My Shakespeare Confession

 

Okay, I admit it. I am a Shakespeare heretic. Well, 95 percent, anyway. I know, I know. Some of you are already shaking your head thinking I’m going to start talking cryptograms and conspiracies and such nonsense. I’m used to it. I stumbled into being a heretic almost 35 years ago and there’s always a significant contingent of head-shakers when the subject comes up. That’s okay. I’m really not interested in convincing anyone. I just find it fascinating, that’s all

I started out a math/science guy in school, looking at a career in computer programming. Shakespeare had made no dent in my consciousness. Then I sold an article to a personal computer magazine and decided to become a writer, switching my major to English. I experienced a great Shakespeare professor in an upper-division class. Authorship never came up. Not until I was a graduate student.

Authorship was far from my thoughts that day in the mid-1980s when I was browsing Tower Books in Sacramento, CA, and stumbled upon Charlton Ogburn’s The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth & the Reality. It was a hefty tome of 900+ pages, and I remember thinking, Whoa, the lengths someone will go to just to get attention.

But then I noticed who had written the forward: Famed historian — and the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded — David McCullough. He talked about a lunch he had in the early 1960s with Ogburn, who apparently had been a writer of note on many topics, primarily natural science. They were talking about a book Ogburn would write and McCullough would edit on the geology of North America. He described Ogburn as “a writer of intelligence and integrity and wonderful feeling for the natural world.”

Then the topic turned to Shakespeare. McCullough admitted that he always thought people who raised doubts about the Stratford man were cranks. But Ogburn, he said, “was absolutely spellbinding.” He described more of their conversation before saying this about the book:

“…this brilliant, powerful book is a major event for everyone who cares about Shakespeare. The scholarship is surpassing— brave, original, full of surprise — and in the hands of so gifted a writer it fairly lights up the sky. Looking back on that evening years ago, I felt as if I had been witness to the beginnings of a literary landmark. Nothing comparable has ever been published. Anyone who considers the Shakespeare controversy silly or a lot of old stuff is in for a particular surprise. This is scholarly detective work at its most absorbing. More, it is close analysis by a writer with a rare sense of humanity.”

Well, even though I was a poor student managing a 7-Eleven store part-time as well as being a Teaching Assistant, I couldn’t help but fork over the funds to buy this book of which THE David McCullough could speak so highly.

The first half explored the scholarly consensus that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, which seemed such a reasonable proposition. I was taking a graduate seminar on Classical Rhetoric, one of the most illuminating experiences of my life, so I was ready to put Ogburn to the test to see if his case was rhetoric over evidence, if logical fallacies abounded, and especially if suppression of evidence was evident. (Heh, see what I did there?)

I was enough of a student of argument to know the ways a writer can suppress evidence, so I began a long process of checking original sources in the university library. I wanted to verify Ogburn’s claims about shoddy scholarship. I sat with his book, grabbed books off the shelves, checked sources, and compared arguments to find out what Ogburn had not addressed, how he was refuted, how orthodox scholars handled dissent.

What I found was scholarly fraud: how much students believe and take for granted, how much professors spread conjecture as truth, theories as fact, fabrications as dogma. (Much like the academic Left does today.) It took months to grasp how scholars, documentary evidence, arguments, and the tradition of commentary and interpretation symbiotically interacted in the arena of Shakespeare.

It made me ill.

I remember I was a little over halfway through the book, a book that read like the most elegant mystery novel I had ever read, when I came upon a detail that triggered in me the thought, “That’s one damned coincidence too many.” And I finished the book stunned with how right David McCullough was about Ogburn and his writing. [In case you’re interested, it relates to Lord Burghley’s motto, Cor unum, via una.]

But what was wrong with me? How could this notion of Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare survive with such a powerfully articulated argument that marshaled an unbelievable ton of evidence?

I approached my favorite English professor because I wanted someone I respected to examine the argument and to discuss its merits. It was his graduate seminar in Classical Rhetoric that I loved so much.

He dismissed the book without examination, a response contrary to all that was implied in his teaching. I left the book with him anyway, somewhat baffled. I approached my best friend, a fellow English major, who has gone on to teach at a Catholic university in Texas. He would not look at the argument either. I was astonished. Two brilliant, thinking minds who would not even examine the argument, who simply dismissed it out of hand.

