Search for the truth

Some of the way historians approach the history of Richard and his times [not listening to themselves for starters] was reflected in programmes I watched this past weekend about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
One film bent over backwards to show how Edward De Vere Earl of Oxford led a life that contained so many things that could be shown up in the Bard's plays. Oh he went here, so he knew about this, oh he was at Queen Elizabeth's court so knew all about that etc.
And I was buying into it until somebody mentioned that de Vere died in 1604. Hang on a minute I said to myself!
On a later programme they were talking about the later works of genius, written during the reign of James 1st, which started in 1603. Nobody in the earlier film seemed to realise that Macbeth, King Lear, the Tempest, and a number of other masterpieces were written after the Earl was in his grave, or chose to ignore this annoying fact.
Historians really should listen to what they are saying, talk to each other more, and weigh up all the evidence before coming out with such varying, and conflicting conclusions, based according to all of them, on "evidence", or with the life of Shakespeare of Stratford the man, "lack of evidence".
Paul




Richard Liveth Yet!

Dead right, Paul, there's a lot of nonsense talked! I am loving the present season of Shakespeare, and when I think of such a genius popping up from a modest background in England, it actually seems much less preposterous than a genius like Leonardo popping up in Italy a century earlier - yet nobody tries to attribute his works to some Italian nobleman. You can't help bearing in mind that the reservations over WS's authorship derive from a former age when England was replete with snobbery. It really is very blinkered for anyone to suppose that a creative writer's talents must be confined to things of which he has personal knowledge.


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:22 PM
Subject: Search for the truth



Some of the way historians approach the history of Richard and his times [not listening to themselves for starters] was reflected in programmes I watched this past weekend about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
One film bent over backwards to show how Edward De Vere Earl of Oxford led a life that contained so many things that could be shown up in the Bard's plays. Oh he went here, so he knew about this, oh he was at Queen Elizabeth's court so knew all about that etc.
And I was buying into it until somebody mentioned that de Vere died in 1604. Hang on a minute I said to myself!
On a later programme they were talking about the later works of genius, written during the reign of James 1st, which started in 1603. Nobody in the earlier film seemed to realise that Macbeth, King Lear, the Tempest, and a number of other masterpieces were written after the Earl was in his grave, or chose to ignore this annoying fact.
Historians really should listen to what they are saying, talk to each other more, and weigh up all the evidence before coming out with such varying, and conflicting conclusions, based according to all of them, on "evidence", or with the life of Shakespeare of Stratford the man, "lack of evidence".
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Perhaps Oxford left the Cliff Notes behind...? 

Judy

(Whenever someone brings up the "So-and-So Was Shakespeare" idea, I always ask him: Why didn't So-and-So use even a few of those thousands of lovely new words Shakespeare added to the English language? None of the Contenders seem to, in any of their other writings. You'd think a few would sneak in.) 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:22 AM
Subject: Search for the truth


 
Some of the way historians approach the history of Richard and his times [not listening to themselves for starters] was reflected in programmes I watched this past weekend about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
One film bent over backwards to show how Edward De Vere Earl of Oxford led a life that contained so many things that could be shown up in the Bard's plays. Oh he went here, so he knew about this, oh he was at Queen Elizabeth's court so knew all about that etc.
And I was buying into it until somebody mentioned that de Vere died in 1604. Hang on a minute I said to myself!
On a later programme they were talking about the later works of genius, written during the reign of James 1st, which started in 1603. Nobody in the earlier film seemed to realise that Macbeth, King Lear, the Tempest, and a number of other masterpieces were written after the Earl was in his grave, or chose to ignore this annoying fact.
Historians really should listen to what they are saying, talk to each other more, and weigh up all the evidence before coming out with such varying, and conflicting conclusions, based according to all of them, on "evidence", or with the life of Shakespeare of Stratford the man, "lack of evidence".
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

I think in certain circles they find it hard to believe that someone who never went to university could possibly create anything worthwhile.

Yet it's easy to think of great men and women who excelled in their field without the benefit of a degree. Isambard Kingdom Brunel and George Stephenson to name but two from the world of engineering.

Brian W.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
You can't help bearing in mind that the reservations over WS's authorship derive from a former age when England was replete with snobbery. It really is very blinkered for anyone to suppose that a creative writer's talents must be confined to things of which he has personal knowledge.
>
>