Academic Freedom and the Shakespeare Authorship Question | Michael Dudley
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- For nearly 200 years, the identity of the author of the “Shake-Speare” plays and poems has been debated in hundreds of books and thousands of articles. Despite this enduring public fascination, however, the Shakespeare Authorship Question remains one of the academy’s most intractable taboos - rarely taught and aggressively suppressed, with authorship skeptics (known as anti-Stratfordians) routinely vilified as conspiracy theorists and compared to flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.
Join HxA Member and academic librarian Michael Dudley who argues that scholarly humility, creative inquiry and viewpoint diversity in this debate can enrich Shakespeare studies - and the humanities in general.
Learn more about HxA here: heterodoxacade...
Follow HxA on Twitter: / hdxacademy
Follow HxA on Facebook: / heterodoxaca...
Follow HxA on Instagram: /
#shakespeare #shakespeareauthorship #highereducation
Excellent presentation. Hopefully, the Stratfordians will watch this and learn from it!
What did he say that hasn't been debunked many times before?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Debunked by who? Presumably the Stratfordians.
@@jamesbassett1484 By the evidence.
Lack of evidence is the first problem. Did you watch the presentation?
@@jamesbassett1484 Yes, and since I know what the evidence is, I know the presentation is a bunch of bee ess.
Why don't you try looking at the evidence yourself instead of listening to a charlatan who says it doesn't exist?
John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623. Ben Jonson's eulogy in the First Folio clearly praises Shakespeare as a great writer and refers to him as the “Sweet Swan of Avon.” This obviously designates Shakespeare as from Stratford upon Avon. Furthermore, Jonson states that "thy writings to be such, /As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much." Heminges and Condell also praise Shakespeare as a writer, stating that "he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him." These are "his works" and "his papers" that they are publishing. He is clearly presented as the writer of these works in the First Folio. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare of Stratford clearly connects him with the 1623 First Folio through Heminges and Condell and it is clear that Shakespeare is presented as the author of the plays.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Can you name any theater poets who mentioned other poets in their wills?
@@Jeffhowardmeade I can't name any theater poets at all. I have never heard the term before. My point about William not mentioning poets in his will comes from points that you made yourself. IIRC you asserted that the poets who write of Shakespeare actually knew Shakespeare personally and knew him to be the person from Stratford. I am pointing out that the person from Stratford does not mention these fellow poets, nor does he mention the theater poets that he collaborated with supposedly. I would think that while he was remembering his fellow actors, he would remember his fellow poets. Like I said, I got the idea from you. Do you know of any theater poets that were as close to their fellow poets as Shakespeare was to his fellow poets, and was held in as high an esteem by them as he was, so that we can check to see who they remembered in their wills? It might be a short list.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 A "theater poet" is one who wrote for the theater. None of them mentions any other poet in his will. For that matter, no NON theater poet does, either. You are presuming something which nobody did, which is a very you thing to do.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Shakespeare presumed things that no one else did as well. That is why he is regarded as a genius.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Move to strike as not only non-responsive, but not even coherent.
Very well argued, thank you.
I have just discovered there is a similar but much more recent theory in a tiny corner of music history: Anna-Magdalena Bach was the actual composer of the cello suites and Well Tempered Clavier... you can imagine the outrage that musicologists are being sent into!!
What evidence is there for this claim?
William Kyes was the son of the Gatekeeper for Queen Kathrine, King. Henry VIII and one of the heiresses to the English throne, Mary Grey. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth .
Both he and his father fell into disfavor over the Kyes-Grey wedding and the son’s own birth, which was in 1564 along with Shakespeare, Neville and others. The matter of Kyes’ birth had to be hidden, yet he, as a legitimate prince, he had to be well educated for an undefined place in the future.
William Stanley was born two years earlier and prove to be such a loose cannon that his family paid for him to stay out of the country starting in 1585 and, in order to kill two birds with one stone, William Kyes was sent to accompany the disruptive disruptive.
In 1593, a man returned to England claiming to be “William Stanley” after seven years of w.angering, but this man was the younger William Kyes rather than Kyes’ second cousin William Stanley.with a strong Tudor features beneath his beard.
This would be an absolute wild conjecture if “William Stanley” did not have to sue his family for recognition.
I will not include all of the fine points, but the younger “Stanley” won his suite along with “his” father players the Lord Chamberlain’s Men after they spent a few years under “”Stanley’s” older brother.
William Shakespeare, whom doubly was a group,of nobles, both male and female who were centered around Edward DeVere with “William Stanley” their only purported go between.
Again, when I have more space, I will explain how the invisible and nonexistent Shakespeare so ably stayed out of sight.
A good list of arguments. Comparision of group denying historical fact is maybe not that bright in this context.
What does "denying historical fact" mean? In this debate, the very definition of what constitutes a "fact" is in question. Many things that are claimed to be facts are not, and many things that are facts are denied or suppressed.
Brilliant presentation! Thank you!
Oh for heaven's sakes. The problem with most all such arguments like these is that they concentrate on their own best evidence, but ignore the other side's best evidence. I'm amazed at how much evidence people are willing to ignore in order to claim 'it's so obvious' that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. The authorship question is completely legit, and extremely interesting as well, as no matter what, there's a mystery as to how the plays or the genius-insight for them came into being. It's like the ultimate mystery, but with only limited evidence which fades away in time.