What was it about this topic that so provoked such bizarre responses? If I had been a good graduate student, a properly impressionable graduate student, then I would have dropped Ogburn and gone along with the prevailing view.

But I knew enough that, whatever its faults, Ogburn’s argument merited a hearing and that what I saw among my peers was something anathema to true scholarship.

Look, it’s okay not to be concerned with who wrote the Shakespeare poems and plays. It’s okay to miss out on the opportunities that come with reading those works with new eyes.

If you are at all interested, and if you want to at least take a few minutes to see what I look and sound like, you may want to watch this YouTube video of a talk I gave some years ago.

Most people want to start with the premise that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare and you have to provide extraordinary proof to overcome that position. Makes sense. But I approach it in a different way, a more balanced way:

Let’s suppose that writing the Shakespeare poems and plays were a crime. Let’s suppose that YOU are a member of a Grand Jury. You are to decide which of the two candidates should be indicted for the crime of writing the poems and plays. Both candidates are presumed innocent, so you must decide if there is a preponderance of evidence one way or another.

I am representing William of Stratford. I claim he is innocent of the charge and should not be indicted. Opposing counsel has already presented their case, that the preponderance of evidence falls on my client, not theirs, not their precious Edward De Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. What nonsense to claim he is the author.

I begin at that point, addressing the grand jury, you, right at the beginning.

Give it a watch. Do I make the case?

Closing Argument: The Grand Jury Indictment for the Crime of Writing the Shakespeare Poems and Plays.

 

 

Published in History
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 141 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    The claim is that William of Stratford did not write the Shakespeare poems and plays. Rather, the best alternative candidate is Edward De Vere, the Sevententh Earl of Oxford, who was Lord Burghley’s son-in-law.

    De Vere died before 12 of Shakespeare’s plays were written, so that would seem to be a problem if I understand it correctly.

    Around 80 people have been nominated as the real writer of Shakespeare’s plays. The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    It discounts the role of imagination and intelligence too much.

    And it cuts both ways. Shakespeare’s work is full of errors, especially historical errors. They are the kind of errors that a real upper class Oxford educated swine like De Vere would never make. They are the kind of errors that a person like Shakespeare, who had access to popular, cheap historical pamphlets would make. In fact, they are in some cases the same errors that appeared in a history book that it is known was available in Shakespeare’s grammar school when he allegedly attended there.

    Thank you, Sir. May I have another?

    That is an asinine reply and not a response at all, yet you want people to take you seriously.

    As they kids say, smh.

    “Thank you, Sir. May I have another.” That’s my response to ad hominems. But if you are looking for responses, take up my offer to debate the dates of the plays. Should be simple to prove one or more were written AFTER 1604.

    Your goal appears to be smug, with gnostic undertones. Typical conspiracy theory stuff. Not a good way to win people over. Sure it feels good.

     

    • #61
  2. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    The claim is that William of Stratford did not write the Shakespeare poems and plays. Rather, the best alternative candidate is Edward De Vere, the Sevententh Earl of Oxford, who was Lord Burghley’s son-in-law.

    De Vere died before 12 of Shakespeare’s plays were written, so that would seem to be a problem if I understand it correctly.

     

    Many assert that several Shakespeare plays have been proven to be written after De Vere’s death in 1604. If such proof exists, then indeed this would be a problem.

    There is always way too many points to argue in the larger debate, and it is always easier to make assertions with implied ad hominems to end discussion. Such is the rule of the far Left, and it’s sad to see such tactics arise among the more thoughtful.

    But if anyone is willing to focus on ONE narrow domain of the argument, one that if proven true does indeed cripple those who question authorship, then I offer a debate.

    The proposition is clear and direct: “Scholars have absolutely proven that several of Shakespeare’s plays were written after 1604.”

    If anyone were actually willing to defend such a proposition, then I suggest creating a separate conversation “Shakespeare Plays that Date after 1604” (marked Do Not Promote to the Main Feed, since none of this ever would be).

    Make the case. I will ask some questions to clarify my understanding of the case you are making. I will take an opposing position, simply put: “There is no absolute proof that any of Shakespeare’s plays were written after 1604.”

