The Oxfraudian “Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare”–“Hoist with its Own Petard?”

First posted October 13, 2022. Revised slightly, October 20, 2022.

by Christina G. Waldman

The “Oxfraudians” at Oxfraud.com claim to have stated a legal “prima facie case” establishing the authorship of William Shaxpere of Stratford to the plays and poems of “William Shakespeare,” the name appearing on the title page of the First Folio of Shakespeare’s plays in 1623. They want to by-pass the procedural safeguards, the hurdles through which a legal case must pass before it is granted the status of a “prima facie case” by an impartial judge.

The Oxfraud.com page, “The Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare,” claims, “The prima facie case does not offer absolute, 100% certainty—it does establish a presumption in support of the conclusion. This conclusion admits only one hypothesis. Shakespeare of Stratford is the author. It may be overcome, but only if there is contrary factual evidence that serves to rebut the conclusion. Supposition, speculation and guesswork are not acceptable. Claiming the evidence has been suppressed or destroyed by a conspiracy is not acceptable.” So they claim.

I have tried to explain to the “legally qualified Oxfraudians” who drafted their so-called “Prima Facie Case” that it is misleading and unethical for the Oxfraud.com “legal team” to use the legal analogy, claiming for themselves all the benefits, without also disclosing all the deficiencies in their case which would be exposed if their evidence were subjected to the procedural safeguards of a court of law. https://express.adobe.com/page/oeL8Iuo40YZrU/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fexpress.adobe.com%2Fpage%2FoeL8Iuo40YZrU%2Fembed.html&embed_type=overlay&context=expand; https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html (last accessed 10-11-22).

It would be easy for non-lawyers to be misled into thinking their case was stronger than it is. (See my essay, “Reports of the Case of the Death of the Case for Francis Bacon’s Authorship of Shakespeare Have Been Greatly Exaggerated,” 8/3/22, rev. 8/8/22, pp. 19-20, SirBacon.org). Unsurprisingly, the drafters of their “PFC” webpage disagree with me (See my Oct. 4, 2022 comment, Oxfraud group Facebook page (post headed September 7, 2021, beginning “There are many cases”).

To the extent that the “Oxfraudians” have cited professor Harold Love as authority for the proposition that authorship attribution model ought to be based on a legal model, it should be remembered that Love was an English professor, not a lawyer (Harold Love (1937-2007), ch 12, “Arguing Attribution,” Attributing Authorship: An Introduction (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 209; see also ch 11, “Shakespeare and Co.,” id.). There is a difference between Love’s saying, in a discussion of the evidence for Shaxpere’s authorship, “Taken at face value this is very strong evidence indeed for Will the player’s authorship of the pays comprising the first-folio canon” (id., p. 195) and “The criteria for the acceptance of an attribution as proven have traditionally been based on legal models for the evaluation of evidence” (p. 209). Love died in 2007, so we cannot ask him to clarify. However, assuming for the sake of argument that Love’s latter statement is true: a “legal model for the evaluation of evidence” strongly suggests, does it not? the application of procedural safeguards. It does not mean a party gets to claim for itself the preferred legal status of a prima facie case.

The Latin words prima facie mean “at face value, on first appearance,” but a prima facie case, in New York legal procedure, for example, is a preferred status granted to a strong case, in an adversarial proceeding, by an impartial judge in a court with jurisdiction, with all procedural safeguards, including rules for the admission of evidence such as the rule against hearsay (which excludes out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, with exceptions). There is a well-established legal maxim, “No man can be judge in his own cause.” In reality, there is no legal case pending. Shaxpere has been dead for 400 years. He did not authorize any lawyers to make his case during his lifetime. What interests do these “legally qualified Oxfraudians” represent, then?

In my opinion, the Oxfraudian claim of a “Prima Facie Case” framed as a legal case goes too far. In fact, their legal analogy only highlights their case’s deficiencies, when one looks into the matter more closely. Reasonable minds may differ, on matters of opinion, but there are rules which ought to come into play when one invokes the legal model which cannot simply be ignored.

[Added Jan. 30, 2024: Consider what a British barrister had to say about the artificiality of imposing a burden of proof requirement in the Shakespeare authorship controversy:

It is often said or implied, by analogy with the principle that possession is nine tenths of the law, that the burden of proof is on the heretics to dethrone Shakspere if they can. This is a misconception. A “burden of proof” is an artificial concept which has no place in human thought unless it is necessary for practical reasons. In a law suit, for example, where the Court must give judgment one way or the other, the law imposes a burden of proof on one party to prevent stalemate if the evidence seems equally balanced. But in an academic dispute such as the authorship controversy one must simply weigh the evidence for each side, imposing an equal burden on each, and then deliver one of three alternative verdicts: (1) that the evidence seems equally balanced, in which case neither side can be declared the winner; (2) that one side, named, is probably right; (3) that one side, named, is right beyond reasonable doubt.

N. B. Cockburn, The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (1998, reprinted by The Francis Bacon Society in London, 2024), p. 6]

The original piece was also posted to SirBacon.org on October 13, 2022. https://sirbacon.org/the-oxfraudian-prima-facie-case-for-shakespeare-hoist-with-its-own-petard/

Last updated October 19, 2024.