46
“.... imagining the birth of the radiant queen whom he may
have glimpsed at
Kenilworth.... For there was
a first time he may have glimpsed her....”
[The
plays and sonnets are laced with detailed references to Elizabeth I. Over
the
years scholarship has found her in Sylvia, Helena, Cleopatra,
Cressida, Gertrude
(especially) and even Duke Frederic. For anyone dedicated to preserving
the Stratford
Myth, it is essential to establish that Shaksper was in some way or other
familiar with
the many intimate details of the life of his queen.]
79
“The correction was made, the motto was finally written
correctly, and the
arms were granted.” [This construction of what was later
investigated as
corruption in the arms-granting machinery is at odds with Ben
Jonson’s play
Sogliardo about Shaksper and his jihad to honor his family
name.]
80
“.... ‘Not Without Mustard’....”
[.... is the label Jonson puts on
Sogliardo/Shaksper’s coat of arms. It has a boar on top
(Oxford’s family totem) but
with it’s head lopped off. Shaksper’s contemporaries knew.]
187
“When Sir Philip Sydney.... tennis court.” [This
mention of the Earl of Oxford, if
nothing else, serves to let the reader know that the Resident
Biographer certainly
knew (must have known; might have known; or presumably knew) that
other
persons, perhaps because of the size of Harvard’s library (but
not the Coop
bookstore).
have qualified for consideration as the Bard. Also it just may be an
act
of
literary bravado.]
192 “This was a crucial
experience.... learned that Marlowe was in effect his
double....” [Marlowe,
as a sometime secretary to the Earl of Oxford, may well
heave been aware of Shaksper in one capacity or other. It is
interesting to note that
the shared birthdays may help to blur one of the main facts of
authorship. Oxford
was fourteen years older than either, allowing him time to have
written the early
plays conveniently ascribed to others by Stratford’s champions
who must use
GENIUS to put their teenager to work.]
193
“.... he could have culled.... suggests that Marlowe.... not
yet translated during
the playwright’s lifetime.... access to.... Ortelius....” [Here
we have an Oxbloc
woven into some mustabeens. Will In the World uses
Marlowe to shoehorn the
issue of Shaksper’s own access to the printed page. Assuming that
he could read
(never proven) the use of Richard Field’s print shop has been a
brave try to offset
more compelling facts. Among then are Oxford’s life from the age
of four, living in
the home of the most brilliant man in England, Sir Thomas Smith.
His library was
at least as large as that at Cambridge. Later, as a royal ward, he
lived in London
with Sir Thomas Cecil, whose library was many times larger. The
Earl’s degrees
from both Cambridge and Oxford, plus his attendance at the Inns of
Court,
“suggest” a considerable intercourse with books in their
several languages. There is
no way that a squint into Field’s print shop can even begin to
explain the Canon’s
dependence on a range of literature which has itself become a
subject of intense and
extensive research.]
194
“He must have also owned books by his competitors and would
have had
access to others. He was a hugely valuable resource for his young
playwright
friend from Stratford.” [Painfully
more of the same. Access to (and the ability to
read) books is necessary for the Stratford Myth to endure. Consult “Mustabeens”
for the web of speculation that is used to support a factoid for
which there is no
record, no proof .]
220 “In
inventing Falstaff.... crude anonymous play....” [Coming hard on our above
entry (page 194) this tidbit smacks more of conspiracy to
mislead that some of the
other Oxblocs. The current state of the authorship debate includes
(to use language
from Will) the near certainly possible probability that The Famous
Victories of
Henry the Fifth was written by the young Earl of Oxford. Now if he
were in fact
Shakespeare, our biographer seems to be saying: “Would
Shakespeare have written
a crude play?” Of
course the “anonymous” is gratuitous!]
232
“Could Shakespeare have.... After generations of feverish
research, no one has
been able to offer more than guesses, careful or wild, which are
immediately
countered (often with accompanying snorts of derision) by other
guesses.”
[From this it is possible to guess that our biographer wishes (carefully)
to go on
record that there is no theory sufficiently careful to identify the
actual target of (at
least) the first seventeen sonnets. Thus he can continue to wallow
in possibilities.
Southampton was in the Tower at the critical point in the sonnet
sequence. He had
lost his title and lands. He was only Henry Wriothelsley (WH). The
farther our
biographer can get his “poet” from Southampton, the more he can
deny the Earl of
Oxford a career as the Bard. The intimate connection between the
two can best be
explained as in loco parentis. The story is in itself as entrancing
as any of
Shakespeare’s plays, well worth looking into.]