    The value of such a discussion lies, not in proving anything to anyone about who is the author, but more about how easily “authorities” can mislead us into thinking something has been proven when in fact it has not been.

    Be sure to give me a heads up if you are willing to tackle such an argument.

    The countersuit:  Do you have a scintilla of proof that what scholars consider Shakespeare’s  later plays on literary grounds were actually written years earlier?  N.B.:  According to experts on the early English stage, nobody wrote plays except to be performed in the immediate future; and not with no hope of performance, as Oxford is supposed to have done.

    Macbeth in particular is clearly based on King James’ Daemonologie, first published in 1597 but reprinted in 1603, on James’ accession to the English throne.  Sucking up to James would have been hazardous while Elizabeth was still alive; so the ailing Oxford would have had to work fast, writing a work that was never to be performed until years after his death.

    • #62
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    The claim is that William of Stratford did not write the Shakespeare poems and plays. Rather, the best alternative candidate is Edward De Vere, the Sevententh Earl of Oxford, who was Lord Burghley’s son-in-law.

    De Vere died before 12 of Shakespeare’s plays were written, so that would seem to be a problem if I understand it correctly.

    Around 80 people have been nominated as the real writer of Shakespeare’s plays. The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    It discounts the role of imagination and intelligence too much.

    And it cuts both ways. Shakespeare’s work is full of errors, especially historical errors. They are the kind of errors that a real upper class Oxford educated swine like De Vere would never make. They are the kind of errors that a person like Shakespeare, who had access to popular, cheap historical pamphlets would make. In fact, they are in some cases the same errors that appeared in a history book that it is known was available in Shakespeare’s grammar school when he allegedly attended there.

    Thank you, Sir. May I have another?

    That is an asinine reply and not a response at all, yet you want people to take you seriously.

    As they kids say, smh.

    “Thank you, Sir. May I have another.” That’s my response to ad hominems. But if you are looking for responses, take up my offer to debate the dates of the plays. Should be simple to prove one or more were written AFTER 1604.

    Your goal appears to be smug, with gnostic undertones. Typical conspiracy theory stuff. Not a good way to win people over. Sure it feels good.

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Well that’s a stupid argument. 

    Travel over any bridges built with the concensus of experts on bridge construction?  If do, why, if you really can’t trust them?

    You just push all the same buttons as anyone with a pet theory like say flat earth.

    • #63
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Also you ignored my comments on history. 

    Sad.

    • #64
  5. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    The claim is that William of Stratford did not write the Shakespeare poems and plays. Rather, the best alternative candidate is Edward De Vere, the Sevententh Earl of Oxford, who was Lord Burghley’s son-in-law.

    De Vere died before 12 of Shakespeare’s plays were written, so that would seem to be a problem if I understand it correctly.

    Around 80 people have been nominated as the real writer of Shakespeare’s plays. The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    It discounts the role of imagination and intelligence too much.

    And it cuts both ways. Shakespeare’s work is full of errors, especially historical errors. They are the kind of errors that a real upper class Oxford educated swine like De Vere would never make. They are the kind of errors that a person like Shakespeare, who had access to popular, cheap historical pamphlets would make. In fact, they are in some cases the same errors that appeared in a history book that it is known was available in Shakespeare’s grammar school when he allegedly attended there.

    Thank you, Sir. May I have another?

    That is an asinine reply and not a response at all, yet you want people to take you seriously.

    As they kids say, smh.

    “Thank you, Sir. May I have another.” That’s my response to ad hominems. But if you are looking for responses, take up my offer to debate the dates of the plays. Should be simple to prove one or more were written AFTER 1604.

    Your goal appears to be smug, with gnostic undertones. Typical conspiracy theory stuff. Not a good way to win people over. Sure it feels good.

     

    Don’t mean to come across that way. The ongoing failure of text to accurately reflect nuances of tone.

    • #65
  6. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    The claim is that William of Stratford did not write the Shakespeare poems and plays. Rather, the best alternative candidate is Edward De Vere, the Sevententh Earl of Oxford, who was Lord Burghley’s son-in-law.

    De Vere died before 12 of Shakespeare’s plays were written, so that would seem to be a problem if I understand it correctly.

