Posted By on November 29, 2009

Welcome to Shake-Speare’s
Our topic is Shake-speare’s Bible. The one he owned.
Really. No joke.
To learn what that means, please visit the “about” page.

Every once in a while, we diverge to consider other topics in intellectual history — lately, the intense and exciting developments in online news and debate over the resurgence of “Cold Fusion” energy production, hailed by Gerald Celente and many others as a new industrial revolution “in statu nascendi.”

Up For Appeal – First Quiz!

Posted By on October 12, 2014

Chris Pannell, Anna Zakelj and Justin Borrow at the Stratford "Debate." Photo kindness the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship and Linda Theil.

Lester Grinspoon, speaking on another topic, says that “you can’t sustain a lie forever.” As I reflect on the recent Stratford, Ontario, Moot Court infotainment extravaganza on the authorship question I wonder if this is really true. I mean, it sounds nice to idealists. Actually, lies can go on and on and on, just as long as there is no one able to point out that they are lies.  To be sure, the Stratford Moot, despite the good intentions of Mr. Pratte, who carried out a difficult job with great dignity and presence in serving as pro bono counsel to the earl, and Professor Don Rubin (among others), who briefed and worked with Pratte to prepare for the event, the whole thing turned into a bit of Stratfordian tomfoolery replete with the Stratford Festival’s artistic director Antoni Cimolino playing a rather prim and huffy Mr. Shakspere easily spooked by his own shadow — the entire argument, as it were, in propria persona.

But the most disappointing part of the event has to have been the generally uninspired chara (more…)

de Facto Names

Posted By on April 23, 2014

Per Handbook for Fictitious Names, Olphar Hamst [Ralph Thomas], London: John Russell Smith, 1868; subtitled “Being a guide to authors, chiefly in the lighter literature of the XIXth century, who have written under assumed names; and to literary forgers, imposters, plagiarists, and imitators”: I wish to add new information here, and removed all the bad mistakes from the draft.

p. 41 – de Boscosel de Chastelard (Pierre)  (1540–1562), aristonym [W. H. Ireland]

p. 41 – de Comyne (Alexander) aristo. [Charles Thomas Browne, of Trinity College, Dublin]

p. 42 – de Mirecourt (Eugene), aristonym [Charles-Jean-Baptiste Jacquot, de Mirecourt, Vosges, France]

p. 42 – de Pembroke (Morgan) aristonym [Morgan Evans]

So might it stand to reason:

de Vere (Edward) aristonym [William Shakespeare]

Compare King Henry V, Act II, scene I, Nym: “I shall have my noble?”

Compare King Henry V, Act III, scene II, Boy: “Nym and Bardolph are sworn brothers in filching…”

The Conversation

Posted By on October 11, 2014

This is a piece of participatory poetry. Click on the image to enlarge and read. You don’t really need to know what’s going on; for the most part, the discussants here know better than to inadvertently let on anything they might know anyway. Mum’s the word with them.  I just found it a beguiling exchange, a new kind of poetry.


Want more like these?  Visit them at


Why Censorship Doesn’t Work

Posted By on August 25, 2014

Here is the link to Professor Waugaman’s article, as refused publication by editor Taylor on the grounds of being “profoundly unscholarly”:

Memoria di Shakespeare-Psychol. Sh. Bio. v6.doc – Google Drive

Here’s an excerpt:

This is a small but representative sample of the reactions one encounters if one raises questions about who wrote Shakespeare. This article will bring a psychoanalytic perspective to bear on the widespread intolerance for asking reasonable questions about who Shakespeare was. Such a perspective is uniquely helpful in taking a step back from this bitter controversy, and looking for underlying disavowed psychodynamics. Psychoanalysts have, with Freud, been deeply interested in Shakespeare’s works. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, in fact, coined the word “psychoanalytical” to describe the richness of character in Shakespeare’s works. The few psychoanalysts who have closely explored Freud’s belief that Shakespeare was a pseudonym used by Edward de Vere (1550-1604) have indeed used a psychoanalytic approach–but in order to diagnose the “psychopathology” that led Freud into this supposedly embarrassing error. (more…)

  • Categories

  • Archives

In "From Crackpot to Mainstream"Keir Cutler, PhD, takes down the recent Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (OUP, 2013)

Criticism of Cutler's "Is Shakespeare Dead?": "A magnificently witty performance!" (Winnipeg Sun). "Highly entertaining and engrossing!" (EYE Weekly). "Is Shakespeare Dead? marshals startling facts into an elegant and often tenacious argument that floats on a current of delicious irony" (Montreal Gazette).