016
“…. where it is thought the poet was born.”
019
“…. perhaps to denote his deeds on the
battlefield.” and “…. almost certainly
the clan descended from them.” and
“…. probably his kinsmen ….” and
“….
might he perhaps have known Holinshed in person?”
and “One particular
tale suggests….”
and “…. it may
have been pure fantasy, a family myth that
had lost nothing in the retelling. But maybe the tale was
true….” and “….
but
the likeliest candidate is….” and
“Perhaps Thomas….”
020
“…. not whether the tale is true or not, but
that it was a family tradition.” and
“…. from words spoken and jotted down….it enables
us to say confidently
that history…. national history, indeed…. was part of the
Shakespeare’s
family story.”
021
“…. a Richard who is probably the poet’s
grandfather….” and “….
these
family connections do not by themselves prove
anything about William’s own
allegiances…. they give precious hints….”
025
“John was probably getting on for thirty….”
026
“…. perhaps Henry (VII) had actually stayed there.”
and “There is still some
uncertainty over Mary Arden’s exact relation…. but the
evidence suggests….”
027
“Mary would have been brought up….” and
“…. enables us to imagine….”
033
“…. no doubt they were remarked on in Burbage’s
tavern ….” and “….the
baby was no doubt welcomed….”
035
“We know Shakespeare became an actor and a playwright, but exactly
how he
made the leap is... still mysterious.” and
“…. we have few details of the poet’s
early life….”
036
“…. who may have conducted the poet’s marriage
ceremony….”
038
“Flemish picture…. painted perhaps in the last years
of the sixteenth
century….”
039
“As a child in Henley Street, William no doubt
saw….” and “…. but Young
William no doubt saw….” [both!]
042
“…. he would have seen….” and “Perhaps
he also accompanied his father….”
046 “And if the six-year-old
William was listening….”
047 “So William would have
begun his tuition at home, or at petty school, when he
was about five years old.” and
“Most likely he learned basic letter forms….”
and “But it is just possible that he received some
tuition at home…. although
his father probably never learned to read and write, his
mother may have had
some ability.” [OK, when, and where? If at all?]
048 “…. could Mary have been
Shakespeare’s first teacher?” and “Titus
Andronicus, possibly Shakespeare’s earliest
play….” and “…. did she have
access to…. Books….” and “The household on Henley
Street might have
possessed the odd book….”
049 “As a boy he may
have been told….” and “…. it can be stated for near
certain….” and “Although this does not prove
that the school was in Stratford,
it does offer very circumstantial evidence that he went to
grammar school….”
[Note that Wood shares “William” lovingly in this venue,
avoiding the “S” word.]
050 “It is as good as certain
that this was the school that William attended.” and
“If the regime at Stratford was similar, he might
have been able to…” and
“Tudor England was probably the most literate
society….”
052 “…. suggests that boys
could….” and “…. would no doubt have had....”
053 Caption: “…. where
William must have seen his first plays.”
054 “Simon Hunt would have
taught William….”
055 “Shakespeare
must have seen this sort of entertainment….” and “….
had
surely already encountered….”
056 “…. plays and acting…. would
have been a regular part of his experience….”
and “This is perhaps where he first
encountered….”
061 “This suggests that young
William had seen….” and “We
don’t know exactly
what the curriculum was….”
062 “…. long poem…. was probably
Shakespeare’s best-loved book.”
063 “Latin text, which he presumably
also possessed.” and “…. perhaps his son-in-
law….”
070 “…. by far the likeliest
answer is….”
077 “He could, of course, have….
there remains, of course, the faint possibility that
it was an eighteenth century forgery…. makes it virtually
certain…. while
complete certainty is impossible…. it is likely….
Most likely…. it is
probable….
perhaps through…. but most likely…. as a curious local
tradition
asserts…. this in turn might suggest…. perhaps
under some kind of threat….
does not materially alter…. if genuine, it simply tends
to confirm what is
already suggested .”
078
“There is happenstance and there is coincidence. But this is surely
one
coincidence too many.”
079
“…. were perhaps the final step into adulthood for
young William.”
080
“Many scholars now believe….
might perhaps have…. and imagined
young
Shakespeare…. Far-fetched as this may seem…. curious
coincidences…. may not be pure fantasy….”
081
“Shakespeare perhaps took that walk…. As with all
teenage boys, no doubt his
thoughts were…. must
have been especially attractive….”
087
“…. he slipped in a poem (Sonnet 145) so juvenile….
scholars refused to
believe…. it seems to contain…. listener might also have
heard…. poem is not
very
good…. growing consensus…. his earliest surviving work…. If this
is so….”
088 “Anne and her baby presumably
lived….”
097 “…. the only sure evidence
of his continued existence is the baptism records of
his children and a court case….” and
“No wonder there is a Shakespeare
mystery.”
098 “…. myths have a knack
of proving true.”
099 “…. perhaps the poaching
tale is another of those Shakespeare traditions that
may contain a grain of truth after all....”
