DISPENSING WITH CHALLENGES TO THE PROPOSITION
THAT THOMAS NASHE IS A PEN NAME
To my OV friends,
It has been wonderful to engage with thoughtful Oxfordians who see the value of our new paradigm, which goes beyond identifying Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as Shakespeare and aims to determine everything he wrote from age ten to his death in 1604.
Earning my infinite gratitude, a group of supporters created the Oxford’s Allonyms group on Facebook, where courteous discussion, debate and contributions are welcome. Join them!
Positive responses to my case that Thomas Nashe is a pen name of the Earl of Oxford have been gratifying to read and hear. They all come from people who have read Oxford’s Voices.
Negative reactions to merely hearing about the idea have ranged from offhand dismissal to staggering apoplexy: Lizbeth, I’m comin’ to join you, honey!
Critics who attacked my thesis in print include the following four (posing as five) shadowy people:
An online writer hiding behind a pen name.
A well-known Oxfordian pretending to be a graduate student.
Three anonymous people, one of whom is also the fake graduate student.
It is amusing that all these people use anonymity and/or a pen name to assert that Thomas Nashe is not a pen name.
My aim is not to convince such critics of anything. They obviously have agendas.
The goal here is to show fans of Oxford’s Voices and as well as open-minded skeptics that yes, we are still right. Challenges that initially sound weighty dissolve when examined. Typically, objections lead to observations that make our case even stronger.
I remain confident that no challenge to the thesis can succeed. The three replies accessible at the links below should suffice to demonstrate that point.
Below are links to my replies. The first two are short, the third longer. I hope you will be as entertained as informed.
Reply to “Ned Vere” (5 pages)
Reply to “Craig Alexander” (5 pages)
Reply to Three Anonymous Critics (39 pages)
A Note on Future Protestations
Critics can toss out objections in a flash, whereas it takes time to disprove them. Our first critic took about two minutes to write, in essence, “Pamphlet X proves Nashe is not Oxford.” It took me two days to show why that statement is false. It will take you 15 minutes to read it.
Another critic said from a podium, “We know Nashe is real because he got arrested.” Nashe never got arrested. To demonstrate that fact takes careful analysis of the evidence, as presented in the Nashe chapter of Oxford’s Voices.
I have responded in detail to every one of these critics’ claims to demonstrate how reliably my thesis paves the way for rebuttals. I am not, however, critics’ puppet laborer to be put to task every time they say something smug and wrong. Any future purported refutations will be ignored or, if necessary, covered with an additional line or two within the Thomas Nashe chapter of Oxford’s Voices. To grasp the power of the case, read the book. It’s all there.