    Around 80 people have been nominated as the real writer of Shakespeare’s plays. The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    It discounts the role of imagination and intelligence too much.

    And it cuts both ways. Shakespeare’s work is full of errors, especially historical errors. They are the kind of errors that a real upper class Oxford educated swine like De Vere would never make. They are the kind of errors that a person like Shakespeare, who had access to popular, cheap historical pamphlets would make. In fact, they are in some cases the same errors that appeared in a history book that it is known was available in Shakespeare’s grammar school when he allegedly attended there.

    Thank you, Sir. May I have another?

    That is an asinine reply and not a response at all, yet you want people to take you seriously.

    As they kids say, smh.

    “Thank you, Sir. May I have another.” That’s my response to ad hominems. But if you are looking for responses, take up my offer to debate the dates of the plays. Should be simple to prove one or more were written AFTER 1604.

    Your goal appears to be smug, with gnostic undertones. Typical conspiracy theory stuff. Not a good way to win people over. Sure it feels good.

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Well that’s a stupid argument.

    Travel over any bridges built with the concensus of experts on bridge construction? If do, why, if you really can’t trust them?

    You just push all the same buttons as anyone with a pet theory like say flat earth.

    Thanks! It’s always nice to be pegged.

    • #66
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    The claim is that William of Stratford did not write the Shakespeare poems and plays. Rather, the best alternative candidate is Edward De Vere, the Sevententh Earl of Oxford, who was Lord Burghley’s son-in-law.

    De Vere died before 12 of Shakespeare’s plays were written, so that would seem to be a problem if I understand it correctly.

    Around 80 people have been nominated as the real writer of Shakespeare’s plays. The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    It discounts the role of imagination and intelligence too much.

    And it cuts both ways. Shakespeare’s work is full of errors, especially historical errors. They are the kind of errors that a real upper class Oxford educated swine like De Vere would never make. They are the kind of errors that a person like Shakespeare, who had access to popular, cheap historical pamphlets would make. In fact, they are in some cases the same errors that appeared in a history book that it is known was available in Shakespeare’s grammar school when he allegedly attended there.

    Thank you, Sir. May I have another?

    That is an asinine reply and not a response at all, yet you want people to take you seriously.

    As they kids say, smh.

    “Thank you, Sir. May I have another.” That’s my response to ad hominems. But if you are looking for responses, take up my offer to debate the dates of the plays. Should be simple to prove one or more were written AFTER 1604.

    Your goal appears to be smug, with gnostic undertones. Typical conspiracy theory stuff. Not a good way to win people over. Sure it feels good.

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Well that’s a stupid argument.

    Travel over any bridges built with the concensus of experts on bridge construction? If do, why, if you really can’t trust them?

    You just push all the same buttons as anyone with a pet theory like say flat earth.

    Thanks! It’s always nice to be pegged.

    Sort of puts to lie the “sorry I don’t mean to come across that way” statement. 

    If you want to overturn orthodoxy, you have to have a winning argument, not snark. 

    • #67
  8. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Also you ignored my comments on history.

    Sad.

    Well, I ignored a lot due to your implied ad hominem (do I really have to point it out?), which are now more direct.

    Your comments on history are sweeping and non-specific. You respond as if you are willing to engage in a discussion, but you clearly have no interest in that.

    So why hit me with a bat for not doing something you clearly do not want to do.

    What is the value to you of swinging that bat?

    • #68
  9. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    That is an asinine reply and not a response at all, yet you want people to take you seriously. 

    As they kids say, smh.

    I thought it was a good-natured reply. Was I wrong? 

    • #69
  10. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

     

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Well that’s a stupid argument.

    Travel over any bridges built with the concensus of experts on bridge construction? If do, why, if you really can’t trust them?

    You just push all the same buttons as anyone with a pet theory like say flat earth.

    Thanks! It’s always nice to be pegged.

    Sort of puts to lie the “sorry I don’t mean to come across that way” statement.

    If you want to overturn orthodoxy, you have to have a winning argument, not snark.

    I do not want to overturn orthodoxy. And you have not examined my “winning” argument, if there is any such thing. I make “an” argument in my talk, but you make clear that watching it is a waste of time. And I am inclined to agree with you.