103 “…. when did Shakespeare
leave Stratford? How did he join the theater, and
when and how did he get to London? Unfortunately there is no
hard
evidence…. we have no idea where he was…. It
is assumed that Anne…. but it
is not even certain that she… In reality William could
have…. and could
have…. Presumably…. But a few reasonable
conjectures can be…. he was
surely working…. and very likely, though not certainly….
but he must have
written other verse, and maybe even plays - (as a) serviture....
a runner, a
prompt boy, or an ostler….generally viewed as part of the myth,
it is plausible.
And he would have….”
104 “Those are possibilities, none of
them mutually exclusive…. But one theory….
recently became something more than mere hypothesis…. suggests
that….”
106 Perhaps Shakespeare really
did have a hand in the Queen’s Men’s plays.”
107 “So his professional career might
have begun…. Maybe this is what
happened…. would have had to write…. would have
subordinated his
talents….
could have been with…. perhaps even before…. And could
that
be how Shakespeare first made…. “
108 “If Shakespeare was there that
day…. connection intriguing and, if true, a
revelation…. But…. a tale held together by a chain of
conjectures: plausible,
suggestive, but no more…. but as yet we cannot prove….
we are left with
ambiguity so…. remember what the tradition says…. This story
is not often
taken seriously…. But it is how things happen in real
life.”
109 “…. interesting coincidence
that a Burbage should have been a tenant at the
very time when the myth says William went to London…. Is
it too fanciful to
imagine that….” [The main float in this parade goes
as follows:] “For now what
we
can say is this. At some point around the age of twenty, William
decided he
was going to be a poet. Whether he joined the Queen’s Men,
or whether he
went straight to London and worked in menial jobs at Burbage’s
Theatre in
Shoreditch (and he could of course have done both),
at some point at the end
of the 1580’s he began to make his name in London as a writer….
It was now
open to a poet from the provinces to write the kind of dramas and
the kind of
verse he wanted. Everything we know suggests that around
1588-9
Shakespeare based himself in London. And there his talent
immediately made
its mark and he rapidly rose to fame.” [What is missing is
any record of any of
the above.]
112 “If, as is thought, he
arrived here from Stratford at this time, this (is) the
London he would have seen.” [It is essential that the
Stratfordim get Shaksper to
London
in time for him to have written plays-by-Shake-speare that are known to
have been produced by then. Wood’s statement that Shaksper was
getting known
does not clear with the fact that the first use of the pen name was
for a poem, Venus
and Adonis in 1592. Earlier versions of the plays did not have
the author’s name.]
120 “Little is known of
Shakespeare’s first patrons, his early contacts and
friendships…. but it is certain that at some point in
the late 1580’s he came to
work in London.” [This is both a mustabeen and a circularity.
The fact that plays
had been written by then by someone is employed as a mandate for
Shaksper’s
presence.]
124 “Here he probably lived
through the early to mid-nineties, and perhaps for
some time before….”
127 “…. in just such an inn the
country boy from Stratford may have first
lodged…. which Shakespeare would have known and where he may
have
acted.”
128 “…. if Shakespeare was
indeed with the Queen’s Men in the late 1580’s, this is
where he would have played in London.”
130 “…. where he may have
played with Lord Strange’s Men in 1589, and
certainly did with the Chamberlain’s Company in 1594.”
131 “Years later Shakespeare appears
to look back…. even possible that an
image of the young Shakespeare has survived…. Nothing can be
safely said
about the personality of the anonymous sitter beyond…. a very
close
resemblance…to the only certain portrait…. the Folio
frontispiece…. more
than mere conjecture…. enough of a hint to make it
possible that this is the
twenty-four-year old William Shakespeare at the start of his
career.” [The
Folio illustration has been shown to be a paste-up of no one in
particular, in
keeping with the deliberate tongue-in-cheek dedication.] and “....
entering the
service of his first patron, Lord Strange, might have been….”
[Strange was the
format; ie: in the way that Shake-speare-Oxford assisted other
writers.]
132 “…. it does no harm to
suppose that…. all this is pure speculation, the
portrait does help us to imagine him…. So let us suppose….
but here is the
mystery: what did he do in between…. it is
assumed that his earliest solo plays
were written around…. but nothing is certain…. Precious
clues come from…
134
“….. probably at speed with a collaborator…. would
have got to know….
very likely the missing link…. may have
started life…. He perhaps finishes….
From now on we are on firm ground…. hypothetical picture
above gives a
rough idea….”
135
“….order in which Shakespeare wrote his first hits is largely
speculation....”
136
“Maybe The Two Gentlemen of Verona is…. perhaps
even his first solo
effort…. suggests considerable experience as a jobbing
man…. So was Two
Gentlemen a version of a show…. or did
Shakespeare….”
137
“Perhaps Shakespeare was harking back… Legends are
best left alone….”
138
“But still there is no certain mention of him by name -“
139 “Spenser may mention Shakespeare again….if
this description is indeed of
Shakespeare…. he must have known the debate…. which
Shakespeare may
have studied at school.” [And here Wood gives us a date by
which Hamlet has
been written and enjoyed: “The previous summer (to
1590)….afford you
whole Hamlets….”]
140
“Probably already picked out by Spenser -“
144
“In London we can imagine William working on....”-
145
“The inference is that Shakespeare now had....”
