I saw this conspiracy theory about Shakespeare on IQfy. Any truth to it?
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
I saw this conspiracy theory about Shakespeare on?
I saw this conspiracy theory about Shakespeare on IQfy. Any truth to it?
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
>anime pfp
into the trash
Autistic people were never funny, and damn twitter for making them think so.
The Duke of orange used to be the go to for conspiracies about Shakespeare authorship, as well as Marlowe or something like that. I'm not sure what they base this stuff on.
It is clear Bacon, De Vere, and Marlowe worked together. Shakespeare "shake spear" was a collective team of people.
De Vere was a courtier and a mediocre poet (some of his shit survived and is stylistically distant from the Bard), he was not Shakespeare. Keep posting your moronic little diagrams. Pareidolia much, homosexual? Nice way of spending your last days.
Longstanding debate, not 'conspiracy'. There are any number of sussy ciphers present in the first folios and an all encompassing nescience regarding the importance and ubiquity of 'occult' in Western arts and letters of the day is to blame.
>t. no gods no masters
>"shake spear"
it's ''shake pear'', ie homophone of ''s'hake peer''
ie the peers of hake, ie this guy and his relative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hake?useskin=vector
Mega cringe.
These folios are obviously littered with ciphers and gematria and they point to de Vere. But why would he need or want to hide his identity? Is Shakespeare the Satoshi Nakamoto of 17th century England? Is it all for the sake of art or to create a more noble mythos? Are Freemasons just having a lark at our expense? Was it a letterless grain merchant all along?
De Vere hated Italy. Shakespeare, who never went there, loved it and was fascinated by it. Obviously different people, except for schizos.
This is the worst lie of all, the all encapsulating "there is zero evidence".
There are hundreds of links between Hamlet and de Vere's life. It was core to J.T.Looney identifying this a century ago.
We have catalogues of stuff such as de Vere staying in a house in Milan that held only one of two copies that you need quotable access to.
The "he doesnt know Italy" argument is just asking for Waugh to give you two, one hour lectures on why that's just complete crap.
We have De Vere's own bible, held at the Folger library, full of quotes underlined and the Folger making out we can't do handwriting tests on underlining. It is incontestably De Vere's, it has incontestably been in the hands of someone who either was obsessed with shakespeare or was shakespeare.
The evidence doesnt go away, it keeps piling up. It has done for a century and since the start of this century and the interweb it has reached another level, some wrong admittedly.
There have been at the same intensive efforts by Stratfordians to find the handwriting, find a letter from somebody talking about him, anything. Evidence of him hanging around Oxford, sommat, anything. So far we have a tiny embroidered initial that Michael Wood extrapolates to Elizabeth Arden reading Shoikspayer Greek classics. It's so insane, is all of History and English like this ?.
(De Vere would himself, or at the very least his friend and tutor, actually translate Ovid, something the entire work seems to reflect.)
The cryptography, blatant though it is, is systematically dismissed. Not because it isn't searingly obvious. What I have on the Sonnets title page is undeniable. But because it's the wrong answer. Having all that stuff all in the same place, all massively appropriate to Hemetecism and ending up stating
BY GOD AND DE VERE
which it then proceeds to do on the dedication page with astonish eloquence.
If I'd draw Anne Hathaway in a second best bed we'd all be delighted wouldn't we.
For the record, in Brannaghs quite bizarre film he uses the second best bed as a central plot device. There is indeed an addendum to the will, it has the only reference to his wife and awards her "the *second* best bed". There was a Jacobethan family court and she'd have been entitled to 1/3 if she had not been listed. So she's been slapped in so he only has to give her a bed, and not even the big one.
Even the film itself concedes there were issues within the marriage. Brannagh makes out it identifies his wife as second among equals. It's just whacky bullshit as is his borderline tasteless stuff with Hamnet.
If this was anything else we would not be having this fight. De Vere employed just about anyone ever associated with the authorship question. He paid for and lent money for most of the theatres in blackfriars and then the move outside of the city. He is totally central to the real story, which is hardly surprising.
Absolute cope. Are you ESL btw, because this is terribly written.
>never went there
>wrote with great detail about it
Sounds legit.
The Elizibethan era is the literal "golden age" of pseudonyms thats why.
Ask Logo about it, he's a De Verean. It's not completely batshit, the meme about Shakespeare not being able to write his own name is true if we take his signatures, his only existant works by his own hand, as evidence: each example is misspelt differently.
https://twitter.com/Logo_Daedalus
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/justice-stevens-dissenting-shakespeare-theory
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/
>But why would he need or want to hide his identity?
Simply to evade defamation law suits and creditors, which were very common in the period and could land you in a debtors prison. Using a strawman as a legal identity was like somebody using a limited liability company today, a way of placing legal and financial responsibilites at arms length from the actual person.
>Mispelled
Spelling wasn't consistent. The wikipedia page debunking this gives Spencer as an example, look at his signatures. Spelling wss completely inconsistent in Middle English, Chaucer and the Pearl Poet spelled the same word differently in the same line. By the time of the printing press spelling had become more consistent but spelling was still not standardized, look at Golding's Ovid. And Shakespeare wasn't particularly well educated.
>Defamation
Why would De Vere publish his sonnets under Shakespeares name. He already published his own poetry and had a reputation, why would he hide the fact that he wrote the sonnets? And Shakespeare wrote the Henriad in part as Tudor propaganda, if he was incognito why would he strive to stay on the good side of the monarchs? He changed his politics with King James, why suck up if you were incognito?
