Virtual Grub Street: Rules of Evidence and the Shakespeare Authorship Debate.

Members of the Stratfordian community who identify as “Oxfraudians” have long touted their “Prima Facie” case for the Stratford candidate. In brief, that case is as follows:

1) William Shakespeare’s name is listed as author on the title page or dedications of numerous plays and poems published from 1593 (Venus and Adonis) onwards.

2) Shakspere was a sharer in lord chamberlain’s and king’s men.

3) As a member of the King’s Men, Shakspere received red cloth to march in livery during James I’s coronation.

4) Shakspere was named in will of a fellow player.

5) John Heminges was a trustee for “William Shakespeare of Stratford Vpon Avon in the Countie of Warwick gentleman” in the purchase of London property. Heminges later transferred the property to Shakespeare’s daughter Susanna.

6) Shakspere left money to fellow players in will.

7) The playwright was entitled to be referred to as “Gent.” - “M.” - or “Mr.”

8) Only William Shakespeare of Stratford had that distinction during that time period—no other William Shakespeare qualified.

9) John Heminges and Henry Condell state that the works in the First Folio were written by “so worthy a friend and fellow...as was our Shakespeare”.[1]

The simple fact that the First Folio makes clear that it forwards William Shakspere, of Stratford-upon-Avon, makes for a strong prima facie case that he was the author of the plays.

Before a judge would hear this prima facie case upon this prima facie evidence, however, he would have to verify that each item of evidence met the standard of Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901, Authenticating or Identifying Evidence.[2] This would include the letters to which the names Heminges and Condell are subscribed in print. These letters are regularly referred to, among Oxfraudians, as being “signed” by the two men.

By way of example, this from a recent comment thread on the matter here at the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Group:

… the prefatory letter signed by Heminges and Condell…

…People sign letters written by others all the time, but their signature is considered legally binding….

In this instance we're relying on the statement made by John Heminges and Henry Condell in the dedicatory epistle. It's a flowery groveling letter in the early modern style typical of letters from commoners to noblemen. Here it's two players writing to men who have absolute control of their quite lucrative theatrical business. Heminges and Condell's theaters could be closed with the snap of the fingers of the Lord Chamberlain. But luckily for the King's Men, the Herbert brothers seemed to be fans of the theater and of the King's Men in particular.

The letter may well have been edited by Ben Jonson, but the evidence for that is in its obsequious tone and some classical allusions. Jonson acknowledged that he differed from the players in some aspects of the letter, but the players' version is what was included in the Folio.

But, of course, their names being printed at the bottom of the letters by the printer of the volume does not constitute legal signatures. Also the line “Jonson acknowledged that he differed from the players in some aspects of the letter…” is misleading in its suggestion that Jonson ever expressly mentioned the letters in any respect whatsoever. He quietly wrote them, in all or in part, and went on his way without comment or “signature”.

As is mentioned in passing, the letters have long been accepted, in the highest scholarly circles, as the product, in all or in part, of Ben Jonson’s pen. That is to say that we know that at least part of the letters subscribed Heminges and Condell is not by either of the two at all.

Returning to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the very first requirement to authenticate evidence is

(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Before entering purported letters by Heminges and Condell, the plaintiff must show evidence that they are actually by the two men. Not partly by them but the plaintiff thinks (s)he knows which parts are and which are not.

The letters are subscribed under the names Heminges and Condell, not Heminges, Condell, Jonson (maybe Edward Blount and maybe some other managers of the production of the Folio edited just a smidge). If it fails to be demonstrably a “letter by Heminges and Condell” alone it fails entirely and irretrievably to meet the evidentiary standards of authentication.

It might be suggested that, they being historical documents, they cannot be held to the same evidentiary standards. It is for this reason that the Federal Rules (B)(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations is provided. In order to authenticate “Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations.”[3] it must be “in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity”.

Number 9 in the Oxfraudian prima facie brief That ‘John Heminges and Henry Condell state [in letters in the front matter] that the works in the First Folio were written by “so worthy a friend and fellow...as was our Shakespeare,”… in an Explicit dedication in the First Folio, compiled and published by friends of Shakespeare’ is not admissible as prima facie evidence in the case presented or in any case.

We also know, due to centuries of careful research and scholarship that the letters include mistakes of fact. For example:

we pray you do not envie his Friends, the office of their care, and paine, to haue collected & publish’d them; and so to haue publish’d them, as where (before) you were abus’d with diuerse stolne, and surreptitious copies, maimed, and deformed by the frauds and steathes of injurious impostors, that expos’d them: euen those, are now offer’d to your view cur’d, and perfect of their limbes, and all the rest, absolute in their numbers, as he conceived them…

It is highly improbable that the two could have served the role they claimed and have been unaware that their description of the texts printed in the Folio was patently incorrect. It may be claimed that they were just advertising rather than trying to tell the truth. But then when were they just advertising and when not in other parts of the letters.

In the prima facie brief, it is also not permitted to state as factual the plaintiff’s assertion that the man from Stratford was “the playwright” when that is the question at issue. Thus the term “the playwright,” in number 7, should properly read “Shakspere” or some spelling variation thereon.

[1] See “The Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare” https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html

[2] See https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901

[3] Ibid.