Thank you so much Phoebe. It's always a pleasure to hear your clear, modern and erudite voice. I learn something new each time I watch one of your presentations.
We few, we happy few. We are still here. The battle continues. Our military arm is called Volunteer Reserve. Both words being anagrams. TRUTH TRUTH. Good work Phoebe. Never, in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so FEW. VR. Phonetically Vere. Can we make it any more obvious ? The answer is always in the Question.
Nabakov publicly disavowed the Authorship Question, asserting that he did not believe BACON wrote the works, but some of his writing hints that he did believe that Oxford wrote them.
@@joecurran2811 If Nabakov had any doubts about the authorship he never came out and said so. There are allusions in his works that can be read as doubting, and perhaps even as Oxfordian, but there are references in a couple of poems in the First Folio that indicate that a Sweet Swan of Stratford Avon wrote the works, so take fictional sources with a grain of salt.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Avon in "Sweet swan of Avon" in the FF refers to Hampton Court on the Thames. And if you read the phrase in context the reference is unmistakable. Avon is the historical name for Hampton Court. Jonson is misdirecting to hide the true author's identity while also tipping his hat to persons in the know, which is his method and which he states openly in his writing.
Thanks so much, Phoebe. As I recall, that figure of 70% of Elizabethan writers encompasses all forms of anonymous authorship in that period--including the use of pseudonyms and allonyms.
Well, GREAT piece of work there, Phoebe. Chanel Rion may loathe everything 'establishment" but she sure doesn't loathe Big Cosmetic. 😀 aka Big Make-Up !! FTR, her analysis of academe is as unhinged and her rebel claims. LOL !!
Phoebe, you are amazing!!!!!! As I wrote in a previous comment, "If you carry on like this, you will soon convince the world that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere!" You have done more for to popularize SAQ in a couple of years than all the Oxfordians put together in the last century. We are so proud of you and you heartily deserve the name "Phoebe De Vere". Keep walking...
Phoebe's right: professors in the humanities are not often enough confronted with empirical hard truths ("punched in the face with the facts"), and the Shakespeare Authorship Question is Exhibit A.
Two things. One: Yes, they are on the outside of an inside joke. Two: They control what young minds learn in academia. Fortunately there is a thing called youtube.
Mr. Andrew Gurr expressed his wish to see my entire set of Oxfordian discoveries. So, there ARE academic exceptions, worth to mention and to acknowledge. He directed for about 20 years the rebuilding of the Globe Theatre, perhaps the most famous, most respected Stratfordian in the world.
Since when is Love's Labour's Lost a Problem Play? It does have a surprisingly somber ending, but the play is about as paradigmatic an example of romantic comedy as any you'd find in the Shakespearean canon.
That’s fair, I was kind of conflating the classical definition of “problem plays” with “plays that people have a problem understanding today” but my broader point remains the same, for example Troilus and Cressida is very jarring with its tonal shift and is considered a PP, but it makes way more sense when you have the context that Edward de Vere is portraying himself as Troilus and Ann Vavasour as Cressida… he had just been imprisoned for impregnating Vavasour out of wedlock and this was his attempt to blame it all on her so that queen elizabeth (portrayed as Helen of Troy) would accept him back into Court. LLL similarly makes sense when you realize that the ending with no marriage reflects the reality that Elizabeth tricked Ivan and several other Russians who thought they would be taking home English wives
The Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere was in all the Italian locations featured in "Shakespeare's" Italian plays. He had access to Royal courts of England & Italy. He also had access to one of the biggest libraries in Elizabethan England belonging to William Cecil, his father-in-law. "Shakespeare" didn't leave a single book in his will. de Vere was also rumoured to be bisexual, hence the sonets are all written to another man.
Shakespeare was not born of humble origins and he was definitely NOT a peasant. His father had what we would call managerial jobs-high bailiff (i.e., mayor), justice of the peace, and alderman. John Shakespeare applied for a coat of arms, a process completed by his son. That’s a BFD in Britain, then as now. The narrator of this video should stop offering fantasies and do her homework.
Do you have any evidence to support your claims that the Shaksperes of Stratford were literate? Any example of something that anyone of them wrote would suffice. Will has provided us with a few scrawled signatures, all spelled differently, hardly the hand of a professional writer. Professional historians have been looking for any such evidence for centuries.
thanks for your comment. John Shakespeare's application for a coat of arms was rejected with the bureaucrat's stamp of 'Without right". years later, his son Will was able to get the coat of arms through the intervention of his benefactor the Earl of Oxford, whose close friend historian William Camden was now in charge of approving applications for coats of arms. Will adopted the motto "non sans droit" (not without right) as a smug rebuttal to the bureaucrat who had snubbed his father years ago. Will profited from a financial relationship with the Earl of Oxford because he functioned as the "front man" of the plays, similar to how a 20something freed slave in Ancient Rome named Terence was the front man for the Patrician senator or senators who actually wrote the plays but didn't want to subject themselves to scandal. an important poem from John Davies of Hereford published soon after de Vere's death refers to "Shakespeare" as "our English Terence", alluding to the front man arrangement.
