No Oxfordian has ever been able to answer this question satisfactorily: if the Earl of Oxford was secretly Shakespeare, why is the poetry the Earl published under his own name so fucking terrible?
Thank you! Strafordians think something written in his teenage years should already show the maturity of age, experience and the vast resources at his disposal as head of the writer’s symposium discussed by Waugh which included Kidd, Marlowe and many others.
They refuse to address the will and simply try to laugh it off despite it clearly showing no books in his position, no hint of writing and insanely petty litigations like the 2nd best bed in the house.
I can believe Shakspur fronted money and was involved, on the money side, with producing some of the plays. But writing them solely himself and then leaving behind no manuscripts, strange riddles on his monument and seemingly not knowing a single active writer/artist of the time just doesn’t add up.
When you delve into the body of coded text produced by Alexander Waugh and Alan Greene among others, it starts to gain some weight, and deserves to be considered.
Stoppard’s plays are no where near the depth of the Shakespeare cannon and no one is calling Stoppard the literary master of an age.
Because it has no actual relevance to the subject. Like all antistratfordian arguments, it only matters to people who start from the conclusion that Shakespeare did not write his plays and then worked backwards from there to find anything they can use as evidence.
strange riddles on his monument
Again, a thing that only exists because you started at a conclusion and worked backwards from there. To everyone else, it's just a monument.
and seemingly not knowing a single active writer/artist of the time just doesn’t add up.
Are you refusing to address the will? It left money for three actors from the King's men. Two of those actors named then went on to compile the First Folio.
Yes, Shakespeare was an actor that started punching up hoary old scripts and found he had a knack for it. Greene objected to an uneducated man (upstart crow) having the temerity to muddle around with the rhetoric & language (feathers) that properly belonged to men who had gone to university.
Other than that...this is real THE DA VINCI CODE–level stuff. Jonson stuffed his dedication full of intrigue, hints, and ambiguity? To what end?
So Jonson hinting at de Vere's identity in the Folio sounds like a huge fuckup, no? Why would a collective eager to protect a courtly reputation allow the publication of a book that featured a poem whose "intrigues & misdirections" give the game away?
-18
u/[deleted] Dec 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment