Who Wrote Shakespeare? | Sir Jonathan Bate & Alexander Waugh
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2017
- Shakespeare’s plays and poems tell us who we are. But who is he?
Join celebrated Stratfordian Sir Jonathan Bate and anti-Stratfordian Alexander Waugh for an impassioned debate on the most beguiling and unputdownable literary mystery of them all. Moderated by Hermione Eyre.
Filmed on 21st September 2017 at Emmanuel Centre, London.
How to: Academy - www.howtoacademy.com
Filming by: Driftwood Pictures - www.driftwoodpictures.net
Oh, I love this part of English society. Debates where a speaker has his space. This format we do not have in Germany. No interruption by the host, the opponent, the publicum. If only your politicians and your press could be as decent and intellectual.
Believe it or not when we Americans have formal debates Say to not interrupt one another and most especially if it's simply 2 people. This is because one person gets the microphone and speaks and then the other 1 does so. Shocking if you look at our politics but in actual true debates There's hardly ever a way to enter roped in the 1st place but they're very polite. You could watch a Muslim and a Christian debate on TH-cam and USA and you will never see arguments or disrespect for the most part. Sounds crazy but it's true
They used to be.
@@choice12ozborne The reference Schatten Sand made was to Germany. Read before you leap.
Politicians do not have any respect for others and especially not for themselves because inside they are well aware that they are just lying to gain power and profit. Talking over anyone speaking has been made popular by the ignorant, especially Trump, who are mentally ill equipped or lacking the knowledge and intellect to make an intelligent argument. Mindless brainwashed trump cult zombies make it easy for him because they are also lacking education and knowledge to the point of illiteracy.
So.....you're not familiar with Bild Zeitung obviously ? You're correct about one thing. . Unlike media and politicians in Germany
our Press does not censor itself
with regard to certain issues . Apart from the BBC of course which is basically The Guardian with film reports ! ( partly explains why audience numbers are shrinking so fast ! )
This could /should go on for days
And I would watch every second
MARVELOUS!
Same!
Totally agree! 👍
I am Italian and if I am allowed to contribute my opinion, I can very hardly imagine anything like this discussion taking place in my country about Dante, Petrarca or Boccaccio, for all of whom there's plenty of proofs about their literary activities (I mean, not only about their lifes, but that they were indeed the authors of the works they are famous for).
The fact that none of the works traditionally known as Shakespeare's can be attributed to him with absolute certainty sounds incredible to me.
If you claim that Dante was just a pen name and that Signore Alighieri was just a front man for some other writer, how do you prove that he was the author of La Comedìa? There are no surviving manuscripts in his hand. When people claimed "Dante" was the writer, they were just referring to the pen name, not the Florence man.
well I could do that, if I wish, because the Commedia is - in some sense - an autobiographical work whose author mentioned facts, experiences, people related to his own life (the battle of Campaldino, Cacciaguida, Casella and Forese Donati, etc) that for the most find a match in Dante Alighieri's documented biography.
I have no particular interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question, I find it strange that such a question does exist at all.
@@triumphbobberbiker It IS strange that it does exist at all, given how well Shakespeare is documented as a poet. I mean his deceased SON was named Hamlet. People and places from his home town appear in the plays. The only schoolboy character in all of Shakespeare's works is named William. In a sonnet, he says "My name is Will". In another, he makes a pun on his wife's last name. On occasion he accidentally wrote the names of his fellow actors instead of the characters they were meant to play. He owned the acting company which performed Shakespeare's plays and The theaters in which they were performed. Anti-Stratfordians ignore these details just as I could ignore the biographical details found in La Comedìa. If I had a candidate I wanted to promote as the REAL Dante, imagining justifications for why the aristocrat who was identified by the establishment was just a front would be a breeze. I mean, we have a fellow poet who knew Shakespeare well, and who even described Shakespeare's writing process. How do they get around such a solid witness? Ben Jonson was part of the plot. That's how.
The English are certainly weird, their classicist attitudes force them into pseudo-abstract speculation
This is a rarity and kind one of a one-off sadly. I do think the public is very slowly becoming open to the idea though.
When Waugh claims that people were "very precise about the way names were spelt," he seems to be talking about how names and titles operated in a noble family. But in the context of playwrights, Shakespeare's contemporary, Christopher Marlowe, had his name spelled Marlowe, Marlow, Marloe, Morley, Marlen, Marlin, Malyn, Marlyn, Marly, Marlye and Marlo ; the only known extant signature is spelled "Marley." Does Waugh contend that the other spellings all referred to various other people with similar names, or were pseudonyms?
Not only is this not even remotely true,
it should be noted that Marlowe's name didn't appear on his plays until well after his death.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 What part isn't remotely true? That Marlowe's name was spelled many different ways? Shakespeare's name appeared on his plays as spelt by compositors, and there is no evidence Shakespeare was involved in the printing. Like Marlowe/Marley, the printers spelled the name differently than the author's signature.
BTW, on the spelling of Marlowe's name, here's a useful essay by the late Peter Farey, twice the winner of the Hoffman Prize: www.rey.prestel.co.uk/names.htm
@@bomagosh Marlowe's name did not appear on any play until after he was dead. He was not there to correct any record. As far as the "merlin" names...the writer of the article at your link leaves room for that to be an error of interpretation on his own part..
It is clear that Shakespeare was involved in the printing of Venus and Adonis in 1593 and The Rape of Lucrece in 1594, and both times the name is clearly William Shakespeare. Inexplicably the name of the author of those bestselling poems did not appear on any plays until 1598 - a full year after William of Stratford bought his house in Stratford. The name was frequently hyphenated by the printers, most notably on the cover of Shake-speares Sonnets printed in 1609 - late enough in the writer's career for printers to have a clear idea of how the name should be spelled.
The name was never hyphenated when it refers to events in the town of Stratford, and in those cases it is spelled to be pronounced with a short A as in Shaxper. The name on the Last Will and Testament just months before his death is spelled Shackspeare.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 So when you say it's not remotely true, you're saying that it's entirely true, but that you imagine that Marlowe would have corrected all the variant spellings of his name had he survived? I relied on the paper I cited to you, written by an acknowledged expert on Marlowe's biography.
The name was hyphenated in fifteen quarto editions of Shakespeare's plays, but thirteen of those were in editions of just three plays (Richard II, Richard III, and 1 Henry IV) printed by Andrew Wise and the man who took over Wise's business in 1603, Matthew Law. It's correct that his name was not hyphenated in records related to Stratford because it was never hyphenated in any known manuscript, in Stratford or elsewhere, and none of the Stratford records were set in print.
As for the pronunciation - are you familiar with the linguistic phenomenon that was occurring in England between 1400 and 1700 referred to as the Great Vowel Shift? Pronunciation of words with short and long "a" sounds was changing at exactly the time Shakespeare was alive. The modern pronunciation was still evolving; a long a sound was exactly that - the same sound as a short a, drawn out - an "ahhh" sound, rather than a short "a". So at the time, Shakespeare's name would sound like "Shack-speare" or "Shahk-speare." There was no standardized pronunciation or spelling; Elizabethans were taught to spell phonetically so the print compositors would either spell as they heard the name, or copy the spelling from a previous edition of the text. There is no reason to think they had a copy of Shakespeare's signature, or that they would feel the need to spell his name the same way.
But that's not to say that the spelling of "Shakespeare" cannot be shown as applying to William of Stratford. That spelling was used in the text of the papers related to his purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse (though he signed the documents with an abbreviation to fit his name on a narrow vellum tab that attached an official seal to the document). It was used in the text of his affidavit in a London court case.
If people were so careful about the spelling of their names, why does Edward de Vere frequently sign as "Oxenford" rather than "Oxford?" I sometimes wonder if Waugh is trying to see how much nonsense he can get the Deniers to accept.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Great summary of the evidence about when and where the name appears.
When touring the Hathaway Home, I mused to a docent that it was queer that the Bard, who never travelled, was so detailed in his accounts of Elsinore, Venice, Verona and the like. Her cherubic response spoke volumes. “We’ll you know dear, he was a genius.”
