Very Strange.....Prof. Delahoyle is known as the West Coast Oxfordian.  And here he is putting an edition of Antony and Cleopatra  (maybe HE things there should be an "h" there, but nobody else does....well, nobody else things de Vere wrote the plays.)  as written by William Shakespeare.  (And NO hyphen....what's going on here?)  Has Delahoyle reversed his course, or is he simply a humongous hypocrite?

Maybe h e can tell us how this play was entered in the Stationer's Register by the publisher, Ed. Blunt, out in May 1608 and de Vere died in 1604.  This play was NOT played before an "Elizabethan milieu."  Any professor should know that Elizabeth was dead in March 1603, even before de Vere.  James was the King when A&C came out.  It was a Jacobean play, not an Elizabethan.  It was certainly not a court play, although it might have played at court.  It was much more a theater like the Globe play.

If anyone is REALLY interested in the best edition of A&C, try that of The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare edition.....Wilson compares the play with the play translated by Lady Pemroke, and looks for similar passages that Shakespeare might have used.  This is how scholars work....

Oxford couldn't write plays like this...he wrote comedies for his boy troupe.  This play makes great use of the stage and is in very short scenes.  We know nothing about Oxford that attaches him closely to the theater.  Shakespeare wrote this.  Don't be fooled.

NOTE:  This "h" thing...where does it come from:  Shakespeare took much of the play from Plutarch, who did not use an "h".  And how about "Julius Caesar"?  Should Antony's name have an 'h" there also?  Shakespeare took it from another book "M. Antonie"by a Frenchman, which was translated by Lady Pembroke.  Where does Delahoyle get the idea that Shakespeare wanted an "h"???

In fact on May 20, 1608, it WAS entered in the Stationer's Register along with "Pericles", as "A booke Called Anthony. and Cleopater"  (Yes, CleopatER) by Edward Blount, publisher. But it was never printed into a quarto. Where the "h" came from we don't know.  Shakespeare?  A misprint?  Shakespeare had seen man works on Antony, all spelled that way.  It would be very unclear, unusual for HIM to put an "h" there when nobody else did.  Certainly it is not known if it was his intention.  Shakespeare's bad spellings are famous.  This same play appears in the First Folio by Willliam Shakespeare and is spelled "Antony".  So I don't see any problem here. No other person spelled it with an "h".

In the First Folio, it is still spelled with an "h" and Cleo as "Cleopater" which some nuts will say means it was written by de vERe. Since the First Folio came out after Shakespeare died, he could not edit it.  Who knows what he would do with the "h"?  'H's were strange letters.  Henry the Fift, Henry the Sixt, Henry the Eight.  The title on the play is "Anthonie".  The speech prefixes are sometimes "Ant." and sometimes "Anth." at times changing in the same column.  Inconsistency prevails throughout.  To claim that this is the way Shakespeare inrtended it to be spelled is on extremely shaky ground.

So did Shakespere write this and every other play under his name, or did the Earl of Oxford?  It's certainly impossible to tell from this book.  It is a mass, a mess, of confusion.

The authorship question is covered, of course, by an Earl (of course) Showerman), although Shakespeare's name is put on the cover.  These guys are not stupid enough to put Oxford's name there. But it does seem quite hypocritical, doesn't it?  These guys are telling us that Shakespeare did not write any of the plays, but the Ear of Oxford did, but they are too chicken to put Oxford's name there.  Or are they thinking about their jobs as professor's?

The authorship question contains the usual anti-Strat nonsense that is seen on Amazon all over the place..  No evidence of education for Will and for every other boy in Stratford.  Which of course means that there is a 50/50 chance, AT LEAST, that he went.  If you know anything about John Shakespeare, Will's father, the chances of him going go up greatly.  A prominent member of the community, a social climber, Will his first son,  the mayor for a few years, land holder, Married to Mary Arden of the famous Arden family HIS father's employer.  He may have been illiterate. He grew up in Snitterfield, 3 miles away, which did not have a school.  Mary Arden may have been literate.  It becomes totally incomprehensible that he would not send William to school.  It takes thinking and knowledge which the author of the essay obviously does not have.

