There you have it: Shakespeare was (or used to be) a "puppet show impresario"! :) From an Amazon comment to Feldman's book. Fascinating work by Feldman, way ahead of the curve, probably damaged her case somewhat by proposing the wrong Thomas, but the underlying idea was good.
Combining her stylistic analysis of the apocryphal plays with your discoveries will make the overall case even stronger, especially if the stylistic analysis could be expanded to the canonical plays.
Soon AI will be able to extract and reproduce the real Shakespeare!
Many fascinating observations and ideas in Feldman's 2011 book, also concerning the poems, the sonnets, the 1619 folio and the 1623 folio. Her stylistic analysis appears to link the apocryphal plays and the bad quartos, a great achievement if confirmed by others.
The Shakespeare-North relationship remains a bit mysterious..
Feldman proposes that the original author preferred and demanded to stay anonymous (as mentioned in some of the sonnets), that he used Shakespeare as a "front man", that Ben Johnson knew him personally and respected his wish to remain unnamed, that Jonson created the 1623 folio as a tribute to the original author without naming him...
she mentions that the editors of the 1619 folio didn't possess all the rights but published the plays regardless, this might weaken the argument that the editors of the 1623 folio happened to choose only North plays for legal reasons...? Or that they used the original plays whenever possible...
Interestingly, the FF is titled "Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies", once again using the ambiguous possessive form...
Looking forward to your article on the poems and sonnets, I believe these are absolutely crucial to understanding the Shakespeare-North relationship... Especially given that Venus/Adonis was the very first text with Shakespeare's name on it...
Given that Shakespeare was a wealthy businessman, other poets may have feared lawsuits if they exposed him and his source(s) by name. Or it was simply the "writer's code of the era"..
Not sure if Feldman has already endorsed your work on North.. If not, man you're really fighting a three-front battle... I for one endorse and support your work 100%. :)
Sabrina and I are very close theoretically. And we have written a letter together we tried to get published. We agree Shakespeare wrote the bad quartos and apocrypha. I also do think she establishes Sackville wrote more plays than currently believed. And, satirists then, as satirists today, almost never explicitly name their target. Primarily Colors mentions Clinton not once. The names Darrow, Bryan, Mencken appear nowhere in Inherit the Wind. By the way, who are you, SSA? Where you from?
The Master Table and Rosetta Stone of the Shakespeare authorship debate! Outstanding!
One question that remains, what exactly does "by", "written by", "augmented by", or "Shakespeare's" really mean on the title pages...? We already know it's not always obvious... We already know Shakespeare appropriated source texts and hired writers without disclosing it...
"but we also don’t have any such manuscripts or letters from "
Let's just consider Marlowe. First of all, there actually is a handwritten foul sheet of The Massacre at Paris attributed to Marlowe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Massacre_at_Paris . That's already more than we have from Shakespeare...
But secondly, even in the case of Marlowe, there is still considerable uncertainty over what he actually wrote, with whom, and when. Consider how cautiously Wikipedia is wording it:
"Six dramas have been attributed to the authorship of Christopher Marlowe either alone or in collaboration with other writers, with varying degrees of evidence. The writing sequence or chronology of these plays is mostly unknown and is offered here with any dates and evidence known." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Marlowe#Literary_career
So there actually is a Marlowe authorship debate! And Marlowe was really just a poet and playwright, not a theater owner and manager...
Plus, in many other famous cases of the same time period (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo; Newton a bit later), the evidence of their authorship is much stronger and more direct. Hence no debate.
So the fact that the evidence is weak in some other cases really doesn't help Shakespeare, to the contrary, it supports the notion that we have to be careful, as in the case of Marlowe...
SSA: The Master Table and Rosetta Stone of the Shakespeare authorship debate! Outstanding!
Dennis responds: Thank you very much, that's very kind. But my friend, it seems you are on an indefatigable quest to preserve your priors – which is Shakespeare never wrote a line, which is unnecessarily extreme --and again contradicted by insiders referring to (and mocking) SHakespeare's writing and lines (like Beaumont's ode "To Mr. B.J." --which refers to his learning free lines, or references to Shakespeare as adapter. There are no such suggestions he wrote nothing or was illiterate.
SSA: "One question that remains, what exactly does "by", "written by", "augmented by", or "Shakespeare's" really mean on the title pages...?