That answer was quicker than pointing out all of the things he got wrong about those places.
I keep on hearing about these "detailed accounts" of Helsingør, but so far nobody has actually been willing to state what "details" are there that would supposedly be inaccessible to someone who hadn't been there, and why Shakespeare couldn't have heard about them from the members of the Lord Chamberlain's Men who had been to Denmark, like Will Kempe.
As for his "detailed knowledge" of Venice, he has a duke rather than a doge, has said duke judging a court case as if the political and legal organization of Venice was like Stratford, where Shakespeare's father was both magistrate and alderman, the elopement subplot of _The Merchant of Venice_ requires free movement for Jews at night even though Jews were locked inside the ghetto at night, and he manages to set an entire play in Venice without mentioning the canals, even though he mentions the Rialto, which is the oldest bridge over the Grand Canal. Nor does he mention St. Mark's Square. Ben Jonson shows much more accurate and detailed knowledge of Venice in _Volpone_ , but there's no evidence he'd ever been to Italy either. His travels seem to have been restricted to soldiering in the Low Countries.
@@Nullifidian But wait! Didn't De Vere's brother-in-law Peregrine Bertie write a letter to William Cecil in 1582 about the Danes getting drunk and firing off cannons (though not at Helsingør Castle, which was undergoing reconstruction at the time)? And wasn't De Vere given free access to all of Cecil's state correspondence, despite the fact that he was a wastrel whom nobody trusted with anything governmental, and who was persona non-grata at Cecil House after murdering a servant (1567), then calling Cecil's daughter a whore and his child by her a bastard (1575) and disowning them for six years (to 1582), then knocking up one of Elizabeth's ladies-in-waiting (1580-1)?
Or maybe he just heard about it from fellow Lord Chamberlain's Men George Bryan, Thomas Pope, or Will Kempe, who actually entertained King Frederick II at the recently expanded Kronborg in 1586.
His " accounts " of those places
far from being detailed displayed
what anyone interested could have
picked up by glancing at the account of anyone who had ever
visited the place ..
@@Jeffhowardmeade What did Shake-spear/de Vere get wrong about those places? Could you name only one of them? Thank you.
Love to listen to Waugh, the way he speaks how he chooses his words and not afraid to say what he thinks/knows.
True. Shame he talks such unmitigated crap. The bit where he dismisses 'my name is Will' because it sounds silly out of context.
IN context, the sonnet is a clever piece of punning word-play with the name Will, and 'my name is Will' at the end doesn't jar in any way.
He imagines Christopher Marlowe saying 'my name is Chris'. which of course sounds stupid. Why? Because 'Chris' is a modern contraction Christopher Marlowe was known as 'Kit' as we all know. If 'Kit' actually worked as a multiple pun the same way the Will works does, then it would not jar in the slightest. If you think that the poet writing his name at the end is clumsy, then that's fine. I don't. But if it is a solecism, then it just shows that Shakespeare was having an off-day, not that he wasn't the man from Stratford.
And it's not the only sonnet that plays with the word 'will'. The other one is also a rather saucy and flirtations bit of word play trading on the fact that the word 'will' was used for sexual organs then. Waugh has a Trumpian ability to dismiss the truth that works well in this setting. The way he dismisses William Camden's identification of Shakespeare as the writer is a good example of this.
He should NOT be allowed to get away with his dismissal of the 'will' sonnet.
According to Waugh " ...'he says my name is will, and then he says 'Among a number one is reckoned none'. Not true. 'My name is Will' is at the END of the sonnet. 'the one is reckoned none' line is much much earlier. There is no subsequent line to 'my name is will'.
Let's be clear. This is a saucy poem about willies and fannies, cleverly playing with the word 'will'. It simply wouldn't work if the author's name WASN'T Will. It is Shakespeare laying claim to this own name, though it is unwitting testimony, because he clearly never imagined that a bunch of snobs a few centuries later would be trying to steal the credit from him and confer it on that unspeakable piece of shit, the Earl of Oxford.
but don't take my word for it. Here is the sonnet IN FULL with the lines IN CONTEXT:
"If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy Will,
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there;
Thus far for love, my love-suit, sweet, fulfil.
Will, will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckoned none:
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy store's account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee:
Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lovest me for my name is 'Will.' "
there's more on his YT: th-cam.com/video/XqV44taFNUc/w-d-xo.html&
Waugh is a very effective public speaker, more so than Bate perhaps, but that's about all he's got going for him. His arguments are very poor if you take the trouble to actually listen to him.
@@MrMartibobs Nothing that stops "Will" from being a pen-name. The poet disparages himself by calling himself "that nothing me" before he decides his name is "Will" In other Sonnets the poet asserts that he desires and deserves only anonymity, so the idea that "Will" must be his real name is antithetical to the rest of the general plot of the sonnets.
Sonnet 71
"Do not so much as my poor name rehearse"
Sonnet72
"My name be buried where my body is
And live no more to shame nor me nor you"
Sonnet 76
"That "Every Word" doth ALMOST tel my name" ("every word" is ALMOST an anagram for Edward Vere)
add this little bit of Lear
Lear Act 1 Scene 1
Regan: 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;
NAMES MY = MY NAME'S
DEED = ED DE
VERY = VER (Y)
NAMES MY VERY DEED = MY NAME'S EDY DE VER
Ed is short for Edward, so is Eddie.
Ned is short for Mine Ed so Ed came first
Edy for Eddie is just obvious...
and a 17 word string from All's Well that ends with a double anagram (in case you miss it the first time...)
“If she, my liege, can make me know this clearly/I’ll love her dearly, ever, ever, dearly.”
"dearly ever" = Earl dy Vere or Edy Vere, Earl
"ever dearly" = Earl dy Vere or Edy Vere, Earl
obviously there are more, but you get the idea...
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Earl dy Vere? Pull the other one. I can't get over the fact that you people look at a wonderful work of art like 'Lear' and all you can do is look for pathetic anagrams.
And of course, it's obvious that de Vere was called Eddie. Utter tosh and I think you know it.
Here's an anagram from King Lear Act 4 scene 4: 'this is all the fiend ste hersh'. Can't take credit for it as it's by my son - who's far cleverer than me. People have been raking over this stuff for over a hundred years. Of course they'll find anagrams, if they're looking for them.
She is the most vivifying moderator in debate history!
I'd refer interested parties to Mark Twain (Is Shakespeare Dead?), J.T. Looney (Shakespeare Identified) and Charlton Ogburn (The Mysterious William Shakespeare) as works that will convincingly demonstrate that the Stratfordian did not write the works of Shake-Speare.
scriabiniste Convincing to whom? Not anyone with fully developed critical thinking skills.
So Mark Twain isn't a critical thinker????? It is preposterous to believe that this person from Stratford could have authored anything, a man whose formal education -- for which, incidentally there is no evidence -- at the Stratford Grammar school could never have equipped him with the vast, erudite and highly literary knowledge of the classics, allusions to which abound in the works of Shakespeare. The first work published under the name of Shakespeare, "Venus and Adonis" is so obviously and strikingly a court poem. Reading this, with no position about the author, it is virtually impossible to imagine it to be the product of the mind of the Stratfordian. But if Twain, Looney and Ogburn can't convince, I don't expect that I can. C'est la vie.
scriabiniste No, Mark Twain is not a critical thinker. A brilliant satirist and story teller, but no, not a great critical thinker. He also died before many of the pieces of evidence we now have were available.
Oh, and if Venus and Adonis is so obviously a "court poem" why was it based on a story taught to school kids, printed by a friend of Shakespeare's, and then reprinted a dozen times in at least tens of thousands of copies in his lifetime. Just how large IS this mythical court of yours?
Such poems were routinely written by middle-class authors and dedicated to noblemen. Your glaring ignorance of the era is telling.
Good places to begin, indeed.
If it was an obvious court poem, why would its author bother to use a pseudonym? The Oxfordian myth consists of a series of ad hoc rationalizations. Many of them are illogical on their race -- like an Earl having to use an allonym to publish a court poem -- and the rest are illogical in context.
