Let’s review. “Shakespeare” never 1. attended university which would have been a much bigger deal back then than now, for reasons which I shouldn’t have to elucidate, but will anyway, such is my magnanimity: back then, having no university education nearly always meant you probably couldn’t read or write beyond the rudimentary, and almost certainly knew very little of anything. Nowadays, of course, it’s possible to educate yourself even more efficiently than you might do at university, with the foundation of elementary-high school being superior to universities of those days, and all the resources with which to build therefrom. But of course “Shakespeare” is one of the greatest writers of all time, and erudite. In the words of GM Ben Finegold, highly suspicious! 2. left England And yet his plays are often drawn from foreign sources. In fact, one of the appeals of Shakespeare in his day was essentially the “adaption” of popular foreign plays into the English language (prodigiously, of course) and milieu. 3. marked correspondent passages in his Bible And yet Edward de Vere’s Bible is littered with underlinings that are used in Shakespeare; and not popular verses, but relatively obscure phrases that are unlikely to have stuck out so consistently and coincidentally to “Shakespeare” as well. (youtu.be/HFc7vBKIHBM)
How do these three facts make us feel concerning Shakespeare’s authorship?
I don’t care who wrote the plays. The concept of Shakespeare will suffice- I don’t need to be certain of who the playwright of Hamlet or Lear was to appreciate the plays.
Tyler Jones
I agree with you to an extent, but I think credit should be given where it’s due—wherever it’s due, including if it’s to Shakespeare (I’m not frothingly Oxfordian, people like that are weird). It’s not like de Vere wouldn’t have liked the credit, he was just prohibited by his position. If the theory is true he’s earned it. And of course it’s just better to know the truth.
Angel Cruz
Shakespeare wasn't very erudite. While most writers of his time pepper their work with Latin and Greek, Shakespeare hardly ever does, and unlike other contemporary writers uses plenty of provincial colloquialisms. He quotes translations of classical texts rather than the texts themselves. His geography is riddled with mistakes.
Owen Watson
He certainly qualified as erudite for his time, but even were I to concede you that point, there are those other, much more compelling points against him.
Isaiah Adams
because he recognized it as a pretentious and self serving practice quite early on. early plays like titus are full of classical references, and loves labours is full of all sorts of little "im so smart" references but he made the decision to write for audiences rather than to write plays to show how clever he was (romeo and juliet is the starting point of this).
Elijah Morales
just read any marlowe play for example, pretentious shittery filled with references to his own learning. quite a clear difference in the fundamental motivations for playwrighting between him and shakespeare
Fuck whoever I wrote that, if I want to know the true identity of Shakespeare, even if it’s Shakespeare, I will. This sanctimonious pontificating about LOOK NOT TO THE AUTHOR’S FACE, BUT RATHER, I PRAY, HIS WORK is just gay. We can look at both.
Ian Murphy
There are roughly 1000 verses marked in the de Vere Bible, and Shakespeare alluded to at least 2000 Bible verses in his works. Roughly 80 of the marked verses have parallels to Shakespeare. This means that only about 10% of Shakespeare's Biblical allusions are marked in the Bible, and only about 20 percent of the verses marked in the Bible are alluded to in Shakespeare
