Pseudonym
This video shows with evidence that it is reasonable to assume that the name Shakespeare could be a pseudonym adopted by Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford.
Debunking the Debunkers in the Shakespeare Authorship debate
This video shows with evidence that it is reasonable to assume that the name Shakespeare could be a pseudonym adopted by Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford.
It is my experience that Stratfordians routinely dismiss or ignore counterevidence that refutes their idea that a businessman from Warwickshire wrote the plays and poems under a name resembling his. It is no wonder that they dismiss what is presented here.
I’m an Oxfordian believer of several decades, and have just listened to all the “Debunking Oxfraud’s 7 arguments,”
with admiration. Rarely have I heard so patient, meticulous an assembly of evidence and logical argument
given with utmost decorum and respect for the opponent, even when the opponent (the species opponent)
so rarely accords equal courtesy to Oxfordians. A model of how to conduct forensic argument, applied to
one of the grandest of all mysteries.
You fall at the first fence. Your translation of Harvey is incorrect. People don’t shake spears. They throw them. Nor does Harvey use the latin word for spear, nor is vibrans used transitively. And the idea that when looking for a pseudonym, Oxford would remember something entirely different, said in latin over a decade previously is blatantly preposterous. This liberal interpretation of the evidence amounts to rewriting it to suit your ideas.
I’d expect any 16-year old reading any of Oxford’s poems to be able to explain why the Earl could not have grown up into Shakespeare.
Taking our headlines, ignoring our evidence and replying to us with whatever is in the Oxfordian catechism when something inconvenient is mentioned is merely flattering us with a demonstration of how far you are from any kind of coherent case. Don’t expect any more replies.
The Prima Facie Case is where the debate is currently. Now four years old and unrebutted. How long do we have to wait until we can call it proof?
You are mistaken on your first point. People can shake spears, especially before battle, as has been recorded throughout history. In Jonson’s ode from the First Folio he mentions “shaking a lance” and a lance is a type of spear. In jousts, specialized lances – spears – with hollow points are held horizontally against mounted competitors’ waists in an effort to dislodge opponents’ from their saddles to gain points. These three facts should clarify for you that people do, indeed, shake spears. This, as you can see, is not “rewriting” evidence to suit my ideas, as you put it. Gabriel Harvey was merely reporting a fact which people at the time knew: people can shake spears, often as an act of defiance against an enemy. They can do it in victory as well.
As for that “prima facie” case, it is the least effective form of evidence presented in a court of law. It requires merely that arguers present a statement which can be rebutted based on whatever evidence comes to hand, regardless of quantity or quality. That is not the type of evidence in the Oxford case: it is what would legally be called “clear and convincing” evidence which is when a fact or series of facts have a higher probability – seen as more than 50% – of being true than not. That percentage is a requirement in many jurisdictions. Furthermore, the evidence is almost always cumulative meaning that there are many pieces of evidence that, when seen as a whole, prove to reasonable people that a certain event or events happened.
For example, if a witness to a criminal case sees the defendant traveling in the direction of a crime scene, that is one point against the defendant. If cell phone tracking shows her phone has been in close vicinity to the location at the same time that the crime was committed, that is a second point. If she has no clear or reputable alibi and cannot account for her whereabouts when the crime was committed, that is a third point against her. And if a shoeprint at the scene is proven through forensics to match one of her shoes, that is a fourth point. Given these strong and compelling pieces of evidence, it would be reasonable to assume the defendant was at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed. This is the type of cumulative evidence for de Vere writing using William Shakespeare as a pseudonym which has never been present for the Stratford man, ever (pun intended).
Stratfordians routinely dismiss counterevidence, use red herrings to deflect attention away from evidence, and create straw man arguments that misrepresent opponents in an attempt to rebut whatever points doubters make. Those are pure logical fallacies as are the inevitable ad hominem attacks found all over the Oxfraud site. As a sign of how weak the Stratford position is, name-calling or calling doubters “conspiracy theorists” and worse, “Holocaust deniers”, is the last tactic of someone who has no good evidence to back up their claim. Instead of presenting concrete reasons to believe their position, they attack the messengers who doubt the Stratford narrative. Politicians use this tactic all the time if they fear losing an election; it is called mud-slinging and it does not belong in this debate.
I hope this clarifies a few things for you.
It’s interesting that you call what you have “headlines”. I suppose Stratfordians have headlines while we have papers. You also do not understand the definition of “prima facie”: it is the lowest standard of argument in a court of law. All you need to present such a case is a statement, any statement really, which can be rebutted by evidence.
Speaking of evidence. Stratfordians routinely make the logical fallacy of dismissing and ignoring new evidence. Whenever solid evidence is presented that blows the Stratford theory out of the water, scholars will state without blinking that the evidence is either not evidence or “circumstantial”. You make my point for me by using Oxford’s earliest work as some sort of counter-evidence to the Oxford claim. Hasn’t it occurred to you that as a writer grows up, his writing will mature? Or do they always write like teenagers? Perhaps some writers never change their style, but one of the most educated and experienced nobles in England would have presented the world with more advanced writing as he gained knowledge and life experience. This is an example of counter-evidence against the Stratford paradigm which you will ignore.
You also give the Stratfordian game away by asking the question: “How long do we have to wait until we can call it proof?”. You have had more than 350 years and you still have to ask that question? From my perspective, only a weak case by an incompetent lawyer would ask such a question. The fact you have to ask that at all indicates the Stratfordian paradigm is about ready to break apart and be revealed for the nonsense it is.