Why does the evidence fade away with time? What evidence used to exist that no longer does? I thought it went the other way around...new discoveries add to the existing evidence.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265I can just imagine someone staring at the Great Fire in 1666 and saying "Look at all that evidence being added!"
Aren't you a member of a club which claims all the evidence that would prove you right (literally, all of it) was destroyed?
@@Jeffhowardmeade
Aren't YOU a member of a club which claims all the evidence that would prove you right (literally, all of it) was destroyed?
Grow up.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265I will when you wise up.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Aren't you a member of a club that updates it's favorite excuse every 50 years?
Q: Where is all the contemporary evidence that would prove the Stratfordian story?
Mid 19th century: Things get lost in 250 years.
Early 20th century: Things get lost in 300 years.
Mid 20th century: Things get lost in 350 years.
Today: Things get lost in 400 years.
Really?
What got lost in the last 50, 100, 200 years? Nothing.
You could go back to 1630 and they would have said "Things get lost in 15 years"
But that won't stop you from saying in 50 years that things get lost in 450 years.
In fact NOTHING has ever been found that would prove the Stratford story,
but saying "NOTHING has been found despite 400 years nevertheless we stubbornly hang onto our precious belief" comes off rather weakly to a rational person, and pointing that out might contribute to a general willingness to question your precious circular logic.
Thanks for the informative video )
War - wick - shire 😂 I know English place names are understandably a challenge for Americans. As best as I can convey it is correctly pronounced ‘Worrick-shuh’
What is "The Academy" you refer to?
I think he just means "academia".
@@ZadenZane Right.
"It doesn't seem consequential who Shakespeare was, or even that there was a Shakespeare. What would we possibly do with this information?" Really? Would a Christian, discovering that Wotan was the 'One true God' in His first Advent and Mohamed His third, have no consequence either? I wonder if 5 million visitors to Stratford would be as keen to make a second visit, and others a first. That we have the author's works is most important but there are many reasons to want to know who he was.
I think that we should view Shakespeare in a historical context, knowing who he really was can help illuminate what he wrote. Bardolatry has allowed Shakespeare to be viewed as a God, he is not a religious figure. People who do not believe that the guy from Stratford wrote the works should not be called heretics or unbelievers. It should not be a matter of faith, but a matter of evidence. Anyone with an interest in the topic should be free to follow the evidence and come to their own conclusions without fear of ridicule or name calling.
@@ContextShakespeare1740 Doesn't this debate go beyond just not being called names, though? Isn't the essential complaint that anti-Stratfordianism isn't given the time and credibility its adherents feel the topic deserves? Edit: Oh, and I agree that knowing the writer's identity informs the way the writings are understood.
@@ContextShakespeare1740 Is anyone stopping those few who think it was someone besides Shakespeare from studying it? Last time I checked, there were hundreds of books on the subject.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Are you being deliberately clueless? The question under discussion, at least originally, is the inclusion of diverse facts and knowledge in epistemological systems, not people's freedom to buy boo and read books.
@@jamesbassett1484 There's this @ sign in my comment. It means that my comment was directed @ that person and is a response to his or her comment. Try reading that comment and then my response and see if the exchange makes sense.
And if I were trying to be deliberately clueless, at least that would mean I have the capacity to think clearly, unlike you, who can't help being clueless.
A person's life is reflected in his writing. It is important to know who the true author is. Ogburn's book proves to me it was Edward DeVere. Looney's book adds more evidence. Events that occur in the plays happened in DeVere's life.
Name one.
@@Jeffhowardmeade 1) The events at Gads Hill
Regan from King Lear Act I Scene 1
Sir, I am made
Of the self-same metal that my sister is,
And prize me at her worth. In my true heart
I find she names my very deed of love;
"Lear" is an anagram for "Earl"
"names my very deed" is an anagram for "My Name's Edy de Ver"
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 The events at Gad's Hill have nothing to do with De Vere. The incident in question wasn't a robbery, it wasn't at Gad's Hill, and De Vere wasn't there. De Vere sent some thugs to pounce on a former servant who had fallen from favor. The incident in Henry IV (and Shakespeare's source The Fantastic Victories of Henry V) were straight out of the history books.
As was King Lear (albeit overly credulous history books). That there are two King Lear plays which were in circulation at the time should tell you that he was a popular subject.
So not swung on and a miss. Not at bat, or even in the ballpark. You aren't a ball player at all.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Oh, yes, and I already pointed out to you that there was no "Eddy" or "Eddie" or "Ed" or even "Edy" back then. Edward was shortened to "Ned", though nobody ever did that with De Vere's name.
That Guy in Memento has a longer memory than you do.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Ned is short for "Mine Ed"
Shakespeare was more than one man. A product of many minds and life experiences. They done a sonic survalince on his grave and found only a single womans skull for god sake
They didn't find any skull in Shakespeare's grave because ground penetrating radar can't find bones unless they are fossilized. They followed up on a goofy claim from a fictional story published in the 19th Century, followed it to a crypt in a different church, and saw a skull in an ossuary which turned out to be an old woman's.