146
“…. if a commemorative volume for Greene is anything
to go by…. If this is
getting at Shakespeare…. and it is difficult to imagine
otherwise….”
147
“Spenser’s earlier remark…. if it is about
him….there may even have been
family connections…. but we are never likely to know….
not the sort of things
people talked about.”
148
“Written perhaps…. it may have circulated….
so Shakespeare must have
stood…. and corrected the poem…. taking care perhaps….
which may mean a
work he had in draft…. but more likely…. It does not
prove however….”
149
Caption: “…. which might still have come
easily to a countryman.”
153
“Southwell seems to have urged rising talent of the
day…. or had
Southwell read Venus and Adonis in Southampton’s house?”
156
“…. suggests who Shakespeare was thinking about….
pointed hint…. was
it also Marlowe’s plays that…. Shakespeare may have
written - which
Shakespeare had probably read in Latin at school…. with perhaps
a strand of
Christian allegory….”
157
“…. suggesting he was now in Southampton’s
service…. receiving money…. he
might be paid no more than L10 by patron for a
poem…. such a (long-term)
relationship might raise very much more…. unlikely,
perhaps, still a hint of
the rewards…. it is possible that Shakespeare had
known…. had most likely
stayed with….”
160
“…. document (1595) suggests…. the first
document that specifically associates
Shakespeare with an acting company…. first mention of his name
with respect
to a theatrical performance…. It proves he was now a
leading member….”
[Rather nothing of the kind: it is also entirely possible that
Shake-speare (Oxford)
allowed his name to be used in this way, and that he may have
benefited
therefrom.] and “…. he was probably contracted to
deliver two plays a year….”
[No record of this.]
161
“Shakespeare may have staged it in some form by late
1594…. perhaps before
the Queen” [See Oxblocs]
165
“it is assumed that his family were living in….
Stratford…. he went home only
once a year…. It might seem…. No doubt he wrote
home….” [No letters, if
there were any - and assuming Shaksper could write – have
survived.]
166
“Hamnet’s death may also have been a turning
point in the poet’s art - it is
impossible to say whether such writing is
autobiographical…. compelling
evidence to suggest….” [Today’s scholarship shows
that Hamlet is auto-
biographical; that is, of the Earl of Oxford and his relationships
with his Queen, her
lover Leicester, Oxford’s father-in-law (Burghley), his wife, and
sons.]
170
“…. it seems that Shakespeare had moved to Southwark….
Perhaps this
was where Shakespeare was lodging….”
177
“…. if his own private verses of this time are to be believed....
perhaps around
this time (spring 1597) that Shakespeare was commissioned to
write a series of
seventeen poems…. But are they about real life?…. strong
reasons to think….
if they are not autobiographical, it is hard to imagine
what is.” [Four hundred
years later Wood and the BBC posit that these
“autobiographical” poems were
“commissioned”! How can they be both? Efforts to weave them
into the life of
Shaksper require even greater flights of fancy than the sonnets;
they have been
shown to be an almost day-by-day (in places) record of Shake-speare-Oxford’s
feelings about the major events in his own life.] and “Were
the boy and the Dark
Lady….inventions?” [Of course not.]178
“Initially Shakespeare seems to
have
thought about responding to the piracy…. he may have lodged
‘a
book of Sonnets’ in the Stationer’s Register,
possibly as a holding operation,
but
then decided not to publish them after all.
[No record exists for Shaksper ever having anything to do with
publishing the
Sonnets.] and “….
his name was probably William....
enigmatic dedication….”
179
“….common sense suggests…. no evidence for a
relationship with
Shakespeare later in his life…. All this suggests…. If
all this is accepted….
Burbage had probably acted….”
180
“If the dedicatee is Herbert…. Perhaps the title….
it looks as if this was
picked up by…. ‘I cannot change your title, and have no
need of a
cipher’….Jonson.... seems to be suggesting that
someone else…. had changed
Pembroke’s title (to Mr.)….” [The key word here is
underlined; it was
Southampton’s title that was changed for the Sonnets.]
181
“If… we accept Wm Herbert as ‘Mr WH…. It might
also supply….
Perhaps Mary had commissioned him to write…. she seems
to be referred to
in the third sonnet…. From this it might be conjectured….”
[Here Wood
deserves a medal for valor; to take this on at all it risks -
bringing the real Bard on
the scene. Mary Wroth’s sonnets to her common-law husband, Mary
Herbert’s son
William, owe more to the fact that her best friend was Susan Vere,
wife of
William’s brother, Phillip - and daughter of Shake-speare-Oxford.
And Bridget de
Vere (page 182) was another of
Shake-speare’s (Oxford’s) daughters. It doesn’t
get any closer or clearer than that. Oh, yes; and the “perhaps
inevitable” mother in
the glass was Elizabeth Rex. See Oxblocs for more.]
182
“All this hinges on the date of composition…. if so, perhaps
they were
composed for Herbert’s seventeenth birthday…. the first
seventeen surely
were.” [The sonnets themselves do not say (poetically) that
they were created for
one occasion; read them again. There have been many explications of
the Sonnets,
but none as far from probability as this one.]
