The Shakespeare Authorship Controversy

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Shakespeare, the First Folio, and the Man from Stratford

The importance of the First Folio to the case for William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author 1 of the plays and poems attributed to William “Shakespeare” cannot be overstated. Without the First Folio, it is unlikely that anyone would ever have thought of the Stratford man as the author “Shakespeare” at all. Certainly nothing shows that anyone thought of him as the great author at the time when he died, in 1616. Even Professor Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford-uponAvon, now admits that nothing shows the author was from Stratford during William Shakspere’s lifetime. Yet he says this is irrelevant because the front matter to the First Folio identifies him clearly as the author. But does it? In fact, there are good reasons to think the First Folio is misleading, or even an outright spoof.

I found it an interesting read, particularly on the 400th anniversary. Of course, I do not think an illiterate businessman from Stratford wrote Shakespeare. The article goes into a lot of detail and is a good summary of the authorship question.

 

[Swammerdami]

Shakespeare, the First Folio, and the Man from Stratford

The importance of the First Folio to the case for William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon as the author 1 of the plays and poems attributed to William “Shakespeare” cannot be overstated. Without the First Folio, it is unlikely that anyone would ever have thought of the Stratford man as the author “Shakespeare” at all. Certainly nothing shows that anyone thought of him as the great author at the time when he died, in 1616. Even Professor Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford-uponAvon, now admits that nothing shows the author was from Stratford during William Shakspere’s lifetime. Yet he says this is irrelevant because the front matter to the First Folio identifies him clearly as the author. But does it? In fact, there are good reasons to think the First Folio is misleading, or even an outright spoof.

I found it an interesting read, particularly on the 400th anniversary. Of course, I do not think an illiterate businessman from Stratford wrote Shakespeare. The article goes into a lot of detail and is a good summary of the authorship question.

This is a very good and thought-provoking article. Here are just a few excerpts:

Rollett also identified other oddities in the engraving and concluded that “although one or two peculiarities might be ascribed to carelessness, six or seven (some obvious) seem to point toward a deliberate agenda...” He said he found it difficult not to think that the man depicted was being gently and surreptitiously mocked, and that by featuring a “ridiculous caricature” of the Stratford man, the publishers seemed to be suggesting to observant readers that the implication that Mr. Shakspere was the author “Shakespeare” was a deception

...

A few lines later, [Jonson's] poem reads:

O, could he have but drawn his wit​

As well in brasse, as he hath hit​

His face​

It is also a bit odd to speak of the engraver having “hit” his face. An alternative meaning of “hit” is “hid.” Chaucer once used it that way, as Jonson probably knew. Did he perhaps mean for others in the know to read it that way and think that, in fact, the engraving hid the author’s image, rather than being a likeness? Some think the line drawn from the left ear down along the jaw line suggests that the engraving is a mask. Jonson concludes by saying “Reader, looke / Not on his Picture, but his Booke.” Rather than affirming the authenticity of the engraving (its ostensible purpose), the poem negates its own message, telling the reader that the image should be ignored in favor of the works, where the real author is to be found. Since we now know (per Rollett) that the Droeshout engraving is comically bogus, this interpretation has strong support.
...
In fact, Ben Jonson, not Heminges and Condell, wrote the two [ Heminges / Condel] letters, as George Steevens showed in 1770. Steevens, a distinguished 18th-century Shakespeare editor, produced twelve pages of parallels between the epistles and writings of Jonson. He concluded that Jonson wrote both epistles, and Edmond Malone agreed. Jonson, unlike Heminges and Condell, was qualified to write the two letters and edit the plays in the Folio, having edited and published his own collection of plays, the first folio of English plays, seven years earlier. If the Folio’s claims about Heminges and Condell are false, it calls everything about the Folio into question. The first letter dedicates the First Folio to “the Most Noble and Incomparable Paire of Brethren,” meaning the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. It does so with exaggerated servility and sanctimonious adulation, verging on satire.

These excerpts barely scratch the surface of the excellent article, which in turn barely scratches the surface of the strong case against Stratford and for Oxford.

When assessing probabilities, one MUST consider the engraving — so misbegotten that some think the errors must have been deliberate! Whatever probability scholars assign, it must be ANDED with the engravings' absurdities.

Later this week, I will expand on this theme — and outline the CORRECT way to estimate probabilities — in one of the Was Jesus mythical? threads.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can find Stritmatter's review of Marcus's Puzzling Shakespeare at amazon

Stritmatter's response

Definitely worth the read.

 

[Swammerdami]

I visited a bookstore Tuesday and noticed Stephen Greenblatt's Tyrant: Shakespeare on Power at the 30%-off table. It has nothing to do with the Authorship controversy, but I bought it anyway.

He claims that Shakespeare (in plays like Richard III or plays about the usurpation by Richard's father) explores the question "Why would anyone be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern? ... Why does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers?" (The book was published in 2018 and, although he never mentions Trump, it sure seems like he was responding to the Trump phenomenon! I confirmed with Google that Trump was an inspiration for this book!)

It is a very good read, and may bear slightly on the Authorship question. (Could a commoner understand so well the hearts of political Dukes and Kings?)

Here is a soliloquy by Richard III after being visited in dream by the ghosts of men he has killed.

What do I fear? Myself? There's none else by.
Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
Is there a murderer here? No-yes, I am.
Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why-
Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself!
Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good
That I myself have done unto myself?
O, no! Alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself!
I am a villain; yet I lie, I am not.
Fool, of thyself speak well. Fool, do not flatter.
My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.
Perjury, perjury, in the high'st degree;
Murder, stern murder, in the dir'st degree;
All several sins, all us'd in each degree,
Throng to the bar, crying all 'Guilty! guilty!'
I shall despair. There is no creature loves me;
And if I die no soul will pity me:
And wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?
Methought the souls of all that I had murder'd
Came to my tent, and every one did threat
To-morrow's vengeance on the head of Richard.

Greenblatt claims that Shakespeare was young and inexperienced when he wrote this and "had not yet invented an entirely convincing way of representing a conflicted inner life." This opinion DOES bear on the authorship: Were the early history plays written by a mature experienced writer, or by a very young playwright just embarking on his career?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Greenblatt claims that Shakespeare was young and inexperienced when he wrote this and "had not yet invented an entirely convincing way of representing a conflicted inner life." This opinion DOES bear on the authorship: Were the early history plays written by a mature experienced writer, or by a very young playwright just embarking on his career?

If you would care to plumb that question here is a video to watch.

Robert Prechter — Why Did Robert Greene Repent His Former Works?

Of course, Robert Greene, the contemporary of Oxford/Shakespeare has been claimed by many to be Oxford/Shakespeare. And this of course answers the question of why there is no biographical information on one Robert Greene that can be corroborated factually. All is supposition, same as the biography of the Stratford man's literary constitution.

What's interesting about the verse from Richard III that you posted is how puritanical, how repentant, it sounds, so like Greene's repentance in Groats-worth of Witte (1592). If Green is in fact Oxford/Shakespeare then it all makes sense both historically and literarily.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Swammi,

On a different note, here is a presenter talking about unambiguous primary evidence and the case against the Stratford man. The presentation is about having "reasonable doubt" about orthodox Shakespeare authorship.

Tom Woosnam – Teaching the Shakespeare Authorship Question

It is quite powerful. Definitely worth the 33 minutes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This year, 2023 is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the first folio of William Shakespeare. The late Tom Regnier gives an excellent summation of the gist of the authorship controversy for anyone interested in a quick tutorial.

The Law of Evidence and Shakespeare

The first Folio, published in 1623, seven years after the death of the Stratford businessman, William Shakspere, discussing its many peculiarities is discussed here by Katherine Chiljan in an article from 2022.

The Grand Deception of the First Folio

 

[Swammerdami]

I just noticed this post. I've clicked both links; they both look good; I will finish both when I have time this evening. Thank you, Mr. Moogly!

I'm posting now because 2 minutes into the video something caught my eye:

"Evidence is something which tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact."​

I clicked Pause just to post this: In the historical Jesus thread(s) I wish others were interested in evidence-based reasoning. I abandoned those threads when it became clear that most participants regarded any actual evidence pro or con as irrelevant! Only one's ill-founded ideology matters.

(ETA: I hope I've NOT hijacked this into yet another Historical Jesus thread. If anyone thinks my view on that is wrong, please bump the "Science: Estimating Probability" thread and explain.)