Dennis: I believe I have answered this. They are very much like the meanings today: "written by" and "by" mean actually written or adapted or coauthored by. "Augmented by" means expanded by but not necessarily originally written by. (Typically when a play is "augmented by the original author" it was clarified that this was the case.) "Shakespeare's" and other forms of possession just means it was in some way owned, produced, collected by –but not necessarily written by. My collection of pictures: “Alfred Hitchcock’s Haunted Houseful,” “Britton’s Bowre of Delights,” etc. was meant to make that point.
Dennis: : "but we also don’t have any such manuscripts or letters from "
SSA responds: “Let's just consider Marlowe. First of all, there actually is a handwritten foul sheet of The Massacre at Paris attributed to Marlowe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Massacre_at_Paris . That's already more than we have from Shakespeare...”
Dennis responds: Actually, there’s no reason to believe that folio leaf is by Marlowe—and as it’s a Collier, many think it’s a forgery, including the Christopher Marlowe group, who would be most desirous for its authenticity: https://christopher.marlowe.at/massacre-leaf/ This is in contrast to “Hand D” of “Sir Thomas More,” which many do believe is in Shakespeare’s handwriting. So that’s more than we have for Marlowe. Even more significantly, we have umpteen legal records connecting William Shakespeare to the theater and Burbage, Heminges, Condell, Philips, etc. which is way more than we have for Marlowe, etc.
SSA: But secondly, even in the case of Marlowe, there is still considerable uncertainty over what he actually wrote, with whom, and when. …So there actually is a Marlowe authorship debate!
Dennis responds: Well, there’s a fact-based, North-view styled “authorship debate” over Marlovian chronology, co-authors, and which passages are his and which someone else’s. That is exactly what we are trying to determine with Shakespeare too. But there is no suggestion Marlowe never wrote a line in his plays or that he was illiterate or an allonym, etc.
SSA: So the fact that the evidence is weak in some other cases really doesn't help Shakespeare
Dennis responds: Well, the fact that the allegedly “weak evidence” for Shakespeare’s authorship is much weaker for the vast majority of other playwrights of the era entails that this “weak evidence” does NOT support the idea that Shakespeare never wrote a line, or was illiterate or an allonym.
SSA writes; “to the contrary, it supports the notion that we have to be careful, as in the case of Marlowe...”
Dennis: Exactly. We have to be careful about identifying older passages, coauthors, precisely what plays are being attributed to him—and which not. But there remains nothing to support more extreme views of anti-Statfordianism which hypothesize he never wrote a line, was illiterate, or was an allonym.
"it seems you are on an indefatigable quest to preserve your priors – which is Shakespeare never wrote a line, which is unnecessarily extreme"
Oh no, that's a misunderstanding, that's not my position at all. I simply ask the open question: what did Shakespeare write himself, what was his personal contribution, what was his role, what evidence do we have, how strong is this evidence?
The two extreme positions are that he wrote nothing himself (or couldn't even write, as maintained by some anti-Stratfordians), or that he wrote everything himself (including the original masterpieces, or at least the full adaptations). I personally suspect that both of these extreme positions are quite unlikely.
If the Marlowe manuscript is a forgery, then the case gets even more intriguing! In any case, the Marlowe authorship debate is ongoing, just as I propose the Shakespeare authorship debate (as outlined above) is still ongoing, even after the North revelations.
And the Shakespeare debate is far more complex, because we already know he was a merchant, owner and manager, not just (or not at all) a poet and playwright. We know he bought source texts and hired writers without disclosing it.
If Hand D really is Shakespeare's, that would presumably reduce his personal contribution to a significant extent. But if Hand D isn't Shakespeare, his contribution may have been even smaller...
Weak evidence is weak evidence. It leaves open many possibilities. Other authors mocking "Shakespeare plays" doesn't really tell us much about his personal contribution. I suspect this uncertainty about Shakespeare's role is one reason why the much stronger evidence concerning North has not yet been widely accepted.
Great response but it is indisputable that Shakespeare was a poet/playwright.
1) Again, I cannot repeat this enough: contemporaries mock William Shakespeare as a writer repeatedly: Again, Beaumont writes to Jonson: "And from all learning leave these lines as clear as Shakespeare's best are." That's not mocking Shakespeare's plays. That's mocking his lines.