183
“It may be that…. the Herbert family broke off
relationship with
Shakespeare… the next few years up to 1604….” [Wood has
spoken the magic
date: 1604, the year of Shake-speare-Oxford’s death. He later
adds Oxford’s
prediction of his own (Wood’s) book: “Distilled from
limbecks foul as hell
within”.]
184
“He seems to be telling us….-“ [Again our heart
goes out to Wood, who will
come to learn that his hero is reasonably straight.
The plays and poems, and public
life of
Shake-speare-Oxford attest to a mind and spirit unbounded by gender; but
they
do not
support or require juicy rantings aimed at Canonizing the genius
from
Stratford-on-Avon.]
185
“…. it was also Shakespeare’s age in 1597…. if
this sonnet was written in 1597,
that it is not also about his son.”
[Nice try. Yes, it was about somebody’s son;
Elizabeth’s and
Oxford’s. Elizabeth Sears in her Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose
de-codes
Sonnet 33: among other choice tidbits - “the region cloud” is
the infant’s royal mother.]
187 “Perhaps this is the time alluded to in Sonnet 66…. perhaps
the context of
miserable journeys…. At any rate one might guess….”
189
“…. a story, possibly apocryphal, that Shakespeare
bamboozled Burbage out
of a…. groupie who wanted to bed the star lead…. John Aubrey*,
on the other
hand…. and perhaps a practiced womanizer…. it might appear that
Shakespeare was in love…. Sonnet 150 mysteriously suggests…. in
Sonnet 134
he seems to say…. Her husband is evidently away…. the so-called
Dark Lady
has proved a tempting pitfall to biographers.” [*We know of no
“moniment”
erected to the accuracy and/or the veracity of the manifestly
unreliable Mr.
Aubrey.]
190 “The date of Shakespeare’s
affair…. is suggested by the appearance of two
sonnets…. perhaps they were among the poems circulated….
it is always
possible…. If the identification of the boy as
William Herbert is correct.... if
the Folio portrait is at all accurate….” [Do not count on
it.]
191 “Shakespeare was a Bible-reading
Christian ….” [Right again, but for the
wrong reason. The Folger Shakespeare Library has a copy of a Geneva
Bible bound
for, owned, and used by Shake-speare-Oxford. Within, his systematic
annotations
irrevocably connect it to the Canon. In his Edward DeVere’s
Geneva Bible, Dr.
Roger Stritmatter casts the final stitch over the wound that has
festered for nearly
four hundred years. There is no alternative explanation, no other
scenario available
to the Stratford priesthood. In reading Michael Wood’s
sympathetic hallucinations
over Shaksper’s love life, try to cut him some room. Shake-speare-Oxford’s
two
wives and (at least) a pair of lovers with three fine sons and
three lovely daughters
as proof is (except for HRH Elizabeth) not exactly a state secret.]
and “….there
are strong hints - this is perhaps…. Sonnets…. Seem….
“
195 “Despite many guesses, the
identity of Shakespeare’s love remains a mystery.
But if the sonnets are autobiographical…. we probably
do not have far to
look…. probably the very period of the writing of the
sonnets….”
200 “Was she part of
Shakespeare’s circle too?…. it was indeed suggested she
was Shakespeare’s mistress….”
201
“Shakespeare must have known
her ….(as) mistress of his (noble)
patron - Lord Hunsdon - could hardly have been unaware - Here we enter
the realm of diverting speculation rather than that of verifiable
historical
fact, but if she is that woman - when it is at least possible that some of
the
sonnets to the woman were written.” [We have been wallowing in that
realm
for 200 pages.]
202
“The idea that Shakespeare’s lover might have written
such verses is almost
too good to be true…. but she had possibly also read
Shakespeare…. And if
Emilia Bassano were indeed Shakespeare’s mistress…. he seems
to tell us….”
203
“If Shakespeare had a mistress who was the daughter of a
Venetian Jew
…. his tough-minded and worldly-wise mistress, one imagines….”
204
“…. perhaps Shakespeare knew it through him…. The
sonnet may, then,
have been written after…. it is possible that the
reader would hear this….
the affair had evidently been….”
205
“…. presumably he read it in Italian …. must
have imbibed such tales as a
child…. subsequent experience of Jews may have been somewhat
different
206
“Perhaps for personal reasons…. Perhaps it
embodies more of his
personal experience …. it might be worth looking at the merchant
Antonio, a
character which, it has been suggested, Shakespeare himself
played….
Perhaps, with this one, being all things to all people was simply
not possible.
207
“Shakespeare’s company (tsk) were probably
playing…. that season was no
doubt….”
208
“Or was it a simple boob on the part of the writer…. Maybe….But
it is
hard to imagine…. it is unlikely a Protestant writer would
have used the name
in the first place….” [See Oxblocs] –
209
“…. it must have been clear…. He probably
wrote….”
210
“Whom Shakespeare himself perhaps played….
212
“…. speaks directly to the audience…. apparently
commenting….”
213
“…. perhaps these lines were actually delivered on
stage by Shakespeare
himself…. suggests that the saga rumbled on for months….”
214
“…. it may have been something he had contemplated
for a while, but
perhaps…. was probably already married…. perhaps
soon after the first
sonnets were written to the ‘lovely boy’…. suggests that this
work took a year
or so and that he may not have moved the family…. so Shakespeare may
have
rented part of it…. It is very likely then, that….”