 

[Swammerdami]

No bumps for almost two years. I may as well post some comments from the ShakesVere Facebook group. They concern a poem reproduced below -- one of 23 poems widely accepted as authentic Oxford.

I'll repeat my own opinion that a juvenile dabblng in poetry as one of many hobbies is likely to overuse alliteration; his poetry wil improve when in middle age he decides to make writing his life's work.

I see this sonnet as quite deliberately packed with bad verse, with poetic 'no-no's.
In my view, it's a parody, directed at the Rival Poet - one Walter Raleigh, who in the late 1570s had got the eye of the Queen, and displaced Oxford as top favourite.
Why is it bad?
First it's mainly monosyllables, a characteristic of weak poets - the metre will take care of itself.
Secondly, the padding out of lines with empty noise: "…alas, my heart…". Thirdly, the ghastly alteration: ”…taught thy tongue…" "…woeful words…". Fourthly, the implication (or assertion) of self-pity.
Fifthly, the inconsistency of 'thee' and 'you'.
Sixthly, careless non-rhyme: friends/ end.
More generally, 1) Raleigh's own verse was heavily into 'woe', and he favoured alliteration.
2) It was full of monosyllables.
3) He had a ruddy complexion, and readily blushed. Possibly he went pale on his first introduction to his monarch (ok, some speculation here). But, like other courtiers of the day, he was known to use face-paint.
4) He was a large man, who tramped about; the 'grace' in Line 7 would be ironic.
5) The 'honour' of Line 8 would be bawdy 'on her' with a play on Bess/best. Raleigh distinctly lacked all 'honour', in every sense (at least in the view of all the aristocratic courtiers).
6) 'In constant truth…". Raleigh was a notorious liar.
7) Raleigh almost made a point of not having friends at court. Also he broke with Oxford, who probably first introduced him.
I see the final couplet as being addressed to QE. She could choose to waste her time with this worthless upstart, rather than getting on and marrying someone (the French Match was still possible). That choice would bind her destiny (and that of the nation). Otherwise only death beckoned.

------

That's quite interesting. Add to "bad,"
"disruptive". He is creating and disrupting genre with a satirical mock form. It's a parody in mocking form, which is not "bad" writing, but an imitation there of . Some people, especially Strats, use "bad" for things they don't understand; e. g. "bad quartos." Glad that's not the case here. It takes talent to intentionally imitate a particular person's bad writing habits.
His uncle, Surrey, invented the form, and it had its origins in English from Wyatt who was entangled in Elizabeth's mother's intrigues.

As Looney pointed out, it is the only one of Oxford’s early poems that is in the form of what became known as a Shakespearean sonnet, with 14 lines of iambic pentameter, containing 3 quatrains and a rhymed couplet. Monosyllables predominate. Oxford later observed that they are better suited to conveying emotions than are polysyllabic words. And Caroline Spurgeon noticed how often Shakespeare focusses on outward changes in the face’s complexion as an expression of inward feelings—such as here, in the phrase “paint with colours pale thy face.” We can assume Oxford wrote this poem about and for the queen, who was “Above the rest in court.” When he was 23, Oxford was described in a letter as nearly being the queen’s favorite, “if it were not for his fickle head.” There is a turn in perspective between the octave—the first 8 lines—and the sestet—the last 6 lines. All lines of the quatrains end in question marks, and they all include the interrogative word “who?” As Vendler noticed about Shakespeare’s sonnets, the final couplet attempts to solve the problems presented in the preceding dozen lines, beginning with the poem’s first imperative verb: “Love.” Since the topic of the poem is love, we can think of the couplet as a human couple, bound with the final rhyme.
... Roger Stritmatter analyzes this poem--and cites past references to it--in his 2019 first volume of Oxford's poetry.

 

[WAB]

How is the movement going, Swammi? Are the Oxfordian numbers swelling? I haven't been paying much attention.

I'm glad you revived the thread. Could be we have some new members who might be interested. I can't remember if pood was involved with this, but I would think he'd have something pertinent to say. I don't feel like scrolling through all the pages to check.

 

[Swammerdami]

Thanks for the bump, WAB

I've decided that people reject the evidence because the idea of a hoax seems wildly unlikely.

