@@MrMartibobs The problem is the dishonest portrayal of him as someone who came from nothing, the son of a simple tradesman. Jonson and Marlowe WERE that. Self-made men who used their brilliance to become successful against all odds. Shakespeare was not that at all.
@@MrMartibobs In the end Shakespeare-wrote-Shakespeare is faith-based. People wish to believe so they do. But actual research into the actual historical facts pushes forward. That's the great thing about research, you don't need to rely on hopes and prayers. You get to study real physical objects and learn about them.
For me is not about Shakespeare, it's about orthodoxy. Most academic institutions continue to push the myth that there is no question about authorship. That is not the purpose of education which is to promote inquiry, not be intransigent.
True. But that's why it's bogus that there are people who pretend Hand D matches Shakespeare's signatures. But even if one does compare, they do not match!
The Shakespeare question is all very interesting. If Edward De Vere is the really author then what is his motive? Was he an actor or involved with the theater because he certainly understood stagecraft? Did he receive any payment or did he write the plays for nothing? Why would De Vere who knew he had written works of genius and yet was quite happy to allow another man take credit for his lifelong work? These are the questions which have bothered me for some time...can anyone enlighten me....
As far as I remember, most of the various YT lectures dedicated to the 27th Earl of Oxford do give logical + satisfactory motives to his personal ‘will’ to write anonymously in that very historical context.
PS: Among the most convincing of all is one of those I watched and rewatched lately : Canadian Prof. Ron Dubin’s (or Don Rubin’s? 🤔) ‘’A critical approach to the Authorship Question’’.
What was Vere's motive to hide his name? The simple answer is that he wanted to. Writers hide their names all the time, and very seldom are their motives in doing so questioned, so why should it be any idifferent for Vere? From the day he was born (before his identity was erased) he was one of the most famous men in England and Europe just because he was born to be the Earl of Oxford; he could not become more famous or more wealthy from mere writing, so he may just have written for the love of writing and not cared about credit. That said, he was probably very interested in getting honest reactions to his work, and that would be impossible if he wrote under his own name; there would be no way for him to know if those who praised his works did so to only gain favor, and likewise there would be many who rejected his works simply because he was an aristocrat. The only way he could count on getting honest feedback was to hide his name. And he seemed to genuinely enjoy pen-names. As more information is examined it seems to indicate that Vere used many pen-names, perhaps 150 or more. Some famous writers, like Greene and Nashe, and dozens of authors of individual poems, all appear to actually be Edward Vere. This has opened up a new line of thinking that perhaps Vere's task was to make it seem like England had more culture than it did by appearing to have far more educated writers than it actually did.
Go Keir! These are such important questions.
Love your take on Hand D. Best analogy I've heard yet!
Thanks so much!
@@MrMartibobs All hail the son of the mayor who came from wealth and generated even more wealth, dying a rich landowner!
@@MrMartibobs The problem is the dishonest portrayal of him as someone who came from nothing, the son of a simple tradesman. Jonson and Marlowe WERE that. Self-made men who used their brilliance to become successful against all odds. Shakespeare was not that at all.
@@MrMartibobs Yes, well, no one ever went astray by making assumptions and believing in them!
@@MrMartibobs In the end Shakespeare-wrote-Shakespeare is faith-based. People wish to believe so they do. But actual research into the actual historical facts pushes forward. That's the great thing about research, you don't need to rely on hopes and prayers. You get to study real physical objects and learn about them.
Why should we care? The plays are in Public domain and still being done.
For me is not about Shakespeare, it's about orthodoxy. Most academic institutions continue to push the myth that there is no question about authorship. That is not the purpose of education which is to promote inquiry, not be intransigent.
Let those who have ears here.
You can’t compare signatures to samples of writing. You need more data.
True. But that's why it's bogus that there are people who pretend Hand D matches Shakespeare's signatures. But even if one does compare, they do not match!
@@keircutler hey Keir, the whole thing is very strange, little to no surviving documents etc. It would be a great Dan Brown novel.
You're making our argument for us.
@10:03 How is leaving books off reading lists funny? Is it funny because they know it's true? The modern version of burning a book isn't funny.
The Shakespeare question is all very interesting. If Edward De Vere is the really author then what is his motive? Was he an actor or involved with the theater because he certainly understood stagecraft? Did he receive any payment or did he write the plays for nothing? Why would De Vere who knew he had written works of genius and yet was quite happy to allow another man take credit for his lifelong work? These are the questions which have bothered me for some time...can anyone enlighten me....
See Alexander Waugh's page.
As far as I remember, most of the various YT lectures dedicated to the 27th Earl of Oxford do give logical + satisfactory motives to his personal ‘will’ to write anonymously in that very historical context.
PS: Among the most convincing of all is one of those I watched and rewatched lately : Canadian Prof. Ron Dubin’s (or Don Rubin’s? 🤔) ‘’A critical approach to the Authorship Question’’.
What was Vere's motive to hide his name? The simple answer is that he wanted to. Writers hide their names all the time, and very seldom are their motives in doing so questioned, so why should it be any idifferent for Vere? From the day he was born (before his identity was erased) he was one of the most famous men in England and Europe just because he was born to be the Earl of Oxford; he could not become more famous or more wealthy from mere writing, so he may just have written for the love of writing and not cared about credit. That said, he was probably very interested in getting honest reactions to his work, and that would be impossible if he wrote under his own name; there would be no way for him to know if those who praised his works did so to only gain favor, and likewise there would be many who rejected his works simply because he was an aristocrat. The only way he could count on getting honest feedback was to hide his name. And he seemed to genuinely enjoy pen-names. As more information is examined it seems to indicate that Vere used many pen-names, perhaps 150 or more. Some famous writers, like Greene and Nashe, and dozens of authors of individual poems, all appear to actually be Edward Vere. This has opened up a new line of thinking that perhaps Vere's task was to make it seem like England had more culture than it did by appearing to have far more educated writers than it actually did.
He got a 1000 pound annuity from the Queen from 1586, never explained by historians...