/lit/ - Literature

>>20077386
Fuck off with this nonsense.

>>20077395
typical stratfordian response

>>20077386
It's basically a fact at this point.

>https://thetruthaboutshakespeare.com/index.php/why-edward-de-vere-was-not-shakespeare
>the person trying to deny Oxfordianism is a high ranking freemason
Color me surprised.

>>20077403
or they respond with
>HURRRR YOU CLASSIST

>>20077386
Anon, you’re not special. You’re not “in the know.” You’re a retard grasping at straws trying to be different. You’re jelly because you don’t have an ounce of Shakespeare’s talent. Get a job.
This and all the “x historical figure didn’t exist/was in fact this other guy (that coincidently has a few things in common with me)” theories are all military grade COPE.

>>20077386
>>20077462
He's not even in the conversation for people who actually know what they're talking about. There's a very serious chance that Shakespeare was Bacon. This is the only serious conspiracy on the topic. The second most likely option is that Shakespeare was simply Shakespeare. de Vere is like an alternate universe option, just a completely unserious but cute idea.

I know you saw Anonymous and that's exciting but the scholarship on the topic goes far beyond Roland Emmerich.

I'm completely sure that he was Bacon myself by the way, having looked into very, very deeply.

>>20077531
This, there was a good quote on the topic I forget who said it but it was, "If we found all of Shakespeare's plays anonymously in the street, everyone would have unanimously concluded that it was Bacon. Both Shakespeare and Bacon were so far beyond everyone else intellectually that nobody else could have made sense. But since it came with Shakespeare's name instead we go with that."
Basically Vere isn't enough of a heavy weight, and probably neither was Shakespeare

>>20077549
Yep. Even contemporaneously, one of his plays caught the Queen's wrath as treasonous and she demanded that the "real author" be found out, because whoever wrote it had depicted actual court drama that Shakespeare couldn't have known. Shakespeare fled the country with advanced knowledge of her displeasure, as if tipped off, while the Queen elected someone she trusted to find, as I say, the real author. The man she chose for the job? Francis Bacon. The real author, alas, was never found out. I'm sure Francis looked his damndest though!

>>20077522
this is my issue with stratfordian arguments. it’s the same as people who talk about Muh Conspiracy Theorist Psychology—zero attention to the argument, just this strawman of “you believe these things because you’re insecure about the world or your mom or whatever!” learn to read.

I don’t give a fuck who Shakespeare really was. Just read his plays. People who slave away to collect all the pitiful details of his life are trying to dissect and understand his genius because they want it for themselves. Then, unable to have it, they decide that controlling his genius and obsessing over it is the next best thing. It’s a fool’s errand. The world will not remember you.

>>20077642
There’s no valid argument here, you stupid motherfucker. You’re pulling shit out of your ass and deeming that the absolute truth. I’m pretty sure you haven’t read more than a couple of Shakespeare’s plays, you’re too busy trying to feel special, you absolute fag.
I sincerely hope this is bait.

>>20077711
you will get aids and your bloodline will fail

>>20077938
No, not really.

>>20077549
But Bacon was busy writing too many other works, he would have to be insanely prolific to write all the Shakespearian plays on top of that. Right? This is what I don't understand

>>20078010
in a stunning twist, it turns out shakespeare wrote all of Bacon's works and vice versa. They switched the authorship for a lark.

Science already proved he's not Oxford, nor Bacon. You fags are years behind, as always.

Homer wrote both poems, Shakespeare wrote all his plays, and the disciples wrote their gospels. Problem, retards?

Have you ever read any poetry actually attributed to de Vere? It sucks.

>>20077386
the oxford theory is put forth by the ilk of oxford, it's worthless. If WS didn't write the plays, why would seething salty faggots like Ben Jonson give him such a eulogy, why would people who knew the man uncritically accept him as having written them? The Earl also has available written work which is mostly dogshit.