Hey does anyone know if Alexander got the book on his desk the next day?
Brilliant detail Respect to both speakers for their dedication passion and for making us all think hard about a wonderful time in English history
For the record, I wish the debate organizers would have the civility to clarify the motion of the debate. Some people in the local audience seem to have been confused about what the motion was. Mr. Waugh himself restated the motion, but the debate moderator seemed very reluctant to either confirm or deny his summary. This was unfair to Waugh. That seems like a pretty elementary bar for moderators to avoid a clear appearance of prejudice against Waugh.
Waugh was more interested in being a drama queen and playing the victim. He is a member of the De Vere Society. He frequently speaks about De Vere as Shakespeare. He was fully capable of putting forward the case for De Vere if he chose right then and there.
@@Bigwave2003 That wasn't the agreed topic for debate. The original agreement was for two debates, the first of them to focus on the existence of the question and the second to discuss the Oxfordian case. No second debate was held because Bate backed out. Next time, please study up.
There's a type of moderator that nearly always manages to screw things up. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
@@Frip36 Prudent, no doubt. But in this case the problem lies not merely with the moderation but with the political pressures brought by the Shakespeare Industrial Complex to avoid international headlines that Bate had been bested by Waugh in a second round on the question of whether Oxford wrote the plays. Bate prudently fled rather than risk this outcome.
@@rstritmatter Have you considered going on the Mythvision podcast or Gnostic Informant on TH-cam? They cover religious myths but I think that is similar enough to Stratfordianism. I know you are a busy man but it is a way to reach an audience.
From what I understand the real W. Shakespeare was an astute businessman and a shareholder in a theater of performers - perhaps he fulfilled the role of what we today would call a "producer"? I would imagine the different jobs in the theater of the day were not allways clearly defined and probably overlapping as formal and specified education of which we are accustomed to today was rare.
He was also an actor, and according to everyone who expressed an opinion, a poet.
Really enjoying the moderator. Her enthusiasm is endearing, and the way she sums up the arguments impressive.
Endearing. Endeeeeeering. You're precious.
Yea and she’s hot to boot too !
Doctor Who wrote the plays of Shakespeare. That explains all the date discrepancies. And many actors have played Doctor Who so he would obviously have the necessary acting experience. Of course, the real tip off is the mention of the Daleks in "The Tempest".
The most curious thing is that you could be right! It will also be an extraordinary case for Sherlock indeed!
I prefer Hamlet in the original Silurian
Speaking of Doctor Who, in an interview with David Tennant, he was asked the question about who he thinks wrote Shakespeare. He answered: "I don't care who wrote it. It only matters that the works have been preserved and that we perform them"
He also said that he disagreed with Julian Fellows, who proclaimed that only someone with an elite education could understand and perform Shakespeare. He pointed to himself, who had a modest education. In my lifetime of nearly 70 years, 40 plus years of which as an as an opera singer singing Wagner, Verdi etc., it wasn't until Judi Dench, David Tennant, and Catherine Tate performances that I really understood the text.
The best portion of the debate was the opening fifteen minutes from Alexander Waugh. In that segment, he presented multiple pieces of evidence from the Elizabethan period that the name "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym. Sorry, Heward, but that was as much of a "knockout" punch as one could possibly hope for in such a short debating period.
Regarding the format of the debate: it was a bloody mess. The presenters were evidently told that they were to address the single question of whether or not the Stratford man was the author of the plays and poems of Shakespeare. But unbeknownst to the speakers, the thrust of the event morphed into "Who Wrote Shakespeare?"--a much broader and unwieldy objective for a one-hour program.
The debate went off the rails with the questions from the audience. The scattershot questions forced the speakers into the impossible situation of trying to offer brief responses to enormously complex issues. The moderator, who was clearly untutored in Shakespeare authorship studies, was hopelessly incompetent. Jonathan Bate, who professed that he does not engage in ad hominen arguments, began his presentation by implying that his fellow debater was a crank and a snob. Of course, ad hominen is the stock-in-trade of the Stratfordians.
For the curious viewer, the most important takeaway is to verify for yourself the existence and accuracy of the primary sources enumerated by Alexander Waugh, wherein Elizabethan writers were pointing out that they recognized the name William Shakespeare as a pseudonym. And Waugh did not even have time to cite the reference in “The Art of English Poesie” (1589) that
“In her Majesty’s time that now is are sprung up another crew of Courtly makers, Noble men and Gentlemen of her Majesty’s own servants, who have written excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford.”
The assimilation of this evidence is the starting point for an understanding of the Shakespeare authorship question.
A topic worthy of debate on this thread is how the moderator came to the conclusion that the debate was a "tie."
Great post, James. Yes, the moderator was way out of her depth, and poor old Jonathan came out with all the tired old quips about Delia Bacon going mad and Thomas Looney being a 'looney' and, more personally 'ad hominem', saying the Waughs are contrarians and lovers of aristocracts - so of course (implicitly) cannot be trusted to mount a serious, evidence-backed argument. And as for Jonathan's pathetic point about the introduction of candles into the theatre and thus generating the 'five-Act play' structure - what a load of hogswash! There is no single piece of hard evidence whatsoever that his risible point can muster in its defence (good to see Alexander mocking the point, as well it deserves).
While I myself incline much more to Marlowe as the real Shakespeare (cf. Marlowe's literary style and greatness, parallel with Shakespeare's, and the compelling reasons for later concealing his identity, if indeed Marlowe faked his own 'death' to escape imminent torture and possible execution), there is a good deal of evidence that suggests Edward de Vere could well have been at least heavily involved in the Shakespeare works, if not indeed their author. I remain open to this very real possibility. There are just too many links between Edward de Vere and the Shakespeare works to give serious consideration to his candidacy.
But the Stratfordians are completely closed to the possibility that the supreme poet could be anyone other than the man of no documented education, Will Shakspere. People really should by now be prepared to take a leap over the bounds of the literary-establishment box.
John, thanks for your good reply. It is refreshing to see someone with an open mind on this issue. The most important audience for this discussion is young people, who likely will not be introduced to it in their formal education today. Sadly, it appeared as though the vast majority of the audience for this debate was the old geezers.
Thanks, James, for your kind words. They are much appreciated.
Yes, it is sad that most of the audience seemed to be of the older generation (not that I am denigrating the older generation - far from it, as they often possess a strong ability for critical thinking - but we do need 'young blood' in this debate).
The hope I see is that the Internet is exposing even the youth to alternate candidates as the Shakespeare author. There are so many great videos on the Shakespeare Authorship Question on the Internet now that I am optimistic that the case for a serious re-assessment of who actually was behind the Shakespeare works will gradually and steadily reach more and more young students and young people in general (who like watching TH-cam videos). I suspect that within a generation, it will be common knowledge that there are good grounds for doubting that Will Shaksper was the real Shakespeare author. The Internet is our friend: it dares to put questions that the dinosaur Shakespeare scholars dare not ask (as they cannot convincingly answer them!).
Thanks for mentioning the Arte of English Poesie, James. Here is an article that shows why it was probably written by Oxford himself--
shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Waugaman-Arte.pdf
At the risk of becoming part of a "thank you" party, thank you Professor Norwood and John Richardson and Dr. Waugamun for speaking up.
Bate just uses all the buzz words straight off the bat. Unfortunately these people have more influence in education and media.
Well that confirms it for me, that wonderful sensitive, perceptive novel "Brideshead Revisited" could not have been written by someone called "Evelyn Waugh"....
Waugh addresses concrete issues that pertain to the issue at hand. I would not want to argue this issue with him!
I would love to, but only if there's a cross examination. I would tear him to bits.
@@Jeffhowardmeade I doubt that. Not sure that de Vere wrote the plays. But did the man Shakespeare write the plays? Absolutely not.
@@dirremoire And you base this on what evidence?
If there was the proposed follow-up debate, could a link be posted here? That would be very helpful, as I'm sure many would who have watched this video, would like to see the follow-up video. Thanks for the effort to make this "debate" available to us all! (I thought the filming as well as the Moderator's role were very well done indeed.)