Recite all the evidence that Shaksper was not a writer; recite all the evidence that Oxford was the author; but the listener has tuned out. An authorship hoax is just too unlikely to consider. Why would the greatest writer ever suppress his identity? Wouldn't he and his family be proud of his writing?

That's why I think essays to convince a newcomer of the Authorship Hoax should focus first on WHY such a Hoax was not only plausible but LIKELY.

I'd start the discussion by mentioning that it was taboo for a nobleman to publish poetry, or to write plays for public performance. There is overwhelming evidence that noblemen DID write poems and plays but kept their identities secret. Then I'd mention that anonymity would be desired even without the taboo, for plays that insulted or revealed secrets of the elite.

The play Comedy of Errors would be a good example of a play where Oxford would conceal his authorship: It contains a hilarious skit poking fun at Her Majesty Elizabeth. This play was performed ONLY ONCE during Elizabeth's life-time, and that was a private performance at Gray's Inn (Oxford's alma mater) during their drunken New Year's revels. (Traditionalists insist that Shaksper wrote for money, but there was no money collected for that private performance.)

But the most important reason Oxford needed anonymity is something else. I'll spend the rest of this post outlining that.

Her Majesty had been excommunicated by the Pope (with a "fatwa" issued encouraging Jesuit assassins to go kill her). There were also Protestants who plotted rebellions against her. Childless and with her father's Parliament-approved choice defying the customary rule, there was much controversy about who her successor would be, but Elizabeth forbade any discussion of that! She was afraid that partisans of her successor would plot her death.

The Tudors were perhaps the most powerful monarchs England ever knew (their personal treasury and the Government Treasury were the very same pile of gold and silver). But still she wanted the English people to respect the country, to respect the institution of the Monarchy, and to respect the Tudor dynasty specifically (and the Lancaster Dynasty on which it initially depended for legitimacy). There was no Internet or radio. Few people could afford or even read books; London's vibrant theater was the one and only way to spread propaganda. Elizabeth was probably smart enough to understand the value of such propaganda, but she had two smart Machiavellian advisors (Cecil and Walsingham) who surely did.

Comedies were the genre of theater that produced the biggest box office receipts. Good tragedy plays were also well received. Why then were the first 3 or 4 Shakespeare plays histories?? These early plays include Richard III which has hurt the reputation of that Yorkist king for centuries, while making the Lancaster claimant Henry Tudor (the Queen's grandfather) out to be a hero. "Shakespeare" continued to write lots of history plays. (Traditionalists say he wrote for money; surely he saw that his comedies yielded better box office receipts than histories.)

The Queen needed someone to write propaganda plays for her and chose Oxford, well known to her and whose skill at writing plays is well attested. She paid him £1000 annually for this "office", a larger allowance than ANY other got from her except for James VI of Scots whose mother she had executed. That this £1000 was a salary for some service rather than a gift or other compensation is clear on several grounds.

Especially interesting is the Treasury Warrant she wrote instructing the tellers and auditors of her Treasury to pay him this huge sum annually. It contains a "non-accountability clause," instructing the auditors not to question the payments. Such clauses were common, e.g. the payments to Walsingham, the head of her secret police. But the non-accountability clause in Oxford's warrant is unique, found nowhere else. It doesn't instruct the auditors not to question Oxford. Instead it instructs them not to question Her Majesty's order itself! ("[nothing] whatsoever [shall] be charged towards Us, Our heirs or successors.") The money was to be delivered unconditionally and without explanation.

I'll reproduce the text of the Warrant in its entirety:

Elizabeth, etc., to the Treasurer and Chamberlains of our Exchequer,
Greeting. We will and command you of Our treasure being and remaining
from time to time within the receipt of Our Exchequer, to deliver and pay,
or cause to be delivered and paid, unto Our right trusty and well beloved
Cousin the earl of Oxford, or to his assigns sufficiently authorized by him,
the sum of One Thousand Pounds good and lawful money of England. The
same to be yearly delivered and paid unto Our said Cousin at four terms of
the year by even portions [beginning at the Feast of the Annunciation last
past]: and so to be continued unto him during Our pleasure, or until such
time as he shall be by Us otherwise provided for to be in some manner
relieved; at what time Our pleasure is that this payment of One Thousand
Pounds yearly to Our said Cousin in manner above specified shall cease.
And for the same or any part thereof, Our further will and commandment
is that neither the said Earl nor his assigns nor his or their executors
nor any of them shall by way of account, imprest, or any other way
whatsoever be charged towards Us, Our heirs or successors. And these
Our letters shall be your sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf.
Given under Our Privy Seal at Our Manor of Greenwich, the six and twenti-
eth day of June in the eight and twentieth year of Our reign.

