Mark Anderson (2) (1967–)

Well I've now waded through the 1165 pages of this book and think that I've probably wasted a significant portion of my remaining life. Basically, it's one big conspiracy theory. Yes it may be right ...that the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere was the actual author of the Shakespearian plays.I realised as I got more into the book that there is a whole society called the Oxfordians, dedicated to claiming or proving that de Vere was the author and not William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. So yes, they have amassed a huge amount of "circumstantial " evidence that suggests that de Vere COULD have written the Shakespearian plays and sonnets. But, as is confessed: 'There is no single “smoking gun” document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc. Instead, one builds the case upon a series of facts and observations that, when put together like pieces of a puzzle, produce an overall picture that becomes difficult to deny'.
But the whole edifice relies on an argument along the line: Shakespear's plays (or sonnets) describe X and these incidents Y of de Vere's life would seem to match with X. Or, in most cases, it is just suppositions..".One can readily envision how, as this aristocratico inglese settled into his new hometown, he also began attending plays that would be meting out ideas, plots, characters, and inspiration for the rest of his life..........It is unknowable what plays de Vere saw in Venice, when the commedia literally spilled out into the streets and piazzas". So on the basis of assumptions about plays that de Vere MIGHT have seen in italy, Anderson draws some pretty fantastic conclusions. It's much the same right through, with Anderson surmising that de Vere "would have" or "probably saw" or "It's likely that" etc. etc. Maybe it was the case but there is no evidence there to prove this.
And where did all this conspiracy theory start. Well the basic assumption appears to be that a country boy like Will Shakespeare....although he undoubtedly was a player in a troupe that played in the Globe Theatre....was just not educated or smart enough to have written the works attributed to him. And therefore, someone else must have written them. At that point the theorists start casting around for people around at the same time who might, conceivably, have had the skills and education to be the author ...and a favourite suspect is Edward de Vere.
I described what I was reading to a friend and her attitude was "Who cares whether he did or didn't write the works?" The important thing is that we have the plays and sonnets and it's then text that is important now....not who wrote them. I find myself half agreeing with her but there does appear to be evidence that Will Shakespeare did exist; that he was from Stratford on Avon (he left a will), that he was a player in a troupe that played Shakespearian plays, that the plays were collected and published as his works in about 1620, and there are records of him having a wonderful wit. So, no hard evidence with a play written and signed by him....but still a lot of positive indicators.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that Shakespeare build on pre-existing stories or plays for example "The queen’s account books list the title of Westcote’s masque as The History of Titus and Gisippus, an ancient story of friendship. It is also known to be one of two principal source texts for Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen of Verona". So, if you are re-working existing stories you don't have to be especially inventive. And having written a play myself and had it produced, I'm well aware that the text is liable to be constantly amended and teased...sometimes to suit current events and sometimes to suit the particular actors and sometimes ....just because it works better. So a play script is likely to be continually evolving. And, it appears, that this is what happened with Shakespeare with the various printings claiming authenticity to the original words. Anderson, in fact, makes something of this claim about de Verde, viz: "It is the contention of this book that de Vere wrote some of these “lost” courtly interludes. Then, during the 1590s and early 1600s, he—probably with the assistance and input of others in his immediate circle of family, secretaries, and friends—rewrote these plays for the public stage". (Note the insertion of the word "probably").
The bottom line is that, whilst Anderson weaves a reasonable case that Edward de Vere had lots of experiences and close encounters that have similarities to various scenes in Shakespeare's works ....... and de Verde lived at the same time as Shakespeare....though he apparently died after a considerable illness in 1604.,.....whilst Shakespeare's plays were still being produced much later and he (Shakespeare) apparently died well after 1604. (Though this is disputed by Anderson).....there is just not enough hard evidence to prove the case. Or to disprove that Will Shakespeare, of Stratford on Avon was the author.
I do have to acknowledge Anderson's extensive research and prodigious imagination in being able to match so many twists and turns of de Vere's life with the Shakespearian canon. However, one could probably do much the same with Prince Charles.
Yes, one has to ask why did Shakespeare have no books of manuscripts of plays etc in his will when he lists his "Second best bed"? That certainly seems odd. But maybe he had access to other people's libraries ...especially when wealthy people ran their own troupes of players. ...Anyway, I'm not going to be able to resolve the issue about Shakespeare's true identity here. I give the book four stars on the grounds that Anderson makes a very thorough case ....even if his conclusions and assumptions might be a bit suspect.… (más)

This book completely changed the way I thought about and perceived Shakespeare. I can no longer sit in English or Literature classes and think about Shakespeare the way my fellow classmates do. The depth of this argument is absolutely astounding and while I would like to believe in the romantic idea that a boy from Stratford-Upon-Avon could have written the amazing anthology of plays and poems, the evidence is too overwhelming. I can't argue it. The time and research put into this book is incredible. A very interesting, controversial read.… (más)

On Jun 5 2012 I had the opportunity to witness one the rarest of astronomical events, the transit of Venus across the sun. This event only occurs twice each century eight years apart. The Venus transit will not occur again for another 108 years! Fortunately for me I witnessed the transit from a field only a few miles away at the University of South Carolina – Aiken. However, I did share one aspect with 18th century astronomers – the fickle nature of cloud cover!

The early purpose of accurately measuring the Venus transit was to derive the distance between the earth and the sun. The transit uses the optical effect of parallax and some heavenly geometry. This distance is known as the Astronomical Unit and is the measure of relative distance for the entire solar system. Thus, knowing the AU accurately means unlocking distances to all the planets! However, even today, the Venus transit is helping us develop techniques necessary for exoplanet discovery.

In his book The Day the World Discovered the Sun Mark Anderson takes us on mankind’s first big science project of a global scale. This is the journey of three international teams to view the Venus transit in 1769 from the wilds of northern Norway, Baja Mexico and Tahiti. Maximum distance between observing points increasing the measurement accuracy. Anderson does an excellent job of portraying the hardships these teams faced including long sea voyages, waring European nations and disease that claim many of the team members. Despite all of the hardships, elementary navigation (clock-based longitude determination is decades away from common usage) and simple instruments; these teams achieved an accuracy of 99.8 percent the earth – sun distance (1 AU).… (más)