Stratford/Oxford authorship question

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/19/questions-over-shakespeares-authorship-began-in-his-lifetime-scholar-claims
How will democracy recover? Even if you don't care about or believe the authorship theories, you have to admit his works being written by an exhaustively educated man of noble birth really hurts foundational theories of egalitarian ideology like tabula rasa or self-made men.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Schizo bullshit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Enjoy your vaccines.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Enjoy your schizophrenia.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One of the most common claims of Shakespeare idolaters is that no one doubted his authorship until the 19th century, now that has been totally disproven. Another victory for Oxfordchads

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Source: Schizo reading of "asymetrical lists"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The 'occult' is an enormous enduring influence on Western art and thought, Stratfordists simply cant into.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >One of the most common claims of Shakespeare idolaters is that no one doubted his authorship until the 19th century, now that has been totally disproven.
      Debunked here

      https://i.imgur.com/O1UogNv.png

      Now, I've only read the Guardian article, but it places considerable circumstantial weight on the claim that "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'." To wit:

      >Drawing on the history of commonplace book arrangement, Stritmatter notes that the order of names in Meres’ list aligns each classical writer with his English counterpart: Plautus and Anthony Munday wrote comedies about braggart soldiers; Archippus Atheniensis and Thomas Nashe wrote satires involving fish. Why is Aristonymus aligned with Shakespeare? ***Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, “the aristocratic name”.*** The Earl of Oxford, who aligns with no one, is the only aristocratic name on the list. Stritmatter argues that the alignment of “Shakespeare” with “the aristocratic name” points to Oxford. “It may be concluded that Francis Meres, using ‘Aristonymus’ as the mediating signifier, said that ‘Shakespeare = Oxford.’”

      But five minutes of research tells a different story: That the name "Aristonymous" was identified with one or more ancient personalities, most notably a comic playwright thought to be a contemporary of Aristophanes. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristonymus_(writer). See also pic related.

      Now Stritmatter may address this issue, but based on the information available in the Guardian, the fact that "Aristonymous" was identified with a comic playwright refutes or at least substantially undercuts the claim that (i) "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'."

      (ii) On its face, it is plausible that Aristonymous, the comic playwright, would be aligned with Shakespeare, a comic playwright, on Meres' list.
      Thus, there is no great mystery here that can only be solved via recourse to the Earl of Oxford, but rather a very simple and straightforward solution. Occam's razor favors the latter over the former.

      (iii) Likewise the existence of a real-life Aristonymous refutes or at least undercuts Stritmatter's claim that "the alignment of 'Shakespeare' with 'the aristocratic name' points to Oxford." An historical Aristonymous makes Stritmatter's search for a Shakespearean contemporary with an "aristocratic name" into a wild goose chase after an entirely hypothetical, imaginary person.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It still doesn't explain why Oxford's name is that unmatched.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Aristocratic name and highest name are also the same thing. Aethelnama.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The success of the Stratfordian does not bolster egalitarian ideology. For as many of its proponents who may cite him as a "self-made" tabula rasa figure (though we tend to see an increase in Shakespeare being explicitly resisted by such people), there are more who question the Stratfordian thesis because of their hatred for providence. It is a Salieri-Mozart ('Amadeus') situation - that someone like Shakespeare could exist necessities the hand of a divine force. Hence Harold Bloom simply making Shakespeare into a god; hence Freud/Nietzsche denying authorship to supplant the very idea. This is something other anglos have caught on to, e.g. Amis:
    >I will now take the chance to repeat my contention that the drama is handily inferior to the novel and the poem. Dramatists who have lasted more than a century include Shakespeare and – who else? One is soon reaching for a sepulchral Norwegian. Compare that to English poetry and its great waves of immortality. I agree that it is very funny that Shakespeare was a playwright. I scream with laughter about it all the time. This is one of God’s best jokes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have always found it bizarre that most people don't give a shit about playwrights at all but Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer ever and he's a playwright. There are basically no other canonized playwrights in the Western tradition that we care about after Shakespeare. People in Britain may learn about Shaw and people in America learn about Miller but that's basically it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There are basically no other canonized playwrights in the Western tradition that we care about after Shakespeare
        If you learn about literature exclusively from IQfy and similar goyslop-dispensers, sure.

        It's more that Shakespeare is renowned as the greatest artist who ever lived and yet he has the most unremarkable life of any major writer you can think of. And I mean he is the most boring of them all according to what we know about them. No one would ever imagine that such a person would be writing highly erudite plays and poems about ancient Rome

        Do you think that becoming erudite is a fun activity that would make for an interesting biography?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Marlowe? Dekker? Ben Jonson? And this is just from Shakespeare's time.
        Also non-educated anglos are usually monolingual, so they don't know of nor read De Vega, Racine, Voltaire, Goethe, Schiller, Alfieri, Pirandello, and so on.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you for the effortpost, I actually agree. I'm OP but I don't think the Stratfordian hypothesis necessarily negates the existence of a genetic aristocracy even if it doesn't overlap with the landed nobility. If it's not genetic it's another type.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Certainly. And I will submit that there are great differences between how the English and American (or anywhere else) academy handles Shakespeare that colors these points further.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well we're predisposed to Darwinism and paranoia hailing all the way from the Norman invasion.

          >People don't question it now but it might've been obvious to an elect who Shakespeare was in the Elizabethan court, just like Pynchon s friends know who wrote the novels.
          If Americans make Pynchon into an impossible God, that might happen. Even more now with all the schizos at large. Some moron just set himself on fire.
          >The CIA writing Pynchon is a false equivalency.
          I never meant for it to be a true equivalency but now that you mention it, there are indeed theories about Shakespeare's being works being written by a bunch of people, sometimes his own theater company.

          I agree with you for the most part I just think there's way more evidence for Oxfordian authorship than whacky Pynchon theories, but I do see your point.
          >If Americans make Pynchon into an impossible God
          Yeah, this is also a story just about how genius generates its own lore and mysteries, like how people think spooks killed Kubrick for making Eyes Wide Shut. I think it's best to remain agnostic about this stuff, I'm not die hard either way on Shakespeare.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Anglos made Shakespeare into an impossible God to the point where he couldn't be just Shakespeare. It had to be an army of writers, it had to be someone else. This phenomenon is more interesting than all the schizo theories. Literal lunatics looking for numeric or geometric clues in texts or manuscripts to fit their wacky theories.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's more that Shakespeare is renowned as the greatest artist who ever lived and yet he has the most unremarkable life of any major writer you can think of. And I mean he is the most boring of them all according to what we know about them. No one would ever imagine that such a person would be writing highly erudite plays and poems about ancient Rome

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It's more that Shakespeare is renowned as the greatest artist who ever lived
          No, he's just in the pantheon.
          >and yet he has the most unremarkable life of any major writer you can think of.
          ... No? What's interesting about, say (I'll use examples from Italian literature, since I know its history very well), Petrarch's life? What about Boccaccio? What about Tasso, apart for him going mad years after he had finished penning his most renowned work? What about Boiardo and Ariosto? What about Metastasio, Goldoni, Parini and Foscolo?
          The idea that a great writer must have a very interesting life is a contemporary one, which is entirely inadequate when it comes to accounting for the bulk of the history of literature (and the history of art at large).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not that whacky. The theories themselves can be as interesting as the theorizers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Shakespeare would have had a laugh if he could see the Shakespeare industry and the god he’s been made into. He probably would have laughed at it. His reputation is such that it makes it hard to make a fair assessment of him oneself. You are either let down after all the hype and think he sucks or you like him and think the hype is justified. An unpopular opinion I have it that Shakespearean criticism is more interesting than the plays themselves. With that said, I do think Shakespeare is great, like all time great, just not this titan god he’s been made into

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Agree with this 100%. They made a myth out of him and then tried to kill the myth they created.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know if de Vere was Shakespeare, but I do know that Shakespeare was certainly not Shakespeare. An illiterate man who owned no books did not write Hamlet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Everything you said has been debunked. Why do anti-Shakespeare gays always make the same tired points?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        None of it has been debunked. Seething Stratfordians are anti-academic libtard who want to shut down all debate. The Stratfordian position only persists because of convention and dogmatism.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well that and the vested interest of scholars, plus residual emotional investment of egalitarians.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >None of it has been debunked.
          I'm afraid it has been debunked, mate.
          >Seething Stratfordians are anti-academic libtard who want to shut down all debate.
          Your idea of 'debate' is coming up with crazy theories involving numerology, mystic geometry and illusory patterns.
          >The Stratfordian position only persists because of convention and dogmatism.
          And because it's most likely the truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing about Shakespeare’s occupation and genius matches with what we know about him. And unlike every other artist that has ever lived, the West has concocted a narrative of Shakespeare that simply deems him a genius and nothing more. Do you notice a discrepancy between his life and work? Does it not make any sense for someone from his background to have an aristocratic erudition? Well, he was a genius. That’s the explanation we’re taught. Essentially he is treated as the Christ of literature, miraculously born to be the greatest and inherently good. Because it doesn’t make sense to treat him as an actual person, because what we know about the person is either unremarkable or worthless

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, he was a genius. That’s the explanation we’re taught.
            I agree this is the essential issue at hand, whether genius can exist sui generis or has to be cultivated. It behooves for instance, the education system to side with the Stratfordians because in that case Shakes would have received a standard grammar school education. It behooves elitists to side with the Oxfordians. I ultimately remain agnostic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He wrote historical fiction and genre fiction for a mass audience. What's supposed to be so goddamn mystical and aristocratic about that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This was Tolstoy’s argument and everyone shits on him for it — Shakespeare is juvenile entertainment and not profound genius so it doesn’t even matter if he was the true author

