Dating shakespeares plays gilvary book

But even though SBD doesn’t mention Price’s book, it more or less concedes her point.

Stanley Wells admits in chapter 7 that no reference to the works of “William Shakespeare” before 1623, when the First Folio was published, explicitly identifies the writer with Stratford.

Any reader who likes to hear both sides of an argument before making up his or her mind is encouraged to read Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? Also tagged 17th Earl of Oxford, Anonymous, authorship question, Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, John Shahan, Justice John Paul Stevens, Macduff, Paul Edmondson, Richard F.

Whalen, Shakespeare, shakespeare authorship question, Shakespeare Beyond Doubt, Sir Derek Jacobi, Stanley Wells, William Shakespeare Kudos to William Niederkorn for writing an excellent, insightful review of Dating Shakespeare’s Plays.

Furthermore, as George Puttenham wrote in 1589, many noblemen wrote literary works, including plays, but would not allow them to be published under their own names because writing for publication was regarded as beneath a nobleman’s dignity.

Such facts make it reasonable to entertain the possibility that “William Shakespeare” was a pen name.

SBD has no plausible explanation for the fact that the Stratford man’s death in 1616 was greeted by complete silence from the literary world, the nobility, and the public.

Is it possible that no one at that time connected the Stratford man to the works of Shakespeare?

dating shakespeares plays gilvary book-80dating shakespeares plays gilvary book-64dating shakespeares plays gilvary book-26

But stylometrics is not a science: different stylometrics analyses come out with different answers as to who wrote what.

Many books and articles have been written on Shakespeare’s intimate knowledge of these and other subjects.

The author must have had extensive formal education, easy access to books, abundant leisure time to study on his own, and wide experience of the world gained through travel.

One of its most unattractive ploys is to label anti-Stratfordians as “anti-Shakespearians.” As Edmondson and Wells explain in their introduction, the authors employ that word because “anti-Stratfordian . It assumes that the Stratford man was the true author and implies that anyone who disagrees opposes the great playwright and all he stands for.

Edmondson, in chapter 19, says that “open-mindedness” is merely a rhetorical maneuver and should be allowed only after the evidence for Shakespeare has been disproven, not (as Edmondson says) “merely ignored.” If Edmondson had read the better anti-Stratfordian writers, he would know that they have not ignored the evidence; rather, they have examined it and found serious flaws in it.

Leave a Reply