Earl. It was used outside the story line. It was a quotation chosen to punctuate the telling of the story. It was a quotation which was well used, intended to evoke something compelling to the story, BUT it had been attributed incorrectly, outside the cannon, written by the 'contentious' authorship candidate, Edward DeVere 17th Earl of Oxford ... if I am remembering all things perfectly. It was many years ago and my comics have been moved by SWMBO. Gonna take a few more hours to be more precise than that.

What consequence do you hope to effect, assuming you write the letter in question?

---

Side question, do you think, the information below is accurate? I'm new to the authorship debate.

http://www.bardweb.net/debates.html

The Authorship Debate

Authorship Links | Home

There are enough conspiracy theories out there regarding the works of Shakespeare (or attributed to Shakespeare, if you prefer) that entire careers have been built upon positing alternate candidates for the true authorship of the works. Whether or not the claim of Shakespeare is legitimate, the burden of proof would seem to lie on those who wish to discredit the Bard. On the other hand, it's only fair to give attention to this debate as it has been ongoing since the 1700s.

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford: This contemporary of Shakespeare has been strongly advanced since the 1930s as the true author of Shakespeare's plays. A well-educated and well-traveled nobleman of Queen Elizabeth I's court, de Vere has been championed by the author Charlton Ogburn using parallels of the Earl's life with material from the plays,for instance, noting similarities between Polonius of Hamlet and the Earl's guardian, William Cecil. The Earl of Oxford apparently stopped his literary pursuits at an early age,unless, as Ogburn postulates, the Earl continued writing under the pen name of William Shakespeare. PBS aired a 1996 "Frontline" special on the subject.

Francis Bacon, Philosopher and Writer: Bacon has been a traditional favorite of the anti-Stratford camp, and retains a high place on the list of potential candidates. Bacon proponents point toward Bacon's learning, his correspondences and memoirs (most notably, his notebook, Promus), as well as ciphers and other coincidences. Although Bacon was an undisputed man of letters, his style and expression vary greatly from that of Shakespeare's works. Bacon also produced such a voluminous output of his own, it's hard to conceive of him finding spare time enough to produce the quality output of work attributed to the Bard.

Christopher Marlowe, Playwright: Marlowe would be the ultimate ghost writer, as he was stabbed to death in a tavern brawl in 1593. However, there are those that say Marlowe really didn't die; according to some, he was actually an occasional spy in the employ of the Crown. This eventually necessitated a fake death, after which Marlowe went on for an undetermined number of years penning poetry and plays under the nom de plume of Shakespeare. PBS also aired a January 2003 "Frontline" episode about Marlowe.
Other Candidates

Other notable candidates have included William Stanley, Earl of Derby; Ben Jonson; Thomas Middleton; Sir Walter Raleigh (with or without collaboration by Francis Bacon); Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke; and even Queen Elizabeth I herself. There have been dozens of other such nominations since the Bard's death, and none have yet presented proof enough to discredit the man from Stratford. In the interest of having the dissident voices heard, however, I've provided links to some good sites for the interested.

 

[xman]

What consequence do you hope to effect, assuming you write the letter in question?

I guess I would hope that the issue might make it to the letters page of the comic where the rationalist response may be at least raised rather than an unfortunate reader be beset by the conspiracy and accept it as factual.

The information in your quote is largely accurate.

 

[lrkun]

What consequence do you hope to effect, assuming you write the letter in question?

I guess I would hope that the issue might make it to the letters page of the comic where the rationalist response may be at least raised rather than an unfortunate reader be beset by the conspiracy and accept it as factual.

The information in your quote is largely accurate.

When did you last write him and did he reply?

 

[xman]

The last time I wrote him was about a year or so after that first letter. It was a brief postcard if I recall reading some thing like, "You may not know anything about Shakespeare, but you sure know how to make comics. Issue #?? was a masterpiece ..." He did not reply, but seemed to like the praise as he printed it in the letters column.

 

[lrkun]

The last time I wrote him was about a year or so after that first letter. It was a brief postcard if I recall reading some thing like, "You may not know anything about Shakespeare, but you sure know how to make comics. Issue #?? was a masterpiece ..." He did not reply, but seemed to like the praise as he printed it in the letters column.

So you've sent the letters 5-4 years ago? Do you think he'll remember the issue of authorship debateS or the quote in question?

 

[Andiferous]

This is a neat topic. I'd love to hear your argument. I do not know much about the person in question though (not that I knew Shakespeare personally, either)...

