Fun post, Sean. I am with you on the singular authorship. I wonder if the heightened mystery surrounding authorship in some way elevates the profundity of the work in some people’s minds. I also wonder how Shakespeare knew how to write his Italian dramas so accurately having never left England.
I get that the Oxfordians can be an obnoxious and overbearing group, but I've never seen a response to their evidence. I myself favor Edward De Vere with a little help from his friends. Both sides, imo, are enamored by a singular authorship.
On the whole, I'm given to trust historical authorships, and I too am probably enamored with the concept of single authorship. I trust Homer wrote the Odyssey, Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and Harper Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird. While I don't have a lot of experience with the Oxford arguments (after the Wells lecture, I honestly never paid much attention when it came up), the bits I've read over the years haven't persuaded me that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote Hamlet et al. It has always struck me as too similar to the JEDP theories of the Old Testament, which I don't find compelling. But, that's just me. It’s not something I’d be given to spend a lot of time arguing. Now, if we want to debate why Virgil got Odysseus wrong, I’m all for it.
While I do subscribe to a few other alternative literary theories (Canterbury Tales cannot be understood apart from a Medieval understanding of the Zodiac), I too am given to trust historical authorships. But with Shake-speare there are too many oddities and they arose immediately. Other author questions rose alongside modern interpretive theories. But I'm not one to base interpretive theories on authorship, so regarding the plays it doesn't affect how I read them.
Fun post, Sean. I am with you on the singular authorship. I wonder if the heightened mystery surrounding authorship in some way elevates the profundity of the work in some people’s minds. I also wonder how Shakespeare knew how to write his Italian dramas so accurately having never left England.
I get that the Oxfordians can be an obnoxious and overbearing group, but I've never seen a response to their evidence. I myself favor Edward De Vere with a little help from his friends. Both sides, imo, are enamored by a singular authorship.
On the whole, I'm given to trust historical authorships, and I too am probably enamored with the concept of single authorship. I trust Homer wrote the Odyssey, Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and Harper Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird. While I don't have a lot of experience with the Oxford arguments (after the Wells lecture, I honestly never paid much attention when it came up), the bits I've read over the years haven't persuaded me that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote Hamlet et al. It has always struck me as too similar to the JEDP theories of the Old Testament, which I don't find compelling. But, that's just me. It’s not something I’d be given to spend a lot of time arguing. Now, if we want to debate why Virgil got Odysseus wrong, I’m all for it.
While I do subscribe to a few other alternative literary theories (Canterbury Tales cannot be understood apart from a Medieval understanding of the Zodiac), I too am given to trust historical authorships. But with Shake-speare there are too many oddities and they arose immediately. Other author questions rose alongside modern interpretive theories. But I'm not one to base interpretive theories on authorship, so regarding the plays it doesn't affect how I read them.