I'm not going to go through all the other points, which have been demolished by myself and others on Amazon many times. Children illiterate (they were girls....who didn't attend school then....anachronistic thinking, the curse of anti-Strat Oxies.  No connection to plays, poems, publish, or theater.  All these charges are demonstrably false for anybody who wants to look into the matter.

The list of "doubters" has to be edited.  Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Dickens, Orson Wells, and James Joyce as well as others were NOT doubers and their names have been removed from the website of Dec. of Reasonable Doubt.  Of course, this is a silly list.  Any intelligent person could make a list  at least 100 times as long with persons who credit the Bard with the works that have his name on them.

Anybody who knows anything about Shakespeare, the Elizabethan era, and the theater of London at that time, knows that there exists a large amount of evidence that the Gent from Stratford wrote the plays. And that there is not one iota of objective evidence that Eddie de Vere have anything to do with the plays, in fact many contradiction and contra indications, like his death in 1604, the fact that we have no evidence that he was close to the theater in the 1590's (he was much more interested in tin mines...."tin" a word that does not occur once in any of the plays.)  There is not evidence that he could write a tragedy or drama, as Meres credits him with comedies only, and lists Shakespeare as a write of both comedies and drams (notice how he makes a difference between the two persons?

The idea that Oxford wrote the plays is one of the most ridiculous, preposterous notions I've heard in a long time.  But followers of him like to lift him up to godlike status....tho they despise those who do the same to Shakespeare.  De Vere a god?  Here is a guy who accuses h is wife of adultery, leaves her with 3 kids to go to the continent, does not go to her funeral, impregnates a lady in waiting, then leaves her, spends time in the Tower of London because of it, and because of it is kicked out of Elizabeth's court.  When the heck did he find time to write plays and spend his life in the theater?