I always thought the 'conspiracy' theories around Shakespeare were fascinating and I've never ruled out the idea that someone else may have written much of his work. Even today we have ghost writers and editors who do occasionally rewrite entire works. I read an article recently about a researcher who proved that Jane Austen manuscripts were essentially reworked entirely by her editor, and that the very eloquent writing style often associated with her works is in fact the style of her very scrupulous editor, and that she herself was a bit of a grammatical and spelling mess.

If you are refuting an academic on the issue, you'll need to provide very obvious academic evidence and a solid argument. Obviously people can have their biases, but if your reply doesn't read as objective and scholarly, citing specifics with ample documentation of your research, you've less hope of convincing someone in the field. In Shakespeare study and English Literature in particular, the entire study is about arguing convincingly and with solid documentation.

If he's got no background then - well - what can you do.

 

[xman]

So you've sent the letters 5-4 years ago? Do you think he'll remember the issue of authorship debateS or the quote in question?

y

This is a neat topic. I'd love to hear your argument. I do not know much about the person in question though (not that I knew Shakespeare personally, either)...

Like any conspiracy it is deep and twisted in its tale. The world was fine with the man from Stratford having written the plays until about 200 years ago or so. Round about the time it was becoming obvious that the Shakespeares were from Catholic families with contentious relatives etc. At this point other secret authors begin to be proposed. Stylometric arguments are the foundation of much of the anti-Stratfordian arguments, meaning, "it sounds like our hero doesn't it? HE wrote Shakespeare"! It is a weak foundation of propositions which, either intentionally or ignorantly, maligns good people. All of the claims have been debunked again and again. We have more than enough data available to determine that anyone other than the man from Stratford couldn't have written the plays and poems.

I always thought the 'conspiracy' theories around Shakespeare were fascinating and I've never ruled out the idea that someone else may have written much of his work. Even today we have ghost writers ...

If you trust me on this you may indeed rule it out. Elizabethans had no use for pseudonyms. Writers were labourers who sold their labour cheaply. Shakespeare beat the trap of having to sell his plays outright to the players by becoming a sharer in the company and hence equal owner of material immediately upon production. As principal writer he was also principal director, not that the *Lord Chamberlain's Men needed much direction.

... and editors who do occasionally rewrite entire works.

Shakespeare was a prolific writer and rewrote his own works. A cursory glance at the first three printings of King Lear show clearly how the author was rewriting and adapting his own work. The Hamlet texts tell the same tale. Much of what was used to have been explained as errors due to 'memorial reconstruction' are now being accepted as differences in the author's own hand at different times of notation. We see this in his poems too.

If he's got no background then - well - what can you do.

:lol: He's a comic writer, not a historian. Neither am I for that matter.

---

* Oh how the names changed. They were Leicester's Men when Will fell in with them and may have spent some time as Darby's Men and The Queen's Men before the plagues started closing things down. They were also Pembroke's Men before he died and it looks like they were supported by his widow to become The Lord Chamberlain's Men, but that Chamberlain died suddenly of having been poisoned and they were picked up by his son becoming Lord Stanley's Men until he was promoted to Lord Chamberlain. *whew* Then King James makes them his men and they become rich beyond imagination.

I think I've got all that right.

 

[Andiferous]

Like any conspiracy it is deep and twisted in its tale. The world was fine with the man from Stratford having written the plays until about 200 years ago or so. Round about the time it was becoming obvious that the Shakespeares were from Catholic families with contentious relatives etc. At this point other secret authors begin to be proposed. Stylometric arguments are the foundation of much of the anti-Stratfordian arguments, meaning, "it sounds like our hero doesn't it? HE wrote Shakespeare"! It is a weak foundation of propositions which, either intentionally or ignorantly, maligns good people. All of the claims have been debunked again and again. We have more than enough data available to determine that anyone other than the man from Stratford couldn't have written the plays and poems.

That's the sort of think I'd like to see.

I always thought the 'conspiracy' theories around Shakespeare were fascinating and I've never ruled out the idea that someone else may have written much of his work. Even today we have ghost writers ...

If you trust me on this you may indeed rule it out. Elizabethans had no use for pseudonyms. Writers were labourers who sold their labour cheaply. Shakespeare beat the trap of having to sell his plays outright to the players by becoming a sharer in the company and hence equal owner of material immediately upon production. As principal writer he was also principal director, not that the *Lord Chamberlain's Men needed much direction.

Perhaps a miscommunication, but technically there have been all kinds of pseudonyms over the centuries. Female writers tended to reinvent themselves under male names, and this was very common for a long time.

... and editors who do occasionally rewrite entire works.

Shakespeare was a prolific writer and rewrote his own works. A cursory glance at the first three printings of King Lear show clearly how the author was rewriting and adapting his own work. The Hamlet texts tell the same tale. Much of what was used to have been explained as errors due to 'memorial reconstruction' are now being accepted as differences in the author's own hand at different times of notation. We see this in his poems too.