2) In Groatsworth, Nashe (not Greene) mocks Shakespeare as a plagiarist who filches material from others. And Nashe, addressing his Shakespeare-letter to three playwrights, even writes that SHakespeare "supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you." He was a writer who thought he could write great blank-verse speeches.
4) Again, the rumor mentioned by Ravenscroft is that Shakespeare adapted Titus Andronicus--not that he didn't write a line.
5) Jonson has Sogliardo (Shakespeare) say a line from "Hamlet Q1" confirming Shakespeare is responsible for that line.
6) Finally, I don't think title pages and statements like the above are "weak evidence." Those are your words. I think the evidence that Shakespeare could write and wrote many of the lines and passages attributed to him is confirmed by this evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
I think these are important points that should be emphasized in any (future) debate concerning Shakespeare's personal role and contribution. I'd still consider it indirect (or "weak") evidence (i.e. no drafts, letters etc.).
It's not obvious these contemporaries knew what Shakespeare personally did and did not write (from the outside, it may have looked like he wrote everything, but we know this wasn't the case).
If Shakespeare did the adaptations mostly by himself, there might be stylistic fingerprints of the real Shakespeare (i.e. not North) yet to be discovered.
Hand D should also be re-evaluated in light of your discoveries. From a maximalist perspective (ie Shakespeare adapted "his" plays mostly himself), it would probably be better if Hand D wasn't Shakespeare and he had nothing to do with this play...
"Sir Thomas More is a collaboratively written play that survives only in a single manuscript. The play is thought to have been written primarily by Anthony Munday, perhaps, some scholars think, aided by Henry Chettle, in the 1590s, with somewhat later contributions from Thomas Dekker, perhaps from William Shakespeare, and just possibly from Thomas Heywood. Politically controversial passages have been censored by Edmund Tilney, a government official known as the Master of the Revels.
On the basis of poetic style, many scholars believe that a three page revision to the play is in Shakespeare’s handwriting. However, we don’t really know what Shakespeare’s handwriting looks like. Six signatures of Shakespeare, found on four legal documents, are the only handwriting that we know for certain are his. This is too small a sample size to make any sort of reliable comparison."
Hand D is interesting to consider. I'm not sure what Dennis says about it. But it needs to be explained one way or another. If Hand D is Shakespeare's based on poetic style and handwriting, then that argues against North being the literary genius (even if we accept that Shakespeare adapted North's plays).
I see a couple options if we want to claim North is the literary genius. We either have to argue that the handwriting doesn't really match Shakespeare's (i.e. someone else wrote it) or that it is Shakespeare's handwriting but the quality of the writing is over-rated and that it's more like what we find in the apocryphal plays and bad quartos.
Interestingly, in his case and other cases, there is lots of *stylistic* evidence supporting his authorship. Is there stylistic evidence for Shakespeare? This could be an interesting line of investigation. Surely the current stylistic evidence actually refers to North, not Shakespeare? What is typical of the real Shakespeare, in terms of wording or style?
Lyly has letters--and AFAIA--none of them mention his plays. We have no manuscript play of Lyly. So nothing connects the letter writer to the plays. Sabrina Feldman has done a stylistic analysis of Shakespeare in the plays (as opposed to North)--and here is what she has found: https://www.amazon.com/Apocryphal-William-Shakespeare-Authorship-Scenario/dp/1457507218
Concerning Feldman's book: very interesting, many thanks. These are important pieces of the puzzle. Fascinating to see a NASA scientist tackling this question.
The only reason I've insisted on this (secondary) question is because I believe further clarifying (as much as possible) Shakespeare's real and personal role may help getting the North case accepted, both among Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians (what did he really do, what was he capable of, etc).
"There are very few extant literary manuscripts relating to Lyly. Bond prints (III, 434-502) a large number of poems which he tentatively attributes to Lyly on stylistic grounds, many of them preserved in manuscript sources. Since a number of his attributions (e.g. poems by Sidney) are plainly erroneous, however, and since they are all in any case purely conjectural, these poems are not included in the entries below. Bond's attribution to Lyly of various entertainments should also be viewed with scepticism. .."
yes, but . . . both Venus and Adonis (1593) and The Rape of Lucrece (1594) have "William Shakespeare" as the author on the Title Pages . . . and, but . . . certainly this "adaptor of old plays" could not have written these original "minor epic" poems . . . so then . . . ?