The follow up was cancelled. The follow up was supposed to be about the Oxfordian case, but Bate backed out of it.
@@rstritmatter Thank you for letting us know.
It's because the Stratfordians bottled it.
Jonathan Bate did bring some interesting tid-bits, but I always find with these debates that most of the Strafordians do not have good enough reasonings nor facts nor evidence to prove their point. They always come up ith conspiracy theories and attacking the opponent with emotional verbal barrage of words, while the doubters bring reasoning and data and research and finding, they are well-prepared and meticulous which shames the Stratfordians and gives an unequal feeling to these debates. This is the 3rd I am lsitening to and I had this feeling and thoughts formulate in me.
What evidence did the "doubters" present?
@@Jeffhowardmeade none as always.
That's because the anti-Stratfordians are right.
What astounds me about this debate is neither side confronts the fact that in Elizabethan times writing was a very dangerous business.
Between 1594 & 1598 three printers were executed for seditious printing. In 1591 Pamphleteer Thomas Nashe’s house was raided for seditious writing as was Thomas Kyd’s house in 1593. Robert Persons published his book in 1595, “A conference about the next succession” Simply possession of the work was treason and punishable by death. In 1597 Nash and Jonson mount a play called ‘The Isle of dogs’ on the second night the performance is raided by the State military. Jonson and the entire cast are arrested and tortured in Marshalsea prison. Thomas Nash escaped the arrest and vanished for three months turning up in Plymouth. 1601 Thomas Nash was found on the street beaten and paralysed down one side, unable to speak, he died shortly thereafter.
I put this up a few days ago but it seems to have gone missing,
@@dominickreyntiens7516 I just read it. And frankly, all you have established is that it was _potentially_ a dangerous business. Far more companies and playwrights spent their entire careers without falling afoul of the censors than those who actually did so. The stories where they did are more dramatic than the ones where they didn't, so they stick out. However, considering that theatre managed to survive three successive monarchs and only was shut down permanently in 1642 due to religious fanatics taking over, rather than the crown's own objections, it can be readily seen that theatre was a far less precarious profession than you're presenting it.
@@Nullifidian Read some Charles Nichol.
@@dominickreyntiens7516 Anything specific? Because I already have read some of his books, and as far as I'm aware he doesn't claim that incidents like the furor over _The Isle of Dogs_ were the norm. He generally sticks to what the documentary record actually says. _The Isle of Dogs_ is famous because it was the _worst_ case of theatrical repression.
Also, you've got your facts wrong. Gabriel Spencer (whom Ben Jonson would later kill in a duel), Robert Shaa, and Jonson were sent to Marshalsea, but no other cast members were arrested. Orders were drawn up for their arrest, but they didn't follow through, which indicates the lack of interest the crown had in punishing the players. Shaa and Spencer were both released within days, and even Jonson was out of prison by October. Nashe was never arrested, even when he returned to London. And this is the _worst_ case scenario.
Ben Jonson then offended King James I and VI with the anti-Scottish satire and the satire about the new creations of knights in _Eastward Ho_ and he was locked up in prison once again, along with George Chapman, but _not_ John Marston, the third co-author. The play is extant, so the authorities' displeasure didn't extend to suppressing the play.
Thomas Middleton offended James with the satire about the failed marriage negotiations with Spain that attempted to get Prince Charles hitched to the Infanta Maria Anna that was called _A Game at Chess_ and yet... he got let off because the Master of the Revels approved the script. This play is also extant.
Shakespeare's company put a foot wrong a couple of times too. When they were the Lord Chamberlain's Men, they played the infamous command performance of _Richard II_ on the eve of the Essex Rebellion. Augustine Phillips was called before the Privy Council to testify, but otherwise they faced no recriminations and were actually playing at court within two weeks of their 'offense'. And then when they were just created the King's Men, they decided to stage _The Tragedy of Gowrie_ , which was a play about a foiled assassination attempt on King James. Even though they doubtlessly flattered James shamelessly, an assassination attempt on a sitting monarch was way too touchy a subject to be staged. And yet once again, beyond getting their wrists slapped and the play never being published, there was no further punishment. King James could have withdrawn his patronage and killed the company (because no nobleman would take up the patronage of a company the king had cast off) with no sort of legal oversight. It was entirely within his own discretion. And yet he wasn't interested in punishing actors. The government generally was just not that bothered.
Shakespeare's acting company was the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Among the LC's duties was court entertainment. The Master of Revels worked for him. He was also the Queen's cousin. After she died, Shakespeare's company became The King's Men. Literally grooms extraordinary of the chamber to King James.
Shakespeare's work was the epitome of establishment. The gravest danger he faced was failing to entertain HRH and therefore displeasing the Lord Chamberlain.
edward de vere wrote poems and released them - they were released under his name - if this is the best of the "who wrote shakespeare" candidates then i think we are sadly dealing with a group of conspiracy theorists
And after he died, 12 more Shakespeare plays came out 😂😂
Well don't bother actually looking at the evidence then. That would only confuse you further since none of it will agree with your prejudices.
@@floatingholmes So what is the _actual_ evidence-not speculation, fantasy, and supposition-that supports the claim that Edward de Vere wrote the works of Shakespeare? There is an extensive body of documentary evidence and contemporary testimony telling us that Shakespeare was a writer, so do you have anything equally good to establish de Vere as the true author of Shakespeare's plays?
@@Nullifidian There is nothing at all connecting William Shaxper of Stratford to the work. No documentary evidence. No contemporary testimony. Nothing.
No one in Stratford ever once mentions that the soul of the age lives in their town. Shaxper's will and the writings of his relatives never once mention that the famous author of Venus & Adonis, a poem beloved by the nation and the Queen is this same man. There is no evidence at all that the plays and poems were not, as so many other works of the time were, the product of a concealed author.
The first connection between Stratford and the work comes from a document created after Shaxper's death. His memorial monument portrays him with a sack of wool or grain. Shaxper died never having met the Earl of Southampton, the subject of the sonnets and dedicatee of the poems. He died never having left England, never having been a soldier or sailor or lawyer or doctor-- or any of the things written about so expertly in the works. He is never persecuted or jailed as so many contemporary playwrights were, including Marlowe, Kyd and Johnson-- acknowledged collaborators in the works. All evidence about Shaxper's life contradicts these connections to the works.
The positive evidence of De Vere is meaningless if you believe that the case is closed despite all these holes in the Stratford man's story. Too many people who engage on this subject are belligerent and only post in order to troll. If you are actually interested, then maybe address some of these points and I'll connect you with evidence for De Vere.
But I can't help pointing out there are an abundance of sites out there already grappling with these issues of evidence and proof. It's hard to believe this is a sincere question.
@@Nullifidian Maybe I muted this conversation. I can't seem to confirm if my reply posted to you or not.
At any rate, your claims are not supported by the facts. There is no body of documentary evidence connecting Shaxper of Stratford with writing the works. Not a single example of writing, no reference to him as a writer, from anyone in his family or in the town. There is no contemporary testimony connecting the works to the man from Stratford. The first time Stratford and the works are connected is after Shaxper had been dead for 7 years (in the folio, where the reference is completely ambiguous). There is evidence that a lot of work is attributed to a William Shakespeare. But there is nothing to connect that to the Stratford man except by filling in blanks that are not actually present in the record and which make very little sense with everything else about the man that can be established without a doubt. Can De Vere beat that? By a mile.
The evidence for De Vere includes that De Vere was a well loved playwright of his day, yet acknowledged as one who published under another (unknown) name. He had a patron's relationship with Kyd, Marlowe, and Greene and many more writers who are considered instrumental to the works (Shaxper has no documented relationship to any of them). References to De Vere in numerous epigrams and poems connect him to Shakespeare and to the other playwrights of the day as their "Apollo."
So he is established by the evidence to be a well loved poet, playwright and musician working under an assumed name, with all the collaborators of Shakespeare and with immediate connections to all the living figures referenced in the works (Southampton, Cecil, Spencer, Florio, etc.)