And a third of the plays came out after De Veres death. The theory is moronic.
Imagine believing someone would write Hamlet, King Lear, or any other fricking play of his and think, 'I'm going to sign this masterpiece with someone else's name.'
Anyone who falls for this kind of silly shit wants to be smarter than the rest. It's the type of person desperately to be in the joke, any joke, and it doesn't matter if it's nonsense.
>Imagine believing someone would write Hamlet, King Lear, or any other fricking play of his and think, 'I'm going to sign this masterpiece with someone else's name.'
It actually makes sense if you buy into the rosicrucian argument that these are political works meant to usher in a new era enlightenment, away from religious, and monarch rule.
The plays mostly ignore abrahamic religion for one.
You see how the freemasons are they are all over Shakespeare with all them occult symbols.
That’s the thing, anon: these “arguments” make no sense unless you desperately want to be the smart guy who realized a hidden secret (that doesn’t exist).
Shakespeare was a raunchy dude with an extraordinary pen. There’s no conspiracy. Life is dull like that.
This. It's the same reason why virtually every "The CIA did X!" and "The government has X!" conspiracy theory falls apart. All it takes is one guy to blow the whistle, or in this case take credit for the work.
No this is different, this kind of conspiracy gets a pass because it puts down and destroys a beloved part of western culture and tradition.
I haven't read all of Shakespeare's plays, but aren't they mostly pro-monarchy? Sure, there are a few evil kings, but the institution itself is never viewed as evil. In fact, much of his works advocate for the idea of a legitimate monarchy.
The most common archetypes in Shakespeare is that of a pious king who listens to God, and the opposite, a wicked, almost atheistic king.
Saying Shakespeare was an attempt to move Europe away from religious and monarchical rule seems just wrong
>but aren't they mostly pro-monarchy?
yes, extremely so
>Anyone who falls for this kind of silly shit wants to be smarter than the rest. It's the type of person desperately to be in the joke, any joke, and it doesn't matter if it's nonsense.
surely you could make your argument without speculating upon the presumed social inadequacies of your opponents.
Shakespeare conspiracies are pretty dumb. They all boil down to:
>Shakespeare was too smart.
>We don't know what he looks like.
>His grave is hella sus.
Because of these three key reasons people have speculated all sorts of ridiculous shit about who Shakespeare really was or if he was a group of people. But these three key points are non-arguments.
its all true
shakespeare was a black woman.
>shakespeare was a collection of proto-freemasons
Just obviously false. Shakespeare is a crypto-Catholic
>rosecrutians
i love how this 400 year old shitpost has continued to inspire historical revisionist crankery to this day. even nation of islam and the belief in the scientist yakub originate from weird rosecrutian shit if you go back far enough
I've also heard that shakespeare was the name given to a troupe of actors that performed the plays, not an individual writer, but the freemason bit is new. It's hard to reconcile the goal of destablizing the monarchy with the history of Elizabeth loving the plays and constructing the globe theater and being a massive arts patron.
Your move Stratfordians...
Woah! This settles it. I mean how much clearer can you get than EOVERE with the heckin’ Es connected!?!?!?
They've barely had to move the letters to make it work. Checkmate
They say he couldn't have written plays because he describes trees and stuff he never saw in real life but what if he just saw a painting of them or his friend described them to him.
If Shakespeare were anonymous, and there were no written record of him being someone else, why would he take care to pander to the current royal family, and why would he have his own personal love narrative in his sonnets?
bizarre samegay
It was me, it was all me. Ol' Will was sucking wieners and fricking male asses and getting fricked in the ass my dicks while I worked on the plays - Hamlet, Omlet, King Lear, the list goes on...
People on IQfy have a fetish for possessing “secret knowledge” about the world. It makes them feel special and smart. Theyre the type to write “Wrong,” because they’re annoying weird little people.
Wrong,
but you're on IQfy
NOOOOOOOOOOO
A moron from the countryside with barely any record of his existence wrote eloquently about places as far away as Vienna with exacting detail!!!
YOU CAN'T JUST HECKIN!!!!!
Yes De Vere is shakespeare but I dont know about any of that other shit
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/top-reasons-why-edward-de-vere-17th-earl-of-oxford-was-shakespeare/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1991/10/the-case-for-oxford/306478/
This one was also interesting. I normally despise the Atlantic, but here we are.
>no archive link
no wonder you're moronic enough to believe this nonsense
grow a pair
Mostly true
years from now people are going to hold serious debates about whether or not scifi authors were time travelers for correctly predicting basic shit like airpods.
>HE WAS HECKING BORN IN 1920!
>HOW WOULD HE KNOW ABOUT SELF DRIVING CARS?!
I don't believe any of that De Vere nonsense.
>It's been debunked
I look like that.
While we're on the subject, any good schizobooks on Freemasonry?
Have you seen the work that Alan Green has done on this? Pretty interesting stuff, he staged a play at a church so he could secretly scan an alter to find there was a cavity in it. He thinks there are codes and information hidden in the works. True or not it's a fun rabbit hole to go down.
https://tobeornottobe.org/
Why do people get so choked whenever discussing this topic? It's not as if people are seriously suggesting a black woman wrote the plays. It's either one highly intelligent Englishman or another (possibly two or three working in tandem). It should be a matter of academic curiosity, more than anything.
they're equally stupid hypotheses unless you're a dan brown loving moron
Its true.
he was sicilian