>shakespeare's work has basic law knowledge, any curious person could have this
>small latine and less greeke, his french sucks too
>only surviving text from 400 years ago means nothing, most manuscripts from then are long gone
>his knowledge of italy is pathetic, someone who actually lived there would be embarrassed to have written it
>laws of satire
>pirate part is barely even there
>WS went bald early, but even w/o that feeling old and useless is a common trope for a weary lover
>commonly used not only used
>made up
>enormous amount of written work from the time is lost
>dickriders

he's a nobody faggot that doesn't solve the problem of Shakespeare - how could one person say so much of value, what upbringing could possibly produce such a man? But it's all one, he's a great artist like any other and what came easy to him evades us, nothing more.

>>20077403

>>20077386
Not literature.

>>20077531
>>There's a very serious chance that Shakespeare was Bacon
no there isn't.
William Shakespeare's plays were written by William Shakespeare, or by someone else with the same name.
>> having looked into very, very deeply
no you didn't.
>>20078177
checked and correct

>>20077386
I am but how does this help me?

>>20078134
Wow!! Thanks science! Had no idea it can even prove things that aren't falsifiable now.

>>20078469
>Nuh uh
Whoa... Great points. Retards love to suck air and give none back. It's like a magic trick that they can inhale their whole life and never exhale. Must be the reason their brains are so big.

>>20078177
>why would seething salty faggots like Ben Jonson give him such a eulogy, why would people who knew the man uncritically accept him as having written them?
Why do anti-Oxfordians basically have no knowledge of what they're against?

>>20078010
You either buy that Bacon was prolific, or that some random guy woke up one day and was just as intelligent and talented and informed on all things as Bacon, while at the same time literally rephrasing Bacon's own words and philosophy and possessing his intimate grasp of the court.
Basically for a comparable situation, imagine that one day in 1694 London discovers that a groundbreaking scientific theory has been anonymously published in Latin while the dedication is made out to Jesus Christ in a way that asserts an Arian Christian framework, everything would lead you to believe it's Newton except that there's a commoner claiming to have written it by means of divine inspiration.
While it's not perfectly analogous since literature is a little more of an inborn talent than science, it works because of the extremity of the case, Shakespeare is by the far the greatest literary talent of all time, in CONJUNCTION with knowing so many things that he shouldn't have known.
Everyone would logically conclude that it was Bacon, the people here who don't read or have two brain cells to rub together don't understand that Bacon was a literary and philosophical titan, not just random well spoken guy chosen as an alternative for no reason. It's literally because all sanity would recommend him as the only realistic choice.
In closing it's fun to note that he was high up in Masonry, and Ben Jonson, also a Mason, worshipped him. Would write him odes and so on and call him master. When they got together they would always perform the latest play Francis had scribbled for the occassion, none of which ever escaped their meetings. :)

>>20079004
excellent refutation of nu-uh with nu-uh

>>20079054
you haven't a clue, dimwit. occam's razor says WS was WS.

>>20079067
You can't refute an argument that hasn't been made dimwit. That was the whole point dimwit.
>>20079073
Dimwit pls

>>20077386
>Guy who literally no one has heard about except for the works attributed to him didn't actually write the works but some other guy who litterally no one has ever heard about.
A rose by any other name would smell as who gives a fuck?

>>20079054
>dude.. he was just like so intelligent, and like the smartest mind ever so it it's only natural that the other equally smart guy must have been him!
And don't pretend as if you're actual object evidence is any better than de Vere. Just looking in this thread de Vere's case is much better, but I also know there is way more in the favour of de Vere as well.

what do you think in regards of Crollalanza theory?

>>20077386
The simplest, most obvious, and most likely explanation for attributing the plays of William Shakespeare to William Shakespeare is that they were written by a man called William Shakespeare.