216
“He was probably on contract to write two plays a year
for at least L20
and maybe earned twice that with his other script chores…. So he probably
took home at least L60 a year, maybe more…. jobs on the
side, together
perhaps with money-lending…. it was the first play to be
published with his
name on the cover….” [Again – not!]
218
“William would have sent letters home…. He would
have received letters,
too…. which would eventually draw him back home.”
219
“This was no doubt partly due to changes in his
personal life about which we
cannot know….”
220
“Did Shakespeare come into direct contact with the
greatest drama of the
ancient world, Greek tragedy, both through Latin versions and through
stage
productions in London? If so, the catalyst was…. Ben Johnson…..
Shakespeare, according to a late but plausible story….
Shakespeare may even
have had a hand in retouching the script….”
221
“…. he seems to have spurred on Shakespeare’s ideas
and his reading….”
222
Jonson commonly lent books to his friends and surely did
so to
Shakespeare…. Shakespeare almost certainly used…. and while he may
have
known Erasmus’s (sic) Latin translation at school, the fact
that he was writing
the play while working with Jonson suggests that he might have
borrowed a
copy from him….the possibility that at this time….this could
have been
through a Latin printed version …. but it is also possible
that….” [It would be
surprising to learn that Shaksper had “worked” with Jonson!]
223
“It is hard not to think that Shakespeare had actually
seen it on stage or
read….”
224
“He had perhaps read Latin versions from Jonson’s
library, and more
than likely sat in the audience at the Rose…. an area of
Shakespeare’s creative
process of which next to nothing is known….”
226
“First night at the Globe seems to have been the
set….”
230
“What Shakespeare felt about this is not known…. and may
have begun
his own foray into satire…. but perhaps he doubled as the
Warwickshire yokel
William ….” [Of course this William was Shake-speare-Oxford’s
version of
Shaksper.]
234
“…. seems hard to avoid the conclusion that
Shakespeare and his company
(sic) were sympathetic to Essex, who we know had long loved the
play’s
‘conceit’…. [Southampton is the link here between the Essex
faction and Shake-
speare-Oxford.]
235 “Probably Shakespeare and the rest of the company
instructed him to stick to
the money story….”
237
“All of which, no doubt, was lapped up by he
intelligentsia….”
238
“…. it would probably have seemed a waste to him to
devote a whole
play….The new play seems to have been taken….This suggests
that, like
Sejanus, the play had fallen…. If the play was taken in
that way by the
authorities…. “
239
“Hamlet was probably first staged in 1600….”
[Sorry: 1589] and “As
with most
of his best plays he didn’t invent the main plot but took it from an old
play,
perhaps by Thomas Kyd…. Perhaps…. with one eye on the
box office….”
[Wood needs this to allow Shaksper, fourteen years behind Shake-speare-Oxford,
a
chance to have a crack at writing it. Traditionally Stratfordim have used
an “Ur
Hamlet” as the device, but Hamlet has been shown to be
irrevocably tied in with
the life of Shake-speare-Oxford. It is the BBC that is out of
joint.]
240
“Hamlet is perhaps…. dangerous to read autobiography
into the plays….
Hamlet’s father’s ghost was…. in the original play in the late
1580’s….” [But
not in the original original story of Saxo Grammaticus - Oxford put
that one in.]
245
“It is pleasant to imagine Shakespeare living in one of
the two front rooms
overlooking….”
246
“Whether or not it was ‘honey-tongued’
Shakespeare…. perhaps it all raised a
smile. Another idea jotted down in his notebook.”
248
“…. if the venereal troubles described in the last
sonnet were real ones…. so it
must have been full of noise, color and vitality…. “
250
“So it was probably in the Silver Street house…. that
he wrote Othello…. but
other reading shaped its imaginative world….” [”Reading” so
Shaksper would
not have had to live for a while in Venice with Shake-speare-Oxford.]
251
“…. so what was Shakespeare’s experience of black
people…. a tantalizing
possibility that his mistress had been a dark-skinned woman…. but
he must
also have met ‘moors’…. He may have met black women as
prostitutes…”
252
“So black people may well have been part of his daily
life….knowledge of
them could have deepened…. But had he come to know any
black people
intimately…. It is possible that he had had a black mistress
….”
254
“….that he could have met at least one noble
high-ranking Moor is well-
documented…. so Shakespeare would have seen Abdul Guahid, and may
even
have met him….” [Only if Shaksper was the playwright - but not
the other way
around.]
255
“There was no tribute to her from Shakespeare. Is this
significant?” [Good
point, Michael; the only human in a position to do so (as Shakespeare) was
the 17th
Earl of Oxford. But he had already said much about his Queen in his
sonnets and
plays. Any official statement would have had to get by Cecil, who
controlled
Elizabeth and did not want the authorship made any more public than it
was. His
fellow writers (Shake-speare-Oxford’s, that is) knew what was what; one
of them
was being less than discrete. The sonnet, of course, went to her son, W.H.]
