- Mar 19, 2001
- PA USA
- Basic Beliefs
Swammi posted a link somewhere upthread to some poems by Oxford which Swammi said we're penned when Oxford was "in his thirties." I have mentioned the link already, and will say again what I have already said:
No poet of the first rank was writing juvenilia into their thirties. Some of our best poets were dead and buried before they made thirty. Chatterton (dead at 17), Keats, Wilfred Owen, Shelley, Marlowe, Rupert Brooke, Alan Seeger, Keith Douglass...
If Oxford was still mediocre (good but not exceptional) into his thirties, I submit that he could not have become the greatest poet of all time in English, in any number of years, by virtue of any number of tutors.
I submit that it is impossible, not just improbable, for Oxford to have written Shakespeare.
You will probably enjoy some of Ros Barber's presentations. She is a non-Stratfordian but not an Oxfordian.
There is obviously a lot of discussion in stylometrics concerning Shakespeare. It seems to be a cherry picking exercise actually, not unlike orthodox scholarship. Much of it attributes different parts of Shakespeare to different authors, Marlowe included. The results depend on the parameters one sets, namely if one decides a certain piece is exclusively "Shakespeare" and then proceeds to make comparisons. It's really not scientific. "Shakespeare" ends up not being "Shakespeare" depending on those initial parameters in cases. I guess that confirms the authorship question actually.
Bomber made some claims earlier about the actor being the author or along those lines and I really need to address that for my own edification. I don't quite understand the argument and need tp put it to rest. It's been rattling around too long. That's on my list when life stops calling.