    You find no value in the premise that there is an argument worth considering, so you have no desire to review such an argument. I completely understand.

    So why do you  bother engaging at all on this topic?

    • #70
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Also you ignored my comments on history.

    Sad.

    Well, I ignored a lot due to your implied ad hominem (do I really have to point it out?), which are now more direct.

    Your comments on history are sweeping and non-specific. You respond as if you are willing to engage in a discussion, but you clearly have no interest in that.

    So why hit me with a bat for not doing something you clearly do not want to do.

    What is the value to you of swinging that bat?

    As has been pointed out, you are calling things ad hominen that are not. 

    I am hitting you for sounding like every other type of “they are lying to us” type of person, whether it be UFOs, flat earthers, or what not. Thr fact that you cannot see it is, of course, how it goes.

    People who say things like you cannot trust a consensus of experts are not being serious. Of course we can. On rare occasions, they are wrong. Usually, this is not a major overturn, but a modification of what is known. Atoms still exist, but it turns out they were not the fundamental particle. The lists go on.

    Thr need to have special knowledge that the mainstream does not have is gnostic in nature.  If you were trying to change minds, you would take a different approach. Instead, you take up an adversarial one.

    I have seen your sort of evidence before. It is crap. You have nothing new to offer.

    Sad.

    • #71
  12. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    So you don’t see this statement of yours as an implied ad hominem:

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    • #72
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

     

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Well that’s a stupid argument.

    Travel over any bridges built with the concensus of experts on bridge construction? If do, why, if you really can’t trust them?

    You just push all the same buttons as anyone with a pet theory like say flat earth.

    Thanks! It’s always nice to be pegged.

    Sort of puts to lie the “sorry I don’t mean to come across that way” statement.

    If you want to overturn orthodoxy, you have to have a winning argument, not snark.

    I do not want to overturn orthodoxy. And you have not examined my “winning” argument, if there is any such thing. I make “an” argument in my talk, but you make clear that watching it is a waste of time. And I am inclined to agree with you.

    You find no value in the premise that there is an argument worth considering, so you have no desire to review such an argument. I completely understand.

    So why do you bother engaging at all on this topic?

    Because you are not only wrong, you are making arguments in poor way that is all too familiar. I am sharing my experience. 

    • #73
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    So you don’t see this statement of yours as an implied ad hominem:

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    Actually, I did not make that statement, but agreed with it. And second, no. It is not an attack on you at all, but a statement about the scholars. Frankly, in light of how our elites are, kinda fits the zeightguist of today.

    • #74
  15. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

     

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Well that’s a stupid argument.

    Travel over any bridges built with the concensus of experts on bridge construction? If do, why, if you really can’t trust them?

    You just push all the same buttons as anyone with a pet theory like say flat earth.

    Thanks! It’s always nice to be pegged.

    Sort of puts to lie the “sorry I don’t mean to come across that way” statement.

    If you want to overturn orthodoxy, you have to have a winning argument, not snark.

    I do not want to overturn orthodoxy. And you have not examined my “winning” argument, if there is any such thing. I make “an” argument in my talk, but you make clear that watching it is a waste of time. And I am inclined to agree with you.

    You find no value in the premise that there is an argument worth considering, so you have no desire to review such an argument. I completely understand.

    So why do you bother engaging at all on this topic?

    Because you are not only wrong, you are making arguments in poor way that is all too familiar. I am sharing my experience.

    Well, at least I’m fulfilling your expectations. Enjoy!

    • #75
  16. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    So you don’t see this statement of yours as an implied ad hominem:

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    Actually, I did not make that statement, but agreed with it. And second, no. It is not an attack on you at all, but a statement about the scholars. Frankly, in light of how our elites are, kinda fits the zeightguist of today.

    True.

    • #76
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    So you don’t see this statement of yours as an implied ad hominem:

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    Actually, I did not make that statement, but agreed with it. And second, no. It is not an attack on you at all, but a statement about the scholars. Frankly, in light of how our elites are, kinda fits the zeightguist of today.

    True.

    Well I’ll end with agreement on the zeight! Date night.