@@joekostka1298 My uncle was Princeton educated and his handwriting was block capitals that were nearly illegible. He had crappy handwriting. So what? The way to defeat Stratfordians is not through endless whining about Will but by producing documentary evidence that somebody else wrote the plays and poems.
@@jaybuckeye2866 That's half the job, and imho has been accomplished with the discovery about a century ago of Edward De Vere. The job Stratfordians must accomplish is to demonstrate with evidence that the Stratford man was literate. Diana Price attempted to do this, a Stratfordian herself at the time, by exposing his literary paper trail, something she did for a couple dozen other contemporaneous writers. But the Stratford man came up a big zero, no literary paper trail. Even she had to admit that this was most unusual for a poet/playwright who was the "soul of the age." How could that be? I'm certain your Princeton educated uncle was a wonderful person. In my life I have actually shared employment with persons illiterate or functionally illiterate. They were hardly dummies. They were bright, hardworking, had superlative memories and could not understand prints or even read their own pay slips. Two were mechanics under my supervision. The other was married to a friend and I did not get to know her as well as the two men who worked for me. No one is saying your Stratford fellows are somehow inferior human beings, only that they were illiterate, and that Will was wholly incapable of producing the Shake-speare canon. If you can produce evidence to the contrary it would be greatly appreciated. No one has even been able to discover testimonials of any kind owing to the Stratford man's credentials as a writer, not even members of his own family. Someone produced the plays attributed to an author "William Shake-speare" but it was most certainly not the Stratford man.
I own a copy of Diana Price’s book and have watched her TH-cam video. Maybe one day she’ll reveal who she believes wrote the plays and show the paper trail for her candidate. So I’m well aware of the fervency of Oxfordians, but clearly they have not managed to defeat the Stratfordian view in mainstream scholarship. My point is that to do so, you’ll need to produce a document-a letter from the Earl of Oxford to Richard Burbage, a eulogy after Oxford’s death celebrating his achievement as the author of Hamlet, Lear, and Othello. If that type of document-based evidence emerges, that’s the sort of thing that could cause me to change my mind. EWAW (endless whining about Will) doesn’t move the needle for me, although I always find it interesting to read opinions I disagree with. Helps me to clarify my thinking.
The Reader to B.I. Behind your “figure’s” card-flat face Lies-Poet-Ape, or Poet-Ace? This décima you penned to crown And scorn a portrait’s upstart clown Is writ in strict, curt Spanish form As Catholic as is your norm. Behind the figure’s Strange paratext! to Protestant Plays here assembled, celebrant Of self-reliant England’s brass (Read: anti-Spanish Marriage sass?). --Response to “B.I.’s” (Ben Jonson’s) “To the Reader,” in the First Folio, opposite the playing-card-flat Shakespeare “portrait.” The poem begins, This figure that thou here seest put, It was for gentle Shakespeare cut…” -After reading Roger Stritmatter’s and Gabriel Ready’s contributions to Brief Chronicles VIII.
You're on to a nice little earner there Miss de Vere - take the cash and spread the Oxford nonsense - Love's Labour's Found in your case - what's the Invoice for this appearance worth ?
That's a very typical Stratfordian reaction, to hurl juvenile insult instead of engaging in adult discussion. I suppose that happens because there is no evidence to confront the case for Edward De Vere, leading to frustration and ad hominems.
You have no evidence of MY thoughts on anything - I have observed countless appearances on broadcasts such as this mostly devoid of ANY Academic content which suggests another motive - so do YOU know the value of the Invoice for this appearance or any of the other bandwagon appearances - or was it just a charitable cause ?@joekostka1298
This is a crossover I needed. I love the work both of you do and I can’t wait to watch this!
Thank you so much! 😊
I’m an Oxfordian and a Phoebe fan too! Excellent interview 👏👏👏👏👏
Thanks Jane!
Thank you so much Phoebe. It's always a pleasure to hear your clear, modern and erudite voice. I learn something new each time I watch one of your presentations.
Thanks so much!
Exciting & Delighted for you 🥂
Thank you!!
We few, we happy few.
We are still here. The battle continues.
Our military arm is called Volunteer Reserve. Both words being anagrams. TRUTH TRUTH.
Good work Phoebe.
Never, in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so FEW.
VR. Phonetically Vere.
Can we make it any more obvious ? The answer is always in the Question.