257
“There is no genuine contemporary portrait of the
poet….” [Unless you
count the several fine portraits of Shake-speare-Oxford, including one
that was
painted over to look like Shaksper might have looked like. This latter
remains a
festering scandal firmly lodged in the Folger Library.]
258
“…. saluted James with congratulatory poems, but again, not
Shakespeare.”
[See page 257, above. Shake-speare-Oxford died the year after James came
to the
throne. The tribute was for Oxford. That winter James put on seven Shake-speare
plays in eight performances, a glorious send-off.]
259
“There the King’s Men, too, seemed to have stayed for
some time…. which
included a play that was probably As You Like It …. So as
might be guessed
from those sonnets written in 1603, Shakespeare still had close
contacts with
the Pembroke family - The earl and his brother were great theatergoers and
masquers….” [As were Ladies Susan deVere Herbert and Mary
Sidney Wroth.]
260
“Around this time Shakespeare wrote a small cluster of
sonnets….” [By this
time all of the sonnets had been written; their poet was dead. Skip this
section - do
not pass GO. Shake-speare-Oxford did officiate at James coronation as the
Lord
High Chamberlain, but all that about the canopy goes way back to Elizabeth
and
celebration of the victory over the Armada. There are pictures showing,
appropriately, nobles carrying the canopy.]
267
“…. but remarkably we do have an example of his writing in
progress….
These pages, apparently in his own hand, form part of the
manuscript of Sir
Thomas More…. There is still some dispute over this, and it
is not clear why
Shakespeare should have done something for another company at this point
in
his career.” [The play in question: The Book of Sir Thomas More
is considered to
be, after expert analysis, by Shake-speare. The manuscript hand is
principally that
of Anthony Munday, one of Shake-speare-Oxford’s secretaries. Of the
other hands,
none has been proven to be that of Shaksper. There is no way that Munday
would
have written out anything for Shaksper.]
270
“Perhaps as befits one working in an oral medium….
and one assumes his
habits of thought…. but as for where his religious faith was, this is impossible
to answer with any certainty…. it has been strongly argued that
the mature
Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic….” [Wood’s interesting
excursions into the
early religious life of his candidate are well-taken. But maturity has
little to do with
it. His use of the term “trajectory” fits both, whatever Shaksper did
for a living. As
for Shake-speare-Oxford, Rome played a big part in his career. We know
from
strident public debates that he either toyed with the old religion, or
became
involved as a ruse to trap enemies of his Queen. In fact by so doing he
suffered
enough damage to his reputation to make him a less attractive candidate
for the job
of Bard.]
271
“…. he probably owned the Protestant Geneva
version…. his
skepticism of any system of power was pronounced….” [More properly
a blatant
Oxbloc as well as a circularity, Wood here collides with
Shake-speare-Oxford’s
well-documented Geneva Bible. Now in full retreat, the Stratfordim grasp
for any
scraps of evidence they can find. The Catholic Connection is a good one
because it
can be used to show why the need-for-secrecy issue can be applied to
Shaksper as
well as Shake-spare-Oxford.]
272
“Merry Wives and The Comedy of Errors were put
on before Christmas 1604 -“
[See page 258, above]
273
“So time for new writing…. and reading…. had to be
found…. that autumn
Shakespeare himself was working on a play about the dismemberment of
Britain and the collapse of rulership.” [Wood continues with an
engaging
description of how this great play (Lear) evolved in that splendid
year 1605. His
task was coaxial: he had to show that it was written after Shake-speare-Oxford
had
died (1604); and how Shaksper could have cut it. He may either be winging
it here,
or his research missed the fact that the play was entered in the
Stationer’s Register
as King Leare in April of 1594. This gives us the choice of
deliberate
disinformation or sloppy scholarship.]
275
“…. seems to represent the author’s considered
revisions - tiny hints that
seem to find echoes…. on his desk that autumn was John Florio’s
translation
of Montaigne…. which he often used….” [We can go on with this
charade:
Shaksper standing alone by now well outside the real life of Shake-speare
; only he
knowing whether 1) he could read a book, or 2) how he would be able to
keep up
the sham of authorship because he was (as some records insist) now being
packed
off to the banks of the Avon with enough money to stay alive for another
decade.]
276- [Because further dissection (except for possible Oxblocs and
Fairytales) is not
282 needed to make the point that it is all over, although there has been no
musical
recital from an obese female. We can accept that a person named Shaksper
could
well have been a part of the text’s performance of King Lear at
Whitehall on St.
Stephen’s Day 1606. But in light of the facts, what does the following
wisdom
offer to the “search of Shakespeare’?]
“This gives us a measure of how far he
(Shaksper) could go with his patrons, and how far his patrons felt
they could go
with him. Seen in that light, the show that night at Whitehall is
as emblematic
a moment in the history of Western culture as Michelangelo’s last
working
day, breaking the Rondanini pieta in the spring of Shakespeare’s (sic)
birth, or
Descartes’ dream of the union of all science in a wall stove in Ulm
three years
after Shakespeare’s death. It is a bridge between the old and the new, between
the no longer and the not yet.” [This outrageous fabrication
dares to show (after
Oxford’s death) the Stratford android beaming and bowing to his
“knowing”
audience as if he had something to do with the writing. Do we detect a
fond tear in
the eyes of the BBC Editorial Board as the voice of the author fades
away?]