@@Jeffhowardmeade
I am afraid you are wrong or simply misinformed.
They did do a sonic survalince on his grave. There was a program on ch4 with tony robinson about twelve years ago .. maybe longer. And the only skull they found was determined to be a female skull, along with , if i remember two other body skeletons that where headless.
Funny how this program was never repeated. Or that other tony robinson one where he investigated the revelation of st john where he ingested psychedelic substances eh?
Wouldnt be so bad but it dosent matter how hard you try you cant even track a copy of it do on all of the internet. Why its almost as if they have something to hide 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔😒😒😒😒😒
@@rainblaze. The "sonic survalince" was done using Ground Penetrating Radar. The program you refer to can be found on TH-cam under the title "Shakespeare's Tomb". The explanation as to what it can and cannot see can be found a little after the ten minute mark.
the Earl of Southampton family name is pronounced like “Rizley” ✌️
the main problem is:: Oxfordians (such as michael dudley) have an even stronger believe system , they rarely dare to mention the name Marlowe.. and what about me, as a Marlowian? why I am convinced, that Marlowe has by far the strongest arguments? real science has to to establish (instead of a believe system, I propose) the SYMPAC , (SYstem of Most Plausible Authorship Candidate)....or AWHyP (authorship working hyopothesis Platform) etc etc
This is tricky. Similar observations could probably be made about academia's "suppression" of ancient alien theories; and despite probably having more popular support than anti-Stratfordianism, most would probably say that it's fine for academics to not teach that particular controversy. This isn't to say that anti-Stratfordianism is equivalent to ancient aliens, but rather that this presentation alone probably isn't enough to say that Stratfordian academics are acting unjustly.
I haven't watched this yet, but I'd be surprised if he really even implies that his presentation should be the cause of such a massive change in the academic center of gravity. I've read some of his previous work and he seems to have realistic ideas about the various kinds of causes making such a shift difficult. Maybe he has changed his opinion. I'll dive in soon.
I agree that we don't want to make to tight an analogy between the vague and wide ranging comments people make about Alien abductions and the claims people make regarding doubt about who wrote the plays under the name Shake-Speare.
But a well timed analogy in the sense that we keep getting more and more wonderfully ambiguous comments out of the military about increasing data collection on objects moving through the air they don't yet have a handle on. Fascinating subjects on different levels.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265Hmmm... I agree that many universities have courses on pseudo-science. Do all students tend to take that particular course, though? I'm sure that an undergraduate could get a degree in English without ever being taught about anti-Stratfordianism, but couldn't you likely also get a degree in history without ever being taught about ancient aliens? Judging by the quotes and books shown in the video, it seems to me that English department *do* acknowledge the question in the sense that they acknowledge that anti-Stratfordians exist. If you ask a Shakespearean scholar about it, they're likely going to tell you it's bunk, but they're unlikely to pretend never to have heard of it at all. In my experience, this is about the extent to which most departments acknowledge the "Da Vinci Code" elements of their respective fields.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 I agree with you, if you earn an English degree, where the emphasis is the literature alone that's ok I suppose. If there is an element of understanding the literature based on the person who wrote it and the context in which it is written, then it is absolutely essential that authorship should be discussed. If you get the author wrong you get the context wrong.
@@AnthropomorphicIf it is bunk they should talk about it and debunk it, not try to censor it out of existence. Truly confident "scholars" would require students to read and critique an Authorship book or two.
Ancient aliens? Come on. The Authorship Question is nothing like ancient aliens or any of the so-called "conspiracy theories" (whatever that means) but the Stratfordians certainly are the equivalent of Flat-Earthers.
It doesn't seem consequential who Shakespeare was, or even that there was a Shakespeare. What would we possibly do with this information? It's fair enough to label Shakespeare biographies as fiction. It's dismaying if this isn't already the case. To the degree these fantasists are publicly-funded, I point people to the debt and ask whether it was worth it.
Yeah, I never really understand this objection to be honest. I FULLY understand and respect if somebody personally finds it uninteresting. But I always wonder if somebody who feels confident declaring that the subject itself is inherently uninteresting (or should be)...does that person go up to all who are having excited conversations about mysterious or contentious issues and tell people, "Hey, you shouldn't have any interest in this topic." Ugh, I hope not.
I find it fascinating for many different reasons, some of which might have social consequence but many of which simply have to do with the excitement of discovering what is true or not about a given kind of claim. I know that in the field of linguistics there are serious debates about deeply theoretical notion so phoneme production that some linguistics say are inconsequential and others say could bear fruit. I love that people pursue questions of truth they find gripping. And I love that people know which subjects bore them.
Hi Randy, I realize I didn't really know to which group you were referring as 'fantasists.' I realize you may have meant those who fantasize that the traditional story is the truth. Thanks!
"Biography means a man's life matters. It matters who Shakespeare was because it matters who we are. Every moment. - Sarah Smith, author
It is extremely important!
It was consequential to the man who wrote the plays.
John florio
... wrote a dictionary. He's not Shakespeare.