I recently happened to come across your very interesting book and the extremely persuasive technical analysis you provided regarding Shakespeare authorship issues.
As a result, I've just published a long article on the subject, which substantively focuses on your own outstanding work. Here's the link:
Thanks, Ron, I thought your summaries of my arguments and claims were very accurate and well done. You've obviously done a deep dive on this. I'll definitely be in touch.
Love this. I feel like I get to discover one of the most historically important breakthroughs ever before everyone else does. Perhaps there’s something of great value to scholars ignoring your arguments that North is the real author of everything after all.
Great writing Dennis, as usual. Your "problem" is you are more of a scholar than the Shakespearean "experts". You are getting ignored similar to the way Tomas was treated during the covid epidemic: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/
Following up from our email exchange. What about Shake-Speare = North brothers?
More specifically, Shake-Speare as the nom de plume of GEORGE North who adapted Thomas North's texts? And the guy who in the 1927 auction catalog wrote that it would be "extremely interesting" to compare George's manuscript with Shake-Speare knew or suspected this?
In chapter 15 of A.J. Pointon's 2011 book "The man who was never Shakespeare", he details all the reasons why actor and theater manager Shakspere of Stratford clearly could not have been Shake-Speare the literary genius and wasn't known as such by his contemporaries (e.g. in 1601 Queen Elizabeth demanded the arrest of the author of Shake-Speare's controversial play Richard II, but they couldn't find him and didn't even question Shakspere!).
Now the irony is that many of the points listed by Pointon exclude Shakspere and all other well-known Shake-Speare candidates yet perfectly match Thomas North (or the North brothers), but Pointon couldn't know this back in 2011! E.g. first-hand knowledge of Italy, France and the Court of Nerac, Cambridge University, law and classical scholarship, and also possibly falconry, undisclosed details of Marlowe's inquest, and Dr. William Harvey's unpublished blood circulation theory.
Concerning the bad quartos, the official explanation could be plausible in this case: they are memorial reconstructions or simplified transcriptions of Shake-Speare's plays (performed in Shakspere's theaters!), produced by someone in the audience or cast. So they would be correctly attributed to Shake-Speare and would be the only written Shake-Speare plays available to the public prior to the publication of Shake-Speare's (i.e. the North brother's) manuscripts!
If so, even the First Folio perhaps wasn't a conspiracy. They simply published both the theater transcriptions/recollections and the original masterpiece manuscripts. The anonymous person/people who created the Stratford monument may have genuinely believed Shakspere was Shake-Speare, or they felt Shakspere the theater manager contributed to Shake-Speare's success, or they were hoaxers or grifters. But it doesn't require a grand conspiracy.
This hypothesis could also explain why several contemporary authors cryptically alluded to the fact that Thomas North (or the North brothers) were somehow behind Shake-Speare but never mentioned him/them by name (it would have exposed and endangered him/them)! If Shake-Speare were just Shakspere the theater manager who adapted North, why not simply mention this?
It would also explain why Shake-Speare (and Shakspere) never mentioned the North brothers, and the North brothers never mentioned Shake-Speare or claimed any copyright or ownership.
Finally, the hypothesis that George North was Shake-Speare could also naturally explain why Shake-Speare had access to unpublished manuscripts and notes written by Thomas and George North. It could also explain why George North apparently remained such a reclusive and enigmatic figure. Given that Thomas North clearly was a literary genius, George may have been one, too.
Based on Pointon's book I believe one has to exclude the theory that Shakspere the actor and theater manager was Shake-Speare the literary genius. Perhaps it's possible that someone else used Shake-Speare as a nom de plume and adapted North's texts, but it appears difficult enough to adapt the works of a genius without distorting them. It would be far simpler if Shake-Speare was the nom de plume of George North or the North brothers.
There could be counter-arguments that I'm not aware of (I've only looked into this topic for 24h), but then it'd be worthwhile directly refuting the George North / North brothers hypothesis.
Well, some of the evidence here is significant. But there are a few errors: For example, William Shakespeare of Stratford did indeed use the spelling Shakespeare repeatedly, especially once he got to London. In his petition for arms, the reference was to "Shakespeare" -- and had a spear in the crest -- confirming the pronunciation and spelling of his name. Also George North had nothing to do with the plays--and is a cousin (we think) of Thomas, not brother. Only one work of his was a source for the Shakespeare canon. The Thomas North book helps add details.
Thanks. But as Pointon shows, Shakspere of Stratford *never* used the name Shakespeare (let alone Shake-Speare), nor did any of his relatives ever do so.