283
“Shakespeare’s writing of King Lear during the autumn
of 1605….” [No
documentation available]
286 “It is probable, though not
certain, that Shakespeare finished King Lear
during the aftermath of the plot in the winter of 1605-6.”
[No documentation
available] and “Written through the summer of 1606, with final
tinkerings in
late autumn, Macbeth
rides the hysteria -“ [Believed to be worked on by more
than one person, it was started by 1603 or earlier, but interrupted
by the deaths of
Elizabeth and Oxford, and accession of James (not a good time for a
play about
regicide) until Gunpowder Plot - which re-opened the religious
angst woven into its
final version.]
291 “Why was Timon never
finished?…. maybe the real reason….”
296
“Perhaps Shakespeare was now spending more time away
from theatre….”
299 “Perhaps he was lying in
bed in an Oxford inn….” [There! Wood has used the
Bad Word; but safely.]
300 “As far as we know
Shakespeare was writing for another seven years after
the summer of 1607.” [No documentation available]…. and “The
inference is
that he ceased to do his two contracted pieces a year….”
[There is no record of
such a contract, merely mindless speculation. At this point Wood
takes advantage
of what appears to be a lacuna in the Shake-spearian chronology. He
slips Antony
and Cleopatra into this bundle of plays, which he hopes were
all written after 1604.
Like many of the other plays with uncertain dates, but that show up
in the First
Folio, there is no proof of its not having been written earlier.
Petrarch, cited as a
source, did not have the Fool indispensable to the sub-plot.
Responsible scholarship
has seen Cleopatra as one of the many facets of Elizabeth in those
plays written for
her amusement and/or correction. To fit this concept, the play
belongs (in its
earliest drafts) to a period when Elizabeth and Shake-speare-Oxford
were on better
terms. This means well before the so-called Essex rebellion.]
302
“By May 1608 Shakespeare had written and staged Pericles….”
[Yes, it is one
of the problem plays; since it is about his (Oxford’s) early life and is
less mature,
most believe in an early sixteenth century start, with later revisions,
re-writing, or
additions, long before 1600. Wood’s date is in strict conformance with
his mandate
(See Shaksper or die), but like Macbeth’s Porter, he does not need to
equivocate.
305
“It was called Shake-speares Sonnets….”
[Note the hyphen: there is no record of
Shaksper ever having anything to do with this publication; none. See Fantasies.]….
and “…. the current
consensus is that they were taken from Shakespeare’s
own manuscript…. and were published with his authorization…. even
though
Shakespeare seems not to have been around to supervise the
proofreading….
Shakespeare, then, was responsible for the selection, punctuation,
italicization,
and, crucially, the order of the 144 sonnets….” [How can all of
this be true, even
if he were alive to do so?]
306
“…. sonnets may not have sold too well, Shakespeare perhaps
overestimated….” [Another grubby reference to the required
image of the Bard as
an entrepreneur.]
308
“…. and it seems that Shakespeare’s Cymbeline
was specifically written for
this occasion….”
310
“It sounds as if Pericles was seen as…. in
this light the apparition…. take(s) on
a tantalizing ambiguity, the meanings of which we can no longer pin
down…”
[Here, and in neighboring pages, Wood works up anything he can find to
support
his (we can only hope) main thesis of the book: that the playwright was a
closet
Catholic, which explains (for him) why there has been this uncertainty
about who
and what he was. Historically Shake-speare-Oxford walked a narrow line
down
these turbulent years. He was fascinated with aspects of the old religion
but loyal to
his Queen and as a member of her court, aware of the need for the
stability of a
state religion. After all, with anthropological detachment, he explored
the
relationships between sacred and secular gestalt in his plays. Had
Wood’s
ruminations been a part of an open-minded scholarly analysis of
Shakespeare, they
would be worth our attention.]
311
“…. where the poet’s Stratford friends stayed….”
[Again, the outline of theatre-
related events may be verifiable, but not the specific references to
Shaksper.]
312
“Shakespeare and his friends now had ‘persons of honor and
quality’….”
313
“It would appear that King Lear was
rewritten…. although there is some
argument about this….” [Based on the classic deceit of what
has gone before
there is the temptation to speculate on this kind of statement as -
“People reading
this will have heard that there is some controversy - about something or
other - let’s
use this to show them that we do know this, and are dealing with it.”
Being a
peaceful person I would welcome proof that this calumny is not warranted.
But
there is no record of Shaksper’s writing or rewriting Lear.]
315
“In 1609 he teamed up with…. Robert Johnson…. reported
to have said that it
was his intention to ‘marry the words and Notes wel together’....”and
“evidently worked alongside with his authors….” [None
of this looks like there
is concrete evidence; for instance why put in quotes something a person
has only
been reported as having said? Is it possible to be too demanding about
something as
important as this?]
316
“…. in The Winter’s Tale, which he probably
wrote in the winter and spring of
1609-10….” [Fascinating embellishment of ‘winter and spring’
for a play entered
in the Register as A Wynter’s nightes pastime in 1594.]
