Posted by Cholanmely on November 16, 1999 at 03:47:23:
In Reply to: Re: Earl Of Oxford posted by sunny on November 12, 1999 at 19:41:34:
I did not mearly take anothers opinion on this matter I have reasearched both sides of this issue and come to the most logical conclusion. I have read the good Earls poetry and let me tell you first that very little of his work survived (or did it?). That which did survive is very good. So good that Edward Spencer said as much. In fact some of the best writers of the day refered to him as a great writer. How could this be true of a man who produced so little? The Oxfordian theory did not again become popular because the present Earl of Oxford suggested it. It resurfaced after the discovery and further study of deVere's Geneva Bible. It is also not a new theory. Freud himself was convinced that this theory was an absolute (not that Freud was an authority on the matter).
Tell me, How could a man from Stratford rise out of the depths of illiteracy and poverty to become the worlds most reveared poet? How could a man of such low stature attain so much worldly knowlege by the age of 27 (when Shakespear supposedly wrote Venus and Adonis). Bare in mine that the resources were not there for those people as they are for us today. They could not just stroll down the street to the local library or stroll through the doors of some comunity college. Also, this man, William Shakespeare of Straford upon Avon, did not exist according to any public record. The closest match is William Shaksper. He was the son of an illiterate commoner, not some learned scholar. It is not possible that he could have written such plays. This is not elitest drivel, it is a fact of that era.
Take the time to study this for yourself. You maybe very sprised what you find.