Explanation for poems are coming up! (PS. When I explain the first two poems, people are going to say, yeah, but what about the sonnets? And when I explain that, people are going to say, but what about the identities of the addresses— dark lady, rival poet, fair youth? And when I answer that, people are going to say, yeah but who cares who wrote them, it’s the plays that matter—and the big question is reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. And when I explain that, people are going to say, but who cares, how does this impact my life? Smiling and winking.)
HI Dennis, I'm a Big Fan . . . however . . . this particular article of yours is about "elevating personal mind pictures - over what the documents clearly state" and in "the poems" the Dedication is "clearly stated" to be from "William Shakespeare". So, I understand the smiles and winks . . . however . . .this is not about the dark lady or the fair friend (yes, that will come later) - it is particularly and explicitly only about "what documents clearly stated" during William Shakespeare's life - so, sorry, but with all due respect - I do expect a more constructive response from you.
Hey Norman, thanks. You’re right: V&A and RL clearly state William Shakespeare was author of dedications and poems. Printer/publisher were not committing fraud—and no one was secretly trying to foist those poems on Shakespeare. There’s however more to the story.
I’ve explained all the plays.
I’ve explained the First Folio.
I’ve explained Ben Jonson’s Ode.
I’ve explained all the commentary about the plays.
And yes I will explain all the poems too.
But I’m not going to expose 400 year old mysteries of historical consequence in the third response of a comment section to a post on plays.
There you have it: Shakespeare was (or used to be) a "puppet show impresario"! :) From an Amazon comment to Feldman's book. Fascinating work by Feldman, way ahead of the curve, probably damaged her case somewhat by proposing the wrong Thomas, but the underlying idea was good.
Combining her stylistic analysis of the apocryphal plays with your discoveries will make the overall case even stronger, especially if the stylistic analysis could be expanded to the canonical plays.
Soon AI will be able to extract and reproduce the real Shakespeare!
Many fascinating observations and ideas in Feldman's 2011 book, also concerning the poems, the sonnets, the 1619 folio and the 1623 folio. Her stylistic analysis appears to link the apocryphal plays and the bad quartos, a great achievement if confirmed by others.
The Shakespeare-North relationship remains a bit mysterious..
Feldman proposes that the original author preferred and demanded to stay anonymous (as mentioned in some of the sonnets), that he used Shakespeare as a "front man", that Ben Johnson knew him personally and respected his wish to remain unnamed, that Jonson created the 1623 folio as a tribute to the original author without naming him...
she mentions that the editors of the 1619 folio didn't possess all the rights but published the plays regardless, this might weaken the argument that the editors of the 1623 folio happened to choose only North plays for legal reasons...? Or that they used the original plays whenever possible...
Interestingly, the FF is titled "Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies", once again using the ambiguous possessive form...
Looking forward to your article on the poems and sonnets, I believe these are absolutely crucial to understanding the Shakespeare-North relationship... Especially given that Venus/Adonis was the very first text with Shakespeare's name on it...
No, they didn’t publish the apocryphal plays or many of the bad quartos in the FF.
Another possible explanation of why nobody simply *named* Shakespeare and North:
"The writers’ code of the era (plus fear of imprisonment) prevented these authors from naming the object of their satire, and possibly more than one playwright was targeted. Dr. Sabrina Feldman argues convincingly that most of the lampoons take aim at one highly successful playwright: the chief author of the Apocrypha." https://www.theshakespeareunderground.com/poet-ape-a-plagiarist-among-the-playwrights-episode-6-with-sabrina-feldman/
Given that Shakespeare was a wealthy businessman, other poets may have feared lawsuits if they exposed him and his source(s) by name. Or it was simply the "writer's code of the era"..
Not sure if Feldman has already endorsed your work on North.. If not, man you're really fighting a three-front battle... I for one endorse and support your work 100%. :)
Sabrina and I are very close theoretically. And we have written a letter together we tried to get published. We agree Shakespeare wrote the bad quartos and apocrypha. I also do think she establishes Sackville wrote more plays than currently believed. And, satirists then, as satirists today, almost never explicitly name their target. Primarily Colors mentions Clinton not once. The names Darrow, Bryan, Mencken appear nowhere in Inherit the Wind. By the way, who are you, SSA? Where you from?