    • #77
  18. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    zeightguist

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    So you don’t see this statement of yours as an implied ad hominem:

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    Actually, I did not make that statement, but agreed with it. And second, no. It is not an attack on you at all, but a statement about the scholars. Frankly, in light of how our elites are, kinda fits the zeightguist of today.

    True.

    Except for “zeitgeist.” 

    • #78
  19. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander:

    He dismissed the book without examination, a response contrary to all that was implied in his teaching. I left the book with him anyway, somewhat baffled. I approached my best friend, a fellow English major, who has gone on to teach at a Catholic university in Texas. He would not look at the argument either. I was astonished. Two brilliant, thinking minds who would not even examine the argument, who simply dismissed it out of hand.

    What was it about this topic that so provoked such bizarre responses? If I had been a good graduate student, a properly impressionable graduate student, then I would have dropped Ogburn and gone along with the prevailing view.

    Not even being willing to examine the evidence mystifies me–unless it’s because they don’t have the time or something like that. I don’t have the time to examine this one. (But I hope to watch the video.)

    Maybe the word “paradigms” will be part of the explanation. (Started doing a new series for my philosophy YouTube channel on Thomas Kuhn this week.)

    Turns out I did have the time to examine some of the election fraud claims. Turns out the orthodoxy is a weak paradigm–there actually is good evidence that the election was stolen through traditional forms of election fraud. (Ricochet analyses here, off-Ricochet clones here.)

    I’m fine with that. And when a young-earth scientist turned up on the Babylon Bee podcast and rattled off some objections to the old earth orthodoxy, I was fine with that too. Not that I could vouch for his arguments, but I didn’t notice anything wrong with them, either. Young earth, intelligent design, biology without macroevolution, stolen elections, Democrats are the anti-black party–I’m open to a lot of heresies. Give me the time I don’t have and I might even look at the evidence and, depending on how that turns out, even tout one.

    Now the idea that the vaccines are super-dangerous–dang. That’s a heresy I hope is wrong. I’m not comfortable with that. But if I had the time and ability, I’d still like to run it through the evidence.

    My problem is being asked to review evidence again. When the same evidence is provided over and over and any rejection is met with “Look at it again” I am done.

    Sure. Having already looked at the evidence is a good reason to not look at the evidence.

    • #79
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Also, I love the argument “there is little evidence” someone did something or even existed. All we have are the records from the past. We know of works that are referenced but are lost to history. How much proof do we actually have of Alexander the Great? We have histories, written by men. Some of the stories are fantastical. What we know of the past is often what people wrote down.

    It is weak sauce to attack “orthodoxy” because data is slight. That accounts for many, many figures from the past.

    Amen to that.

    That’s where we get actual orthodoxy from–Nicean orthodoxy.

    And it’s better attested than Socrates is.

    • #80
  21. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Where have you been lately?

    That only applied before a handful of experts who work for the federal bureaucracy and were popular with the leftist media disagreed with Trump about chloroquine.

    Now science means “Never question the official experts.”

    Geez, man. Get with the program.

    • #81
  22. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    The claim is that William of Stratford did not write the Shakespeare poems and plays. Rather, the best alternative candidate is Edward De Vere, the Sevententh Earl of Oxford, who was Lord Burghley’s son-in-law.

    De Vere died before 12 of Shakespeare’s plays were written, so that would seem to be a problem if I understand it correctly.

    Around 80 people have been nominated as the real writer of Shakespeare’s plays. The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    It discounts the role of imagination and intelligence too much.

    And it cuts both ways. Shakespeare’s work is full of errors, especially historical errors. They are the kind of errors that a real upper class Oxford educated swine like De Vere would never make. They are the kind of errors that a person like Shakespeare, who had access to popular, cheap historical pamphlets would make. In fact, they are in some cases the same errors that appeared in a history book that it is known was available in Shakespeare’s grammar school when he allegedly attended there.

    Thank you, Sir. May I have another?

    That is an asinine reply and not a response at all, yet you want people to take you seriously.

    As they kids say, smh.

    “Thank you, Sir. May I have another.” That’s my response to ad hominems. But if you are looking for responses, take up my offer to debate the dates of the plays. Should be simple to prove one or more were written AFTER 1604.

