Michael Dudley on the Shakespeare Authorship Question and Philosophy 

Excellent discussion, definite paradigm shift underway!

terrific interview. I tried to load my public library years ago with SAQ materials. They lasted a while before being weeded out. Enjoyed this interview and will follow through with the Hegelian discussion of which I know little.

This is just wonderful! Thank you for another fantastic discussion!! ❤❤

A few things to consider. That is how everyone writes a book about Shakespeare, they make things up because no one knows anything. At least Graham Phillips (The Shakespeare Conspiracy) tried to hide Shakespeare's criminal pursuits behind a theory of him being a spy for Walsingham, which may help explain his modest rap sheet. Lets see, he spent a couple hundred pounds in Stratford for a house and land, a hundred and forty pounds for a house in London, he purchased a coat of arms for his father and shares in two theater companies. Country bumpkins did not come by that kind of money honestly back in those days. The plays up front were the loss leader while the real money was being made out back. I have far greater respect for Shakespeare's intellect considering his methods of generating money seem to have flown under the radar. So much for the gentle musings of bygone times. I would hope these observations make Oxford look all the more obvious. Good show gentlemen.

Very interesting discussion thank you. Occasionally a phrase really resonates and sums up complexity in a simple way. I felt that with your phrase “explanatory power” - perfect. It is absent for the Shakspere story and evident for (e.g.) the Oxford narrative.

I came back to the SAQ during research into Henry Hudson, about whom almost nothing is known with certainty. Neither his birth nor death dates, his training, his parentage or many other things. His life and circle of patrons overlaps with the SAQ because you have many of the same people in Hudson's life: Dr John Dee, Walter Raleigh, the monarchy, London printers, etc. One of the things I think I am seeing is that until printing presses are used to print government forms record keeping in England is completely fragmented. For example, birth records are either tied to baptismal records in individual churches or are hand written into family-owned Bibles or simply don't exist. So personal facts from the late 1500s are a kind of nebulous unless we are looking at people of wealth or stature. This means there are magnitudes more facts available for Oxford than for either Hudson or Shakspere. I was a Lit major, not a History major so the debate around the SAQ plays more to my strengths but my primary attraction has been that the debate is much more lively than those around English navigation of the 1600s. As Mr. Dudley points out, there is a strong sense of personal investment and identification for academics involved in the SAQ or Shakespeare biogra-fiction. The cloud sitting on Henry Hudson, in contrast, has more to do with nationalism and patriotism. For example the most common distortion about Hudson is the assertion that he "was Dutch" -- a lie created by lawyer Adrian van der Donck. I first heard about the SAQ in the 1980s during a graduate course on Twain/Clemens. One student presented on "Is Shakespeare Dead?" and the Prof told us in advance that 'Nothing about that book will be part of the test or your grade.' Also that 'You need not attend that session if you choose not to.' THAT dynamic got me very curious but had more to do with the politics of academia than with literary analysis. More recently I am fascinated again with the interpersonal dynamics and how they cloud scholarship but after a couple years of SAQ research I have shifted toward a post-Oxfordian view. I think Henslowe's Diary and the Shakespeare apocrypha (eg. the works of MANY authors that were published under the name Shakespeare) have to be part of any coherent theory on the authorship. It isn't just that Stratford's life is at odds with the facts but also that all of the single-author theories are flawed. To substitute Oxford for Stratford is appealing because he is a better fit, better documented and highly skilled but if the debate is framed as "Who is the single author of the works published under the name William Shakespeare?" then neither side can win because the frame is invalid.

Your comment about holding your beliefs lightly resonated with me as I have always said that fervency of belief is inversely proportional to voracity of belief. I would rephrase your statement that there is little to know about Shaksper of Stratford. In fact there are about 70 contemporary documents that personally refer to him (per Diana Price). This is a particularly high number for a gentleman of his stature, and it is the fact that none of these documents suggest that he was a writer that moved me from being agnostic to feeling that this guy was just not a viable candidate for authorship. But I understand the point you are making, and appreciate your perspective due to the personal attacks I almost always experience if I suggest I have doubts about the authorship. Thank you for this deep dive into the meta, and especially thank you for your efforts to give the authorship question some academic viability!

Deciphering Shakespeare's Enigma: Uncovering the Secrets of the Shakespearean Literary Legacy. Delving into the question of Shakespeare's true identity sparks a captivating journey through the annals of literature. Was Shakespeare a mere pseudonym, concealing a different mastermind behind the iconic works? Unraveling the enigma of secret codes embedded in Shakespeare's poems opens a portal to a world of intrigue and speculation. Is Shakespeare the true author of the works attributed to him, or is 'Shakespeare' merely a pseudonym? Does the mystery involve secret codes and interactions with authorities? Who is the real mind behind Shakespeare's creations? Are we driven to unveil the shadows of his life or to confirm if he wrote under an assumed name? Whether Edward De Vere, Francis Bacon, or William Shakespeare is a pen name, the renowned English poet, playwright, and actor stands as a paramount figure in the history of the English language. Widely acclaimed as 'the world's pre-eminent dramatist,' his enduring legacy includes masterpieces like Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, Julius Caesar, King Lear, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. These works, spanning comedic and political theater, have captivated audiences for over four centuries, and his influence continues to shape contemporary society. In our quest to understand the man behind the quill, we grapple with centuries-old mysteries, hoping to shed light on the shadowy aspects of William Shakespeare's life. His enduring influence continues to shape contemporary society, making the pursuit of truth a fascinating exploration into the heart of literary history.

22:00 the problem is that Baconian, Marlowvian, Pembrokian, Nevellians, etc all have some explanatory power (nor are all the Oxford points air tight), therefore “Group Theory” seems to be the most encapsulating theory I’ve seen thus far. And I think this statement is also a bit ironic, as I’ve seen Oxfordians choose belief over logic/facts in my own comment section. Stritmatter even went so far as to insinuate we were being funded by the Stratford Foundation or something outlandish for daring to question Oxfordian narrative (see Oxford Friend or Foe video) Yes, the two modest(ly broke)Texan boys receiving that sweet sweet Stratford funding 😂