The Master Table and Rosetta Stone of the Shakespeare authorship debate! Outstanding!
One question that remains, what exactly does "by", "written by", "augmented by", or "Shakespeare's" really mean on the title pages...? We already know it's not always obvious... We already know Shakespeare appropriated source texts and hired writers without disclosing it...
"but we also don’t have any such manuscripts or letters from "
Let's just consider Marlowe. First of all, there actually is a handwritten foul sheet of The Massacre at Paris attributed to Marlowe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Massacre_at_Paris . That's already more than we have from Shakespeare...
But secondly, even in the case of Marlowe, there is still considerable uncertainty over what he actually wrote, with whom, and when. Consider how cautiously Wikipedia is wording it:
"Six dramas have been attributed to the authorship of Christopher Marlowe either alone or in collaboration with other writers, with varying degrees of evidence. The writing sequence or chronology of these plays is mostly unknown and is offered here with any dates and evidence known." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Marlowe#Literary_career
So there actually is a Marlowe authorship debate! And Marlowe was really just a poet and playwright, not a theater owner and manager...
Plus, in many other famous cases of the same time period (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo; Newton a bit later), the evidence of their authorship is much stronger and more direct. Hence no debate.
So the fact that the evidence is weak in some other cases really doesn't help Shakespeare, to the contrary, it supports the notion that we have to be careful, as in the case of Marlowe...
SSA: The Master Table and Rosetta Stone of the Shakespeare authorship debate! Outstanding!
Dennis responds: Thank you very much, that's very kind. But my friend, it seems you are on an indefatigable quest to preserve your priors – which is Shakespeare never wrote a line, which is unnecessarily extreme --and again contradicted by insiders referring to (and mocking) SHakespeare's writing and lines (like Beaumont's ode "To Mr. B.J." --which refers to his learning free lines, or references to Shakespeare as adapter. There are no such suggestions he wrote nothing or was illiterate.
SSA: "One question that remains, what exactly does "by", "written by", "augmented by", or "Shakespeare's" really mean on the title pages...?
Dennis: I believe I have answered this. They are very much like the meanings today: "written by" and "by" mean actually written or adapted or coauthored by. "Augmented by" means expanded by but not necessarily originally written by. (Typically when a play is "augmented by the original author" it was clarified that this was the case.) "Shakespeare's" and other forms of possession just means it was in some way owned, produced, collected by –but not necessarily written by. My collection of pictures: “Alfred Hitchcock’s Haunted Houseful,” “Britton’s Bowre of Delights,” etc. was meant to make that point.
Dennis: : "but we also don’t have any such manuscripts or letters from "
SSA responds: “Let's just consider Marlowe. First of all, there actually is a handwritten foul sheet of The Massacre at Paris attributed to Marlowe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Massacre_at_Paris . That's already more than we have from Shakespeare...”
Dennis responds: Actually, there’s no reason to believe that folio leaf is by Marlowe—and as it’s a Collier, many think it’s a forgery, including the Christopher Marlowe group, who would be most desirous for its authenticity: https://christopher.marlowe.at/massacre-leaf/ This is in contrast to “Hand D” of “Sir Thomas More,” which many do believe is in Shakespeare’s handwriting. So that’s more than we have for Marlowe. Even more significantly, we have umpteen legal records connecting William Shakespeare to the theater and Burbage, Heminges, Condell, Philips, etc. which is way more than we have for Marlowe, etc.
SSA: But secondly, even in the case of Marlowe, there is still considerable uncertainty over what he actually wrote, with whom, and when. …So there actually is a Marlowe authorship debate!
Dennis responds: Well, there’s a fact-based, North-view styled “authorship debate” over Marlovian chronology, co-authors, and which passages are his and which someone else’s. That is exactly what we are trying to determine with Shakespeare too. But there is no suggestion Marlowe never wrote a line in his plays or that he was illiterate or an allonym, etc.
SSA: So the fact that the evidence is weak in some other cases really doesn't help Shakespeare
Dennis responds: Well, the fact that the allegedly “weak evidence” for Shakespeare’s authorship is much weaker for the vast majority of other playwrights of the era entails that this “weak evidence” does NOT support the idea that Shakespeare never wrote a line, or was illiterate or an allonym.