    Your goal appears to be smug, with gnostic undertones. Typical conspiracy theory stuff. Not a good way to win people over. Sure it feels good.

    Really?

    Look, I can’t vouch for his arguments. And some of the counter-arguments looked good to me.

    And I really don’t have time to look at the evidence here.

    But he made arguments. There was nothing gnostic or conspiratorial about them.

    • #82
  23. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Remember, a consensus of scholars prove nothing.

    Where have you been lately?

    That only applied before a handful of experts who work for the federal bureaucracy and were popular with the leftist media disagreed with Trump about chloroquine.

    Now science means “Never question the official experts.”

    Geez, man. Get with the program.

    Well, let’s just say, having been raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I learned as a teen why people want you to trust the “authorities” and “authoritative texts.” 

    Of course, one of the great values of being raised a JW is the lack of Progressive political and social programming. Made a much clearer path to becoming a Classical Liberal, to a point—I think my party died with George Washington.

    • #83
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Taras (View Comment):
    Macbeth in particular is clearly based on King James’ Daemonologie, first published in 1597 but reprinted in 1603, on James’ accession to the English throne.

    Oooooh!

    Tell me more! Tell me more!

    Tell me how Hecate showing up doesn’t mean it’s not a Christian play!  Macbeth is definitely burning in hell now, right?  Right?

    He’s all like “Abraham, send Banquo to give me a sip of water!”  And Abraham’s like “No way, dawg!  Look at that chasm!  And you asked for this, you big jerk.”  That’s how it is, right?

    • #84
  25. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am hitting you for sounding like every other type of “they are lying to us” type of person, whether it be UFOs, flat earthers, or what not. Thr fact that you cannot see it is, of course, how it goes.

    People who say things like you cannot trust a consensus of experts are not being serious. Of course we can. On rare occasions, they are wrong.

    I believe he sounded more like a Kuhnian type–just to reach for the way of thinking about this in which I have some competence. The experts aren’t lying.  But they are settled in their paradigms, and have a hard time thinking outside them.

    • #85
  26. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am hitting you for sounding like every other type of “they are lying to us” type of person, whether it be UFOs, flat earthers, or what not. Thr fact that you cannot see it is, of course, how it goes.

    People who say things like you cannot trust a consensus of experts are not being serious. Of course we can. On rare occasions, they are wrong.

    I believe he sounded more like a Kuhnian type–just to reach for the way of thinking about this in which I have some competence. The experts aren’t lying. But they are settled in their paradigms, and have a hard time thinking outside them.

    Thank you.

    • #86
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    So you don’t see this statement of yours as an implied ad hominem:

    The problem seems to be that from what we know about the man it doesn’t seem that he’d know enough about various topics to write those plays, in other words, that he had knowledge “above his station”. So it must have been <insert name of more educated and accomplished upper class person here> who really wrote the plays.

    I think it’s just a bunch of bloody status anxiety from our upper class “betters”.

    Maybe at the end.  But the foundational “The problem seems” paragraph is no ad hominem.  Maybe a misunderstanding of the argument.

    • #87
  28. Mark Alexander Inactive
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    I would like to thank all of the commenters, especially the humorous ones, for elevating this little aside-post to the point that it could receive the coveted Lileks Post of The Week® badge.

    It’s the logical next step for the craziness of the Trump-Covid-lockdowns-riots-Biden-gaslines era.

    May this send the signal that we have finally hit bottom and it’s all uphill from here.

    Thank you!

    • #88
  29. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    I would like to thank all of the commenters, especially the humorous ones, for elevating this little aside-post to the point that it could receive the coveted Lileks Post of The Week® badge.

    It’s the logical next step for the craziness of the Trump-Covid-lockdowns-riots-Biden-gaslines era.

    May this send the signal that we have finally hit bottom and it’s all uphill from here.

    Thank you!

    Congrats on the post of the week!

     

    • #89
  30. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    I heard a theory that Shakespeare imbibed in an ergot brew which has properties similar to LSD. Having taken LSD and other psychedelics, that could explain his insights into human nature and the human condition. Just throwing that out there ….(lol)

    Mark,  you haven’t told me why you reject the Elizabeth I theory. I’m not particularly attached and am interested to hear your take.

    And why was De Vere anonymous?

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.