Let's call the biographical man "William Shakespeare" S1.
Now let's call the real author of the works of "Shakespeare," whoever that might be, S2.
Now let's call the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere V1.
Now let's call the real author of the works attributed to de Vere, whoever that might be, V2.
So the real question of Shakespeare authorship is not whether S1 or V1 = S2, but whether S2 = V2? In other words, who wrote the works of de Vere? It is doubtful that the real author of Hamlet wrote de Vere's work, which is pretty wretched. Or, if de Vere needed a pseudonym for the works of Shakespeare, why didn't he need one for his "own" works?
Of course, we don't care who wrote de Vere's attributed work, you will say.
Exactly. We don't speculate that Marlowe wrote de Vere's work, or de Vere Marlowe's.
3 comentarios:
I didn't know (until recently) that you thought about these things. I've always thought Bacon a more convincing Shakespeare. There may be other arguments against that thesis, but not at the level of S2 and B2.
Suppose the question arose whether the author of Bemsha Swing is the author of Stupid Motivational Tricks. Or whether the author of the Pangrammaticon is the author of Research as a Second Language.
I think about everything.
With Bacon there's another problem. S2 And B2 are both so brilliant. What other case do we have of someone so brilliant and accomplished concealing half of the brilliance under another name?
∞ + ∞ = ∞
In any case, we don't even have this example. So if there are others, they too would be secret. And the genius who produced both bodies of work would be genius enough also to conceal it.
Publicar un comentario