AN OXFORDIAN AND A BACONIAN
Some frustrated defenders of the Oxford as Shakespeare myth find themselves perplexed for lack of argument with Baconians so they have to resort to uncivil methods of debate including making up their own theories about historical events while believing them to be factual. The following illustration can be observed between Oxfordian Peter Dickson and Elizabeth Weir, a Baconian.
View this article only Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
(Ongoing Shakespeare authorship forum)
Date: 2003-12-26 19:50:20 PST
Subject: Weir's Foolish Investment in Moribund Baconian Theory
Weir's response to my illumination of the historical context surrounding Bacon's totally groveling letters to Southampton and the 18th Earl of Oxford as copies of the First Folio were being distributed for sale in London book stores in January 1624 is lame, feckless, utterly pathetic.
My original argument that this highly revealing conjunction of these men and events and Bacon's total silence at this particular moment about his literary stature in private letters and their non-cooperative attitude toward him wipes him out totally as a credible alternative Bard stands unrefuted. Bacon was a big ass-kisser to boot with King James and Buckingham when those behind the First Folio project were appalled with their plan for the Spanish Marriage. Weir is ignorant of too much basic history to be taken seriously.
The Oxford/Derby duo is the truth behind the Shakespeare pen name as many suspected in the 1920s. Proving it is the truth is difficult but now possible with the evidence in my hand...which of course is a factor in my contempt for the Baconian theory which has had many other shortcomings. It clearly was on the wane in the years just before...yes before World War I. Weir is living in the Edwardian era which is about the last time the Baconian theory had any significant or enthusiastic following. I suppose now with the Stratford man finally exposed for what he was...a cradle-to-grave secret Roman Catholic...that alone is enough to prompt a few to give Bacon a second look. But it is all rubbish and a total waste of time. I trust that the Shakespeare enthusiast from Bulgaria who asked about the history of the authorship debate understands all this now.
What 'illumination?' We've seen that post numerous times and you have yet to show how it is EVIDENCE that Bacon did not write the Shakespeare works. Why don't you just list the reasons why the 'groveling' (show me a letter to an earl that isn't 'groveling) letter disqualifies Bacon as author.
of the historical context surrounding Bacon's totally groveling letters to Southampton and the 18th Earl of Oxford as copies of the First Folio were being distributed for sale in London book stores in January 1624 is lame, feckless, utterly pathetic.
I'd appreciate more civility from you.There's no connection between the authorship of the Shakespeare works and Bacon's plea to return to the House of Lords.Bacon's rhetoric is the usual lower-to-higher flattery typical of the period. It seems obsequious to us because this is a society that struggles even to be polite.
My original argument that this highly revealing conjunction of these men and events
What 'conjuncture?' Bacon wanted back in the House of Lords. Southampton wanted a civil war between the Puritans (Parliament) and the Anglicans (Royalists) because the Catholic minority--a rapidly shirinking minority in England thanks to the mass coversions of the 'Protestant upswelling' between 1600 and 1642-- would benefit from the same disestablishmentarianism that Essex represented. .
The Protestants were hard core on doctrine but as presbyterians were more than willing to co-exist with Catholics in a sectarian England. Bacon was an Anglican but worse from Southampton's point of view, a voice of mediation.
Bacon had the power to sway Parliament. As Jonson pointed out, Bacon was the 'greatest in many ages,' equal to or greater than the ancient orators including Cicero and Pericles. Bacon had the power to change history. How can you compare a lightweight like Southampton to Francis Bacon? Here's a quote from a law school dean on an article I'm going to post:: 'It seems almost unreasonable that Francis Bacon not only founded the scientific method but directed the course of modern law. . . " Bacon's Merchant of Venice was not mere entertainment and the towering speeches of the Shakespeare plays were first heard in Parliament.
literary stature in private letters
Southampton had no 'literary status' And incidently, proof of his radical Catholicism is in the fact that during the SAME WEEK he was released from the Tower the authorities raided Southampton House and sure enough, found hundreds of banned Catholic books which they carried outside and burned in the street.
and their non-cooperative attitude toward him wipes him out totally as a credible alternative Bard stands unrefuted. Bard was a big ass-kisser to boot with King James and
Do you know anything about James I? He was not a 'scholar king.' He was a neurotic moron who didn't even care to rule Britain. He ran up horrendous debts to buy estates for the members of his homosexual coteries. Southampton was showered with favors--James paid off his huge debts, gave Southampton an enormous lump of cash--something like 75 k iirc, and purchased back all Southampton's estates. Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery got enormous gifts of cash from James until Herbertwas badly scarred by small pox and then the cash was cut off.
All of this mindless extravagance was paid for by the English people. Bacon's troubles started when he opened a session of Parliament with an oration against monopolies. James I's favorites were living riotously on the monopolies while the English paid high prices for everything.
By 1620 the English people, who were so thrilled to have the succession crisis resolved by his accession, loathed and despised the king. James I was the most unpopular monarch in British history. Queen Anne was de facto sovereign who ruled through the Privy Council--James went 'camping with the darling boys' for a full six months of the year while Queen Anne and Bacon--he was a member of HER circle, not James'--attended Privy Council meetings and took care of the public's business. James was simply pathetic. And he demanded constant extravagant flattery. England has never had such a fool on the throne.
behind the First Folio project were appalled with their plan for the Spanish Marriage.
Nobody knows who was 'behind the First Folio project.' There is zero scholarship on this question outside of the Strat flat acceptance that 'the printers did it.'
And what, conceivably, does the First Folio have with the Spanish Marriage?
Bacon has a connection to the Spanish Marriage in that his close friend Sir Tobie Matthew was sent to Madrid to work on the negotiations but Bacon was certainly smart enough to see where that was going.
The Stuarts, with all their rumors of illegitimacy and regicide and kidnapping and rape and James' father Darnley lying strangled in the garden--Bothwell's murder trial was a complete farce--the whole chaotic, scandalous mess of the Stuart line--were SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE HAPSBURGS. The Spanish Marriage was never going to happen even before it started. The question of succession was overwhelming because Elizabeth was a heretic and a heretic had named James I king (if she even did). James I was not a legitimate heir because Bothwell was his father and everybody knew it--they looked like twins--and there was no way that the scruffy Stuarts were going to snag a Hapsburg princess. The Hapsburg line was at least 800 years while the Stuarts were nouveau royalty from a line only a few generations old.
And what was Denmark's royalty? And worse of all, James was the prettiest one in the family. Anne looked 'like a man' according to accounts and Charles had a personality as disagreeable as his father's. England was horribly in debt and rich Spain knew that James only wanted the Infanta's dowry and would go through it in a nonce.
The Catholic Marriage was a loss cause before the negotiations even started and the First Folio is irrelevant to the Spanish Marriage n any event.
Weir is ignorant of too much basic history to be taken seriously.
I have the equivalent of a minor in history (in an interdisciplinary program). That doesn't mean much but I do feel qualified to post in HLAS.
The Oxford/Derby duo is the truth behind the Shakespeare pen name as many suspected in the 1920s.
No textbooks for us, we got only primary documents, consequently I see that Oxfordianism is incomplete because Looney did not access Oxford's primary documents. Baconians, on the other hand and despite the loss and scattering of Bacon's papers (I just learned that the Folger is sitting on a huge collection of Bacon's annotated books and manuscript notebooks and has been very quiet about it for the last eighty years--nothing has ever been catalogued) the Baconians have 15 volumes of Bacon's letters and papers in James Spedding's monumental work. Oxfordians have nothing even slightly comparable to Spedding and of course the Strats have a small fist full of documents that have absolutely no bearing on the Shakespeare works.
Proving it is the truth is difficult but now possible with the evidence in my hand...which of course is a factor in my contempt for the Baconian theory which has had many other shortcomings.
Bacon has the Strachey letter.
It clearly was on the wane in the years just before...yes before World War I. Weir is living in the Edwardian era which is about the last time the Baconian theory had any significant or enthusiastic following.
The truth has an inverse relation to popularity. Do you actually believe that Strats--who have had hundreds of millions if not billions of 'believers'--have the right author? There are more Oxfordians than Baconians because Baconian theory requires a lot of time to comprehend. Its difficult in the same sense that Renaissance philosophy is difficult or the Shakespeare works are difficult or the scope of Bacon's polymath genius is more than one biographer --even James Spedding--can convey.
I suppose now with the Stratford man finally exposed for what he was...a cradle-to-grave secret Roman Catholic...
I've done some original thinking on this and while I don't expect to get credit for the insight that John Shakespeare held his sons out of the Anglican schools to thwart the Anglican authorities as the Irish did in Ireland, I think that's a very plausible theory.
I also have several posts to write on further Longworth evidence--although she was a passionate bardoloator, Longworth was also highly ethical and felt that all the Stratford documents should come out, even the ones that the Strat establishment was trying to suppress. The Strats actually withheld documents from Longworth, a doctor of philosophy at the Sorbonne.
Longworth came up with a Catholic theory to explain that most dangerous of Strat documents--the warrant against bodily harm sworn out against the actor, his partner in the Swan and two women. Longworth found the warrant connects those four to Sir Thomas Lucy, the scourge of Catholics in Warwickshire through Lucy's nephew who swore out the warrant. In other words Shakspere et al were attempting to kill Lucy's nephew. Hotson discovered the original docuent in the Bankside but Longworth extended the research. And yes, this is even more in regard to the Catholic question.
This warrant may be connected to another theory I have--based on circumstantial evidence--that Will Shakspere fled the military draft. There was an actual draft going on to raise an army against the Armada and I found out that Sir Thomas Lucy had the power to concript into the army as punishment for petty crimes.
I'm willing to bet that the anti-Catholic fanatic Lucy attempted to conscript the Catholic lad into the army against Spain which would have caused Will Shakesper to violate the Pius V Bull forbidding English Catholics to defend the Queen in time of war (Oxford's problem at Tilbury).
Will Shaksper didn't want to be under papal anathema so he ran off to London a and the highly romanticized 'deer poaching' story is a Strat screen.
But it is all rubbish and a total waste of time. I trust that the Shakespeare enthusiast from Bulgaria who asked about the history of the authorship debate understands all this now.
So how did Oxford get the Strachey letter? Oxfordians have some serious topical problems in plays written after 1604 that disqualify Oxford as author.
More Debating from Elizabeth Weir