Oxford - For and Against?

[Guest Ryan Murtha]

Is anyone interested in dissecting the Oxford argument? Maybe just for the sake of being objective and thorough we should. Of course Oxford was a ward of Bacon's uncle Lord Burghley, so any biographical correspondences can be adduced in Bacon's favor as well, he would have been well aware of De Vere's biography. If we are looking at a group of writers, is Oxford one of them? If I remember Larry told me he and Bacon didn't get along, but I haven't read anything about that. Many people are persuaded by these arguments, I haven't gotten into them deeply but I tend to think the whole thing has been manufactured as a smokescreen, as someone put it once to me. It could be seen in a wider context of pretty severe hostility towards Bacon in academia, the things they have said are just incredible. My intuitive guess is that because of Bacon's contribution to science, if he were acknowledged as the principal genius behind Shakespeare, the academic community would have to deal with a colossus and his influence would be hegemonic, everyone would have to defer to him and philosophy departments would probably be eviscerated, nobody would want to read people like Wittgenstein and Derrida etc. Nietzsche knew, but just as he became a Baconian he went nuts, go figure. I used a quote from him as an epigraph in my book, and I had the hardest time finding it in a search, I had to go to the actual book and find it. Google is hiding the fact that Nietzsche was a Baconian. 

[Light-of-Truth]

I think it is a good idea.

Personally, and I admit, I have had no stomach for the Oxfordian myths. Or should I say no "nose"?

Early on I did try to to be open minded and kept getting turned off by the Oxie fluff. Plus after so many years examining Baconian evidence, my beliefs had hardened.

I've searched high and low for correspondence between Bacon and DeVere with very little success. I think I did find a letter by Bacon, maybe two. There was nothing that stood out with me. I remember Lawrence pointing out something that he has mentioned to me as well that would imply Bacon was not a fan of DeVere. I will try to find it as I don't recall what it was being many years ago. I think it was in Speddings works.

I don't believe DeVere was considered one of Bacon's "Good Pens", but I am not an Oxford expert at all. DeVere's reputation by his contemporaries is available and it certainly appears he was not the kind of person who could think as Shakespeare (Bacon) did.

But that's just my take.

 

[Kate]

Well, this is interesting. There’s a guy on Twitter called Daniel who showed some interest in the authorship debate. I’ve just scrolled past a pic he posted of a margin annotation attributed to De Vere, but as soon as I saw it I recognised I had seen the same annotations just a few days ago in a video I watched (which is a few years old) presented by Katie Birkwood. It’s on you tube, here’s the cover pic of the video.

The annotations were John Dee’s.

 

I was just about to tell him that there must be a mistake but checked his feed before doing so and, lo and behold, he’d already made the same connection in another tweet. 
 

Furthermore I had a tweet lined up in my drafts to post today.
 

Anyway, that latter synchronicity apart, why would de Vere have annotations by Dee?  This synchronicity of my seeing this seems important for some reason.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Kate Cassidy
Typo

[A Phoenix]

Hi Kate, many orthodox scholars have claimed that Prospero was based on Dr Dee whereas Baconians know/believe that the philosopher-scientist Prospero is a disguised dramatic characterisation of his creator Lord Bacon, Founder Father of Modern Science and of the Modern World.

[Lawrence Gerald]

Ryan Murtha : Is anyone interested in dissecting the Oxford argument? Maybe just for the sake of being objective and thorough we should. Of course Oxford was a ward of Bacon's uncle Lord Burghley, so any biographical correspondences can be adduced in Bacon's favor as well, he would have been well aware of De Vere's biography. If we are looking at a group of writers, is Oxford one of them? If I remember Larry told me he and Bacon didn't get along, but I haven't read anything about that. Many people are persuaded by these arguments, I haven't gotten into them deeply but I tend to think the whole thing has been manufactured as a smokescreen, as someone put it once to me. It could be seen in a wider context of pretty severe hostility towards Bacon in academia, the things they have said are just incredible. My intuitive guess is that because of Bacon's contribution to science, if he were acknowledged as the principal genius behind Shakespeare, the academic community would have to deal with a colossus and his influence would be hegemonic, everyone would have to defer to him and philosophy departments would probably be eviscerated, nobody would want to read people like Wittgenstein and Derrida etc. Nietzsche knew, but just as he became a Baconian he went nuts, go figure. I used a quote from him as an epigraph in my book, and I had the hardest time finding it in a search, I had to go to the actual book and find it. Google is hiding the fact that Nietzsche was a Baconian. 