When he applied for a coat of arms in 1596, he also applied as Shakspere and didn't claim to be Shakespeare or indeed a poet and playwright at all. Only a member of the College of Arms (who opposed several requests) once wrote "Shakespear the player" (without the final e) and again confirming he was just a player. The coat of arms contained two spears, but so did many coat of arms, and this may well have been an allusion to the pronunciation of "Shakspere". This is explained in chapter 9 of Pointon's book.
What happened is that Stratfordians in their writings have retroactively changed all occurrences of Shakspere to Shakespeare, thus extinguishing the real Shakspere.
Can we really exclude that George North (whether brother or cousin) used the nom de plume Shake-Speare to adapt or promote the works of his relative (or his own)? If so, I'd say Thomas North or someone very close to them would still be the most likely candidate. Shakspere and most other known candidates can be ruled out.
Looks like I might have to write a post on this: Spelling was not standardized at the time, and everyone had variations in the spelling of their names. You and Pointon believe falsely that there was a “correct” spelling of Shakespeare and an “incorrect” one. There wasn’t. Spelling wasn’t standardized: I will write a longer post on this.
It's not about "correct" spellings or standardization at all: it's just that neither Shakspere nor any of his relatives ever used/spelled their name Shakespeare (let alone Shake-Speare), not even in the petition for arms. Very simple. But that's only one of Pointon's many points that clearly show Shakspere the player-manager wasn't Shake-Speare, never claimed to be him, and was never believed to be him by any of his immediate contemporaries. Not even when there was a royal arrest warrant for Shake-Speare as the author of Richard II.
That’s false. “John Shakespeare” — for his father—is the name as it is spelled in an arms document. There’s also about a dozen other times the name “Shakespeare” is used for Stratford man— and his nephew too. Meanwhile, the literary Shakespeare is frequently spelled Shakspeare or Shakspere. So it is simply false that one spelling signified the writer and another the man from Stratford. I’m about to post on this. However, the stuff in Italy and the law is all great stuff and correct
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
I recently happened to come across your very interesting book and the extremely persuasive technical analysis you provided regarding Shakespeare authorship issues.
As a result, I've just published a long article on the subject, which substantively focuses on your own outstanding work. Here's the link:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-who-wrote-shakespeares-plays/
If you're interested in getting in touch with me, I can be reached at Ron@unz.com.
Thanks, Ron, I thought your summaries of my arguments and claims were very accurate and well done. You've obviously done a deep dive on this. I'll definitely be in touch.
Love this. I feel like I get to discover one of the most historically important breakthroughs ever before everyone else does. Perhaps there’s something of great value to scholars ignoring your arguments that North is the real author of everything after all.
Thank you so much for that. Comments like that do help.
You’re welcome! It’s stuff like this that makes me want to stop procrastinating working on my blog so I can share my potential original insights.
[That along with subscriptions from Bentham’s Bulldog and others even though I haven’t started :)]
Fascinating write!
Great writing Dennis, as usual. Your "problem" is you are more of a scholar than the Shakespearean "experts". You are getting ignored similar to the way Tomas was treated during the covid epidemic: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/
Dear Dennis
Following up from our email exchange. What about Shake-Speare = North brothers?
More specifically, Shake-Speare as the nom de plume of GEORGE North who adapted Thomas North's texts? And the guy who in the 1927 auction catalog wrote that it would be "extremely interesting" to compare George's manuscript with Shake-Speare knew or suspected this?
In chapter 15 of A.J. Pointon's 2011 book "The man who was never Shakespeare", he details all the reasons why actor and theater manager Shakspere of Stratford clearly could not have been Shake-Speare the literary genius and wasn't known as such by his contemporaries (e.g. in 1601 Queen Elizabeth demanded the arrest of the author of Shake-Speare's controversial play Richard II, but they couldn't find him and didn't even question Shakspere!).
Now the irony is that many of the points listed by Pointon exclude Shakspere and all other well-known Shake-Speare candidates yet perfectly match Thomas North (or the North brothers), but Pointon couldn't know this back in 2011! E.g. first-hand knowledge of Italy, France and the Court of Nerac, Cambridge University, law and classical scholarship, and also possibly falconry, undisclosed details of Marlowe's inquest, and Dr. William Harvey's unpublished blood circulation theory.
Concerning the bad quartos, the official explanation could be plausible in this case: they are memorial reconstructions or simplified transcriptions of Shake-Speare's plays (performed in Shakspere's theaters!), produced by someone in the audience or cast. So they would be correctly attributed to Shake-Speare and would be the only written Shake-Speare plays available to the public prior to the publication of Shake-Speare's (i.e. the North brother's) manuscripts!
