Recent Comments
Re: “Shakespeare exposed”
To: Michael Miner,
I think the main reason why the Earl of Oxford wrote under a pen-name was not necessarily to protect his head as it was to protect his name and station. Akin to the Pope playing the sax in jazz clubs on the weekends. The Earl of Oxford was ahead of his time in many regards, but as his father in law so often stated, dramatists were "lewd", and without a royal patron, subject to arrest for vagrancy. That's why the theaters were on church grounds (blackfriars, etc.) because the Mayor of London did not have jurisdiction, the Queen did. Otherwise, the theaters would have been shut down with much greater frequency.
Re: “Shakespeare exposed”
On another discordant note of yours, Shake-speare's depictions of commoners are primarily used as comic relief. Remember the mob in Julius Caesar, for Mark Antony's speech? They're easily swayed, and show signs of stupidity. Consider the comical names WS gives his commoners, Doll Tearsheet, Shallow, Pistol, etc. Consider the gravedigger in Hamlet, who mangles English for comic relief. The Shakespeare canon appears to be an interior view of royals and royal intrigue. It hardly shows the work of a commoner, who would naturally make light of Royal pomposity, and the ruthless caste system of Elizabethan England. Instead, WS defends it as a devout member of the peerage, whose authority is granted by God. Read what Walt Whitman said about this very subject. It is very eloquent, and spot on. Ever wonder why Falconry is used as metaphor in hundreds of instances, when the sport was reserved for royals by law. Or why precise legal terms are used so well? Oxford went to Gray's Inn. WS only litigated, sometimes over as little as a single pound. Ever wonder why WS hates money lenders and hoarders with a purple passion, when the Stratford man was both?
Re: “Shakespeare exposed”
OK, Tony, thanks for the insult, a sign of defeat in debate. I assume your requirements apply to both candidates, Will Shagsper and Edward de Vere. With that in mind, consider that not a single letter to or from the Stratford man exists outside an undelivered letter to Will asking for a 30 pound loan. Not even a rumor exists that he corresponded with a single soul. (our greatest writer, no less!) As far as HAMLET goes, did you know that the book Hamlet is holding, the one Polonius ( modeled after de Vere's father in law according to Stratfordian scholars) is asking about, was paid to be translated into English by none other than the Earl of Oxford? So we have Hamlet holding a book with the 17th Earl of Oxford's name on the title page. We have Hamlet being taken captive by pirates, which happened to de Vere. Did you know that de Vere's brother in law, Peregrine Bertie, was sent to Elsinore by the Queen, and handed out a journal to the Queen's inner circle describing details in Hamlet that could not have been known to the Stratford man? Did you know that de Vere stabbed someone to death in a fashion that mirrors his stabbing of Polonius? Did you know De Vere drove his wife to grief like Hamlet did to Ophelia? Did you know that deVere was an excellent swordsman? Did you know that De Vere suffered from being spied on by his father in law, as proved by an existing letter? Did you know that de Vere's mother married well within the customary grieving period? Compare that with anything linking a money lender from the provinces with a melancholy Prince grieving for a dead father, and disturbed over being spied upon, even by the father of the love of his life?
Re: “Shakespeare exposed”
To Tony, The title of the Sonnets, denotes the entire and complete Sonnets.
: As in he's dead. If he was alive, it would be Sonnets by William Shakespeare, now wouldn't it? And remember that in the 1590's William Shake-speare's epic poems went thru multiple printings, yet only 15 copies of the sonnets exist, denoting suppression after publication. De Vere was asking Southampton to marry into his family, and that his words would make him immortal, which came out to be true. The sonnets say the author has been disgraced, is over 40 years old, is lame,and carried the canopy for the queen, only things that de Vere qualifies for. They say that Southampton was Shaksper's patron, yet not a shred of evidence has ever linked the two. No wonder you believe the Stratford myth, as you take bold and unfounded assertions as fact. Who in their right mind would think the sonnets were mere literary exercises?
Re: “Shakespeare exposed”
This self-satisfied fool is taking a lazy approach to a most interesting subject. I can safely say he knows next to nothing about Edward de Vere. Here's my open question: If the Oxfordian position is so absurd, then kindly explain why the in-laws of Edward de Vere received the dedication to the First Folio? Is it noteworthy that the only dedicatee of Shake-speare's work, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, was tentatively engaged to 1 of de Vere's 3 daughters? It makes the "procreation sonnets" sensible. Otherwise, a commoner is telling a royal to get married, hardly what one does in 16th century England. Another major red flag about the Stratford myth is that the sonnets came out in 1609, when de Vere was dead, and had NO dedication by the author, who the publisher referred to as "the ever-living poet". I defy anyone to see a single reference to a living person being called "ever-living". The education and erudite knowledge in WS's work has mystified and intrigued people for 4 centuries. Walt Whitman and Mark Twain were both convinced that the Stratford man was a front for someone with a stellar education, which de Vere had, having been tutored by the finest minds in the realm from the age of 7. I'm sorry if these undisputed facts are "annoying".
Re: “Shakespeare exposed”
Conceiv'd out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism -personifying in unparalleled ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic caste, with its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) -only one of the "wolfish earls" so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendant and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works -works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded literature.
WALT WHITMAN who intuitively deduced it was a "wolfish earl" 30 years before the obscured and disgraced 17th Earl of Oxford was discovered to be the person behind the pen-name Shake-speare.