That was the most impressive evidence-based work I've seen on the topic of Robert Greene and his writings. Robert Prechter thinks like a scientist, very astute in how he approaches the whole authorship question. Thanks to all involved in presenting this here!
Brilliant, and very convincing! Oxford doing his own play-acting. BTW Thomas Nashe's works are also overflowing with quotations from Ovid...one of Prechter's other "Oxford Voices" I believe!
Green - taken from the Norman French ver(t) and the Latin verdis meaning ‘green’. From which we derive verdant (green), verdigris (green oxidation) and many others. It also means ‘unripe’, derived from unripe fruits being green. So were these earlier ‘inexperienced’ works of Edward de Vere? R
Indeed. It turns out de Vere seems to have produced many earlier works under various other names, not just as 'Robert Greene', going back as far as the early 1560s at the age of 10 or 11 ... very unripe!
I for one find Roberts presentations on this subject fascinating and enthralling. The hands and the clasps are maybe reaching a little, but when you think of the small population of that London, the dearth of prototypes available for artists to copy, and the similarity of the hand placement then I think it worth pointing out that the Ashbourne had been painted by then. That painting was likely at least available to those in Oxfords circle. Bravo
Many books of the time had clasps and corner-plates. Also, the element in the center of the Green book is not a star. It is a lozenge. This part of the video, at least, is extremely weak.
Comparing the picture of Robert Greene to the painting of supposed Oxford is all wishful thinking. The book looks nothing like the bible and the hands indeed both look like hands but that is because they are supposed to be hands