SSA writes; “to the contrary, it supports the notion that we have to be careful, as in the case of Marlowe...”
Dennis: Exactly. We have to be careful about identifying older passages, coauthors, precisely what plays are being attributed to him—and which not. But there remains nothing to support more extreme views of anti-Statfordianism which hypothesize he never wrote a line, was illiterate, or was an allonym.
"it seems you are on an indefatigable quest to preserve your priors – which is Shakespeare never wrote a line, which is unnecessarily extreme"
Oh no, that's a misunderstanding, that's not my position at all. I simply ask the open question: what did Shakespeare write himself, what was his personal contribution, what was his role, what evidence do we have, how strong is this evidence?
The two extreme positions are that he wrote nothing himself (or couldn't even write, as maintained by some anti-Stratfordians), or that he wrote everything himself (including the original masterpieces, or at least the full adaptations). I personally suspect that both of these extreme positions are quite unlikely.
If the Marlowe manuscript is a forgery, then the case gets even more intriguing! In any case, the Marlowe authorship debate is ongoing, just as I propose the Shakespeare authorship debate (as outlined above) is still ongoing, even after the North revelations.
And the Shakespeare debate is far more complex, because we already know he was a merchant, owner and manager, not just (or not at all) a poet and playwright. We know he bought source texts and hired writers without disclosing it.
If Hand D really is Shakespeare's, that would presumably reduce his personal contribution to a significant extent. But if Hand D isn't Shakespeare, his contribution may have been even smaller...
Weak evidence is weak evidence. It leaves open many possibilities. Other authors mocking "Shakespeare plays" doesn't really tell us much about his personal contribution. I suspect this uncertainty about Shakespeare's role is one reason why the much stronger evidence concerning North has not yet been widely accepted.
Great response but it is indisputable that Shakespeare was a poet/playwright.
1) Again, I cannot repeat this enough: contemporaries mock William Shakespeare as a writer repeatedly: Again, Beaumont writes to Jonson: "And from all learning leave these lines as clear as Shakespeare's best are." That's not mocking Shakespeare's plays. That's mocking his lines.
2) In Groatsworth, Nashe (not Greene) mocks Shakespeare as a plagiarist who filches material from others. And Nashe, addressing his Shakespeare-letter to three playwrights, even writes that SHakespeare "supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you." He was a writer who thought he could write great blank-verse speeches.
4) Again, the rumor mentioned by Ravenscroft is that Shakespeare adapted Titus Andronicus--not that he didn't write a line.
5) Jonson has Sogliardo (Shakespeare) say a line from "Hamlet Q1" confirming Shakespeare is responsible for that line.
6) Finally, I don't think title pages and statements like the above are "weak evidence." Those are your words. I think the evidence that Shakespeare could write and wrote many of the lines and passages attributed to him is confirmed by this evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
I think these are important points that should be emphasized in any (future) debate concerning Shakespeare's personal role and contribution. I'd still consider it indirect (or "weak") evidence (i.e. no drafts, letters etc.).
It's not obvious these contemporaries knew what Shakespeare personally did and did not write (from the outside, it may have looked like he wrote everything, but we know this wasn't the case).
If Shakespeare did the adaptations mostly by himself, there might be stylistic fingerprints of the real Shakespeare (i.e. not North) yet to be discovered.
Hand D should also be re-evaluated in light of your discoveries. From a maximalist perspective (ie Shakespeare adapted "his" plays mostly himself), it would probably be better if Hand D wasn't Shakespeare and he had nothing to do with this play...
https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/shakespeares-handwriting-hand-d-booke-sir-thomas-more
"Sir Thomas More is a collaboratively written play that survives only in a single manuscript. The play is thought to have been written primarily by Anthony Munday, perhaps, some scholars think, aided by Henry Chettle, in the 1590s, with somewhat later contributions from Thomas Dekker, perhaps from William Shakespeare, and just possibly from Thomas Heywood. Politically controversial passages have been censored by Edmund Tilney, a government official known as the Master of the Revels.
On the basis of poetic style, many scholars believe that a three page revision to the play is in Shakespeare’s handwriting. However, we don’t really know what Shakespeare’s handwriting looks like. Six signatures of Shakespeare, found on four legal documents, are the only handwriting that we know for certain are his. This is too small a sample size to make any sort of reliable comparison."
