tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6866069263500551544.post3059400540325195404..comments2010-09-12T19:28:32.366-07:00Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08705188612008810774noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6866069263500551544.post-91490643598248100532010-03-27T21:25:02.405-07:002010-03-27T21:25:02.405-07:00About a month ago a <br />Marlovian (and <br />British Shakespearean <br />actor) Peter Farey,<br />conclusively proved <br />that Oxford did not <br />write the Shakespeare <br />works. <br /><br />Farey compared <br />Mere&#39;s list of <br />Shakespeare plays <br />to the standard graph <br />of feminine endings.<br /><br />Oxford died in 1604,<br />but there is a steady and <br />measurable <br />progression of the <br />author&#39;s INCREASE in <br />his use of feminine endings until the end of 1616. <br /><br />To make things worse<br />for the Oxfordians,<br />at about the same time a Stratfordian,<br />Tom Reedy, succeeded<br />in publishing a paper in the top Shakespeare journal at the University of Oxford Press in which Reedy used a newly-discovered copy of William Strachey&#39;s A True Reportory, a primary source for The Tempest, to show that Oxford could not have written the play.<br /><br />Farey and Reedy&#39;s papers are supported by a professor of Genius and Creativity Studies at U.C. Davis,<br />Professor Dean Simonton.<br /><br />Simonton discovered that the author consistently refers to natural, social, political events which take <br />place within a <br />a two year period of any given play.<br /><br />Oxford was deceased when most of these topical events and the took place and <br />the allusions to them were made in the Shakespeare works.<br /><br />This kind of evidence against the Oxfordian claims is overwhelming, I&#39;ve collected a hard drive full, but even in the face of the most convincing scientific evidence, they just go on and on.<br /><br />Very frustrating, there&#39;s no way to dialogue with them.<br /><br />And they always refuse to acknowledge that Bacon and Oxford were first cousins, both wards of Lord Burghley, Bacon&#39;s uncle. <br /><br />Bacon knew &quot;Polonius&quot; far longer than did Oxford. <br /><br />Oxford had absolutely no motive to portray Burghley as Polonius in the plays because Burghley was Oxford&#39;s enabler, he bailed Oxford out of more fixes, including murder, than I can post here.<br /><br />Oxford wonderful 16th century letters (I graduated in history and while I don&#39;t think Oxford wrote the Works he left us a great treasure of 16th century life in the upper aristocracy) <br />can be found on Nina Greene&#39;s Oxford-Shakespeare authorship site.<br /><br />The real earl exists in his correspondence with the Cecils. You won&#39;t find anything of Shakespeare in it.<br /><br /><br />This doesn&#39;t cover <br />the science on Oxford, his under 3,500-word vocabulary (Bacon, the only genius the <br />English produced between Occam and <br />Bacon -- feudalism <br />cannot produce genius, Looney calls Oxford &quot;a feudal&quot; and I entirely agree), has a vocabulary that exceeds the Shakespeare works (33,000 words, excluding the word-count of his 900 extant letters.<br /><br />Samuel Johnson wrote that an entire dictionary could be made from Bacon&#39;s vocabulary while Voltaire wrote that Bacon &quot;invented the encyclopedia,&quot; referring to a work Bacon wrote when studying in France.<br /><br />I apologize for the lack of formatting, this posting box is the size of a postage stamp. Please feel free to post it or not.elizabethhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14905397258893762110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6866069263500551544.post-34299931221024440672009-08-02T20:15:42.209-07:002009-08-02T20:15:42.209-07:00What I DON&#39;T understand is why this still seems to be a &quot;secret&quot; - why it is still not mainstream knowledge. Admittedly, there is no &quot;smoking gun&quot; evidence, but there is an overwhelming tsunami of co-incidence, and circumstantial evidence, that for me, adds up to an undeniable truth. I have not seen ANY of the evidence successfully disproved or denied. De Vere IS SHAKESPEARE!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6866069263500551544.post-86586156933752528192009-02-19T15:04:00.000-08:002009-02-19T15:04:00.000-08:00Yes, I was amazed to see how 'old hat' my great discovery was! The great thing about all this is that nothing much was known about the Stratford Shakespeare but a great deal more is known about Edward De Vere, so we get to 'know Shakespeare' much better now.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08705188612008810774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6866069263500551544.post-85240864709858240942009-02-19T12:20:00.000-08:002009-02-19T12:20:00.000-08:00The best single source for the Oxfordian case is Mark Anderson's "'Shakespeare' by Another Name: The Life of Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakesepeare" (in softcover, Gotham Books 2005). Scintillating reading--one has no doubt, after finishing the book, that, yes, De Vere wrote the plays, poems, and sonnets. Game, set, match, Oxford.magusdeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13773127428711697539noreply@blogger.com