326
[The ten pages blissfully passed over are mostly about Winter’s
Tale and Wood’s
new revelations about religion, ie: “ the language…. Religious…. is
the subtext
actually religious?” - nothing useful in his search for the
Bard. But now we have
come to The Tempest, the most abused play (from the standpoint of
chronology) in
the entire Canon. As the mythic mists fall away, Stratfordians have
retreated farther
and farther back until they were left only with this play to legitimize
Shaksper.
Their defense was built upon this very account of a 1610 shipwreck “in
a great
storm off the Bermudas”. Similar disasters as early as 1593
are on record and
available to London’s readers, but the seminal event was Bartholomew
Gosnold’s
expedition to “Virginia” in 1601-02. A relative of Shake-speare-Oxford
in two
generations, Gosnold joined Essex, Southampton, and Sir Francis Vere
(Oxford’s
cousin) in their mischief with Spaniards in the Azores and at Cadiz. But
this voyage
took him to Martha’s Vineyard and Cuttyhunk Island, where his gentlemen
adventurers had to load Cedar and Sassafras logs (the crew said “it was
not their
job”). All of the stuff about Caliban-Canibal borrowed by Wood for his
“poet”
grew out of the two accounts written by his traveling companions. When
Gosnold
returned in 1602, Ralegh (who thought he owned the New World) tried to
confiscate the cargo. Gosnold’s friend, Southampton who had financed the
expedition, was in the Tower at the time. So (to use a Wood crutch) “it
is more than
likely that” he turned to his “cousin” Oxford for help. At any rate,
the language of
the accounts shines through the text of Tempest and was available
to the good earl
who had invested with his own ship (The Edward Bonadventure) and three
thousand pounds (Merchant’s ducats?) in earlier voyages to the
Brave New World.
The Vineyard-Tempest connection has been around for generations; it is
more fully
described in Prospero’s Hen on this website.
328
“He waits for applause, then exits….” [The rest of the
book’s treatment of
Tempest is based on this standard nonsense. The play is in fact the
last one (see
pages 331 and 334). By now our poet has been able to see himself as a
Gallileo or
Leonardo, a magus who brings his life’s creations to a special island
where he puts
them through their paces. Kings, nobles, villains, princesses and princes,
and of
course fools, suspend our disbelief yet another time, and then are whisked
away in
the way only theater can do. Who, then, does he leave behind? His audience
(we
happy featherless bi-peds) in a binary characterization, We have Ariel,
our spirit -
which his plays have freed; and our bodily selves in the appropriately
bawdy form
of Caliban - who has (by the way) promised to mend his ways. It could not
be any
simpler – or more clear. Jan Kott, the Polish scholar responsible for
most of this
analysis of Tempest, did not have the advantage of knowing about
Oxford or
Gosnold’s voyage. How much better this article in his Shakespeare our
Contemporary (W W Norton) would have been is not certain; but
Michael Wood’s
wayward search would have improved with a reading of Kott.]
331
“Shakespeare sets out the way he wants it to be understood in
an enigmatic
prologue….” [Wood is talking here of Henry VIII, but
without actually saying
when and by whom it was written. The careful treatment of HRH says much
about
its chronology. If it was written under James I its un-subtleties may have
been more
challenging. But
Shake-spear-Oxford was writing in the reign of Henry’s daughter,
a fact that manifests itself throughout the Canon. Edward Alleyn, the
greatest of
Shakespearian actors, made a list of costumes during the poet’s lifetime
that
included Henry and his Cardinal. Alleyn retired first in 1603, and then in
1604.]
334
“Was The Two Noble Kinsmen hastily written for
the new theater? [One can
not blame our historian for wanting to heap another ‘gottcha!” on this
midden of
misprisions; “hastily written” may have applied at the time, but the
time was 1565,
on the occasion of Shake-speare-to-be-Oxford’s receipt of his master’s
degree from
Oxford. A student production, it was then called Palamon and Arcite.
335
“In the new year of 1616 Shakespeare…. (sic: the name on
the will was
Shakspere) dictated the first draft of his will -“ [While Wood
busies himself with
the disposition of an estate that contained no books, no plays, (“….he
may not
even have cared about his works being handed down….”) and did not
say
anything about his (putative) “theatrical friends” Hemminge and
Condell (they
were added later), we need only to point out the most glaring
inconsistency of this
entire BBC venture. If, as the book insists, London’s stages were
bustling with new
plays hot off the press, accompanied by a much admired, now intellectual
grain-
dealer-come playwright, 1616 would have seen an outpouring of grief like
no other
in literary history. Nor were there letters or other writings of
Shaksper’s “literary”
cronies. Yet the year of Shake-speare-Oxford’s death saw a winter filled
with his
plays by royal command.]
308
“Sacred things must needs be wrapped in Fable and Enigma….”
[It is only fair
to admit that in preparing this dissection, certain decisions have been
made despite
some uncertainty. In trying to deal with these outrageous statements,
speculations,
and misconceptions it has not always been clear as to how they should be
classified: circularity; mustabeen; Oxbloc. Of course some are all
three. It may also
be that deserving examples of these literary lesions have been omitted. In
which
case an apology is in order. See how many more you can find.