What are the anagrams?
Exciting!! 🎉❤❤
Congratulations! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you!!
It is DeVere! Nothing is truer than truth. Listen to Phoebe!
So far I've 'discovered'' James IV, Dido - Queen of Carthage, and am reading David and Bethsabe thanks to you Phoebe... thank you for this gift.
Awesome!!
Nabakov publicly disavowed the Authorship Question, asserting that he did not believe BACON wrote the works, but some of his writing hints that he did believe that Oxford wrote them.
He is known to be a doubter of the mainstream narrative
@@joecurran2811 If Nabakov had any doubts about the authorship he never came out and said so. There are allusions in his works that can be read as doubting, and perhaps even as Oxfordian, but there are references in a couple of poems in the First Folio that indicate that a Sweet Swan of Stratford Avon wrote the works, so take fictional sources with a grain of salt.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Avon in "Sweet swan of Avon" in the FF refers to Hampton Court on the Thames. And if you read the phrase in context the reference is unmistakable. Avon is the historical name for Hampton Court. Jonson is misdirecting to hide the true author's identity while also tipping his hat to persons in the know, which is his method and which he states openly in his writing.
Thank you
Thanks for watching!
its an amazing coincidence that phoebes surname is de vere! oops, just spotted the all important dash !
😂
You did a great job
Thank you so much!!
Thanks so much, Phoebe. As I recall, that figure of 70% of Elizabethan writers encompasses all forms of anonymous authorship in that period--including the use of pseudonyms and allonyms.
Thanks Richard!
Top job, as usual. :)
Very well done Phoebe! Move that needle.
🙏🏻
Take a bow, Phoebe. You illuminated the authorship question in brilliant style.
You’re too kind :)
Chanel did well; Pheobe was amazing.
This is something worth investigating
"SNL-style parodies" is a wonderful bridge between our world and the world of Oxford's plays!
Thanks!
Well, GREAT piece of work there, Phoebe.
Chanel Rion may loathe everything 'establishment" but she sure doesn't loathe Big Cosmetic. 😀 aka Big Make-Up !! FTR, her analysis of academe is as unhinged and her rebel claims. LOL !!
Great great Phoebe 👍👍
Phoebe, you are amazing!!!!!! As I wrote in a previous comment, "If you carry on like this, you will soon convince the world that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere!" You have done more for to popularize SAQ in a couple of years than all the Oxfordians put together in the last century. We are so proud of you and you heartily deserve the name "Phoebe De Vere". Keep walking...
you are too kind!
Phoebe's right: professors in the humanities are not often enough confronted with empirical hard truths ("punched in the face with the facts"), and the Shakespeare Authorship Question is Exhibit A.
Two things. One: Yes, they are on the outside of an inside joke. Two: They control what young minds learn in academia. Fortunately there is a thing called youtube.
Mr. Andrew Gurr expressed his wish to see my entire set of Oxfordian discoveries. So, there ARE academic exceptions, worth to mention and to acknowledge. He directed for about 20 years the rebuilding of the Globe Theatre, perhaps the most famous, most respected Stratfordian in the world.
Since when is Love's Labour's Lost a Problem Play? It does have a surprisingly somber ending, but the play is about as paradigmatic an example of romantic comedy as any you'd find in the Shakespearean canon.
That’s fair, I was kind of conflating the classical definition of “problem plays” with “plays that people have a problem understanding today” but my broader point remains the same, for example Troilus and Cressida is very jarring with its tonal shift and is considered a PP, but it makes way more sense when you have the context that Edward de Vere is portraying himself as Troilus and Ann Vavasour as Cressida… he had just been imprisoned for impregnating Vavasour out of wedlock and this was his attempt to blame it all on her so that queen elizabeth (portrayed as Helen of Troy) would accept him back into Court. LLL similarly makes sense when you realize that the ending with no marriage reflects the reality that Elizabeth tricked Ivan and several other Russians who thought they would be taking home English wives
The Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere was in all the Italian locations featured in "Shakespeare's" Italian plays. He had access to Royal courts of England & Italy. He also had access to one of the biggest libraries in Elizabethan England belonging to William Cecil, his father-in-law. "Shakespeare" didn't leave a single book in his will. de Vere was also rumoured to be bisexual, hence the sonets are all written to another man.
Post-Stratfordian!!!
💯
The Bard
Shakespeare was not born of humble origins and he was definitely NOT a peasant. His father had what we would call managerial jobs-high bailiff (i.e., mayor), justice of the peace, and alderman. John Shakespeare applied for a coat of arms, a process completed by his son. That’s a BFD in Britain, then as now. The narrator of this video should stop offering fantasies and do her homework.