Maybe.

If he's got no background then - well - what can you do.

:lol: He's a comic writer, not a historian. Neither am I for that matter.

I'm not much help because I don't like Shakespeare..

But I did see a bit of trend in that Shakespeare people seem really very passionate about Shakespeare...

Just back stuff up.

 

[xman]

Perhaps a miscommunication, but technically there have been all kinds of pseudonyms over the centuries. Female writers tended to reinvent themselves under male names, and this was very common for a long time.

true, but not before the restoration. One of the first was Aphra Behn who didn't have to disguise her gender, but her identity because she was a spy! All that started decades after Shakespeare's death.

 

[Andiferous]

Hehe yes. Aphra Behn is really my secret hero. But few others took her lead.

She was ideal for eighteenth century satire with an apparently broad dictionary of cryptic speech and subtext.

She was an extraordinary exception, though.

 

[xman]

Well the new issue came out today and I am certainly correct in my assessment of the problem. Here's the response I have drafted

Dear Mr. Byrne;

Once again I am compelled to write to you regarding a mislabelled Shakespeare quote in one of your books. As I'm sure I mentioned many years ago I recommend that you read Shakespeare: In Fact by Irvin Leigh Matus. It is an excellent source not only for disarming the notion that DeVere wrote Shakespeare's works, but also putting forward quite compellingly that it could have been no other person than 'The Man From Stratford', William Shakespeare. As a primer you may visit http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ which does a great job of condensing these and other points.

I would also suggest that you contact and discuss this interesting and important subject with the members of your local Skeptics Society. Frequently, such people can be of enormous assistance in disseminating fact from fiction, uncovering logical fallacies which are being employed and revealing what may properly be known.

I know how it is to have one's certainties broken down. I was, for some years at the beginning of this century what might be called a 'Truther'. Satisfied with what I knew about the events and the people involved and uninterested in reading more about a subject which upset me. After some time, however, I did reexamine the evidence with an open mind, enlisted the participation of other sceptics and disabused myself of a terrible notion. The trick, I think is not to work to see evidence which supports what one thinks, but to see how it may be shown to be wrong. It's the scientific method. I truly hope you will follow my advice. You will likely learn more about the subject.

Otherwise, I am very glad that you are back at Next Men and look forward to seeing what will become of our heroes and the next stage in the story. To tell the truth, I would likely have groaned to see Jasmine become the Dark Lady of the sonnets to William Shakespeare, but I am light heartedly amused to see her as the muse to DeVere. In a world where super powers actually exist, DeVere also actually wrote Shakespeare.

Please keep them coming!

What do you think?

 

[xman]

Beuler? ...

 

[Andiferous]

Well the new issue came out today and I am certainly correct in my assessment of the problem. Here's the response I have drafted

Dear Mr. Byrne;

Once again I am compelled to write to you regarding a mislabelled Shakespeare quote in one of your books. As I'm sure I mentioned many years ago I recommend that you read Shakespeare: In Fact by Irvin Leigh Matus. It is an excellent source not only for disarming the notion that DeVere wrote Shakespeare's works, but also putting forward quite compellingly that it could have been no other person than 'The Man From Stratford', William Shakespeare. As a primer you may visit http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ which does a great job of condensing these and other points.

I would also suggest that you contact and discuss this interesting and important subject with the members of your local Skeptics Society. Frequently, such people can be of enormous assistance in disseminating fact from fiction, uncovering logical fallacies which are being employed and revealing what may properly be known.

I know how it is to have one's certainties broken down. I was, for some years at the beginning of this century what might be called a 'Truther'. Satisfied with what I knew about the events and the people involved and uninterested in reading more about a subject which upset me. After some time, however, I did reexamine the evidence with an open mind, enlisted the participation of other sceptics and disabused myself of a terrible notion. The trick, I think is not to work to see evidence which supports what one thinks, but to see how it may be shown to be wrong. It's the scientific method. I truly hope you will follow my advice. You will likely learn more about the subject.

Otherwise, I am very glad that you are back at Next Men and look forward to seeing what will become of our heroes and the next stage in the story. To tell the truth, I would likely have groaned to see Jasmine become the Dark Lady of the sonnets to William Shakespeare, but I am light heartedly amused to see her as the muse to DeVere. In a world where super powers actually exist, DeVere also actually wrote Shakespeare.

Please keep them coming!

What do you think?

Excellent reply. Skepticism always wins, in my opinion.

 

[xman]

Thanks Andi. I sent the letter off. I doubt I'll get any reply. At least I have done the right thing. One can always hope for a positive outcome.