I don't understand the hoopla.
All I know about Shakespeare outside of his plays is:
>1. He was an Englishman at the time of Queen Elizabeth
>2. He acted (managed too?) the Globe Theater
>3, He was (maybe?) married to a chick called Anne Hathaway
>4. His name was William Shakespeare
Now I've never heard of this Earl fellow, but it seems to be
>1. He was an Englishman at the time of Queen Elizabeth
>2. He was married to a chick named Anne... Vavasour, not Hathaway
>(if true)3. His penname was William Shakespeare
So I knew 4 things about Shakespeare and considering the spotty historical records this is quite a feat, and if true like 2.5 of them can be said of the other Bloke

>>20079101
So wish we had eugenics

>>20077386
>shakespeare's sonnets reference being an old, dejected man as early as 1590, when he was still in his 20's and a successful young playwright
Successful for what? I thought De Vere wrote his plays.

>>20079115
>were written by a man called William Shakespeare.
I don't know if it's Anglo-Austism, but that is not the most likley explanation because we can't even be sure if that was his name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_Shakespeare%27s_name
>The standard spelling of the surname as "Shakespeare" was the most common published form in Shakespeare's lifetime, but it was not one used in his own handwritten signatures
>The signatures appear as follows:
>Willm Shakp
>William Shaksper
>Wm Shakspe
>William Shakspere
>Willm Shakspere
>By me William Shakspeare
>The writer David Kathman has tabulated the variations in the spelling of Shakespeare's name: These are followed by "Shakespear" (16); "Shakspeare" (13); "Shackspeare" (12) and "Shakspere" (8). There are also many other variations that appear in small numbers or as one-offs
Where it gets weirder is when his plays were printed, they fucking hyphenated his name! And sometimes with a 'ſ'

>>20079155
>name spelling wasn't standardized
This was so insanely common back then it makes you look like an ignorant retard.

>>20079303
Not him but I'm sure there's a difference between ""standardized" and Wml Shaky wouldn't you. Or are the implications scaring you out of intellectual integrity

>>20079303
He was probably not the only man at the time who was called some variant of 'William Shakespeare' and because name spellings weren't standardized that makes it even more difficult to determine which guy is which because you don't even have the benefit of saying:
>He spelled it with an 'e', whereas we know that the Southern WS never did
What's funny is in your desperate attempt to sound smart, you've managed show you missed the point, state something obvious, but not only that - that fact only strengthens the point you paradoxically missed: that it's harder to narrow down which person we're talking about if inconsistent spellings were common.

>>20079142
we do

>he's not a liptonian
ngmi

>>20079317
Shakespeare was clearly a cheeky kent

>>20079345
>man in the 16th century wrote his name in various ways
>"See, we can't be sure it was him!"

>>20077386
80% of the arguments brought forth by Oxfordians boil down to the fact that they dont understand that you can get informations by asking to experts without having to go to university. These idiots see that WS lifted plots from italian comedies (see The Merchant of Venice) without knowing how to read Italian, and cannot figure out that maybe Shakespeare just asked someone else to summarize to him the plot of the latest comedies from Italy. It's that simple, but they're too stupid to get it.
The remaining 20% of their arguments just boil down to a) the fact that they think that one could get an education only by going to an university (apparently spending one's entire life among erudites and great artists counts for nothing), and b) the fact that they expect far more vidence thsn it is reasonable to expect, when it comes to the life of a 17th century English playwright

They ought to be treated as unserious conspiracy theorists, like flath earthers, or double beat theorists in classical music.

>>20080130
A little off topic, but I recently fell down the double-beat rabbit hole. It seems almost compelling for a second or two, if you ignore all the actual evidence its proponents selectively leave out. I suppose it’s common sense if you’re just unable to reasonably play 16th notes at an allegro tempo (which I am unable to do, I imagine many want to imagine Bach couldn’t either.)

>>20080130
cope

>>20077386
I like the analogy to Hollywood. The plays as collaboration, likely including Bacon and de Vere and others. The sonnets?

