Oxfraud, Robert Greene and Authorship S&M.

In this Series:

·       Staring Intently into Robert Greene: Feminine Endings, etc.

·        Robert Greene and the Construction Shakespeare Never Used.

·       Oxfraud, Robert Greene and Authorship S&M.

Matters have taken a fateful turn over at my Tudor Topics Facebook page. Members of the Oxfraud anti-Oxfordian group have arrived in some force. It was only to be expected and the reader may rest assured that I’d considered the implications of what was almost certain to occur eventually.

One or two people have been members of both groups for some time now. Their numbers being small, and the individuals being among the less fierce, the results have actually been quite positive. The result was actually more or less constructive debate. Another Oxfraudian applied to become a member but I put him on hold while I finished up one or another project and prepared to spend a good deal more time moderating the group than I had theretofore. He chose to withdraw his request.

As fate hovered over my humble effort another group whose administrator was resoundingly pro-Stratfordian began to accept Authorship posts a year or two ago. I looked on from time to time. The comment threads wound on endlessly, never touching on detail analysis, as usual. The Oxfraudians supplied, as always, the Sadists in the play, and the Oxfordians the Masochists. Certain more shameless Oxfraudians gloried in throwing scat like so many monkeys with sounds that amounted to little more than simian chatter.

In short, the dynamic I had observed in so many debates, in so many groups, over so many years remained unchanged. Social media debates are not meant to ever be resolved. Instead their great value is in attracting attention of others who might pass nearby. Some number of which will join in. Ironically, for Oxfraudians the value is just the opposite. Throw enough scat and most passersby will think of Authorship debate as offensive and want to hear no more of it ever. Mission accomplished!

Still, I could  not help but try to introduce the untenable. Some Oxfraudian natural genius was going on about how Shakespeare, the supposed expert who had lived some months in Venice, allowed a horse in the city when such were strictly forbidden there by law. The reference was to words of the character Gobbo from The Merchant of Venice:

thou hast got more hair on thy chin than

Dobbin my fill-horse has on his tail.

Aha! Seems Shakespeare didn’t know Venice in the least!

But Dobbin is not with Gobbo. The old man has brought his goods in a basket. Dobbin is presumably back on the farm. There being no farms in the city of Venice, either, Voila! Dobbin is never in Venice. Whether Shakespeare specifically knew the statute or not, he had accurately portrayed the horseless provision  of farm produce to Venice from the mainland.

Several other gaffs were similarly easy pickins. That portion of the thread went silent. I went back to check again for replies and found that the post and all of its comment  threads had been deleted. The Oxfraudians were once again undefeated. Yet another of the essential lessons of online Authorship debate was reinforced.

So the reader can imagine my eye-roll when the following was added to the debate on Tudor Topics:  

and did they call their horses (banned in Venice since 1392) "Dobbin" like Launcelot's dad in The Merchant of Venice? The Dobbinae were a native British tribe at the time of the second Roman Invasion.[1]

And my sense of the hopelessness of resolving even the smallest point when replies can be disappeared by all parties.

I’d ask for a citation vis-à-vis the Dob(b)inae, who briefly appear on the Internet as a Germanic tribe located in what is now modern Bulgaria, if it seemed to any point. Utterly fascinating, regardless, that Shakspere apparently learned of their ancient role in Stratford from the local grammar school.

As is pretty much always the case, I was toiling away in the mines of Tudor history at the time a hot Authorship S&M session began — this time on my own group page. Every time I get started, some new discovery requires undivided attention, which leads to another new discovery, etc., some new closely printed text being downloaded and feverishly interrogated, the answers carefully noted.

On this occasion I was following up on a close examination of the texts of Robert Greene. Some have advanced the works under that name as actually having been written by Edward de Vere. It is essential to take such opportunities to drill down into the works of other Tudor authors major and minor. None of it, however, is the stuff of hot debate. I’ve added considerably to my hoard of knowledge. The two articles that have so far resulted, however, have received only a tiny portion of the traffic that went to the melee.

That, too, has been a persistent lesson of the social media Authorship debate. It can only rarely be about facts rather than fury if it is to attract interest. It must be about talking points, passion and insults. It is possible that fact-based articles would get even less traffic without the endless brabble.

If each of the emotionally fraught combatants throws a bit of money into the pot the result might fund a documentary that is careful to repeat the standard talking points backed by attractive visuals or an annual conference careful not to step on the theory of any paying member. It is important to be careful of the various (sub-)topical niches if you don’t want your own to be dismissed.  Such is the basis of successful contemporary scholarship.

Innocent passersby the Tudor Topic group, however, deserve better than sudden eruptions of fury and scat. It is designed to be a blended  group. Too often Authorship types tend to assault rather than  blend.

I have instituted a policy of moving endless and/or fraught Authorship debate threads from Tudor Topics to my dedicated, Authorship-only Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Group. I cannot give continuous time to refereeing debates. This suggests that the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Group together with a  bit more attention is the place and the way to continue them should they get to be too much for general company.

This will be done by turning off commenting at Tudor Topics and linking to the post from Edward de Vere was Shakespeare where the comment threads can be taken back up and the original post accessed. I will leave a final comment instructing participants where they can continue their debate.

Civility will still be required and ad hominem attacks still forbidden however much there may be a delay in enforcement. Issue a complaint if you feel the rules have been broken and hope to speed up the process.

In the meantime, Greene’s far closer imitation of Lyly’s Euphues novels  than Shakespeare’s needs a final bit of detail work before I post the next article. Just how it all ties-in to identifying the authors of various contested plays will possibly have to wait until some future issue of the Shakespeare Authorship In-Progress series.

 

---

[1] Leadbetter, Mike. https://www.facebook.com/groups/364900793683672/posts/2442248612615536/?comment_id=2443832732457124

Also at Virtual Grub Street:

• Edward de Vere and Marlowe’s Dido of Carthage. July 5, 2022. “It was an historical effort and an historical two years for Elizabethan theater.”
• The Character Montano, in Hamlet, and Polonius’ Famous Advice. May 25, 2022. “The reader may recall that Polonius calls upon Reynaldo to suggest to Laertes’ friends that he is privy to minor misbehaviors, at which he winks,…”
• The Death of Sir Edward Vere, son of the 17th Earl of Oxford and Anne Vavasour. May 8, 2022. “Mr. Sedgwick wrote to me for a prayer for Sir Edward Vere.”
• How Shakespeare gave Ben Jonson the Infamous Purge. November 7, 2021. “Of course, De Vere could not openly accuse Jonson of having outed him as Shakespeare.”
• Enter John Lyly.  October 18, 2016.  "From time to time, Shakespeare Authorship aficionados query after the name “John Lyly”.  This happens surprisingly little given the outsized role the place-seeker, novelist and playwright played in the lives of the playwright William Shakespeare and Edward de Vere."
• Check out the Shakespeare Authorship Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
• Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.