If so, even the First Folio perhaps wasn't a conspiracy. They simply published both the theater transcriptions/recollections and the original masterpiece manuscripts. The anonymous person/people who created the Stratford monument may have genuinely believed Shakspere was Shake-Speare, or they felt Shakspere the theater manager contributed to Shake-Speare's success, or they were hoaxers or grifters. But it doesn't require a grand conspiracy.
This hypothesis could also explain why several contemporary authors cryptically alluded to the fact that Thomas North (or the North brothers) were somehow behind Shake-Speare but never mentioned him/them by name (it would have exposed and endangered him/them)! If Shake-Speare were just Shakspere the theater manager who adapted North, why not simply mention this?
It would also explain why Shake-Speare (and Shakspere) never mentioned the North brothers, and the North brothers never mentioned Shake-Speare or claimed any copyright or ownership.
Finally, the hypothesis that George North was Shake-Speare could also naturally explain why Shake-Speare had access to unpublished manuscripts and notes written by Thomas and George North. It could also explain why George North apparently remained such a reclusive and enigmatic figure. Given that Thomas North clearly was a literary genius, George may have been one, too.
Based on Pointon's book I believe one has to exclude the theory that Shakspere the actor and theater manager was Shake-Speare the literary genius. Perhaps it's possible that someone else used Shake-Speare as a nom de plume and adapted North's texts, but it appears difficult enough to adapt the works of a genius without distorting them. It would be far simpler if Shake-Speare was the nom de plume of George North or the North brothers.
There could be counter-arguments that I'm not aware of (I've only looked into this topic for 24h), but then it'd be worthwhile directly refuting the George North / North brothers hypothesis.
Here you can download Pointon's book on Shakspere of Stratford: https://annas-archive.org/md5/6d6d301b7796a7e5b6a9247354645506
Here is Pointon's four-page summary of why player-manager Shakspere of Stratford clearly wasn't literary genius Shake-Speare: https://archive.org/details/the-man-who-was-never-shakespeare-anthony-j-pointon-summary-2011. I believe it unwittingly provides further evidence that Shake-Speare really was George and Thomas North, or at the very least was supplied by them.
Well, some of the evidence here is significant. But there are a few errors: For example, William Shakespeare of Stratford did indeed use the spelling Shakespeare repeatedly, especially once he got to London. In his petition for arms, the reference was to "Shakespeare" -- and had a spear in the crest -- confirming the pronunciation and spelling of his name. Also George North had nothing to do with the plays--and is a cousin (we think) of Thomas, not brother. Only one work of his was a source for the Shakespeare canon. The Thomas North book helps add details.
Thanks. But as Pointon shows, Shakspere of Stratford *never* used the name Shakespeare (let alone Shake-Speare), nor did any of his relatives ever do so.
When he applied for a coat of arms in 1596, he also applied as Shakspere and didn't claim to be Shakespeare or indeed a poet and playwright at all. Only a member of the College of Arms (who opposed several requests) once wrote "Shakespear the player" (without the final e) and again confirming he was just a player. The coat of arms contained two spears, but so did many coat of arms, and this may well have been an allusion to the pronunciation of "Shakspere". This is explained in chapter 9 of Pointon's book.
What happened is that Stratfordians in their writings have retroactively changed all occurrences of Shakspere to Shakespeare, thus extinguishing the real Shakspere.
Can we really exclude that George North (whether brother or cousin) used the nom de plume Shake-Speare to adapt or promote the works of his relative (or his own)? If so, I'd say Thomas North or someone very close to them would still be the most likely candidate. Shakspere and most other known candidates can be ruled out.
Looks like I might have to write a post on this: Spelling was not standardized at the time, and everyone had variations in the spelling of their names. You and Pointon believe falsely that there was a “correct” spelling of Shakespeare and an “incorrect” one. There wasn’t. Spelling wasn’t standardized: I will write a longer post on this.
It's not about "correct" spellings or standardization at all: it's just that neither Shakspere nor any of his relatives ever used/spelled their name Shakespeare (let alone Shake-Speare), not even in the petition for arms. Very simple. But that's only one of Pointon's many points that clearly show Shakspere the player-manager wasn't Shake-Speare, never claimed to be him, and was never believed to be him by any of his immediate contemporaries. Not even when there was a royal arrest warrant for Shake-Speare as the author of Richard II.
That’s false. “John Shakespeare” — for his father—is the name as it is spelled in an arms document. There’s also about a dozen other times the name “Shakespeare” is used for Stratford man— and his nephew too. Meanwhile, the literary Shakespeare is frequently spelled Shakspeare or Shakspere. So it is simply false that one spelling signified the writer and another the man from Stratford. I’m about to post on this. However, the stuff in Italy and the law is all great stuff and correct