Hand D is interesting to consider. I'm not sure what Dennis says about it. But it needs to be explained one way or another. If Hand D is Shakespeare's based on poetic style and handwriting, then that argues against North being the literary genius (even if we accept that Shakespeare adapted North's plays).
I see a couple options if we want to claim North is the literary genius. We either have to argue that the handwriting doesn't really match Shakespeare's (i.e. someone else wrote it) or that it is Shakespeare's handwriting but the quality of the writing is over-rated and that it's more like what we find in the apocryphal plays and bad quartos.
Or three, the whole thing is a revision of an earlier play by North. I have not done an analysis of the play yet.
Concerning Lyly, the direct and indirect evidence seems to be stronger than for Shakespeare, and even includes some letters and manuscripts: https://celm.folger.edu/introductions/LylyJohn.html
Interestingly, in his case and other cases, there is lots of *stylistic* evidence supporting his authorship. Is there stylistic evidence for Shakespeare? This could be an interesting line of investigation. Surely the current stylistic evidence actually refers to North, not Shakespeare? What is typical of the real Shakespeare, in terms of wording or style?
Lyly has letters--and AFAIA--none of them mention his plays. We have no manuscript play of Lyly. So nothing connects the letter writer to the plays. Sabrina Feldman has done a stylistic analysis of Shakespeare in the plays (as opposed to North)--and here is what she has found: https://www.amazon.com/Apocryphal-William-Shakespeare-Authorship-Scenario/dp/1457507218
Concerning Feldman's book: very interesting, many thanks. These are important pieces of the puzzle. Fascinating to see a NASA scientist tackling this question.
The only reason I've insisted on this (secondary) question is because I believe further clarifying (as much as possible) Shakespeare's real and personal role may help getting the North case accepted, both among Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians (what did he really do, what was he capable of, etc).
Concerning Lyly, too, the debate rages on:
"There are very few extant literary manuscripts relating to Lyly. Bond prints (III, 434-502) a large number of poems which he tentatively attributes to Lyly on stylistic grounds, many of them preserved in manuscript sources. Since a number of his attributions (e.g. poems by Sidney) are plainly erroneous, however, and since they are all in any case purely conjectural, these poems are not included in the entries below. Bond's attribution to Lyly of various entertainments should also be viewed with scepticism. .."
https://celm.folger.edu/introductions/LylyJohn.html
Great work. Applause!
Thank you, Robert!
Why am I reminded of the JFK assassination when I read this?
yes, but . . . both Venus and Adonis (1593) and The Rape of Lucrece (1594) have "William Shakespeare" as the author on the Title Pages . . . and, but . . . certainly this "adaptor of old plays" could not have written these original "minor epic" poems . . . so then . . . ?
Explanation for poems are coming up! (PS. When I explain the first two poems, people are going to say, yeah, but what about the sonnets? And when I explain that, people are going to say, but what about the identities of the addresses— dark lady, rival poet, fair youth? And when I answer that, people are going to say, yeah but who cares who wrote them, it’s the plays that matter—and the big question is reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. And when I explain that, people are going to say, but who cares, how does this impact my life? Smiling and winking.)
HI Dennis, I'm a Big Fan . . . however . . . this particular article of yours is about "elevating personal mind pictures - over what the documents clearly state" and in "the poems" the Dedication is "clearly stated" to be from "William Shakespeare". So, I understand the smiles and winks . . . however . . .this is not about the dark lady or the fair friend (yes, that will come later) - it is particularly and explicitly only about "what documents clearly stated" during William Shakespeare's life - so, sorry, but with all due respect - I do expect a more constructive response from you.
Hey Norman, thanks. You’re right: V&A and RL clearly state William Shakespeare was author of dedications and poems. Printer/publisher were not committing fraud—and no one was secretly trying to foist those poems on Shakespeare. There’s however more to the story.
I’ve explained all the plays.
I’ve explained the First Folio.
I’ve explained Ben Jonson’s Ode.
I’ve explained all the commentary about the plays.
And yes I will explain all the poems too.
But I’m not going to expose 400 year old mysteries of historical consequence in the third response of a comment section to a post on plays.
(sad emoji) "Some of the Mysteries that Remain" but not "All the Mysteries that Remain" (not yet)
Hahaha! That’s true. You got me there.