Shakespeare stayed with the same troupe for more than 20 years, unusual for back then, as an actor, writer, director or plays of h is and other people's, owner of shares in the theater, and reader of books and scripts of others.  There is plenty of evidence that this is so.  You just have to know how to find it.....
Very Strange.... . Prof. Delahoyle is known as the West Coast Oxfordian. And here he is putting an edition of Antony and Cleopatra  (maybe HE things there should be an "h" there, but nobody else does.... well, nobody else things de Vere wrote the plays. )  as written by William Shakespeare. (And NO hyphen.... what's going on here? )  Has Delahoyle reversed his course, or is he simply a humongous hypocrite? Maybe h e can tell us how this play was entered in the Stationer's Register by the publisher, Ed. Blunt, out in May 1608 and de Vere died in 1604. This play was NOT played before an "Elizabethan milieu. "  Any professor should know that Elizabeth was dead in March 1603, even before de Vere. James was the King when A&C came out. It was a Jacobean play, not an Elizabethan. It was certainly not a court play, although it might have played at court. It was much more a theater like the Globe play. If anyone is REALLY interested in the best edition of A&C, try that of The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare edition.... . Wilson compares the play with the play translated by Lady Pemroke, and looks for similar passages that Shakespeare might have used. This is how scholars work.... Oxford couldn't write plays like this... he wrote comedies for his boy troupe. This play makes great use of the stage and is in very short scenes. We know nothing about Oxford that attaches him closely to the theater. Shakespeare wrote this. Don't be fooled. NOTE:  This "h" thing... where does it come from:  Shakespeare took much of the play from Plutarch, who did not use an "h". And how about "Julius Caesar"? Should Antony's name have an 'h" there also? Shakespeare took it from another book "M. Antonie"by a Frenchman, which was translated by Lady Pembroke. Where does Delahoyle get the idea that Shakespeare wanted an "h"??? In fact on May 20, 1608, it WAS entered in the Stationer's Register along with "Pericles", as "A booke Called Anthony. and Cleopater"  (Yes, CleopatER) by Edward Blount, publisher. But it was never printed into a quarto. Where the "h" came from we don't know. Shakespeare? A misprint? Shakespeare had seen man works on Antony, all spelled that way. It would be very unclear, unusual for HIM to put an "h" there when nobody else did. Certainly it is not known if it was his intention. Shakespeare's bad spellings are famous. This same play appears in the First Folio by Willliam Shakespeare and is spelled "Antony". So I don't see any problem here. No other person spelled it with an "h". In the First Folio, it is still spelled with an "h" and Cleo as "Cleopater" which some nuts will say means it was written by de vERe. Since the First Folio came out after Shakespeare died, he could not edit it. Who knows what he would do with the "h"? 'H's were strange letters. Henry the Fift, Henry the Sixt, Henry the Eight. The title on the play is "Anthonie". The speech prefixes are sometimes "Ant. " and sometimes "Anth. " at times changing in the same column. Inconsistency prevails throughout. To claim that this is the way Shakespeare inrtended it to be spelled is on extremely shaky ground. So did Shakespere write this and every other play under his name, or did the Earl of Oxford? It's certainly impossible to tell from this book. It is a mass, a mess, of confusion. The authorship question is covered, of course, by an Earl (of course) Showerman), although Shakespeare's name is put on the cover. These guys are not stupid enough to put Oxford's name there. But it does seem quite hypocritical, doesn't it? These guys are telling us that Shakespeare did not write any of the plays, but the Ear of Oxford did, but they are too chicken to put Oxford's name there. Or are they thinking about their jobs as professor's? The authorship question contains the usual anti-Strat nonsense that is seen on Amazon all over the place.. No evidence of education for Will and for every other boy in Stratford. Which of course means that there is a 50/50 chance, AT LEAST, that he went. If you know anything about John Shakespeare, Will's father, the chances of him going go up greatly. A prominent member of the community, a social climber, Will his first son,  the mayor for a few years, land holder, Married to Mary Arden of the famous Arden family HIS father's employer. He may have been illiterate. He grew up in Snitterfield, 3 miles away, which did not have a school. Mary Arden may have been literate. It becomes totally incomprehensible that he would not send William to school. It takes thinking and knowledge which the author of the essay obviously does not have. I'm not going to go through all the other points, which have been demolished by myself and others on Amazon many times. Children illiterate (they were girls.... who didn't attend school then.... anachronistic thinking, the curse of anti-Strat Oxies. No connection to plays, poems, publish, or theater. All these charges are demonstrably false for anybody who wants to look into the matter. The list of "doubters" has to be edited. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Dickens, Orson Wells, and James Joyce as well as others were NOT doubers and their names have been removed from the website of Dec. of Reasonable Doubt. Of course, this is a silly list. Any intelligent person could make a list  at least 100 times as long with persons who credit the Bard with the works that have his name on them. Anybody who knows anything about Shakespeare, the Elizabethan era, and the theater of London at that time, knows that there exists a large amount of evidence that the Gent from Stratford wrote the plays. And that there is not one iota of objective evidence that Eddie de Vere have anything to do with the plays, in fact many contradiction and contra indications, like his death in 1604, the fact that we have no evidence that he was close to the theater in the 1590's (he was much more interested in tin mines.... "tin" a word that does not occur once in any of the plays. )  There is not evidence that he could write a tragedy or drama, as Meres credits him with comedies only, and lists Shakespeare as a write of both comedies and drams (notice how he makes a difference between the two persons? The idea that Oxford wrote the plays is one of the most ridiculous, preposterous notions I've heard in a long time. But followers of him like to lift him up to godlike status.... tho they despise those who do the same to Shakespeare. De Vere a god? Here is a guy who accuses h is wife of adultery, leaves her with 3 kids to go to the continent, does not go to her funeral, impregnates a lady in waiting, then leaves her, spends time in the Tower of London because of it, and because of it is kicked out of Elizabeth's court. When the heck did he find time to write plays and spend his life in the theater? Shakespeare stayed with the same troupe for more than 20 years, unusual for back then, as an actor, writer, director or plays of h is and other people's, owner of shares in the theater, and reader of books and scripts of others. There is plenty of evidence that this is so. You just have to know how to find it.... .