Do you have any evidence to support your claims that the Shaksperes of Stratford were literate? Any example of something that anyone of them wrote would suffice. Will has provided us with a few scrawled signatures, all spelled differently, hardly the hand of a professional writer. Professional historians have been looking for any such evidence for centuries.
thanks for your comment. John Shakespeare's application for a coat of arms was rejected with the bureaucrat's stamp of 'Without right". years later, his son Will was able to get the coat of arms through the intervention of his benefactor the Earl of Oxford, whose close friend historian William Camden was now in charge of approving applications for coats of arms. Will adopted the motto "non sans droit" (not without right) as a smug rebuttal to the bureaucrat who had snubbed his father years ago. Will profited from a financial relationship with the Earl of Oxford because he functioned as the "front man" of the plays, similar to how a 20something freed slave in Ancient Rome named Terence was the front man for the Patrician senator or senators who actually wrote the plays but didn't want to subject themselves to scandal. an important poem from John Davies of Hereford published soon after de Vere's death refers to "Shakespeare" as "our English Terence", alluding to the front man arrangement.
@@joekostka1298 My uncle was Princeton educated and his handwriting was block capitals that were nearly illegible. He had crappy handwriting. So what? The way to defeat Stratfordians is not through endless whining about Will but by producing documentary evidence that somebody else wrote the plays and poems.
@@jaybuckeye2866 That's half the job, and imho has been accomplished with the discovery about a century ago of Edward De Vere. The job Stratfordians must accomplish is to demonstrate with evidence that the Stratford man was literate. Diana Price attempted to do this, a Stratfordian herself at the time, by exposing his literary paper trail, something she did for a couple dozen other contemporaneous writers. But the Stratford man came up a big zero, no literary paper trail. Even she had to admit that this was most unusual for a poet/playwright who was the "soul of the age." How could that be?
I'm certain your Princeton educated uncle was a wonderful person. In my life I have actually shared employment with persons illiterate or functionally illiterate. They were hardly dummies. They were bright, hardworking, had superlative memories and could not understand prints or even read their own pay slips. Two were mechanics under my supervision. The other was married to a friend and I did not get to know her as well as the two men who worked for me. No one is saying your Stratford fellows are somehow inferior human beings, only that they were illiterate, and that Will was wholly incapable of producing the Shake-speare canon. If you can produce evidence to the contrary it would be greatly appreciated. No one has even been able to discover testimonials of any kind owing to the Stratford man's credentials as a writer, not even members of his own family. Someone produced the plays attributed to an author "William Shake-speare" but it was most certainly not the Stratford man.
I own a copy of Diana Price’s book and have watched her TH-cam video. Maybe one day she’ll reveal who she believes wrote the plays and show the paper trail for her candidate. So I’m well aware of the fervency of Oxfordians, but clearly they have not managed to defeat the Stratfordian view in mainstream scholarship. My point is that to do so, you’ll need to produce a document-a letter from the Earl of Oxford to Richard Burbage, a eulogy after Oxford’s death celebrating his achievement as the author of Hamlet, Lear, and Othello. If that type of document-based evidence emerges, that’s the sort of thing that could cause me to change my mind. EWAW (endless whining about Will) doesn’t move the needle for me, although I always find it interesting to read opinions I disagree with. Helps me to clarify my thinking.
The Reader to B.I.
Behind your “figure’s” card-flat face
Lies-Poet-Ape, or Poet-Ace?
This décima you penned to crown
And scorn a portrait’s upstart clown
Is writ in strict, curt Spanish form
As Catholic as is your norm.
Behind the figure’s
Strange paratext! to Protestant
Plays here assembled, celebrant
Of self-reliant England’s brass
(Read: anti-Spanish Marriage sass?).
--Response to “B.I.’s” (Ben Jonson’s) “To the Reader,”
in the First Folio, opposite the playing-card-flat
Shakespeare “portrait.” The poem begins,
This figure that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut…”
-After reading Roger Stritmatter’s and Gabriel
Ready’s contributions to Brief Chronicles VIII.
paratext = basically, a book's "front matter" (and the hidden messages it might convey) décima = a ten-line Spanish verse form, 8 syllables per line
You're on to a nice little earner there Miss de Vere - take the cash and spread the Oxford nonsense - Love's Labour's Found in your case - what's the Invoice for this appearance worth ?
That's a very typical Stratfordian reaction, to hurl juvenile insult instead of engaging in adult discussion. I suppose that happens because there is no evidence to confront the case for Edward De Vere, leading to frustration and ad hominems.
You have no evidence of MY thoughts on anything - I have observed countless appearances on broadcasts such as this mostly devoid of ANY Academic content which suggests another motive - so do YOU know the value of the Invoice for this appearance or any of the other bandwagon appearances - or was it just a charitable cause ?@joekostka1298