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That’s not Tolstoy’s argument at all. Tolstoy believed that literature needed to have clear, definable moral messaging as aesthetic quality is arbitrary and dependent on the beholder. Shakespeare’s works are timeless precisely because they are vague and bipolar and open to a myriad of widely diverging interpretations; he doesn’t actually say anything and the audience can therefore ascribe whatever intent they desire. It’s also why Shakespeare is said to have the greatest understanding of the human condition - a humanist bible - as his characters aren’t rigid archetypes and are contradictory and hypocritical and irrational because he never set out to prove anything. If his works retained their poetic dexterity but instead were supremely ideological works, inflexible in interpretation, then it is unclear whether he would occupy the same position he does today.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >vague and bipolar and open to a myriad of widely diverging interpretations
            Like the Bible but not like anglo literature, anglo philosophy or anglo interpretations of the Bible. As if written by a foreigner, perhaps a Norman vikang.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >for someone from his background to have an aristocratic erudition?
            why would his erudition have to be "aristocratic"? why can't you just have a guy who's culturally omnivorous + has a knack for language, who gets access to books because he knows people in london that have large libraries?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why would his erudition have to be "aristocratic"?
            It wouldn't have to be. Read 'Were Shakespeare's Plays Written by an Aristocrat?'
            https://shakespeareauthorship.com/aristocrat.html

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Good read. I always knew the aristocratic stuff was BS.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think it's that different than, say, a bunch of morons from Liverpool becoming the most important models for pop music by playing with the form and structure and inspiring new approaches to studio use and production. Sometimes people come along with a fine enough education and can do more than others, by combination of nature and circumstance.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The damage empiricism has done to the western mind is most keenly felt when discussing Shakespeare with Oxfordians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >decolonize science! we must protect the myth of the educated pleb!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So long as I'm not the one posting about my arguments with imaginary friends.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Debunk the claims then.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So, the writer had to be someone
    >With a great education in the Classics
    >Knowledgeable about Court Politics

    Unfortunately, in the main text of the plays there is no mention in who wrote them, so in a sense they were written anonymously.

    Could it be that community of poets wrote the stories? I heard similar claims about the authorship of the Homeric poems.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Knowledgeable about Court Politics
      Debunked

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Well it's a bit different, since the unitarians and analysts don't have particular candidates in mind, but yes you're otherwise correct. I wonder if Pynchon will generate similar controversies if anyone's reading him in the coming centuries.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I wonder if Pynchon will generate similar controversies if anyone's reading him in the coming centuries.
        I don't think people are still that moronic. Maybe the conspiratards. I've heard theories about CIA writing his work or some nonsense.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          People don't question it now but it might've been obvious to an elect who Shakespeare was in the Elizabethan court, just like Pynchon s friends know who wrote the novels. The CIA writing Pynchon is a false equivalency.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >People don't question it now but it might've been obvious to an elect who Shakespeare was in the Elizabethan court, just like Pynchon s friends know who wrote the novels.
            If Americans make Pynchon into an impossible God, that might happen. Even more now with all the schizos at large. Some moron just set himself on fire.
            >The CIA writing Pynchon is a false equivalency.
            I never meant for it to be a true equivalency but now that you mention it, there are indeed theories about Shakespeare's being works being written by a bunch of people, sometimes his own theater company.

          • 1 month ago
            γρηγορεύω

            >Some moron just set himself on fire.
            Nobody died, nobody got hurt.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonynous

      >Could it be that community of poets wrote the stories? I heard similar claims about the authorship of the Homeric poems.
      I've heard similar about Uncle Ted.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >With a great education in the Classics
      Shakespeare attended a good grammar school, and was schooled almost exclusively on the latin and greek classics.
      >Knowledgeable about Court Politics
      Why would you assume that? Libraries have been written on how shoddy Shakespeare's grasp on court politics was.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Shakespeare attended a good grammar school, and was schooled almost exclusively on the latin and greek classics.
        There is zero evidence that Shakspere ever attended grammar school, let alone that he was "schooled almost exclusively on the latin and greek classics." Why do Stratfordians feel the need to lie like this?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Unfortunately, in the main text of the plays there is no mention in who wrote them
      The first fifteen or so pages of the main text are all about the man who wrote them, and even include a picture of him

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't understand the argument. Can anyone explain?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >his works being written by an exhaustively educated man of noble birth really hurts foundational theories of egalitarian ideology like tabula rasa or self-made men.
    Not really. If he was a peasant then it's no less representative of genius and consequently the fundamentally hierarchical nature of existence.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Shakespeare scholar Graham Holderness, who edited the journal, worries that shutting down debate about the authorship endangers academic freedom. “When you come across traditional Shakespeareans comparing Shakespeare authorship doubt to conspiracy theories – anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers – I mean, I think that’s wrong … for all sorts of reasons”, he said.
    Kek, the irony. Academic freedom isn't allowed for science but it MUST be for literature!

    • 1 month ago
      γρηγορεύω

      >climate change deniers

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    incredible nothingburger. "this guy who we don't know if he'd even know who wrote the plays might have expressed an opinion on who wrote the plays that we'd have no way of knowing was true or even serious and in any case we don't even know if he expressed that opinion because it's just our interpretation of a secret encoded message that might mean something else or not even exist." no direct evidence of anything, zero reason to change whatever position you hold already

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Between that and pic related (notice the pun on de Vere's name next to the footnote describing him as Shakespeare), some of the few mentions of Shakespeare in the 1590s as far as I know, it is EXTREMELY unusual.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How is court-deare-verse a pun? What is that even supposed to mean?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It is the year 3,200
    >The consensus in Academia is that Shakespeare plays were written by different communities
    >The plays were different enough that they couldn't have been written by the same person
    >And one person couldn't have written all that, specially a middle class person who couldn't understand all that was written
    >There is the Comedy Community, the Drama Community and the Historical community
    >Shakespearean plays were anonymous, since he was not mentioned in the body of the text
    >A man called Harold Bloom actually created this Shakespeare character and attributed the plays to him
    >We could have more sources on those different communities, but WW3 destroyed all of them
    >But we have fragments that show a man named Bacon was part of one of those communities
    >Apparently, the University of Oxford also has written some of the plays. The so-called De Vere community

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's funny that you think that the onions-pod-bugs in the year 3200AD will even know who Shakespeare is, or what a play is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonynous

        I don't think any of our great statues or monuments will last the end of the millennium.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The caretaker AIs will maintain all human knowledge but nobody will use any of it. We will live stagnated in pods for 5 million years until a series of unlikely events causes the stagnated AI to be unable to adapt. Groups of humans will again have to struggle to survive and ancient knowledge will be useful again.
        This is inevitable and the plot of Wall-E.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now, I've only read the Guardian article, but it places considerable circumstantial weight on the claim that "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'." To wit:

    >Drawing on the history of commonplace book arrangement, Stritmatter notes that the order of names in Meres’ list aligns each classical writer with his English counterpart: Plautus and Anthony Munday wrote comedies about braggart soldiers; Archippus Atheniensis and Thomas Nashe wrote satires involving fish. Why is Aristonymus aligned with Shakespeare? ***Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, “the aristocratic name”.*** The Earl of Oxford, who aligns with no one, is the only aristocratic name on the list. Stritmatter argues that the alignment of “Shakespeare” with “the aristocratic name” points to Oxford. “It may be concluded that Francis Meres, using ‘Aristonymus’ as the mediating signifier, said that ‘Shakespeare = Oxford.’”

    But five minutes of research tells a different story: That the name "Aristonymous" was identified with one or more ancient personalities, most notably a comic playwright thought to be a contemporary of Aristophanes. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristonymus_(writer). See also pic related.

    Now Stritmatter may address this issue, but based on the information available in the Guardian, the fact that "Aristonymous" was identified with a comic playwright refutes or at least substantially undercuts the claim that (i) "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'."

    (ii) On its face, it is plausible that Aristonymous, the comic playwright, would be aligned with Shakespeare, a comic playwright, on Meres' list.
    Thus, there is no great mystery here that can only be solved via recourse to the Earl of Oxford, but rather a very simple and straightforward solution. Occam's razor favors the latter over the former.

    (iii) Likewise the existence of a real-life Aristonymous refutes or at least undercuts Stritmatter's claim that "the alignment of 'Shakespeare' with 'the aristocratic name' points to Oxford." An historical Aristonymous makes Stritmatter's search for a Shakespearean contemporary with an "aristocratic name" into a wild goose chase after an entirely hypothetical, imaginary person.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'll have to read the list itself when I get home. I think other ancient authors of comparison on the list having been mostly lost would lend further credence to your theory and I suppose that would be statistically likely however, it doesn't explain why Oxford was nmatched.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >IQfychad debunks academic "scholar"

    • 1 month ago
      Aristonymous

      >Why is Aristonymus aligned with Shakespeare? ***Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, “the aristocratic name”.***

      >we are Aristonymous.
      >we do not forgive
      >we do not forget.
      >also we have the wealth to carry out our ends.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he thought Bill Dickstroker was a real name
        You shake the spear towards the enemy before battle, it's a power display like chimps shaking trees. In other words ego masturbation like publishing under a name.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You just shat on some Oxford academic's 5-year research lol

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Aristonymous" doesn't even mean "the aristocratic name", is just means "best name" in Greek. I swear, these people don't even try.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Uh? Oxfordsisters, our response?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, “the aristocratic name”
      The moronic article says that shit. Why do Oxfordians lie so much? lmao

      If the connection between Archippus Atheniensis and Thomas Nashe is that both wrote satires involving fish, then the connection between Aristonymous and Shakespeare is that both wrote a comedy involving Theseus.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What I don’t get is why so Meres’ book arrangement is even used as proof, he’s a literal who and certainly not privy to one of the biggest secrets of all time. The de Vere hypothesis is pure conjecture and “what if…”, there literally isn’t a shred of substantial evidence. If Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare’s play it would have eventually got out in the early 1600’s. It’s not that big a deal if there was a different writer, it would have got out, a secret like that isn’t something to take to the grave. Why does Shakespeare need to have lived some incredible life with a ton of education? He hung around playwrights, he spoke English, he heard stories, that’s enough. Plenty of great artists haven’t been rich or scholars

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It’s not that big a deal
        Thankfully the redditor is here enlightening us about how semi-feudal aristocrats should have adhered to our modern sensibilities and assumptions about society. Icelandic sagas as an example aren't signed at all because it was considered crass, like shaking a spear. Without humility the work is worthless and with a strong association with a house the work can be politicized, accidentally revealed details may even be used against them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Okay, prove that that was a custom in Elizabethan and/or Jacobin England. Surely there would have been other playwrites whose names were just pseudonyms for certain royal families. Or did everybody go all in on Shakespeare, while the other authors wrote their plays? Is there any play, poem, book, pamphlet, sermon, or letter in which this cultural custom of royalty adopting writing pseudonyms out of humility is attested to?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People still do it today, due to humility or not. Again you're framing something common as if it's something wild and unimaginable in a dishonest attempt to push a specific conclusion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People do lots of things today. Prove this practice existed in Elizabethan/Jacobin England.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >muh proof
            >do work for me
            Frick off braindead moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            cope & seethe, oxie.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're so utterly incapable, dishonest and brainwashed by reddit horseshit that you actually demanded fricking "proof". Are you really going to pretend you're capable of thinking about any subject after that post? You are cancer, pure evil with no thought process.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            wtf are you even talking about? lol are you insane? yes, proof is necessary when you make huge and moronic arguments

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm talking about the demonstrable fact that you have no clue how to think and you don't grasp the concept of "proof" on any level. You're useless fricking idiots.
            This statement has nothing do with the actual question about the authorship which I don't really care about at all. The question is only relevant to me as an exercise in thinking and you're unable to even start that exercise you don't have the tools to begin to think about any subject.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Perhaps one of the most embarrassing posts I've ever seen on this board.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I get embarrassed on anonymous forums that's why I never say anything
            Say something moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what animal is that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Calyptocephala attenuata.
            https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calyptocephala_antennata

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks 🙂

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If there’s no proof the practice existed, then there’s no reason to invent it for the sake of Shakespeare, is there?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Elizabethan England flourished after an intense genetic bottleneck that killed off most of the medieval peasant stock. The 16th and 17th centuries in England were a wellspring of creativity that lasted until the industrial revolution, whereupon technology necessitated fecundity of the lower classes. Men like Shakespeare and Newton weren't aristocrats but they were descended from aristocrats and the wealthy medieval merchant guilds.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This makes just as much sense to me. I read even Shakespeare would have had substantial Norman admixture even if he was of humble Anglo origin. The real blackpill might be that we just need another bottleneck to reach those heights again.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The unique demographic profile of the era between late medieval England and the industrial revolution leads to many interesting hypotheses. We can infer that the founding stock of America was particularly high IQ (disaffected gentry) and that IQ in England peaked and then started to decline in the Victorian era.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you recommend any books on this topic, I've only watched some Jolly Heretic but his videos are just academic literature reviews, haven't touched his books yet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Albion's Seed by David H Fischer
            A Social History of England by Asa Briggs
            Ed West's substack

            The great thing about medieval England is that there is a wealth of data to draw on, moreso than any other country in Europe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This makes little sense to me considering that a primary feature of Tudor England was the decline of the traditional nobility after the chaos of the Wars of the Roses to be replaced by new men and upstart social climbers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Those upstarts were the descendants of nobility too. Also the Norman component of the British population is totally overstated. If you want to learn more about population genetics in the UK start with https://peopleofthebritishisles.web.ox.ac.uk/

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Milton will win in the end.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      win what?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          alright...

    • 1 month ago
      Aristonymous

      win what?

      It.

      alright...

      Milton who?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Oxfordians present a bunch of little circumstantial points of data. The Stratfordians just yell that anyone who disagrees is a schizo antivaxxer. I am but that's anecdotal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Excellent post but I think you meant incidental at the end.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If their model which says all Oxfordians are schizos is true that would be incidental to the debate about the origin of the plays. That I fit their model is anecdotal evidence supporting it. Part of the "joke" is that I just appealed to circumstantial evidence but then dismiss anecdotes in favour of the model I don't like. That and the private, indecipherable nature of the "joke" is consistent with the schizo persona I adopted for this post.

  16. 1 month ago
    Aristonymous

    [...]

    >The Statue of Liberty will last for centuries.
    Why do you believe that and why is your post deleted?
    Did you piss off a fannee?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shakespeare's maternal roots weren't exactly humble.
    >The Ardens were part of the noble Catholic family of the Ardens of Park Hall whose family forebears had been given land by William the Conqueror.
    >https://m.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-biography-ancestors.htm

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      B-but Oxfordians told me he was a filthy peasant who descended of filthy peasants?? wtf

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There is a neurotic tendency of status conscious Bongs to deny that any layman could have noble roots. Of course the truth is that all modern Bong have an a large claim on hereditary nobility, they are just the descendants of second and third sons. Perhaps that's the seed of their anxiety.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shakespeare's a naturalist hack, so who cares.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny how the Shakespeare authorship conspiracy is red meat for such disparate groups as feminists (Shakespeare's sister), modern "aristocrats", the KANGZ brigade, and ancient aliens YouTube skeptics.
    I think he wrote it all. His meter is consistent. He was a once in a generation genius like John Von Neuman.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Notice the pattern in the post from Stratford cucks.
    >ackshually it's theoretically possible a peasant wrote it
    Sure, but it wasn't. It was that dude who was said to be the greatest comedic playwright of all time and whose life is very personally woven into the plays.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Except Shakespeare wasn't a peasant. That's an Oxfordian lie.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He was educated enough and smart enough to manage a successful theatre company using the plays he somehow gained access to, probably directly from Eddie with his blessing to publish without revealing the author.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How do you explain all of the plays written after de Vere's death? Did Shakespeare keep them in a seekrit lockbox that no one knew about? How does one keep such a thing secret in 1605?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People said de Vere did have a secret stash of plays including ones they considered the greatest comedic plays ever written.
            This stash is not accounted for and a stash with plays as described full of apparent references to his personal life appears roughly around the time he dies in the hands of a business type, an Edison type of "inventor" who does contribute but not by actually coming up with the inventions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >People said de Vere did have a secret stash of plays including ones they considered the greatest comedic plays ever written.

            Edward de Vere died in 1604. This would mean, among other things, that in the years that followed, his secret agents craftily and at proper intervals released the following new plays by "Shakespeare": All's Well That Ends Well, Timon of Athens, King Lear, Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, Pericles, Coriolanus, The Winter's Tale, Cymbeline, The Tempest, Henry VIII, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. The cunning rascals also managed to suborn John Heminge and Henry Condell (the editors of the First Folio), Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, Hugh Holland, Leonard Digges, and other contemporaries; alternatively, all of these were in on the plot and never revealed it to a soul. Come on. -S. Greenblatt

            A Groatsworth of Facts Worth a Million of Looney Tunes
            https://www.oxfraud.com/
            https://www.quora.com/Have-you-looked-seriously-into-the-Shakespeare-Authorship-Question-and-the-evidence-Edward-de-Vere-17th-Earl-of-Oxford-is-the-real-true-actual-author-of-the-great-works/answer/Philip-Tomposki

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This would mean
            Always the same dishonest debate bro shit. Are you unable to think or do you just refuse to?
            The theatre manager who was given the stash of plays released them as plays over a few years and a compendium attributed to that theatre manager was released.
            This is only one idea of what happened but "this would mean" implies you were unable to imagine this possibility. That means you're seriously mentally disabled.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The theatre manager who was given the stash of plays released them as plays over a few years and a compendium attributed to that theatre manager was released.
            In addition to this purest of blue-sky speculations, *this would mean* that Ben Jonson, et al., were in on the conspiracy. And madness, this would mean, if you suppose such a silly hypothesis to be fact. In a word, Looney Tunes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >*this would mean* that Ben Jonson, et al., were in on the conspiracy.
            Nope. There are many alternatives. "This means" is another way to phrase "necessitates" and this idea that your interpretations are "necessary" is literalist poison that makes you unable to think beyond popular opinions, they become like religious dogma that's "necessary" and objective like divine revelation instead of a best guess estimate that could easily be flawed or close to completely wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and this idea that your interpretations are "necessary" is literalist poison that makes you unable to think beyond popular opinions, they become like religious dogma that's "necessary" and objective like divine revelation instead of a best guess estimate that could easily be flawed or close to completely wrong.
            There is a reason that the highest standard of proof in legal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

            To hoist the doughty Vere up the Shakespearean flagpole requires rank absurdities, to wit: "John Heminge and Henry Condell (the editors of the First Folio), Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, Hugh Holland, Leonard Digges, and other contemporaries ... were in on the plot and never revealed it to a soul."

            That is, the Oxfordian theory *necessitates* a level of conspiracy that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Mind you, this is not a matter of religious dogma - it is not a question of faith - but merely of common sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >requires
            It doesn't and well educated smart judges get things wrong despite having thought them beyond all reasonable doubt. Neither hypothesis is well demonstrated in this case but the Oxford theory brings together multiple previously unconnected, floating points of data into a coherent picture. Like when we tune a telescope we're in a way exploring different interpretations of the data until one stands out because it represents more coherent data than the other pictures.
            >necessitates
            It doesn't. We already covered this and even if it did there are verified examples of much grander conspiracies. Are you really completely incapable of exploring alternative ideas to what you've decided to identify with as your "opinion"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree. It's a weak case: a groatsworth of hypothesis bought with millions in common sense. oxfraud.com goes into considerable, glorious, debunking detail -- the counter-case, all the parts of the good earl's story that *don't* add up shakespeare-wise, vs. those cherry-picked components which supposedly, but only with strained and torturous logic, do... allegedly.

            >It doesn't.
            it do.

            >Are you really completely incapable of exploring alternative ideas to what you've decided to identify with as your "opinion"?
            by no means. but in this case i have investigated the alternative and find it wanting.

            e.g., stritmatter's Aristonymus theory, deconstructed here:

            https://i.imgur.com/O1UogNv.png

            Now, I've only read the Guardian article, but it places considerable circumstantial weight on the claim that "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'." To wit:

            >Drawing on the history of commonplace book arrangement, Stritmatter notes that the order of names in Meres’ list aligns each classical writer with his English counterpart: Plautus and Anthony Munday wrote comedies about braggart soldiers; Archippus Atheniensis and Thomas Nashe wrote satires involving fish. Why is Aristonymus aligned with Shakespeare? ***Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, “the aristocratic name”.*** The Earl of Oxford, who aligns with no one, is the only aristocratic name on the list. Stritmatter argues that the alignment of “Shakespeare” with “the aristocratic name” points to Oxford. “It may be concluded that Francis Meres, using ‘Aristonymus’ as the mediating signifier, said that ‘Shakespeare = Oxford.’”

            But five minutes of research tells a different story: That the name "Aristonymous" was identified with one or more ancient personalities, most notably a comic playwright thought to be a contemporary of Aristophanes. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristonymus_(writer). See also pic related.

            Now Stritmatter may address this issue, but based on the information available in the Guardian, the fact that "Aristonymous" was identified with a comic playwright refutes or at least substantially undercuts the claim that (i) "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'."

            (ii) On its face, it is plausible that Aristonymous, the comic playwright, would be aligned with Shakespeare, a comic playwright, on Meres' list.
            Thus, there is no great mystery here that can only be solved via recourse to the Earl of Oxford, but rather a very simple and straightforward solution. Occam's razor favors the latter over the former.

            (iii) Likewise the existence of a real-life Aristonymous refutes or at least undercuts Stritmatter's claim that "the alignment of 'Shakespeare' with 'the aristocratic name' points to Oxford." An historical Aristonymous makes Stritmatter's search for a Shakespearean contemporary with an "aristocratic name" into a wild goose chase after an entirely hypothetical, imaginary person.

            (i'm open to reading a pushback on the details of that critique, which is framed rather cautiously as only addressing those details that are advanced in the guardian article).

            or stritmatter's oxfordian bible theory, deconstructed here: https://www.quora.com/Have-you-looked-seriously-into-the-Shakespeare-Authorship-Question-and-the-evidence-Edward-de-Vere-17th-Earl-of-Oxford-is-the-real-true-actual-author-of-the-great-works/answer/Philip-Tomposki

            or the evidence of the earl's use of language which does not track with the use of language in shakespeare's plays, as partly addressed here,

            Another death blow to Shakespeare denialism. Which has survived more death blows than Richard III, than Julius Caesar, more than any zombie in a horror flick. It just keeps on shambling.

            How Oxford's Letters Cross Him Off As “Shakespeare”
            >Speake the Speech I pray you, as I pronounc'd it to you

            The Earl of Oxford’s English is unique. It is both stuffily antiquated, as befits his rank, and slipshod, both courtly and clownish, with odd malapropian lapses. He is at once pompous and a hobnailed rustic. His linguistic profile is distinctive; it is quantifiable. Like DNA, it can be matched. There is, of course, no reason to imagine that the earl wrote Shakespeare’s plays and poetry, or Golding’s verse translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The evidence against his authorship of Shakespeare—documentary, intellectual, stylistic, social, chronological, theatrical, historical—is beyond overwhelming, as absolute as anything outside of numbers can be. But if a Shakespeare needed to be sought, the earl would not be interviewed. His DNA excludes him. Oxford simply didn’t speak the playwright’s language. Nor did he speak his uncle Golding’s, despite a few shared Essexisms.

            How do we know this?

            Early modern writers spelled as they spoke. If a poet rhymes “strike” with “seek,” or spells the palace “Whyte Haale” and the country “Waales,” that’s evidence of how those words sounded to him: how he spoke. In print, of course, the evidence is altered. Printers often worked from eye to ear to hand, respelling as they set.

            Fortunately, manuscripts in holograph survive for all three poets: Oxford’s letters, Golding’s prose translation of a Latin Aesop, and Shakespeare’s additions to Sir Thomas More.

            By a close comparison of their orthographies, unchanged by printers, and by a study of their rhyme-words, it is quite possible to hear where they diverge...

            Beyond all this, Oxford appears to have had some sort of word-deafness, neurological perhaps. He badly mishears consonants, especially in proper nouns, and bungles, drops, or adds them in. A great impediment to poetry.

            The viscount was brought up in Smith’s household—where his warden preached the reformation of the English language—from the age of eight or nine until he succeeded to his father’s title at twelve. Yet he emerged with his rustic accent unexpunged. It must have been his cradle-tongue, the one his grooms and nurses spoke to him at Hedingham. It stuck with him for life. In his last surviving letter, to the King1 in 1603, he still writes “leke” for “like.”

            Read the whole thing: https://www.oxfraud.com/HND-spellbound

            , and at greater length here: https://www.oxfraud.com/HND-spellbound

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The "necessary" contrivances that are only demanded by your lack of imagination is a worthless point. The point about the actual use of language is probably the best point. Acting like relatively weak evidence like that means any alternative is debunked is braindead. It may be reasonable to find the Stratfordian model more convincing like you're saying here but acting like any alternative rests on "muh wild looney stuff" or making braindead claims like the first line in your link which says "there is no evidence" is not reasonable. That's a flat out lie from the start, the guy can't sincerely engage and doesn't even pretend to. This kind of shit is cancer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That quora thread is excellent. Whenever this question popped up I always focused on the detail. I should have instead taken a step back and grasp just how fricking moronic the whole premise is.

            >It must first be said that anti-Stratfordism is a logically unsound hypothesis. Not only is there no objective historical evidence to support the idea that someone other than Shakespeare wrote his works, but the deniers cannot even come up with a consistent, plausible scenario. They contend that Shakespeare lacked the education, experience, and background to write his plays and poem. Many go so far as to claim he was actually illiterate. But if that were the case, why would the true author pick Shakespeare to front for him/her? At the time, England’s universities were overproducing graduates, so there was no lack of more credible candidates. And why pick an actor in a rival company? Shakespeare worked on an almost daily basis with other actors for a quarter of a century or more. Can we really assume they they were so dull they never realized that Shakespeare was a fake? And many of Shakespeare’s works were collaborative efforts. How did his fellow playwrights not catch on?

            >Some deniers respond that it was it was an open secret that Shakespeare was acting for someone else. If so, what was the point? If the Court knew about it and theater community knew about it, it was no longer a secret. The term ‘vast conspiracy’ is an oxymoron. It doesn’t take all that many people to be in on a secret before it becomes common knowledge.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Whoever the author of the play is It's an incredible spectacle to get to see how braindead you predictable reddit clones ALL are.
            You're completely mindless.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry but the schizophrenia will stop.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I'm OP and I'm leaning towards Stratfordianism but it's annoying how tenuous the arguments against Oxfordianism are. I think both have strong positive claims but the deboonking is tenuous at best. We don't know how much Meres knew about Aristonymous but the Wikipedia article anon used to deboonk it was pulling mainly from his book and 19th century scholarship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the Wikipedia article anon used to deboonk it was pulling mainly from his book and 19th century scholarship.
            You're a crypto-Oxfordian. Why lie, bastard? The article clearly references Deipnosophistae by Athenaeus of Naucratis when it comes to naming Aristonymous' two surviving fragmented plays and a Latin translation from the 1530s already existed. What's next? Meres was a peasant and couldn't read Latin? He literally got a BA and an MA from Cambridge. The connection between Aristonymous and Shakespeare is that both wrote a comedy involving Theseus ("Theseus" by A. and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" by S.).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The connection between Aristonymous and Shakespeare
            But why are Ed and Bill connected? Both being comedic playwrights isn't enough in a book where the main message of each part is contained in the asymmetrical part, which in this case is the connection between Bill and Ed. You don't even try to explain anything. Your mind isn't interested in thinking, there's no curiosity there. All you know is brainwashing and debate bro conditioning that actively morons you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah that's yet to be explained imo.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you assume they're connected? You talk about curiosity like you're the most curious dog in town but have you checked Meres' book? The article says something along the lines of "his symmetry must exist for a reason". Is that so? Meres was not as symmetrical as Stritmatter claims. For example, he lists 17 Greek musicians to only 16 English, 14 Greek Painters to 15 English, 14 Greek tragic poets to 13 English, 10 ancient Latin poets to 9 English Latin poets, and of those who made their respective tongue "amous and eloquent" we have 7 Greek, 8 Latin and 7 English. And so on. As to Stritmatter’s claim regarding Davies, it is absurd of the face of it. If he meant to indicate two different people he would have done so, as he does elsewhere. How would you account for all those issues? Or only the things that confirm your schizophrenic delusions matter?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Some lady who read the paper said that part is sound and we don't have access to the paper for some reason. Presumably each asymmetry you mention has some meaning according to Oxford man.
            >If he meant to indicate two different people he would have done so
            ? The idea is he meant to indicate that as a playwright Ed and Bill were the same author, maybe implying more of a collaboration than one stealing from the other.
            Even if this whole Meres idea is completely valid it isn't very strong evidence for anything but you morons apparently can't operate without telling yourselves you have everything figured out and any little point of data is either proving or deboonking something.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just said a whole bunch of nothing. I don't know why you're even in this thread.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To exercise thinking, the thing you morons are completely incapable of doing on any level. You have never figured out anything slightly complicated in your life. What you're doing in that post isn't a methodology, it's just actively refusing to think. We can undermine any idea using the same cynical reddit shit but why would anyone want to? Why not just sincerely explore ideas? Which do you think is more interesting and productive?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Alright that works for me. I'd have done the work but I'm afk.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >We don't know how much Meres knew about Aristonymous but the Wikipedia article anon used to deboonk it was pulling mainly from his book and 19th century scholarship.
            Aristonymous was known by references in Athenaeus' Deipnosophists, which was still copied down and read during the medieval period. 19thc scholarship doesn't have to enter the picture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Try applying the logic in this post to fakes that got revealed through history.
            >Can we really assume the entire material science community were so dull they never realized that Jan Hendrik Schön was a fake?
            Beyond braindead. Actively harmful bullshit.
            >plebs could actually write bigots
            Always the same kind of brain damage.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>Can we really assume the entire material science community were so dull they never realized that Jan Hendrik Schön was a fake?
            The analogy doesn't work, since Schön actually had a PhD, while your Shakespeare was supposed to be illiterate (therefore, someone who could not fake an extremely high level of competence in the literary field). To be analogous, Schön would have had to be some sort of Terrence Howards-tier moron.
            Moreover you couldn't have picked a worst example, since Schön was exposed almost immediately, pretty much as soon as people started trying to replicate his findings and use them for commercial purposes.
            >Always the same kind of brain damage.
            Notice that this point was not made in the passages I have cited.

            Whoever the author of the play is It's an incredible spectacle to get to see how braindead you predictable reddit clones ALL are.
            You're completely mindless.

            Not an argument in sight, as expected.

            Yeah I'm OP and I'm leaning towards Stratfordianism but it's annoying how tenuous the arguments against Oxfordianism are. I think both have strong positive claims but the deboonking is tenuous at best. We don't know how much Meres knew about Aristonymous but the Wikipedia article anon used to deboonk it was pulling mainly from his book and 19th century scholarship.

            The arguments that the guy you're quoting was raving about were completely sound and common sensical, which is why that guy was completely incapable of responding to them. I have no idea why are you defending him.
            If you want to do it for him, then please give us an answer to this simple question: why would De Vere use as a cover a seemingly illiterate guy, who was constantly in contact with actors, playwrights and other intellectuals, and who therefore could have not have passed as the author of those deeply brilliant sonnets and plays? Why didn't De Vere pick, say, an university graduate instead? Why did he instead chose to pick someone who could have not convinced anyone that wasn't an illiterate farmer?
            I'll wait for an actual response.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The analogy doesn't work, since Schön actually had a PhD
            Absolutely fricking braindead.
            >Notice that this point was not made in the passages I have cited.
            It was the entire point of the passage cited and even now in this post you're still talking as if that's what's important. Schön has to be a pleb for it to be a similar case. Your mind is completely ruined by political bullshit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why would De Vere use as a cover a seemingly illiterate guy
            Why are you such a disgusting lying worm?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is literally the main point against Shakespeare's authorship. He hasn't had an education, he didn't own books (hence why he left none to his daughter), he could barely sign his name, and so on. There are literally dozens of Oxfordians in this thread making this exact point.

            >The analogy doesn't work, since Schön actually had a PhD
            Absolutely fricking braindead.
            >Notice that this point was not made in the passages I have cited.
            It was the entire point of the passage cited and even now in this post you're still talking as if that's what's important. Schön has to be a pleb for it to be a similar case. Your mind is completely ruined by political bullshit.

            >Absolutely fricking braindead.
            Can you for once state in clear terms why this is bullshit, instead of hurling cheap insults? Schön had a physics phd, meaning that he could at the very least fake a high level of competency (and even then, that was not enough, since he got caught almost immediately). According to Oxfordians, Shakespeare lacked this kind of background. The question therefore is: how could he fake that high level of competency, considering that according to the Oxfordian argument he could not be the author of the sonnets and the plays due to the fact that he was an uneducated man? Why didn't De Vere use an university graduate as a cover instead?
            >Schön has to be a pleb for it to be a similar case.
            No, Schön would have to be an uneducated man for it to be a similar case, since the argument (which is not political in the slightest) hinges on the fact that an uneducated man could have not passed for the author of those plays and sonnets.
            Maybe avoid building strawmen in your head, and instead start giving substantial responses to the arguments that have been provided. Or keep acting like a middle schooler. The choice is yours.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >since the argument (which is not political in the slightest) hinges on the fact that an uneducated man could have not passed for the author of those plays and sonnets
            Does it moron? Why would you lie about basic established facts like this if you're not motivated by political horseshit, unconscious or not?
            >hinges on
            Only in your deranged dishonest mind that can't separate claims, because you're a moron and/or a liar. You're still acting as if you don't even understand what it means to apply your kind of of logic to other fakes, instead you try to find excuses not to. morons like you are the cancer eating the world.
            >be clear
            Everything said has been completely clear but you work as hard as you can to dishonestly obfuscate, complicate and build cartoonish strawmen. A point that has nothing to do with your braindead assumptions about everything hinging on plebs being unable to write is presented. Your reply every fricking time, over and over is "ackshually plebs can write". No hint of thought. You are the reddit moron telling everyone any evidence suggesting vax side effects is invalid because vaccines cure polio.
            >Schön would have to be an uneducated man for it to be a similar case
            Imagine the serious brain damage needed to say something like this when asked to try to apply your logic universally.
            If I note inconsistencies that suggest the story presented by Schön/Bill is not accurate your response every time for both cases has been to appeal to their credentials as if that settles everything. What is there to say about that except frick off moron?
            And Schön was in fact incapable, he never demonstrated the aptitude needed for working on such a high level. Evaluating his actual background and ability was one piece of data that suggested his story was inaccurate.
            >stop being mean
            Frick off moron. You're pure fricking evil, the opposite of productive in every sense, a vapid and boring form of death and destruction incarnate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon, just wanted to thank you for acting like such a moron. You've made the Stratfordian argument even more appealing. Please keep going

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why did he instead chose to pick someone who could have not convinced anyone that wasn't an illiterate farmer?
            I don't believe Stratford actually was illiterate, I think that's Oxfordians being hyperbolic. A noted recent fake was that Japanese composer Mamoru Samuragochi who was supposedly deaf, but wasn't actually deaf, nor a composer. That doesn't necessitate that every fake writer is illiterate or every fake composer was deaf. I think that's what anon is sperging about. That Stratford could write doesn't necessarily invalidate Oxfordianism, it just makes Stratford a plausible candidate.

            [...]

            Not at all what I'm saying. It's more a specific downstream effect of egalitarian ideology that says anyone could be Shakespeare and uses that to push universal standardized education when such genius might rely in part on exclusivity (of means and not merely of genes).

            For me, its Chesterton's theory that Shakespeare of Stratford was the true author of the works of Francis Bacon

            That's hilarious.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>Can we really assume the entire material science community were so dull they never realized that Jan Hendrik Schön was a fake?
            The analogy doesn't work, since Schön actually had a PhD, while your Shakespeare was supposed to be illiterate (therefore, someone who could not fake an extremely high level of competence in the literary field). To be analogous, Schön would have had to be some sort of Terrence Howards-tier moron.
            Moreover you couldn't have picked a worst example, since Schön was exposed almost immediately, pretty much as soon as people started trying to replicate his findings and use them for commercial purposes.
            >Always the same kind of brain damage.
            Notice that this point was not made in the passages I have cited.
            [...]
            Not an argument in sight, as expected.
            [...]
            The arguments that the guy you're quoting was raving about were completely sound and common sensical, which is why that guy was completely incapable of responding to them. I have no idea why are you defending him.
            If you want to do it for him, then please give us an answer to this simple question: why would De Vere use as a cover a seemingly illiterate guy, who was constantly in contact with actors, playwrights and other intellectuals, and who therefore could have not have passed as the author of those deeply brilliant sonnets and plays? Why didn't De Vere pick, say, an university graduate instead? Why did he instead chose to pick someone who could have not convinced anyone that wasn't an illiterate farmer?
            I'll wait for an actual response.

            Furthermore it's less that there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt in Oxford's favor, just that there's enough circumstantial evidence to make him a potential candidate simply because some things line up better with his accreditation. I've never seen a reasonable explanation for why Stratford gave Adonis a bonnet for instance unless he was inspired by the copy of Titian's painting that only existed in Titian's private collection which de Vere is supposed to have visited during his Florentine vacations. That's why I used the analogy of vaccines.
            >Vaccines
            Shakespeare authorship
            >could not cause autism
            could not have been written by anyone else
            >because they prevent unrelated ailments like polio
            because Stratford was literate
            I'm fine with arguments against Oxfordianism people just need to understand the heuristics they're using. Whether or not vaccines cause autism has nothing to do with their prevention of polio. Likewise, Oxford authorship has nothing to do with whether or not Stratford could write. Either man could have done 100% of his work privately. How often has anyone watched a IQfyizen composing manuscript? It's a private activity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Shakespeare authorship
            Shakespeare corpus*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I won't give a definite answer to your question regarding Adonis' bonnet, but I'll look into it. From a first glance, I've gathered that Titian house was in fact a hotspot of noblemen, clergymen and other influential figures of this sort. The question now is: was this the first time Adonis was represented as wearing a bonnet? Were description of the painting available at the time? If not, was this particular referenced indirectly in other texts available in England at the time? Could it be that Shakespeare heard of it from either someone who visited Titian's home, or from someone who heard it from someone who visited Titian's home, and so on? Giving answers to these questions is no matter for lazy amateurs (although an industrious one might complete the task), for they would require either some serious original research, or some serious erudition in the history of ideas and circulation of books, with respect to that period and region. Without this additional research, Adonis' bonnet doesn't raise any question on the authorship issue, since, as far as we know, that reference could have been taken from indirect sources available at the time.
            >Likewise, Oxford authorship has nothing to do with whether or not Stratford could write.
            It is imho, considering that we have no source from that period explicitly attributing these works to someone else. For the question to deserve any consideration there must be something that points to Shakespeare/Stratford not being competent enough (either due to illiteracy, lack of education, or whatever) to have composed those plays. To put it bluntly, without either some source of the time which denies the authorship, or some reason to cast doubt over Stratford's competency, the question deserves virtually no attention (it would be as worthwhile as asking wether Dante really composed the Commedia), and it would certainly not deserve the amount of livor Oxfordians put into it.
            >Either man could have done 100% of his work privately
            One could say that about literally everyone who had lived in that region at that time.

            I'll add: the question might be interesting as an historical exercise. I remember a nutjob on youtube (Wim Winters) claiming that in the classical period everyone played music at half the speed we play it today. It was obviously a completely idiotic theory, but as an exercise it was very fruitful, for many people ended up learning, while debunking them, a lot about musicological sources and the musical practices of the time. But to consider it a serious question, worth fighting over, even though Stratford is a perfectly plausible candidate, and even though no one doubted the authorship of those texts in his time... well, that would be simply ridicolous.
            Unfortunately, as it was the case for Wim Winters, certain people in the public sphere have doubled down on this issue too many times, to a point where they cannot now back down without looking like complete fools. Hence their cult-like behaviour

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't believe Stratford actually was illiterate
            Even him being merely uneducated would be too much, considering the level of sophistication of his works, and the fact that he was in constant strict contact with actors and playwrights. So now we would have to grant that he actually studied in a grammar school, otherwise he could have not pulled it off (and all evidence points out to this). The case of Mamoru in comparison is a cakewalk, considering that he could work in perfect isolation, considering that being a videogame composer requires a very low level of technical knowledge concerning harmony, and considering that his art does not transpire in the very act of speaking.
            Later you say "that just makes Stratford a plausible candidate": but the whole issue is that if he is a perfectly plausible candidate, who was not only literate but also educated in the classics, then we have basically no reason to doubt the authorship of the sonnets and the plays.
            What's the point then?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even him being merely uneducated would be too much, considering the level of sophistication of his works
            I agree, I think he was educated, just plausibly if not probably less so than Oxford.
            >What's the point then?
            Again, simply a number of circumstances that point to Oxford. His Bible annotations are another.

            I won't give a definite answer to your question regarding Adonis' bonnet, but I'll look into it. From a first glance, I've gathered that Titian house was in fact a hotspot of noblemen, clergymen and other influential figures of this sort. The question now is: was this the first time Adonis was represented as wearing a bonnet? Were description of the painting available at the time? If not, was this particular referenced indirectly in other texts available in England at the time? Could it be that Shakespeare heard of it from either someone who visited Titian's home, or from someone who heard it from someone who visited Titian's home, and so on? Giving answers to these questions is no matter for lazy amateurs (although an industrious one might complete the task), for they would require either some serious original research, or some serious erudition in the history of ideas and circulation of books, with respect to that period and region. Without this additional research, Adonis' bonnet doesn't raise any question on the authorship issue, since, as far as we know, that reference could have been taken from indirect sources available at the time.
            >Likewise, Oxford authorship has nothing to do with whether or not Stratford could write.
            It is imho, considering that we have no source from that period explicitly attributing these works to someone else. For the question to deserve any consideration there must be something that points to Shakespeare/Stratford not being competent enough (either due to illiteracy, lack of education, or whatever) to have composed those plays. To put it bluntly, without either some source of the time which denies the authorship, or some reason to cast doubt over Stratford's competency, the question deserves virtually no attention (it would be as worthwhile as asking wether Dante really composed the Commedia), and it would certainly not deserve the amount of livor Oxfordians put into it.
            >Either man could have done 100% of his work privately
            One could say that about literally everyone who had lived in that region at that time.

            I'll add: the question might be interesting as an historical exercise. I remember a nutjob on youtube (Wim Winters) claiming that in the classical period everyone played music at half the speed we play it today. It was obviously a completely idiotic theory, but as an exercise it was very fruitful, for many people ended up learning, while debunking them, a lot about musicological sources and the musical practices of the time. But to consider it a serious question, worth fighting over, even though Stratford is a perfectly plausible candidate, and even though no one doubted the authorship of those texts in his time... well, that would be simply ridicolous.
            Unfortunately, as it was the case for Wim Winters, certain people in the public sphere have doubled down on this issue too many times, to a point where they cannot now back down without looking like complete fools. Hence their cult-like behaviour

            >for they would require either some serious original research, or some serious erudition in the history of ideas and circulation of books, with respect to that period and region.
            I agree completely which is why I'm agnostic here. I'm not an expert but the handwaving "trust the scholars" arguments against Oxford simply aren't enough to satisfy me either. Scholars need to continually earn the respect of the public and they seem to care less and less about that lately.
            >but as an exercise it was very fruitful, for many people ended up learning, while debunking them, a lot about [...] sources
            This is how I look at it too. Also Wim Wenders the director? That's pretty hilarious.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's Wim WINTERS, just a quack on youtube.
            Here's him playing Beethoven's Appassionata using his """historical""" tempo. Go to 34.15 if you want to have a laugh https://youtu.be/v8OvRvufB3o?si=OX_wEs0ZZJAR9Dr6
            If you're unfamiliar with the piece, here's how it's usually played: https://youtu.be/8bb2NQ6j7PA?si=BsmAtTFknMykrTBk
            I guess we can forgive him. He's Dutch, so he is most likely incapable of experiencing actual passion (as you would expect from someone who is playing a sonata called "Appassionata")

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The worst part is that he could have made a name for himself on youtube without that idiotic theory. Fast pieces played at half speed would be an EXCELLENT resource for students. Unfortunately the desire to be a prophet cursed him.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it's Wim WINTERS, just a quack on youtube.
            Sorry eyes aren't what they used to be. Hilarious all the same.

            The last thing I'll say re: Oxford is that I think the nuance is, even if the alternative authorship claims are incorrect, they aren't the batshit schizo takes they are characterized as, as with a lot of conspiracy theories. In the event Oxford did write the plays there is at least sufficient reason for him to have published pseudonymously. That's all. Thanks for the effortposts ttyl.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they aren't the batshit schizo takes they are characterized as
            They actually are. The "scholarly" BS in the OP was adequately debunked by common IQfyizens. Stritmatter is a lunatic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A single data point was debunked there are myriad others. For instance the bonnet and the annotations in de Vere's Bible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why would De Vere use as a cover a seemingly illiterate guy, who was constantly in contact with actors, playwrights and other intellectuals, and who therefore could have not have passed as the author of those deeply brilliant sonnets and plays?
            Why do you assume he did? "William Shake-speare" could be a completely unrelated pseudonym, likely referencing the goddess Athena. The first clear link to Shakspere from Stratford was not established until the release of the First Folio, so for all we know Shakspere was only chosen as a "frontman" after both were already dead. Of all the contemporaneous documents found that refer to William Shakspere from Stratford, not a single one suggests that he is a writer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's no evidence playwrights used pen names during Shakespeare's era. Being a playwright wasn't considered disreputable, and Shakespeare achieved fame under his own name. He was a poet before he was a playwright also, btw. His poetry like Venus and Adonis was published in his lifetime and a printer from Stratford registered the title, the dedication is signed by him and it's there where he dedicates lines of poetry to someone (connection to William Shakespeare as a writer = established). Also, while the First Folio (1623) is a key source, records mentioning "William Shakspere" (a common spelling variation) from Stratford exist before it. These include tax documents, property transactions, and legal mentions. Not every document about someone mentions their profession. Shakespeare's career likely started in theatre around 1585, and some documents might predate that or deal with other aspects of his life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the Oxford conspiracy requires dozens of people to keep a big secret, something humans are naturally bad at doing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Eddie's poetry is nothing like Shakespeare's. I'm not sure why his involvement is even necessary.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >HE JUST COULDNT HAVE!!!!

    Is this basically what the Oxfordian theory comes down to? Never seen anyone put forth anything other than really shaky tenuous proof

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How come NO ONE has posted it yet?

    Anyways. The fact that the most famous English writer is a Playwright is proof that the Anglo can't into the novel or any other form that isn't poetry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think the Americans mogged the Anglos when it comes to the novel.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not surprising considering the novel is a commercialised, soulless medium

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think novels can have soul. Unfortunately not these days but same goes for poetry.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >when you out-Saxon the Saxon

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nearing 100 replies yet we are no closer to settlement.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone reasonable has agreed that Ed wrote the plays. The national language of England was declared French and the Norman coat of arms fell from the sky as a divine voice decreed all angloid occupied territory as rightful vikang land.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >reasonable
        >posts schizophrenic theories
        Nice try.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The average person was just smarter back then. They didn't have welfare states and disease was brutal. Moderns superimpose their contemporary observations about
    class onto an incongruent past. They think Shakespeare was just an Elizabethan Deano and couldn't possibly have any access to books about Julius Caesar. Some people win the genetic lottery. Joseph Haydn's mother was a cook in a palace of a count. His father made carriages.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tolstoy was the original ESL poster. If you can't appreciate this then you're never going to make it.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    almost 100 replies and no one posted it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do us the honors anon.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bongistan is such a class-obsessed society that merely the idea that some non-aristocrat can write good stuff is sacrilegious.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Worse, they think every person without a peerage was just a shit shoveling peasant. They pay no consideration to the granular difference between plebiscite merchants, clergy, solicitors, brickies, planters, etc..

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one wrote Shakespearesl's plays. They are self-arisen, like the Vedas

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You'd have to be moronic to still be a Stratfordian in 2024... or a contrarian on IQfy. No one here defending the Stratford theory will actually address any Oxfordian claims in good faith though. It's always just
    >take meds, schizo
    >muh le greentext strawman

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the Stratford theory
      aka the truth
      >Oxfordian claims
      schizo babble
      >It's always just
      bring serious arguments and maybe things will change

      Oxfordians "scholars" always come up with moronic shit like the stupidity in the article. That's easily debunked. See

      https://i.imgur.com/O1UogNv.png

      Now, I've only read the Guardian article, but it places considerable circumstantial weight on the claim that "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'." To wit:

      >Drawing on the history of commonplace book arrangement, Stritmatter notes that the order of names in Meres’ list aligns each classical writer with his English counterpart: Plautus and Anthony Munday wrote comedies about braggart soldiers; Archippus Atheniensis and Thomas Nashe wrote satires involving fish. Why is Aristonymus aligned with Shakespeare? ***Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, “the aristocratic name”.*** The Earl of Oxford, who aligns with no one, is the only aristocratic name on the list. Stritmatter argues that the alignment of “Shakespeare” with “the aristocratic name” points to Oxford. “It may be concluded that Francis Meres, using ‘Aristonymus’ as the mediating signifier, said that ‘Shakespeare = Oxford.’”

      But five minutes of research tells a different story: That the name "Aristonymous" was identified with one or more ancient personalities, most notably a comic playwright thought to be a contemporary of Aristophanes. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristonymus_(writer). See also pic related.

      Now Stritmatter may address this issue, but based on the information available in the Guardian, the fact that "Aristonymous" was identified with a comic playwright refutes or at least substantially undercuts the claim that (i) "Nothing is known of Aristonymus, except that his name means, 'the aristocratic name'."

      (ii) On its face, it is plausible that Aristonymous, the comic playwright, would be aligned with Shakespeare, a comic playwright, on Meres' list.
      Thus, there is no great mystery here that can only be solved via recourse to the Earl of Oxford, but rather a very simple and straightforward solution. Occam's razor favors the latter over the former.

      (iii) Likewise the existence of a real-life Aristonymous refutes or at least undercuts Stritmatter's claim that "the alignment of 'Shakespeare' with 'the aristocratic name' points to Oxford." An historical Aristonymous makes Stritmatter's search for a Shakespearean contemporary with an "aristocratic name" into a wild goose chase after an entirely hypothetical, imaginary person.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for proving my point, moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nice sass but your "point" is simply you being butthurt after being called out for the moronic schizo shit you promote.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's how vaxxers operate. They still don't know where Atlantis is because they've been told it's a myth so many times. It is a myth but that's a separate question from if the place referenced really exists.

      >the Stratford theory
      aka the truth
      >Oxfordian claims
      schizo babble
      >It's always just
      bring serious arguments and maybe things will change

      Oxfordians "scholars" always come up with moronic shit like the stupidity in the article. That's easily debunked. See [...]

      >See
      >ackshually it's possible to come up with alternative interpretations for each individual point of data therefore anyone who actually thinks independently is a schizo

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        moron

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >heh, looks like the aristo- prefix actually means high not noble, deboonked!
          Pure reddit debate bro shit. No hint of actual thought.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nice strawman. Oxfordians are very good at fan fiction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do I steelman this nonsense while remaining consistent? If providing alternative possible interpretations is enough to dismiss a model then all models must be dismissed.
            Oxford predicts more points of data we have access to and doesn't rest on some hypothetical cypher being valid or the idea that it's impossible for someone outside the aristocracy.
            There once was a big stash of renowned plays. Then it disappeared and another stash with the same description appeared.
            It's a mystery nobody will ever solve but if you're not moronic you work from the model that needs fewer complications to account for more. Just because something is commonly accepted doesn't mean it's the simpler or more reasonable model, needing fewer words to reference it doesn't mean it's simpler.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah it's like the main argument against vaccines contributing to autism is that they prevent polio. The main, and best, argument against Oxfordian theory is that Stratford could have written the plays.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Harold Bloom on Freud's Oxfordian conversion (1994).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, that is delicious.

      From now on, out with the so-called Oxfordians. No, they should properly be called the Looneys.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Men who understand humans notice more inconsistencies in the Stratford dogma. The Stratcuck needs a list of exceptions to explain each point of data while the Oxchadian needs none. It all falls into place.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Men who understand humans
        Get a load of this homosexual

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People of the past were not very good at keeping records, so the only major playwright of the era that is 100% confirmed to have attended grammar school is Christopher Marlowe. I guess he's behind the work of all the others. Truly a hardworking guy, even working from the grave.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ENTER

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you need to attend grammar school to be smart
    Elizabethan England wasn't like medieval Europe were books were gatekept by the church. Some people are just born smarter than you. Get over it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It was an argument against oxfordians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Abraham Lincoln never had formal schooling but somehow managed to become a lawyer and a man of letters.

      >[Ben Jonson] spent his childhood in poverty, was the stepson of a bricklayer, and never went to a university. Yet he managed to pull himself up to become recognized as the most learned classical scholar in England, and to spend a lot of time at James's court hobnobbing with the rich and powerful.
      Jonson is probably a more extreme case than Shakespeare.

      I'm sorry oxfordsisters, it's settled. It's possible for a pleb to write stuff therefore all that evidence and stuff is irrelevant.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what evidence? /x/ tier babble that's debunked?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >all that evidence
        The evidence that Shakespeare’s best plays came after the earls death?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can equivocate as much as you like, but there is still zero evidence that Shakspere had so much as a grammar school education, that he had access to extensive private or university libraries, or that he was even literate. His will makes no mention of any books or manuscripts. "He was just REALLY smart, chud" is not a compelling explanation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Prove that any writer of that era besides Christopher Marlowe attended grammar school

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Same can be said about all the other playwrights of the period. But all of them got their classical knowledge from somewhere. The leap from "there isn't any record of grammar school attendance" to "it was de Vere!" is moronic. How do you account for the other guys?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          *crickets*

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "He was just really smart" is the Chud opinion. White men are gifted with intellect.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, they must publish their great works in shame under a different name with the help of dozens of conspirators. Else it's not believable they wrote them.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Abraham Lincoln never had formal schooling but somehow managed to become a lawyer and a man of letters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >[Ben Jonson] spent his childhood in poverty, was the stepson of a bricklayer, and never went to a university. Yet he managed to pull himself up to become recognized as the most learned classical scholar in England, and to spend a lot of time at James's court hobnobbing with the rich and powerful.
      Jonson is probably a more extreme case than Shakespeare.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I’ve never really been convinced of the Oxford theory because surely one of Shakespeare’s contemporaries would’ve outright said after Shakespeare’s death that de Vere was the true author rather than leaving secret codes that needed to be deciphered. Why would anyone go on further with the charade, especially collaborators?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because they respected his wishes.

      >all that evidence
      The evidence that Shakespeare’s best plays came after the earls death?

      That's one example of a strong pro-Oxford point. Where's Eddie's stash that should have appeared after his death?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what stash?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's just one of a million points you don't know about but still act like you have it all figured out because it's possible for plebs to write. Look up an introduction to the theory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You sound upset.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have greatly offended me and reason itself by polluting this important discussion with your wilful ignorance.

            >Macbeth (1606): The play mentions the "equivocation" used in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
            >The Tempest (1611): Prospero mentions he was "twelve year since" usurped from his Dukedom. If we take this literally, it could be a reference to the Virginia colony founded in 1607.

            Page 9.
            https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SOSNL_2013_2.pdf

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because the de Vere family was still at risk of persecution and scandal, since many of the characters in the plays were satirizing real historical figures.

      "He was just really smart" is the Chud opinion. White men are gifted with intellect.

      >White men are gifted with intellect.
      I'm pretty sure Edward de Vere was also white.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Because the de Vere family was still at risk of persecution and scandal
        t. your ass
        >since many of the characters in the plays were satirizing real historical figures.
        t. your ass

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So an aristocratic family would risk persecution but a commoner wouldn't? What's the logic?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Shakspere's family wouldn't be at risk because according to the Stratfordian argument, these are just fictional characters. But when you explicitly link the plays to Edward de Vere, plausible deniability disappears and suddenly it becomes a lot more obvious that e.g. Polonius is a parody of William Cecil, de Vere's guardian and father-in-law.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Shakspere's family wouldn't be at risk because according to the Stratfordian argument, these are just fictional characters.
            This isn't a Stratfordian argument, necessarily.
            >it becomes a lot more obvious that e.g. Polonius is a parody of William Cecil, de Vere's guardian and father-in-law.
            Even if it's inspired by Cecil, it's arguably not a parody and just another dramatic element. Plus Cecil was pretty famous in Elizabethan society.

            Nothing about Polonius necessitates the involvement of de Vere. This isn't even circumstantial evidence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nothing about Polonius necessitates the involvement of de Vere. This isn't even circumstantial evidence.
            Always the same kind of braindead dishonest reddit shit. Do you know how to do anything else?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lol cope and seethe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Debunked. My seething post doesn't necessitate that I'm seething.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >muh switcheroo
            you were the redditor all along

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The only information you have to go on is my post. The post is your only clue to my emotional state. Assuming I'm seething, as communicated by the post is reasonable. Talking about how one does not "necessitate" the other is braindead. You only apply this standard when it's convenient.
            Finding a well maintained farm doesn't strictly speaking "necessitate" there was ever a farmer there. It just heavily implies it, the evidence stacks up so any alternative becomes increasingly unlikely. The farm being there paints a picture of a farmer working it which you can easily dismiss using this exact kind of fake scepticism you're using now but you only apply it when defending some mainstream dogma you like.
            >it's possible that shovel was simply left there by a wandering shovel trader
            Thanks, I'm finally euphoric not due to any phony blessing but because of my intelligence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Autism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's the most important point you'll ever read redditor. This is a hint to how to formalize the process of tuning the focus of a telescope, approaching truth in general, divination and using demons for treasure hunting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the truth was preserved

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Macbeth (1606): The play mentions the "equivocation" used in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
    >The Tempest (1611): Prospero mentions he was "twelve year since" usurped from his Dukedom. If we take this literally, it could be a reference to the Virginia colony founded in 1607.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There’s a piece of evidence to suggest Oxford might have written the works. There’s a very bizarre digression in the Rape of Lucrece of a painting of the sack of Troy; its description being as detailed and specific as it was suggested to me that it had to have been a real painting. Supposedly, they found it in Italy where it had once belonged to a friend of de Vere’s whom he visited.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what painting? what passage?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lines 1418-1626 of the poem. Do you not remember that section? For me, it stood incredibly and unforgettably out. As for the painting, Giulio Romano’s Sala di Troia.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Equally plausible is that Henry Wriothesley either told him about the painting or Shakespeare went to Italy himself with Wriothesley. Both theories are equally bullshit. Shakespeare was in the same social circle as De Vere. Why do you think he lived like a brickie?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's too much irony and sarcasm in your reply that I don't know what the frick you're saying. Write like a man.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t have a stake in the argument that Oxford wrote them. But the painting in Lucrece most definitely had an antecedent.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You don't get it schizo. It's possible to account for this point of data like all the others without "necessitating" that Ed wrote the plays therefore Bill wrote them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're a moron. I don't give a frick about the authorship question.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I've read the digression but I couldn't find the episodes it mostly focuses on - Hecuba crying over Priam's body and the story of Sinon - in the pictures of the frescoes you mentioned that I saw online or in the description that the curators give of it. On the other hand book II of the Aeneid goes on at lenght on both Sinon and the death of Priam (though Hecuba is never shown finding the body) and many details match up: Sinon is brought to the Trojans by shepherds, is ready to die, the tears that Priam sheds will bring on the fall of Troy and, upon witnessing the death of Priam, both Aeneas and Lucrece feel the irresistible urge to kill Helen. As for the digression itself a good parallel is in book I of the Aeneid where a little overe fifty verses is spent describing Aeneas being overcome with emotions in front of a painting of the war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I just want to post a response letting you know that I appreciate the effort you've gone through and that the silence had no ill intent. I don't know if I'll investigate the Aeneid for the allusion, but thank you regardless.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Orson Welles was merely an actor from a broken home, the son of an alcoholic, with an institutionalized brother. His later career was spent doing drunken wine commercials and voicing the Transformers cartoon
    >analysis of this film shows several similarities to the life of William Randolph Hearst
    >therefore, we must conclude that Hearst actually wrote and directed the movie, and the attribution to Welles was merely an elaborate coverup

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Really good post but I'm guessing you haven't read Pauline Kael's cope-core israeli apology Raising Kane.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I haven’t. I hadn’t even heard of it. That’s very funny, thank you anon

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ok but people actually do claim this and there was a movie about it a couple years ago

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >write something
    >people like it
    >then some homosexuals give credit to someone else
    being a writer is a gamble on different levels

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So the only “proof” oxfordians have is some improbable conspiracy about releasing a stash of plays? So where is the proof of this?

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > you have to admit his works being written by an exhaustively educated man of noble birth really hurts foundational theories of egalitarian ideology like tabula rasa or self-made men.
    Are you an idiot? You got this exactly backwards. Egalitarian theory would have it that a poor Shakespeare couldn’t have done it because we need mo money fo dem programs.
    If talent and intelligence is instead genetic, it’s fine for high skill and minimal education to coexist.
    Shakespeare has to be noble because only rich people can be educated is a stunning convergence of anachronistic blue blood voodoo and communist talking points.
    Shakespeare being a genetically gifted genius who excelled despite minimal environmental factors is what stabs at egalitarianism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I qualified that later in the thread.

      Thank you for the effortpost, I actually agree. I'm OP but I don't think the Stratfordian hypothesis necessarily negates the existence of a genetic aristocracy even if it doesn't overlap with the landed nobility. If it's not genetic it's another type.

      Each theory would hurt a different strand of egalitarianism depending on how it's read. Oxfordian theory hurts bootstrap libertarians and Stratfordian theory hurts the leftards you describe.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Another death blow to Shakespeare denialism. Which has survived more death blows than Richard III, than Julius Caesar, more than any zombie in a horror flick. It just keeps on shambling.

    How Oxford's Letters Cross Him Off As “Shakespeare”
    >Speake the Speech I pray you, as I pronounc'd it to you

    The Earl of Oxford’s English is unique. It is both stuffily antiquated, as befits his rank, and slipshod, both courtly and clownish, with odd malapropian lapses. He is at once pompous and a hobnailed rustic. His linguistic profile is distinctive; it is quantifiable. Like DNA, it can be matched. There is, of course, no reason to imagine that the earl wrote Shakespeare’s plays and poetry, or Golding’s verse translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The evidence against his authorship of Shakespeare—documentary, intellectual, stylistic, social, chronological, theatrical, historical—is beyond overwhelming, as absolute as anything outside of numbers can be. But if a Shakespeare needed to be sought, the earl would not be interviewed. His DNA excludes him. Oxford simply didn’t speak the playwright’s language. Nor did he speak his uncle Golding’s, despite a few shared Essexisms.

    How do we know this?

    Early modern writers spelled as they spoke. If a poet rhymes “strike” with “seek,” or spells the palace “Whyte Haale” and the country “Waales,” that’s evidence of how those words sounded to him: how he spoke. In print, of course, the evidence is altered. Printers often worked from eye to ear to hand, respelling as they set.

    Fortunately, manuscripts in holograph survive for all three poets: Oxford’s letters, Golding’s prose translation of a Latin Aesop, and Shakespeare’s additions to Sir Thomas More.

    By a close comparison of their orthographies, unchanged by printers, and by a study of their rhyme-words, it is quite possible to hear where they diverge...

    Beyond all this, Oxford appears to have had some sort of word-deafness, neurological perhaps. He badly mishears consonants, especially in proper nouns, and bungles, drops, or adds them in. A great impediment to poetry.

    The viscount was brought up in Smith’s household—where his warden preached the reformation of the English language—from the age of eight or nine until he succeeded to his father’s title at twelve. Yet he emerged with his rustic accent unexpunged. It must have been his cradle-tongue, the one his grooms and nurses spoke to him at Hedingham. It stuck with him for life. In his last surviving letter, to the King1 in 1603, he still writes “leke” for “like.”

    Read the whole thing: https://www.oxfraud.com/HND-spellbound

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shakespeare was a gentleman by 1599 when his family got a coat of arms. Why do homosexuals keep insisting he was le poor peasant? Frick you.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s easy to see in this thread who has a wild imagination and moronic brain

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >point of data
    = fairy dust in lacuna

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i am NOT an oxfordian however i deny that shakespeare wrote all his works. some boring landlord who didn't own a single book did not write all those genius plays sorry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He was an actor too, thoughbeit.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Some anons read The Da Vinci Code too many times and are seeing perceived clues where there is nothing. It’s unironically a sign of early stage schizophrenia

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I like to exercise my ability to interpret clues like by predicting physical things I can actually check. Why don't you and why are there so many of you passionately against anyone who does? You hate thinking in all forms including when other people do it?

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get it. Edward de Vere is Shakespeare because of a list of names? What??

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bill and Ed are counted as one name.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yes they are. Again you're doing that thing mentioned earlier where you apparently can't separate claims. The vax doesn't cause autism or whatever because it fights polio.
    The actual paper isn't found where cited so you're talking about a second hand guardian writer describing a paper. Then you homosexuals pretend "aristo" meaning highest is some gotcha and ignore the actual point made in the article. No hint of honesty, all reddit all the time. This is true whoever wrote the plays.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Then you homosexuals pretend "aristo" meaning highest is some gotcha and ignore the actual point made in the article.
      God forbid people who actually know Greek point out that the name "Aristonymous" doesn't mean "the aristocratic name" (which it couldn't mean anyway without ignoring that "aristocratic" is a word already put together out of two other Greek terms). Aristo means "best", btw, homosexual.

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    holy fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oxfordians BTFO

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Oxfordgays: Shakes-peare? Shake rhymes with fake and peare kind of sounds like person. That means he's a fake person and he came up with this cryptic name for us to solve!

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The oxies couldn't refute me btw
    So I win 😀

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We know there was someone who wrote a bunch of plays and poems and he also wrote some plays in collaboration with others
    That someone was Shakespeare and that's enough for me

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For me, its Chesterton's theory that Shakespeare of Stratford was the true author of the works of Francis Bacon

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    am i still banned here?

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is no direct evidence to support this hypothesis, only circumstantial. Read some of his works, and if you have good judgement, ask whether they compare.
    https://archive.org/details/poemsshakespeare00oxfouoft

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *