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
I don’t really know what your point is here, but the compelling evidence is specifically in the fact that the verses de Vere underlined, that correspondingly appeared in Shakespeare’s plays, were obscure, making coincidence extremely unlikely. The amount of verses underlined by de Vere overall that may or may not have had an influence on his plays (if the theory were true) is basically irrelevant, unless he had underlined an absurd amount.
Josiah Garcia
>He certainly qualified as erudite for his time No he didn't. Read Bacon for an example of an actual erudite person from Shakespeare's time. No educated person should have been reading Plutarch in translation as Shakespeare obviously did. Likewise, no courtly and well travelled person would have made the blunders in Italian geography that Shakespeare did.
Brayden Reed
>biblical verses >obscure Which are the obscure bits of the Bible to someone in the 16th century?
Fun fact: Most people who give oxygen to this controversy are brainlets who want a one sentence reason to dismiss reading and engaging with Shakespeare's work (other examples: Heidegger was a nazi! Marx = Stalinist Communism! The Frankfurt School were Jewish Psychoanalytically influenced Marxists responsible for today's SJWs.)
Jace Adams
Is English your first language? How do you miss the point? 80 of 1000 underlined passages showing up in 2000 allusions doesn't seem any more than random overlap. Confirmed by the fact that you can find a similar overlap with other contemporary authors. The Faerie Queene is 1/3 the size of Shakespeare's complete works and alludes to 35 of de Vere's marked verses.
Jordan Nguyen
orson welles wrote the book, unless you mean the verse which ben jonson, shakespeare's friend & contemporary, wrote. anyway we know shakespeare cared little for posterity.
Ethan Perry
Wasn't Shakes consulted for the King James Bible (while it was being translated)?
Juan Green
Hm I see, if your numbers are correct that’s a pretty solid rebuttal, especially concerning the Fairie Queen.
Cameron Evans
What about Middleton? How does he compare against Shakes?
Alexander Cox
Completely false and literally nonsequitur. If Edward de Vere were the actual the author nobody would stop “reading and engaging with Shakespeare’s work”, how can you be so stupid as to draw think that lmao. Nobody is reading it because some dude named Shakespeare wrote it, they’re reading for its quality. The text would remain the same, only the name on it would change. You can always tell when the /pol/ brainlets leak in, there is literally no more retarded board. Please, please! stay there.
Jace Butler
I'm only hi-lighting a common pseudo-intellectual strain found at large in the population and, in case it wasn't clear already, I think it would be preferable if as many people read and engaged with Shakespeare as possible.
But you have to acknowledge that a lot of people in your camp do not have the same intentions as you.
William Bennett
>Robben Island Shakespeare >several underlined passages, all of which appear in Shakespeare >tfw Nelson Mandela was Shakespeare Checkmate Stratfordfags
>having no university education nearly always meant you probably couldn’t read or write beyond the rudimentary are you joking? look up what elizabethan grammar school was like, which we know will went to
Luis King
Point number 1 doesn’t make any sense. The education of Grammar Schools back then (as the Grammar School Shakespeare attended) was focused above all on learning Latin and Greek, memorizing long passages of poetry and hundreds of figures of speech, translating old texts and making your own version of famous passages, among other purely verbal activities. It was so demanding and language-focused that a teenager from that time would be better prepared to write poetry than most English Ivy-League graduates from today.
Also, when you know how to read and write and the press is constantly publishing new books (like in Shakespeare’s time) you can educate yourself alone.
Grayson Gutierrez
>Shakespeare wasn't very erudite. While most writers of his time pepper their work with Latin and Greek, Shakespeare hardly ever does, That doesn't mean he wasn't erudite since he knew Latin and Greek.
William Thompson
Interesting, thanks. Must be a misconception of mine.
Thomas Cooper
yeah i watched that movie too. but the most convincing argument ive seen comes from Pinecone when he posted on Yea Forums: Christopher Marlowe is the perfect example of someone living in Shakespeare’s time that was deeply involved in global conspiracy. It’s not THAT hard to believe “Shakespeare” was too; we’re just accustomed to not carig about verified conspiracies anymore.
Daniel Taylor
I don’t know how a serious reader of Shakespeare couldn’t care about the possibility of conspiracy. It puts the entire tradition of Humanism and the Western concept of the Individual/Self at stake. One must understand Oedipa Maas.
Anthony Ross
Re: Point 2, London was a world capital even in Shakespeare's day. The man walked around outside. He would've mingled with merchants from Saharan Africa, chatted with imams, caught foreign news in pubs and coffee-houses, and interacted with people from all walks of life. Shakespeare also was an actor who knew most of the Highly Educated poets/playwrights of his day. It's highly likely that someone like Ben Jonson would've given Shakespeare reading recommendations or something like that. The man didn't exist in a vacuum.
Adam Allen
I don’t entirely dismiss the possible importance of his true identity, though this seems of more interest to an historian than anyone else. Of far more intrigue I believe, is the identity of the dark lady, as at least this could significantly change the reading of those sonnets, though even that becomes something of a distraction- indulging each historians’ conspiracy theories when time could be better spent reading his works.
Jayden Nguyen
>Do big words make your brain feel small? They obviously make yours feel big
Camden Fisher
Agreed.
No matter how you call it, be it Shakespeare, Bacon, or Edward de Whatnot the fact of the matter is that whoever wrote Hamlet was a second-tier hack, inferior to Racine.
Noah Mitchell
>Nobody is reading it because some dude named Shakespeare wrote it, they’re reading for its quality You are seriously naive if you think this. The average pleb reads Shakespeare because they think it's expected of them as a person of culture that they read Shakespeare, not because they genuinely enjoy or appreciate his work.
Christopher Bennett
because that's all boring compared to the plays
Kayden Edwards
his point was it's not being read because the person who wrote it happened to be called shakespeare
Nicholas Murphy
Let's review Shakespeare never 1. attended university The education of Grammar Schools back then (as the Grammar School Shakespeare attended) was focused above all on learning Latin and Greek, memorizing long passages of poetry and hundreds of figures of speech, translating old texts and making your own version of famous passages, among other purely verbal activities. Also, when you know how to read and write and the press is constantly publishing new books (like in Shakespeare’s time) you can educate yourself alone. 2. left England London was a world capital even in Shakespeare's day. The man walked around outside. He would've mingled with merchants from Saharan Africa, chatted with imams, caught foreign news in pubs and coffee-houses, and interacted with people from all walks of life. Shakespeare also was an actor who knew most of the Highly Educated poets/playwrights of his day. It's highly likely that someone like Ben Jonson would've given Shakespeare reading recommendations or something like that. 3. marked correspondent passages in his Bible 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. 80 of 1000 underlined passages showing up in 2000 allusions doesn't seem any more than random overlap. Confirmed by the fact that you can find a similar overlap with other contemporary authors. The Faerie Queene is 1/3 the size of Shakespeare's complete works and alludes to 35 of de Vere's marked verses.
>The Frankfurt School were Jewish Psychoanalytically influenced Marxists responsible for today's SJWs.) Allow me to intereject for a moment but thats true tho