 

These two links cast light on how Ben Jonson and Bacon thought very little of Edward de Vere.

 

This article explores in Ben Jonson's "Staple of News" what he thought of DeVere. (search the page for DeVere past the mid point of article)

https://sirbacon.org/bjonsffolio.htm

 

Bacon being a non blood related cousin to DeVere both being temporary wards to the Cecil  Family was able to  observe DeVere up close and use it as grist for the mill. So it's no surprise that Bacon would write about him in an unfavorable light in "All's Well That End's Well. "

Also Bacon would have known about the tragic incident that took place in William Cecil's household (Lord Burleigh) where DeVere stabbed to death a young unarmed cook.
Cecil got DeVere off the legal hook for that.  Oxfordians today overlook DeVere's  despicable character because they have to. Hard to defend  a spoiled rich kid  misogynist  who did not take all of knowledge to be his province for the betterment and relief of man's estate.

 https://sirbacon.org/oxfordallswell.htm

[Kate]

Just read those and https://sirbacon.org/lakosh.html

Thanks for sharing. I totally understand the bigger picture now! 

[Light-of-Truth]

I have scanned through it a little and have not read this entire book. But it appears to describe DeVere from a historical context:

Monstrous Adversary

The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Monstrous_Adversary/WcfiqlOjEKoC?hl=en&gbpv=0

 

[Light-of-Truth]

On 3/31/2022 at 1:32 PM, Kate Cassidy said:

Anyway, that latter synchronicity apart, why would de Vere have annotations by Dee?  This synchronicity of my seeing this seems important for some reason.

I saw this on wake up this morning and it immediately reminded me of what I was trying to decrypt an anonymous poem with a facsimile containing drawings of a hand:

Also after a while the poem appeared to be about the contemporary "monster" scumbag of the times, DeVere.

0 thou prodigious monster moste accurst
 what makes thou here in mens societie
Back to those desarts where you hast byn nurst
 by bruitish Beastes of rudest qualitie
   And yet in wildest desart Beasts are borne
   whose natures do yi beastlike natr scome.

 

I spent a few minutes this morning looking for images of his 'hand" drawings, but missed for now. But I have been busy on another cool project for the past couple days.

I did find his signature that the Oxies are thrilled to have. Yes, DeVere could sign his name, unlike Willy Shakspur.

"Edward Oxenford"

OXENFORD is 95 Simple cipher. So I looked at Sonnet 95.

How sweet and lovely dost thou make the shame
Which, like a canker in the fragrant rose,
Doth spot the beauty of thy budding name!
O! in what sweets dost thou thy sins enclose.
That tongue that tells the story of thy days,
Making lascivious comments on thy sport,
Cannot dispraise, but in a kind of praise;
Naming thy name, blesses an ill report.
O! what a mansion have those vices got
Which for their habitation chose out thee,
Where beauty's veil doth cover every blot
And all things turns to fair that eyes can see!
  Take heed, dear heart, of this large privilege;
  The hardest knife ill-us'd doth lose his edge.

 

Over the past decades I have thought about how this Sonnet applies to Bacon and himself. I could twist it around, kind of, make it fit in a sarcastic way talking about himself. But never was satisfied. But is bacon talking about his cousin my marriage who he did know even probably trying to not be around or build a friendship? Even a quick look can see the fit.

I haven't looked for Oxenford's numbers anywhere yet, in cipher.

(Kate, talk about synchronicity, when I typed the word "hand" above the TV my wife is watching said, "hand.")

 

 

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

On the target of this thread, I have a question.

As a Baconian I have a "belief". I may be wrong, and may have missed something important that other Baconians know, but today I believe this (and please correct me if I am wrong):

Francis Bacon never mentioned Shakespeare in a letter nor was recorded in a dialog with anyone during his lifetime.

If that is false and everybody knows, well it is "April Fools Day." 😉

If not, then what did Edward Oxenford say about Shakespeare? What did he write about him in letters and other public recorded notes?

Not knowing hardly a looney thing about Oxenford, if there is nothing about Shakespeare in his letters and history, then I would be very curious who else never mentioned him.

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Light-of-Truth

[Rob at 007]

A few replies that were here belonged in another thread and I was able to move them. To see them, check here: