| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: May 11 2005
Posts: 132313
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 9:09am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
For Oxford to be Shakespeare, he needs to desperately hide his prowess as a playwright, despite being acclaimed as one and suffering no ill consequences as a result (to the best of my knowledge? Or is there anything that happened to Oxford circa 1598, after Palladis Tamia is published, that Oxfordians point to as evidence that he did fall foul of the Queen, or Burghley?).••• Again, tiresome. I’ve already offered a reasonable, non-conspiratorial way for the Shake-speare name to attach to the work without “desperation” on Oxford’s part. And, please, spare us this WALKING WITH DINOSAURS nonsense. Don’t apply emotion and motive where none is recorded.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: January 01 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 9:37am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
@JB:
...spare us this WALKING WITH DINOSAURS nonsense. Don’t apply emotion and motive where none is recorded.
------------------------------------------------------------ -
?
I haven't - isn't the Oxfordian position that De Vere was obliged, or pressured, to hide his role as a playwright, and that it would be a terrible scandal if the truth were to be known? Again, and as I've posted above, if this isn't right, I'm happy to be put right.
Thanks also for the link, which I'll try to read as soon as I can.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: May 11 2005
Posts: 132313
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 10:02am | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
I haven't - isn't the Oxfordian position that De Vere was obliged, or pressured, to hide his role as a playwright, and that it would be a terrible scandal if the truth were to be known? Again, and as I've posted above, if this isn't right, I'm happy to be put right.••• No one has said Oxford was “pressured,” other than in the broadest sense, by his upbringing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: January 01 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
@JB:
No one has said Oxford was “pressured,” other than in the broadest sense, by his upbringing.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant (and also by my earlier post when I said desperate - I didn't mean in the sense of panicking, but in the sense that it was an urgent requirement).
And, of course, it isn't true, given the public, and contemporary, praise of Meres in 1598, and also George Puttenham, in 1589 - neither of which seems to have resulted in any negative consequences for De Vere.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: May 11 2005
Posts: 132313
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 11:27am | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
And, of course, it isn't true, given the public, and contemporary, praise of Meres in 1598, and also George Puttenham, in 1589 - neither of which seems to have resulted in any negative consequences for De Vere.••• Try—try really, really hard—to understand that Oxford was known as a poet and playwright (“the best for comedy”) based on work created for the court, not the public theaters. It’s really quite simple if you’ll just stop trying to force 21st Century sensibilities into it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: January 01 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
@JB:
Shakespeare's plays were performed for the public AND the court, and enjoyed hugely by both. There's the popular story - that may not necessarily be true, but it's a nice anecdote - that Elizabeth I ordered Shakespeare to write The Merry Wives Of Windsor because she wanted to see more of Falstaff.
One version of Henry IV: Part Two has an Epilogue in which the author addresses the audience, apologises for a "displeasing play" - no-one is quite sure what this was, as far as I know - and ends by directly addressing the Queen herself. If De Vere was indeed the author, addressing Elizabeth at court - where is where such an address must have been made, as she could hardly have attended the Rose, or the Globe - wouldn't this have caused some remark? If this was Shakespeare falsely claiming credit, why didn't De Vere speak up? Surely the court would have preferred it if Henry IV: Part Two was written by one of their own, rather than a mere commoner?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: May 11 2005
Posts: 132313
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 1:10pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Shakespeare's plays were performed for the public AND the court, and enjoyed hugely by both. ••• Yet, oddly, when those plays first appeared before the public, they were anonymous. What would prompt the author to do that? Unless the Author had no control over the release, and the printers were playing it safe. But, enough. I have better things to do.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: January 01 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 1:41pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
@JB:
If Shakespeare is being falsely credited with Oxford's writing, how does the former get hold of the latter's manuscripts, and why does the latter do nothing about it?
If Oxford can't arrange for Shakespeare to be burgled, bumped of, or in some way in trouble with the authorities - as may have happened with Kit Marlowe, and the latter certainly befalling Thomas Kyd - and if he's unable to publish his works under his own name, why doesn't he pre-empt Shakespeare by arranging for a proxy of his own choice to pretend to be the author?
Instead, he just fumes hopelessly and helplessly, making no attempt to retrieve the plays he's already written, or continuing to write plays that he knows will be nicked from him?
I am but mad north-north-west!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Danion
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: January 15 2006
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 2:40pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
If De Vere was the "best for comedy" - and wrote the works attributed to Shakespere - how come everyone on the planet knows who Shakespere is, but the same can't be said for De Vere? If they were the same person, works published under De Vere's own name should be equally recognized.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: May 11 2005
Posts: 132313
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 2:49pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
De Vere was cited as “the best for comedy” in his lifetime. Where are the plays that testify to this? Published under another name, perhaps?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: January 01 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: April 27 2019 at 2:51pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
@David Danion:Well, quite. It's odd that De Vere was able to publish apparently mediocre works under his own name, but was happy, or unable to prevent, Shakespeare from nicking his better work and claiming it for his own.
While I've cited the praise the De Vere received from some of his contemporaries, it's also worth noting that many modern critics haven't been terribly impressed by De Vere's writing. Amusingly, for all the claims by some Oxfordian's couldn't have taken credit for the plays due to his noble status, it may have been the case that he was only afforded praise because of his noble status and that he was never actually a particularly talented writer.
Edited by Steven Brake on April 27 2019 at 2:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: January 01 2016
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: April 28 2019 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
Good heavens - book arrived this afternoon!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