 

[WAB]

Just a bump.

By the way I started a discussion at another skeptics board that Emily Lake drew me to, and absolutely nobody takes the Oxfordian theory seriously. Most act like, is this even still a question? Is this a thing.

Nobody buys this silly theory. Nobody. Shakespeare was Shakespeare. So when you cite Shakespeare, say Shakespeare, NOT Oxford.

Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?

I wholeheartedly say that the Earl of Oxford could in no way have written the works of William Shakespeare. He was a mediocre poet and his known prose was absolutely nothing one would call Shakespearean. It makes me sick, and boils my bottom, that people cotton to this silly view. What dost thou...

internationalskeptics.com

 

[WAB]

The main thing is, when you cite Shakespeare, say Shakespeare, NOT Oxford!

 

[Swammerdami]

By the way I started a discussion at another skeptics board that Emily Lake drew me to, and absolutely nobody takes the Oxfordian theory seriously. Most act like, is this even still a question? Is this a thing.

Nobody buys this silly theory. Nobody. Shakespeare was Shakespeare.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. And "Nobody buys this silly theory" is CLEARLY a falsehood. There are hundreds of scholars that subscribe to "Oxfordianism." They MIGHT be deluded but "Hundreds" is more than "Nobody." @WAB -- Can you admit that much?

It is amusing -- and demonstrates their lack of intellectual integrity -- that "anti-Oxfordians" rant about "silly" and "looney" ideas without ever trying to refute those ideas. HOW do you explain the Dedication in Shakespeare's Sonnets? How do you explain the poem that specifically states that "Shakespeare" was " a borrowed name"?

Yea, this I know I may be bold to say, Thames ne'er had swans that sung more sweet than they. It's true I may avow it, that ne'er was sung. Chanted in any age by swains so young, With more delight than was perform'd by them, Prettily shadow'd in a borrowed name. And long may England's thespian springs be known.

Or -- here's an easy one; will you deign to answer it WAB? -- Why were the first 3 or 4 Shakespearean plays history plays applauding the Lancaster and Tudor dynasties? Comedies and tragedies generated higher box office receipts than histories. One can admit that the Queen commissioned propaganda plays without admitting a particular authorship.

Richard III is regarded as a villain to this day, while Henry VII (Elizabeth's grandfather) is treated as a hero. This is the OPPOSITE of what many modern historians would argue. Was this misconception heavily influenced by Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Richard the Third ?

 

[WAB]

Actually I do not deign to answer this silly business. All I want is for certain people, when they cite Shakespeare, to cite Shakespeare, NOT Oxford.

In other words, if you cite Romeo and Juliet, you say by Shakespeare, NOT Oxford. Get it?

Nobody gives a poof about this silly theory. It has the same intellectual support as the flat earth theory!

 

[Swammerdami]

Nobody buys this silly theory. Nobody. Shakespeare was Shakespeare.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. And "Nobody buys this silly theory" is CLEARLY a falsehood. There are hundreds of scholars that subscribe to "Oxfordianism." They MIGHT be deluded but "Hundreds" is more than "Nobody." @WAB -- Can you admit that much?

It is amusing -- and demonstrates their lack of intellectual integrity -- that "anti-Oxfordians" rant about "silly" and "looney" ideas without ever trying to refute those ideas. HOW do you explain the Dedication in Shakespeare's Sonnets? How do you explain the poem that specifically states that "Shakespeare" was " a borrowed name"?

Or -- here's an easy one; will you deign to answer it WAB? -- Why were the first 3 or 4 Shakespearean plays history plays applauding the Lancaster and Tudor dynasties? Comedies and tragedies generated higher box office receipts than histories. One can admit that the Queen commissioned propaganda plays without admitting a particular authorship.
. . .

Actually I do not deign to answer this silly business.

Nobody gives a poof about this silly theory. It has the same intellectual support as the flat earth theory!

PERFECT illustration of my point! You "do not deign to answer this silly business." You are happy to insult the idea ... and with it, me personally. But refuse to address ANY of the facts that point to the correct conclusion. You just repeat what you heard on a board of dunderheads.

 List_of_Oxfordian_theory_supporters omits the MANY 19th-century geniuses who thought the Stratfordian authorship was a hoax. But the many 20th century theory supporters include

• Harry Blackmun — U.S. Supreme Court Justice[7]
• Antonin Scalia — U.S. Supreme Court Justice[7]
• John Paul Stevens — U.S. Supreme Court Justice[7]
• Sir Roger Penrose — mathematician, Nobel Laureate in Physics[30]
• Sigmund Freud — pioneer of psychoanalysis[16]
• Paul Nitze — longtime high-ranking U.S. government official and Presidential advisor, ambassador[26][27]
• Keanu Reeves - actor[33]
• Mark Rylance — Shakespearean actor and director, director of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre 1995–2005[35]
• eleven professors of English (or related fields)
• 34 other prominent people (including several other famous actors, writers, and directors)
• many others who don't happen to appear on this Wiki list.

But do keep telling yourself that only crackpots fall for this theory, if that floats your boat!

(Challenge question: U.S. Supreme Court Justices have no special expertise in theater or 17th century evidence. So WHY is their support of special value?)

 

[Swammerdami]

In other words, if you cite Romeo and Juliet, you say by Shakespeare, NOT Oxford. Get it?

Oh yeah! Got it the first time. And might have complied without further ado had you left it at that.

Nobody gives a poof about this silly theory. It has the same intellectual support as the flat earth theory!

But you seem unable to leave it at that! You can't respond in the thread without deprecating the rational thinkers while wallowing in the ignorance of comparing Freud, Penrose, and 3 SCOTUS Justices to believers in "the flat earth theory."

 

[WAB]

Swammi, we are on a skeptics board. Have you taken the time to notice that no one, no one, except Moogly, have taken interest in this theory? No one. No one. At the other sceptics board there is literally no one, no one, who takes the oxford theory seriously. At a poetry board I was involved with for seven years,, no one, no one, no one, was remotely interested.

So stop badgering me, and asking me if I have answers to this or that. No one, no one, no one has answers to your questions. There is plenty of information on the web to sort yourself and get a clearer picture of things.

 

[bilby]

Alice in Wonderland was actually written by Charles Dodgson, but as he himself attributed them to Lewis Carroll, and as everyone calls the author of Alice by that name, it would be absurd to do otherwise.

Attributing the plays and sonnets to anyone other than Shakespeare is equally absurd, even if they were written by someone who went by another name.

(Which they probably weren't).

The use of a nom de plume (or these days, nom de clavier) is a longstanding tradition and should be respected in attributing authorship.

 

[Swammerdami]

Swammi, we are on a skeptics board.

Skeptical about this; skeptical about that; skeptical about this and that. Skeptical about whether 1st-century documents were really written in the 1st century. BUT NOT at all skeptical about Stratford's authorship, despite the huge evidence against it. OK.

Have you taken the time to notice that no one, no one, except Moogly, have taken interest in this theory? No one. No one. At the other sceptics board there is literally no one, no one, who takes the oxford theory seriously. At a poetry board I was involved with for seven years,, no one, no one, no one, was remotely interested.

"No one, no one, no one, no one, no one, no one, no one, no one, no one." I hope you saved time by doing the copy/paste trick.
Roger Penrose, Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain, many Professors of Literature, three SCOTUS justices, geniuses like Georg Cantor, etc. are all "no one, no one, no one, no one, no one, no one" to you. Got it.

So stop badgering me, and asking me if I have answers to this or that. No one, no one, no one has answers to your questions. There is plenty of information on the web to sort yourself and get a clearer picture of things.

Are you unaware that you can decline to click on a thread which is uninteresting to you?
Better yet, the message-board offers an Ignore option which IIUC would have various benefits to you, such as NOT being notified if I quote one of your posts.

I bumped the thread primarily to put my own thoughts and summary in a place where I can find them easily. (My favorite laptop died,, and my bookmarks etc. are too disorganized to be usable.)

The many MANY people who despise "anti-Stratfordian" ideas and despise me personally are welcome to address the items in my recent post from a pro-Stratfordian perspective. Nobody can do it? No surprise.