233
“The reader is clearly not meant to grasp, with any assurance,
their actual
identities.” [Well,
maybe “clearly” by our biographer, but there are intelligent
scholars, not entangled in dogma, who have had no trouble. Another
rank bag
drawn across the trail!]
269
“.... a great reckoning in a little room.”
[We might pause
here for a pungent
observation. Touchstone’s role in As You Like It has been more
credibly explained
in Oxfordian terms. He and William are rivals for Audrey’s
affections. Since
Shake-speare usually spoke through his clowns, it is not too
difficult to guess who
William is (was). That assigns to Audrey the task of representing
the plays. Is it too
much to expect a great writer like Shake-speare to use a
delightfully compound
metaphor from time to time? This is one of the few places in the
Canon that it is
possible to imagine that the Earl was even aware of his namesake
manquee.
293
“.... the Children of Paul’s.... Blackfriars.” [These
boy players were
largely set up by the Earl of Oxford with the assistance of his
former secretary,
John Lyly. Not to mention Oxford in this passage is either
cowardice or deliberate
obfuscation.]
294
“.... a new, improved version of Hamlet.... the likely
author.... stealing from
one another.” [The
Stratford Myth has depended heavily upon an invented yet
invisible document
called the Ur Hamlet. This was one of first fables to dissolve
with the identification of Oxford as the author of both.
Will In the World is laced
with arguments for Shaksper’s son Hamnet as the source of the
title of the play.
The hero of the Danish source was Amleth. His story was not
available in English
until long after the play(s) were written and performed. Oxford was
able to read it
in both the original Latin, or in a French translation.]
329
“The troupe performed eight plays at court in the winter of
1603-4”
[Knowing what we know now, one wonders what the so-called actor, Shaksper
(if
in fact he was even there), thought of these performances. It was
in the 1604-5
season that seven of Shake-speare-Oxford’s plays were performed
with one played
twice. His Majesty King James was able to succeed to Elizabth’s
crumbling throne
through the machinations of (among others) Oxford, and his
brother-in-law, Robert
Cecil. The plays were ordered by James in honor of
Oxford/Shakespeare’s
passing
that year.]
362
“Of course Shakespeare could have hidden things away - books,
.... but the
assessors saw little signs of wealth.” [Along
with centuries of Stratfordim, our
biographer has assisted the Bard in hiding his immense library.
This qualifies as an
Oxbloc because he is aware
that one of the more compelling Oxfordian arguments
is that there is no record of Shaksper ever having read, much less
owned, a book.
Its presence here suggests that he chooses to stay behind with his
finger in the hole
in the dike.]
369
“Small wonder that as early as 1604 he had begun to brood
about retirement.”
[Nor do we need to wonder about the date: there is no record of
Shaksper’s living
in London after 1604. There were some legal references, but they
have been
assigned to another William Shakespeare by scholars willing to take
the time to
decipher the official records. There are also records showing that
the several plays
claimed to have been written after Oxford’s death in 1604 in fact
pre-existed that
date.]
373
“The Tempest is not, strictly speaking, Shakespeare’s last play.
Written
probably in 1611 ----.” [Is
the reason our biographer did not make the customary
citation ( probable date based on a now discredited account of a
shipwreck in the
Bermudas
in 1609) was that he knew there had been many such shipwrecks; and
that there was one as early as 1595? If so, did he know of
Bartholomew Gosnold’s
voyage to what became Martha’s Vineyard and Cuttyhunk? Did he
know that
Gosnold was related to Oxford in two generations, and that
Gosnold’s voyage was
financed by the Third Earl of Southampton? Gosnold returned to England with
a
cargo of Sassafras and Cedar logs, which because the crew had
refused to load,
were placed aboard by the project’s gentlemen adventurers. There
is more, much
more, for those who want to find a less tortured explanation of how a great
playwright puts his characters through their paces one more time
before taking
them off to the Classic past. He leaves his audience (us) in the
form of a liberated
spirit (Ariel) and a troublesome body (Caliban) who has promised to
seek grace.]
389
“It cannot be an accident that three of his last plays.... are
centered on the
father-daughter relationship and are so deeply anxious
about incestuous desires.”
[Don’t forget Lear. Oxford had three daughters that lived plus his own
infant son that
died. He was forced to divide his estate between them. One
married the Earl of Derby
with her godmother, the queen, in attendance
also to see the premier of Midsummer
Night’s Dream. Darby was a member
of Oxford’s troupe of players. Another daughter
married one of the two
earls who owned (or controlled) the plays and published the First
Folio.]
