“Analysis” of Poet Ape
It is essential to those seeking to create doubt, that they remove all early references to Shakespeare as a playwright and minimise as far as possible any references to him as an actor.
Once they're gone, they can substitute their much weaker claims for alternative candidates. To tread this well-worn and completely discredited path, Ros invites authorship wildman, Alexander Waugh, to the stage to explain why these early references point elsewhere. In a recent debate with Professor Jonathan Bate, Alexander trailed the proof that The Earl of Oxford was buried under Shakespeare's monument in Westminster Abbey, the statue itself pointing at what he believes are the bones of the true Bard in their final resting place. He has yet, to our knowledge, to convince a single other person that his great discovery has any merit.
Though Alexander and his chums like to claim so, to the point where it has become a non-Stratfordian common place, it's actually not so "obvious" that Shakespeare is the target of eitherPoet-ape or Poetaster.
none of the stuff about grain dealing, play brokering and making money has any objective relevance to the authorship question. Will of Stratford was a good business man - he also was an excellent playwright.
The fact that I don't think Shakespeare is the only hand in the Works doesn't mean that I see his contribution to them as in any way inferior to or more dubious than those of other contributors.
But if you can't provide any examples of people engaged in this activity from the period in question (and you can't), then you can't defend yourself from the charge of having invented the activity to suit your argument.
In Poet-ape, Jonson claims, "As we, the robb’d, leave rage, and pity it. " That being the case - what is the "factual" entry point for Shakespeare as the robber of Jonson or anyone else in the contemporary community of playwrights? Also, when Jonson writes, "He marks not whose ‘twas first: and after-times / May judge it to be his, as well as ours." Where is the evidence *Shakespeare* took credit for Jonson's work -- or anyone else's?
Its a shame that non-Stratfordians can't appreciate that Jonson, Dekker, Marston and Shakespeare himself, were, "a community of antagonistic rivals, bonded in their common love of hurling aggressive insults at each other." (Maria Prendergast) I know it will disappoint Sean, but Ian Donaldson makes a strong case for Dekker as Jonson's target in Poetaster. Meanwhile, Dekker was finishing Satiromastix even as Poetaster was wrapping up production. Both plays would be performed by the LCM. "Satiromastix, teasingly exposes many of Jonson’s more obvious authorial pretensions: his ostentatious behavious in the playhouse — making vile faces in the gallery while his plays are acted, venturing triumphantly onto the stage when they are concluded— his lofty denials of personal animosity, his boasted intimacy with the monarch." By the way - there is no reason to believe any of that is true about Jonson...it is a Dekker "invention."
"We only Roast those we Love". Friars Club Motto
As it is, I have no problem with Sogliardo hosting a celebrity roast of William Shakespeare - and neither would Shakespeare, frankly. The originator of Falstaff would have had zero problems with Jonson's Sogliardo. I know I quote this often but this is exactly what Jonson means by, "theatrical wit, right stage jesting, and relishing a playhouse, **invented** for scorn and laughter; " Its quite comical that the Doyen of Doubt herself, Diana Price, refers to Sogliardo 53 times on 29 pages in her Unorthodox Biography, without once mentioning Jonson's explanation of stage jesting and invention. Coming on the heels of the Nashe-Harvey insult fest, the start of the 17th century saw the escalation of the pamphlet wars into the London professional theater. Even Shakespeare gets into the act, extending, "this wave into the early Jacobean period with his railing plays Coriolanus and Timon of Athens." (see Maria Pendergast, "Railing, Reviling, and Invective in English Literary Culture, 1588–1617" )
Other on point comments about Poet Ape
Hahahaha!!! "I suggest some posters here have not paid sufficient attention to the two-part interview with Kris De Mayer in A1.5 and A1.6." That's the interview with the neuroscientist about confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, and the like. As I figured she would, Ros is using it as a blanket excuse to dismiss ideas and views she doesn't like. Apparently, in her mind, the only reason some people don't accept anti-Stratfordian ideas is because of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, certainly not because those ideas are fatally flawed in all kinds of ways (which we repeatedly point out). And she accuses US of being condescending? Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ. She should have had an interview with an expert on psychological projection, because this is just about as perfect an example as I could hope to see.
The assertion that hyphens in names indicated that they were "nearly always assumed names" sounds like a strong belief, something that was warned against earlier in the course as possibly being the result of confirmation bias. The best way to make progress on this issue is to look to the historical evidence and be open to alternative views. My understanding up to now has been that that claim about the hyphens first appeared in the late 19th century and was made by people who wanted Kit Marlowe to be given credit for writing Shakespeare's plays. What is needed is an earlier citation from the record showing that people in early modern England actually believed that hyphens meant that. I agree, but an objective of the course is to promote rational thought. The question about hyphens seems an appropriate way to explore that. Is the belief rational? Knowing if there is evidence that supports that belief, or if the belief stands alone without any support other than that some people believe it, seems to be in line with course objectives.
The issue is not whether there was a profession of “play broker.” It’s whether it was a viable role economically. A broker role is economically viable if it fills an economic need. Brokers serve to bring buyers and sellers together. A broker is paid a fee to arrange a transaction; some brokers are principals if they are buying and selling in their own right rather than as an agent of another. But the role of broker is not always economically viable in all markets. In a market with a small number of buyers and a small number of sellers, there may not be any room for a broker middle-man. Why would a buyer pay an extra payment to a broker if he or she had a direct relationship with the seller?.