>>20080127
Men... not man... men.
You see if two people have the same name, they are not interchangeable. I know this is startling news for you to take in, so I'll give you a few hours to take it in idiot

>>20077386
>ever-living

https://shakespeareauthorship.com/barksted.html

Also applied to other authors while still living, doesn't count

>It was common for aristocratic men to publish their works with a pseudonym or simply anonymously for it was considered a frivolous use of time to write literary things
>Shakespeare: a learned reference to Pallas Athena, or literally in English "the Spear Shaker" or "Shaker of the Spear." Athena was the goddess for poetry and wisdom.
>William: comes into English via Old Dutch Gild Helm or Golden Helmet, with which Athena is usually depicted.

If Shakespeare's works were so well-praised even while he was alive (or within living memory of him), why would they call him Shakespeare instead of Bacon/De Vere?

If it was someone else it implies that they mixed up the identification while Shakespeare was still alive but it was never corrected or questioned for several centuries, this doesn't make much sense imo

>>20082729
Peak schizo

Had to read Shakespeare in high school for exams and fuckin hell it was a chore to get through THEN you had to explain what this means or that means. It's alright tho, I like the theory that Shakespeare was a club for multiple expert poets in their day just gathering together and writing shit for fun.

>>20082758
There were literally niggas complaining that some commoner loser was getting so much praise. Schizos ITT are retarded as always.

>>20082758
>>20083237
?? How can you two actually be this retarded? The theory is that Shakespeare was GIVEN the plays to claim as his own, but were written by somebody else, not that he was simply misidentified. I really don't understand how you could have thought that was the situation, thank God I can't relate

>>20078292
>talking about an author is not literature related

Idiot

>>20077386
>>Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question#cite_note-4

>>20083328
>Wikipedia

>>20077386
Anyone seen this? It's probably not as good as Brenner adaptations but the cast is pretty good.

>>20083328
Literally none of them even address the claims.

>> The Stratfordists fight back with their own arguments in favour of Shakespeare’s authorship. Their case is more than a series of arguments – it’s a huge body of evidence. It’s pretty weighty so I will summarise it very briefly. It’s significant that nearly all Shakespeare scholars and academics believe that the author referred to as ‘Shakespeare’ was the same William Shakespeare who was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564 and who died there in 1616.

Elizabethan London had scores of playwrights and most of them came from humble backgrounds, sometimes even more humble, like Shakespeare’s friend, Ben Jonson, the son of a bricklayer. No-one suggests that someone else wrote Ben Jonson’s plays, and neither Ben Jonson nor any other of Shakespeare’s contemporaries suggested that their colleague, William Shakespeare, whom they knew well, did not write the plays performed in his name. Moreover, not only did Shakespeare’s name appear on the title pages of poems and plays but he was referred to at least twenty-three times in different documents. Also, there is substantial documentary evidence attesting to the author having been the same Shakespeare whose home was in Stratford. For example, in 1598 Frances Meares named Shakespeare as a playwright and poet in his Palladis Tamia, referring to him as one of the authors by whom the ‘English tongue is mightily enriched,’
>> the convergence of documentary evidence for Shakespeare’s authorship—title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians and official records—is the same as that for any other author of the time. No such supporting evidence exists for any other candidate, and Shakespeare’s authorship was not questioned during his lifetime or for centuries after his death.
Source: the internet.
all else is edgy cope

>>20081531
There's some sense to this. I always assumed that the plays were collaborations by the actors in the company, with WS as editor and director.

Anon, anon! I pray you, remember the porter.

What’s the point of watching Shakespeare when you already know the plot?

>>20077386
Why's there so much nonsense about Shakespeare? It's just gossiping with nothing. There isn't much information on his life and he was fairly ordinary. That's it.

>>20077386
>>the author likely had knowledge of at least English, Greek, Italian, French, Latin, and Hebrew, while the Stratford man knew at most English and Latin
Like 20% of the population knew French at the time.

I think you are underestimating people's education and what they would learn undocumented as well.

>>20077386
Hey I watched that movie too

>>20079073
>Occam's razor
invoking the ultimate midwit tool are we

>>20078144
based and checked