Shakespeare Authorship Question

I am now beginning to upload recordings of talks I have given on the website - ones entitled mp3.

The first one, my Ashland talk, is here:


Prelude – the sense in which Shakespeare expresses historicity of individual consciousness

Changes in consciousness must be discernable

I am speaking to the sceptical commonsense of an English conference of the relevance to the authorship question of the great Germanophile critic and poet Coleridge. So I must find a strategy to bring continental philosophical insights into view in down to earth ways!

The heart of it is that Coleridge articulated for the first time that Shakespeare, especially Hamlet, represents a new kind of consciousness. This new consciousness could not possibly not be manifest in various powerful ways in the life of the author. If a putative author, for whom we have evidence, lacks any capacity for such kinds of consciousness, he cannot be the author; if we have significant evidence for someone who intimately corresponds to the nature of such consciousness, they are a likely candidate for the authorship.

We need to make distinctions here. Basically, I am offering a very strong philosophical-historical argument to show that James Shapiro and his fellow travellers cannot possibly be correct, when they argue, drawing on Malone (Contested Will, 2010), that the attribution of broadly authoro-biographical significance to Shakespeare’s writing is anachronistic. My argument is based on making distinctions which Shapiro has no thought of making. It’s a quite technical argument which could by no means be used in late night chat shows! But to have a very strong philosophical basis, and foundation for our positions is not a bad thing for our confidence, and clarity. And it illuminates a great deal about where we are starting from.

Review of 'Bardgate: Shake-speare and the Royalists Who Stole the Bard' By Peter W Dickson Limited Edition Publication by Printing Arts Press, Mount Vernon, Ohio, USA. 288 pages This is the first major review post I have been tempted to place here, since James Shapiro's Contested Will [] in 2010. It is prompted by a most remarkable book.

The Muses have only conferred two Doctorates, declared George Steiner at one time, Drs Johnson and Leavis...

I certainly cannot hope that a belated Doctorate conferred (subject to minor conditions) around The Muse as Therapist
will fall into that category - yet it prompts strange reflections on how ingrained in me, in Sisyphean fashion, had become the assumption that no one could understand or receive my communication....

In Memoriam Robert Brazil, Oxfordian researcher, died 11 July 2010  A Memorial to Robert Brazil is now on the Elizabethan Authors Website at:

With my philosophy group yesterday, we were wrestling with Hegel’s concept of reason; we considered how his radically modern conception of intersubjectivity, in the Lordship/Vassalhood chapter of the Phenomenology of Spirit, actually paradoxically derives from an understanding of Feudalism, something in which Marx’s modifications of his insight share (and arguably Heidegger’s also in Being and Time, and maybe even Freud’s in Mourning and Melancholia).

Writing with my psychotherapist hat on, I do think there is an interesting sideline in the reviews of James Shapiro's 'Contested Will'. There are repeated allusions to pathology and so forth, e.g.,


Subscribe to Shakespeare Authorship Question