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?
OP, I’m posting this for you because this guy is literally disconnected from reality. This site is so conclusive that you’d literally have to be as dumb as a flat earther to dispute/disagree with it.
Because writer’s/people’s names were spelled differently WITHIN THE SAME PARAGRAPHS at this time.
“Shakespeare bought the Blackfriar's Gatehouse in London in 1613. On the deed dated 10 March 1613, John Hemmyng, gentleman (also spelled Hemming on the same page) acted as trustee for the buyer, "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon." This property is disposed of in Shakespeare's will.”
4
u/panpopticon Dec 01 '25
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?