Re: The Hidden Life is Best

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 00:41:07 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:46:05 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>

In article <fuvn2jd9ip00hpssed28ksln3telgqu5dk@4ax.com>,
John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:53:20 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
 

Widely travelled, he had first hand
knowledge of the settings used in his plays.

 
The only alternat authorship theory for the plays of Sakespeare that
isn't utterly ludicrous on its face is the one crediting Edward de
Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, for them.
 
Not that this theory is necessarily true either, but it's the only one
with even the slightest bit of plausibility.
 

>
Except for the minor, very minor, detail that he died in June 1604
(several years before the dates several Shakespearean plays premiered).

>
I don't see that as a fatal objectilon, as the form of Oxfordianism
that I would consider as a possibility involves him writing only the
foul papers - Shakespeare still edited the plays for performance. And
that would explain the one play attributed to Shakespeare that was so
poor in  quality that orthodox scholars think that someone else may
have written it... that could have been the one he wrote all by
himself.

It was Titus Andronicus I was thinking of, but looking for the name, I
found a site that claimed that its merits have now been rediscovered,
and it' s not as bad as people thought. Instead, this is like how King
Lear was rejected for a time.

John Savard