This is far more than can be said for the Stratford man. It is also just looking at some of the direct evidence. Investigating history requires the ability to judge evidence in many ways beyond what is direct. How likely is something to happen? What other explanations could fit? How likely are they?
Anyone who looks at the actual evidence has to admit that it is utterly inconclusive and start from there.
Sir Bate, you are incredible! I love seeing two academics respectfully debate in a healthy way, this doesn’t exist here in the USA. Must side with Sir Bate on this matter though. ❤
His title is Sir Jonathan. It's a peculiarity of English that the Knighthood refers to the Christian name, not the surname. Oh, and I'm an Oxfordian 😊
th-cam.com/video/ljM11ib4Apk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qc_F_iOf2Vo7Cvqi
More in the audience--before and after the debate--rejected the Stratfordian case, and the moderator declared the post-debate vote a "tie" (though somewhat inaccurately, in my opinion). Reasonable people who watch the debate should conclude that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is a legitimate subject for study and discourse, and ought not to be treated as taboo.
Richard Agemo I believe that's called "stuffing the ballot box". You can't seriously believe that A) the population as a whole would break anywhere close to evenly one this question, let alone with the Anti-Strats, and B) that even if it did, that would mean it was worthy of study by serious scholars. By that standard, Birthers, Moon Landing Hoaxers, and Hollow Earthers should be taken seriously, as they are far more numerous.
Maybe you missed the second sentence of my post, so I'll repeat it: Reasonable people who watch the debate should conclude that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is a legitimate subject for study and discourse, and ought not to be treated as taboo.
Richard Agemo No, I got that. You tried to justify your thesis by the outcome of the audience vote, which even so you discounted. Are you now saying that your preamble was mere dicta?
In any case, I think you are correct. The Authorship Question IS a legitimate subject for study. Primarily by mental health professionals, but also for anyone who wishes to be fascinated by how much meaning some people can wring out of no evidence whatsoever.
Oh, yes, and anyone who needs a good laugh.
Oh, Caius, you are such a master of insult. Congratulations.
Richard Agemo Thank you, but don't say that too loud. Falstaff might hear. He'll think I'm gunning for his job, and he's friends with the prince.
The scoop of the evening battle was Oxford's new place of burial. I haven't been able to sleep for three nights! Shocking and fascinating!
He's still buried in Hackney. Nobody has moved his body, because they wouldn't be able to find it. His burial place is unmarked.
Just go find out at Alexander Waugh's YT: th-cam.com/video/XqV44taFNUc/w-d-xo.html&
Per Oskarsson, Oxford is buried at Hackney. The fact that Waugh says he is buried at Westminister does not mean this is true.
It's a tad worrying that such compelling evidence to the doubt of the author is not being properly investigated. But once a liar always a liar. Poverty stricken behaviour that makes one think what other established truths are there that have gone a century or decade too far in the name of profit/prophet?
Maybe it could be properly investigated if there were some evidence to investigate. So far, all the evidence points to Shakespeare.
@@Jeffhowardmeade ...He said, hoping that you did not actually look at the evidence yourself.
@@floatingholmes I encourage everyone to find their nearest Anti-Stratfordian and ask him or her to present a single piece of contemporary documentary evidence which states that Shakespeare was not the author of his works, or that anyone else was. Most will be laughing their heads off before the Anti-Strat finishes "decoding" the first reference.
On the other hand, there are piles of evidence that Shakespeare was the author, and no word puzzles are needed to read then.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Circular logic.
As far as I can see most anti-stratfordians do not consider someone to have investigated anything unless that person has come to agree with them. If we take the more standard definition of investigate, then it seems to me people have investigated the claims of anti-Stratfordians and responded to them, and a response to that response might be offered. But if the response is “you did not investigate” then I have to say I don’t believe that’s true or constructive.
Thanks for this
Really enjoyed this debate and two gentlemen (and the audience and moderator) - they also did a good job at being congenial towards one another, respectful, and even their disagreements were done in such a complimentary way. I also think there are a lot of well thought-out people on this forum so I am in no way trying to be convincing one or the other and am merely wanting to share some thoughts.
The Name: As to the spelling the name issue, I think there are a lot of things we do not know about Shakespeare (he left us a good mystery, however). I think it could be argued that Shakespeare perhaps never spelled his name the way it appears in the plays (we obviously don't have every signature he ever wrote to 100% verify this) but we can probably make the assumption that the spelling the sonnets, poems, and folio were done by the editors and not the author himself. We know how the editors spelled Shakespeare's name. As to handwriting, this is a rather easy one to sum up, I would say that most do not write in the same hand as they sign their signature. Growing up I was taught in school when doing cursive to do every letter, one day I distinctly remember watching my dad write a check in his checkbook, I was in my teens, and I saw how he signed his name, leaving out most of the letters in our last name and just following through with a line from the "w" and leaving out the "s" entirely. Once I saw that I didn't need to take the time to trace out ever letter, ever since that day, my signature has looked similar to my father's signature. Therefore, signatures don't really tell us that much and are not good evidence to form a basis on how "literate" someone was or not. And as my analogy alludes to, who taught Shakespeare how to make a signature, would this not be his father? So how much of "Will Shakespeare" of London is in his Shakesper signatures compared to John Shakesper, his father? But lets assume that this was some literary clue, let's assume that the handwriting samples DO line up with his normal handwriting skills that is. What we could surmise, then, is that perhaps Shakespeare had bad handwriting. Which is to say that there could be an agreement that the original plays in Shakespeare's hand do not 100% line up with the spellings and such in Folio one. Could someone, like Johnson, or a group of writers, take Shakespeare's original rushed-hand manuscripts and then build off Shakespeare's words the final form that appeared in the folio? So I think to some degree some argument could be made that the original handwritten documents and the final printed documents may have not been a 100% match, such as spellings and such, and then to a greater degree, some arguments could be made the grouping of editors or individuals who worked on the Folio may have attempted, in their own way, to make Shakespeare better.
An alternative view point which could equally viable (again owing to the fact that there is still a lot about Shakespeare that we do not know) is that Shakespeare may have, on purpose, wanted his family or neighbors to know that he was the same man who wrote the Sonnets and plays. He may have had a reason to hide from friend's and family this sort of other life he made for himself in London. It would appear that he was both businessman in Stratford and this famous theater shareholder/producer in London. I can think of a couple off hand that explain why he would want to keep who he really was from his family, but the point of this counter is just to point out that Shakespeare may have "intentionally" made sure that as a poet, his name was spelled as Shakespeare but as the man who lived in Stratford, his name was spelled differently. This could have been intentional.
Writing: There would be a lot of ties between the man who lived in Stratford was the same man who had a share in the Globe, and was known to be an actor. If he was an actor, which there doesn't seem to be an argument that he wasn't, then doesn't this necessitate that he could read? For how would an actor be expected to perform his lines if he, in fact, did not know how to read. To me, the two go hand in hand, Shakespeare the actor must have known how to read, otherwise, his likelihood of being an actor would be pretty dismal (from what I've heard about acting in this time period as that it was rather a fast passed life as theater going was really the rave in that day, you'd get like maybe the morning to run through some practices, then tickets would start selling in the afternoon and you were performing until sunset, by the next day, it was possible you had to do the same thing over again, but this time with a brand new play--- this, to me, would lend me to think that it was expected in Shakespeare's day to learn their lines on the fly). So if Shakespaere could read, then this begs the question, where did he learn to read? One has to be taught how to read, you can't really teach yourself. Could Shakespeare have come to London un-educated and for his missing years worked in a theater and also learned how to read (and write), sure, but since we have evidence of a latin school in Stratford and that we know later in life he would need to know how to read, then this rather would simplify things that when he started to work at the Rose he already knew how to read. Now I think it can be strongly contested that Shakespeare could read. If Shakespeare could read, does this not necessitate that while he was receiving the education on how to read that he also was, simultaneously, receiving the education on how to write?
A big push in the Anti-Stratford argument seems to be that there was an active coverup happening around Shakespeare's day and shortly after his death to try to convince the population that the writer of the Sonnets, Poems, and Plays WAS the man from Stratford. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that the anti-stratfordians don't contend that Johnson and others were attempting to mask the true author under the guise of William Shakespeare of Stratford. In fact, this seems to be a big emphasis of their argument, that a con was put into place to convince the world that the author of the plays is the same man from Stratford. They also seem to contest that this con happened right away, not years and years after Shakespeare's life, but these claims were made contemporary, which is to say, even though Shakespeare is dead, people were still alive who knew Shakespeare and were familiar with him in both London, at the Globe, and in Stratford. Why did they pick William Shakespeare in the first place? If this man is only known as an actor and only a shareholder, what makes him the best man for the job? Now let's say Andrew or Micky who used to do drinks with good ol' Willy boy found out about the Will Shakespeare they knew and the William Shakespeare of the plays, and let's say they knew for a fact that the Willy they knew couldn't read or write, wouldn't his identity be contested as the same man who wrote the plays almost outright? If it was well known that William Shakepseare couldn't read or write, why was his authorship not formally contested when he was alive and the King's Men were performing his plays? Wouldn't it make better since, if I was Ben Johnson, or Oxford hiring someone to pretend to write the plays for me, to pick someone that was known to be a playwrite, or at the very-least, was known that he could write? Let's say the Oxfordians or the Baconians are right, let's say William Shakespeare ISN'T the man who wrote the plays, well, didn't they pick a good fellow, then? No one seems to contest that the two men WEREN'T the same men when the poems and folio was published. No one in the early years of the plays and a hundred years thereafter is writing and objecting that Williams Shakespeare ISN'T the same man. So doesn't that mean they picked the right person? If they didn't, they made one mistake in their deception, then couldn't one objector come forward and bring the whole thing down if they could simply say to Shakespeare, here, take this pen and write me one line from Romeo and Juliet. The point here is thus, if William Shakespeare was chosen to be the man to hide the identity of the real Shakespeare, then doesn't that necessitate that man would NEED to be known to have a background in theater and also, on top of that, would need to show that the man was able to write. If it would be easy to prove that the man living in Stratford had NO history or connection to the London theater or the plays of Shakespeare at all, then why was he chosen in the first place? The fact he "went along with it", does this not require some logic, then, that the man needed to know how to read and write, if it was known in his day that he couldn't, and they picked an illiterate man to be their guy, then couldn't any day now their masquerade come tumbling down the moment someone put two and two together that Shakespeare CAN'T write. . .
Can anybody tell me when Waugh's book is due to be released?
It is coming, but in proofs at the moment.
@@rstritmatter thanks!
@@turbzyangling In the meantime, this book by Bryan Wildenthal is a shorter version of the arguments contained in the Waugh & Stritmatter book: www.amazon.com/Early-Shakespeare-Authorship-Doubts-Wildenthal/dp/1732716609
@@rstritmatter Is it out now?
It is such a delight to listen to the passionate speech by Sir Bates celebrating loads of evidence.
@@TRUMPKILLA no, it really doesn’t. And listen to Waugh. His argument is based on little, and he’s repeatedly - frankly shockingly sometimes - inaccurate and very dismissive of what are good, solid counterpoints
Im still unsure about the Shakespeare authorship question? What's the oxfordian explanation for Shakespeares plays mentioning the gunpowder plot if edward devere was already dead ?
laurengg09 Anything that is demonstrably from after June 1604 was added later by someone else. Alternately, those who claim aspects of the plays demonstrate authorship after June, 1604 are wrong. A small number of Oxfordians think he faked his death so as to be able to continue writing uninterrupted.
Thanks for asking. First, there's no definite allusion to the Gunpowder Plot (which may have been engineered by King James and his allies, to galvanize support). Second, all the alleged allusions, especially references to "equivocation," were used during de Vere's lifetime. I wrote about that in a 2013 publication--
drive.google.com/file/d/0B9YH_poTOlrbWDFPM095U1gyZ28/view
I love both of these gentlemen, and their arguments are both passionate and well-informed.
But only one of them has made lying his profession.
@@rstritmatter i dont think waugh thinks he is lying... he is just a nut.
@@beniteztheconman more ad hominums. waugh won the debate fair and square. it was matter of damage limitation as far as bate was concerned. his arguments were pathetic and waugh did a good job of pulling them apart. the 'my name is will' bit was esp hilarious. i would feel sorry for stratters but they are lying sacks of shit conmen that need to be flogged for continuing to peddle one of the greatest frauds in history. maybe bate felt guilty and doubting his beliefs and wanted to show the world the poverty of the stratfordian hypothesis
@@beniteztheconmanAnother as hominem attack by a Stratfordian. You lot just can't argue with the evidence, can you?
Why don’t we know undeniably? Why would a country bloke who made it big in London not let everyone back home know it was him absolutely? Why not gloat a bit? Why hide? Oxford on the other hand has all sorts of reasons to hide his identity and pseudonyms have been used long before Shakespeare. Personally, I still don’t know, but I still love the plays. I lean towards the Earl.
A) Because that country bloke's hometown was a Puritan stronghold and theatre had the equivalent level of respect that was given to the alehouses, bear-baiting pits, and brothels surrounding the public theatres in the liberties outside London. The present-day analogue would be bragging about the money you make from your chains of strip clubs and sex shops.
B) He did let everyone back home know it was him in his funerary monument, and Lena Cowen Orlin has presented convincing evidence in her book _The Private Life of William Shakespeare_ that it was sculpted while Shakespeare was still alive. Naturally, given local prejudices, the monument didn't stress the dramatist angle, but the half-effigy depicted him with a sheet of paper on a cushion and a hand curved to hold a quill pen (the pen, which is not part of the sculpture, is now regularly replaced), dressed in the subfusc of a learned man, and with both a Latin and an English inscription that referenced his writing. The Latin inscription called him a "Virgil for art" ("arte Maronem"-Virgil's full name was Publius Vergilius Maro) and the English portion referred to "all yt [that] he hath writ | Leaves living art but page to serve his wit." At least six people referenced this monument in their own writings in the 17th century: John Weever, William Basse, Leonard Digges, Lieutenant Hammond, William Dugdale, and Gerard Langbaine. Weever and Dugdale copied both inscriptions (Langbaine only copied the Latin one); Digges, Hammond, Dugdale, and Langbaine mentioned Stratford; Basse called Shakespeare a "rare tragedian" and called for him to be re-interred with Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, and Francis Beaumont in Westminster Abbey; Langbaine said he had also been an actor; and all _six_ of them identified him as a poet.
C) Oxford didn't have any reason to hide his identity. What on earth could it matter to him that he was known to be the author of plays? Indeed, Oxfordians often point to the references to Oxford in George Puttenham's _The Art of English Poesie_ and Francis Meres' _Palladis Tamia_ (Meres seems to have just copied Puttenham's praise, because he certainly wasn't old enough to have seen one of Oxford's works) to show that Oxford was known as a dramatist. But then if he was already known as a dramatist, why shouldn't he have been associated with Shakespeare's works? In fact, some of the madder Oxfordians claim that Shakespeare's plays were originally performed as de Vere's in court, but the Lord Chamberlain's Men played at court, so one can only assume that when the Queen and her courtiers were presented with Shakespeare's/de Vere's plays yet again that de Vere went around with that memory-wiping tech from _Men in Black_ to make sure that nobody made the connection.
While public theatre plays might have been regarded as _déclassé_ , that reputation didn't affect closet dramas, which were a perfectly legitimate aristocratic pastime, plus closet dramas were easier to write because you didn't have to worry about bearing in mind the strengths, appearances, and numbers of everyone in the company. You didn't have to write extra-long passages to cover a difficult costume change or worry about divvying up the parts to permit doubling and tripling of roles. Edward de Vere could have just written closet dramas and had them published and there would have been no diminution of his reputation. in fact, it might have enhanced it because Queen Elizabeth appreciated a genuine artistic talent, which de Vere didn't actually have (seriously, his few attempts at verse are dreadful and nothing like Shakespeare). Indeed, _Venus and Adonis_ published under de Vere's own name with a fulsome and flattering dedication to Queen Liz would have been the means to promotion and money he was seeking at court through other means, chiefly by begging to be handed concessions on Cornish and Devonshire tin.
D) If you love the plays, then I'd suggest watching James Shapiro's documentary series _The King and the Playwright_ . You can find all three episodes here on TH-cam. And as you watch it, remind yourself that _almost everything_ you're watching was written for a period when Edward de Vere was _dead_ . He died just one year into King James' reign. Before the King's Men's acquisition of the Blackfriars. Before the Gunpowder Plot. Before the Midlands Riots. Before the changes in Jacobean tastes that make Shakespeare's late plays recognizably distinct from his early- and middle-period works. Aside from the fact that they didn't write the same kind of English-Oxford spoke (and wrote, because people spelled words the way they sounded to them in this era) with a marked rustic Essex accent that is completely unlike Shakespeare's Midlands speech with numerous Warwickshire regionalisms in it-it's just impossible to fit Edward de Vere in the development of Jacobean drama, whereas Shakespeare went on writing for almost a decade after de Vere's death and with a couple of collaborators (George Wilkins and John Fletcher) who had _no_ active careers as writers prior to de Vere's death.
@@Nullifidian whew! Case closed. The Oxfordians are having their, what has become annual, symposium in November. New Orleans I think. I would love to hear what they say to your propositions. I remain undecided although the Oxford idea is interesting. Cheers.
@@jimsteele9559You don't need to wait. Alexander Waugh has a whole series of videos where he claims that all those who identified Shakespeare as the actor and gentleman from Stratford were in on the secret and left clues so subtle that they can only be understood by extreme contextualization.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Thank you. Yes I’ve seen some of Mr. Waugh’s work and others in the same vein and it’s fascinating. Unfortunately it will be dismissed as tricks and gimmicks. Too much conspiracy and esoteric nonsense they claim. There is more to Shakespeare author question than the establishment would care to admit however. I think the Symposium is coming up soon. New Orleans? November? Looking forward to see what they post on TH-cam etc. My own opinion remains open but leans heavily towards De Vere or multiple authors with De Vere as kinda the center. I could be wrong. Cheers.
th-cam.com/video/ljM11ib4Apk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qc_F_iOf2Vo7Cvqi
An exercise in absurdity, tantamount to debating the proposition that the earth is flat. Ben Johnson, who was not only Shakespeare's contemporary and literary competitor and known to have been jealous of the bard's literary prowess, said of him: "He was not of an age, but for all time. Soul of the age! The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage! I loved the man and do honour his memory as much as any."
Exactly, the eulogies of his dear friends and colleagues should be all the evidence anyone needs. Are we to suppose that such heartfelt words of grief and praise were all a put-on?
LOL!!! Who is "him?" You, and all Stratfordians, assume, without any supporting evidence, that "him" is Will of Stratford, the one who could barely sign his name, was born into a family of illiterates, and had wife and children illiterate.
When Will of Stratford died, there was no eulogy, as it happened in the case of all other writers of the time. This Ben Johnson verse was written 7 years after WoS died, and no one knows to whom exactly it is dedicated. One thing is clear from what Johnson wrote in the opening of the First Folio, he was not going to reveal the real name of the one who signed his works with "Shakespeare", or "Shake-spear'' A history fact, Avon was how the Hampton Court was once known, and Hampton Court was where the Queen or the Kind attended plays.
@@sorellman There's no record of a Shakespeare play ever being performed at Hampton Court. The only reference to it being called Avon is in a surreal fantasy called Cygnea Cantio (1545) by John Leland, who just made it up. There isn't a single historical document which names Hampton Court "Avon".
You also don't know if there were any eulogies when Shakespeare died in Stratford, not London. He did get a nifty monument identifying him as a great poet which was in place within a couple of years.
What about De Vere's monument? His wife left money for one, but it never got built. Guess his son was just as bad about blowing money as he was.
@@Jeffhowardmeade In 1603 William Shakespeare's 'King's Men' first performed Hamlet and Macbeth for the new Stuart King, James I.
Prior to that, under Queen Elizabeth's reign, the theatre flourished. Many great playwrights got their start under her rule. Playhouses were built, and a large number of performances were done privately for the queen herself. The Queen was an avid consumer of theater productions. Elizabeth and her entourage would never go to a public theater though. The private shows took place at Hampton Court or at other privately own locations, castles and such.
A true Stratfordian associated with the fraud known as The Birthplace Trust, you speak with conviction of things you know nothing about and use your ignorance as supporting argument.
"For a good poet's made, as well as born;
And such wert thou." from ben jonson on shakespeare my opinion is that the "poet's made" is his emphasis here "as well as born" has less weight in the structure for me this sentiment is backed up later on with the following "And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek"
William Blake dropped out of school at age 10, so obviously he could not possibly have written the extraordinary poems attributed to him. Who does Alexander Waugh propose was the "real" author behind the "man from Soho"?
Its easy to knock down a straw man. Google is your friend.
We have evidence tying William Blake to his literary work. Not so for the Stratford man.
There is no comparison. Blake did not write about fields he could not by any human means have had knowledge about.
@@YourGreatPotentialIt's amazing, you guys keep claiming this but if you could genuinely produce a single example then you'd get genuine academic attention. It's so easy. If you can find something the Stratford man couldn't possibly have known, you'll make international news. But you're gonna give me some stuff about Giulio Romano, and I'm gonna say 'travelogues'; you're gonna say something about law, I'm gonna say he performed at the Inns of Court enough times; you're gonna say medicine, I'm gonna say his son in law was a doctor. Don't make claims you can't back up.
One of Waugh's many errors and misstatements was his claim about Dowdall dating the SAQ to 1838. He actually misunderstood the reference, apparently because he didn't bother to find out what Dowdall was referring to. Bate was right.
The SQ begins in 1594.
@@rstritmatter That's your interpretation, but it's at odds with the reading of practically every scholar for the last several centuries. It's not that you've discovered any new evidence related to the Shakespeare authorship debate; you've just decided that, as long as we assume the Looney theory has merit, you can interpret an ambiguity not to rule out your version.
Really, you need to address the prima facie case for Shakespeare's authorship. That takes more than claiming that the evidence can be read to be ambiguous.
Many errors YOU say ? Mr. Bate is bought and paid for by the “Shakspear” crowd in Stratford upon Avon , both are fairy tales , like an illiterate writing the works of “Shakespeare” . Mr. Bate ain’t no scholar ……or even close .
@@rayjvify are you sticking with straight ad hominem attack on Sir Jonathan, or are you interested in proving Waugh was correct?
Who Wrote Shakespeare?
This question was wrong!
That right
In Glasgow parlance people would say in a heated discussion to an opponent very derogatory I am educating you . Listening to these great orators I am definitely being educated .
I have a question related to something I learned recently in my research of the Stratfordian and Anti-Stratfordian sides. As someone who has been studying the authorship question for a while, I came across something about how Edward De Vere was nicknamed a “spear shaker.” Can anyone speak more on this?
In 1578, a gadfly named Gabriel Harvey wrote (supposedly directed at De Vere) "thy face shakes a spear", thus giving rise to the pen name.
Only Harvey's book was titled Gratulationis Valdinensis Liber Quartus. It was in Latin, and what he wrote was "vultus tela vibrat", which translates to "you eyes shoot arrows". Spear in Latin is "hasti".
Of course, it turns out Harvey wasn't even addressing De Vere. Everyone has been following a bad translation by an Oxfordian made in 1928.
@@Jeffhowardmeade thank you!!
@@angieeee246 You thanked a liar.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756She wasn’t thanking you.
Pity the public was biased towards Waugh. Also there apparently was confusion what the debate was about. But anyway, nice debate. I think Bate did not have a chance from the outset and he knew it.
My impression is that the anti people in the public were rude.
So why do you think they are biased towards Waugh, are they all his friends and family? Or is it that his arguments are more convincing?
@UCDq0vQuuP8CEAFT35Fk3nJA You're right if you perceive "anti" as derogatory.
@@rafthejaf8789 Waugh stacked the audience.
Mr Waugh can't be allowed to get away with his dismissal of the 'my name is Will' sonnet. It is one of a pair of sonnets that play cleverly (and often lewdly) with the name 'Will', mostly in the interests of seduction.
Waugh wants this to be a huge profound 'hidden message' operation, and mocks the idea that the 'Will' at the end is a reference to the poet's name. Which is odd because it actually says in so many words, 'my name is "Will'
He mocks this idea by suggesting that it would sound ridiculous if Christopher Marlowe said 'my name is Chris' at the end of a poem. Or if de Vere said 'my name is Ed'. Well yes. That WOULD sound ridiculous. It would also be ridiculous if the poem ended with 'my name is Bill'.
Why? Because these are modern contractions.
As we all know, Marlowe was actually known as 'Kit'.
So if he wrote a poem punning about his own name and ended it with 'my name is Kit' it would not sound in the least ridiculous. Just as the final 'for my name is Will' line doesn't sound the least bit ridiculous in context.
But ... to be honest .... IF it did sound stupid (and I don't think it does) then .... what Waugh is doing is criticising the poet. The idea that it's about the poet's name stays intact even if you think it's a bad poem. Because it is absolutely unequivocal that the poet IS punning about his own name. Which means that whether it sounds silly or not (and it doesn't) is beside the point. The poet says 'my name is Will'. So unless you are arguing that black is white, up is down, truth is a lie, then the poet was saying that his name ... was Will.
But don't take my word for it. Here are the sonnets in full:
(to get the full force of the first sonnet you have to be aware that 'will' at the time could be a reference to the sexual organs of either gender.)
135
Whoever hath her wish, thou hast thy Will,
And Will to boot, and Will in overplus;
More than enough am I that vex thee still,
To thy sweet will making addition thus.
Wilt thou, whose will is large and spacious,
Not once vouchsafe to hide my will in thine?
Shall will in others seem right gracious,
And in my will no fair acceptance shine?
The sea, all water, yet receives rain still,
And in abundance addeth to his store;
So thou being rich in Will add to thy Will
One will of mine, to make thy large Will more.
Let no unkind, no fair beseechers kill;
Think all but one, and me in that one Will.
136
If thy soul check thee that I come so near,
Swear to thy blind soul that I was thy Will,
And will, thy soul knows, is admitted there;
Thus far for love, my love-suit, sweet, fulfil.
Will, will fulfil the treasure of thy love,
Ay, fill it full with wills, and my will one.
In things of great receipt with ease we prove
Among a number one is reckoned none:
Then in the number let me pass untold,
Though in thy store's account I one must be;
For nothing hold me, so it please thee hold
That nothing me, a something sweet to thee:
Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lovest me for my name is 'Will.'
Both these sonnets play quite unequivocally on the idea that the poet's name is William.
Mr Waugh knows all this, so he is being .... to put it kindly .... disingenuous.
@@MrMartibobs Thank you. Excellent reasoning.
obviously the burden of proof is on those who claim shakespeare didn't write the plays. we have his tomb. we have the first folio. it has been accepted for 400 years that he did. you dont have to prove shakespeare had a grammar school education or anything else. you have to prove he didn't. if you believe shakespeare didn't write the plays, where's the proof? there is none. there's just speculation about what an actor from the country could or couldn't know. not convincing.
I believe your argument is entirely wrong. First of all it is impossible to prove something didn't happen only that something did. This is common sense. Additionally for all of Shakespeare's contemporaries there are forms of evidence/proof that they wrote their works, for example manuscripts etc. There is however no physical proof or evidence for that matter that the man from Stratford wrote any of the poems or plays. It's also entirely false to say that the authorship has been accepted for 400 years as this is also untrue, although it's the case that most of us were not aware of the authorship issue until the advent of the Internet. For example the famous American author Mark Twain wrote a book published in 1909 questioning the authorship, and he was by no means the 1st to do so.
@@Greg_Romford the idea that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays only exists in popular culture. Within actual academia this is not a question. As is the case with most conspiracy theories.
@@asielnorton345 Writing it off as a conspiracy theory is a bit ad hominem isn't it? Tectonic plates used to be academically fringe. Check out videos from Shakespeare Authorship Question and the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship ans make your own mind up.
@@joecurran2811Ad hominem. Joo keep using dat word. I don think it means what joo think it means.
regarding shakespeares missing years i read on some old literature that shakespeare in 1586 at the age of 22 went to london and was for six years attatched to the theatre as jack of all trades or general utility man, another report claims that the comedy of errors was before 1590 as shakespeare had been connected with the theatre for 3 or 4 years
Actually he was a wool merchant...and anything he could make a dime at..from what i read i think he bought the plays and because the names were so close he let people think what they wanted...and when he got caught he hightailed it home..
He was not william.shakespear.
He never even wrote his own supposed name the same spelling.twice...nor even remotely similar...it was like he was illiterate.
He.was shackspur..
@@sislertx Evidence for this? No, none.
@@sislertx people spelled their names - and words generally - differently all the time in that period. It was before standardised spelling, and has nothing to do with illiteracy. the insistence in not pronouncing his name as ‘Shakespeare’ by anti-Stratfordians is so irritating because of this. And just comes across pedantic
For example, Thomas Cromwell’s name was variously spelt:
Cromwell, Crumwell, Cromell, Crumewell. And those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. Obviously neither Cromwell nor the people writing his name were illiterate - the ‘Cromell’ spelling was the king, in fact.
Or, for another example, in one manuscript the author spelt the word ‘chicken’ in at least 7 different ways. And he clearly weren’t illiterate either
I would like nothing better than for the son of a glove maker with a grammar school education to write the greatest works of the English language. Honestly I would, but Diana Price's literary "paper trails" has left me wondering. I'm not an Oxfordian per se, but no Oxfordian claims that De Vere wrote every scrap and tittle of the entire Shakespeare canon.
stercaland Price's book is a con game. She carefully constructed her list of what constitutes "literary evidence" in order to steer clear of all of the evidence that exists for Shakespeare. It's basically the same trick used by illusionists to make objects disappear.
Of course, there's so much evidence that it becomes difficult for even a master illusionist to make it all disappear, so when that occurs, she nitpicks each piece of evidence to explain why it doesn't qualify. Her most common nitpick is to say an item is "disputed", when in reality it is she who is disputing it.
The ultimate goal of her book is to be able to say "there's no evidence for Shakespeare", not because there is none, but because she has hidden it.
@@Jeffhowardmeade where is the evidence? do you have multiple examples?
@@FootballAndSuch Examples of evidence that Shakespeare is the author, or examples of Price playing games to try to hide it?
Oh, wait. I have both. Let's start with eulogies. Shakespeare is one of the best eulogized poets of the era. John Hemminges, Henry Condell, William Basse, Ben Jonson, Leonard Digges, William Davenant, Hugh Holland, John Weever, and James Mabbe all eulogized Shakespeare. Diana Price decided to cut all eulogies off at one year after death in order to avoid all of these post mortem mentions which cannot be accurately dated, though none was later than 1622.
Why cut eulogies off after a year unless it's to be able to pretend that they don't exist?
@@Jeffhowardmeade i'll bite. Because the eulogies are not helpful in biographical identification and would be of no use: none of the eulogies specifically connect Shakespeare and Stratford, unless you want to quote Jonson. We can argue all day about that. Here's the thing: Price's entire project is to find one piece of evidence that Stratford is the playwright. The eulogies would not accomplish this. They are posthumous for one, two they only prove that the writers of the eulogies are familiar with the works of Shakespeare. If you can cite in any of those eulogies which were redacted a passage that proves identification then I would agree with you. But you won't be able to so I don't have to. Please, I implore you to show one piece of definitive evidence that Stratford is WS. The key part of your task is understanding the difference between circumstantial and definitive. I leave that to you.
@Chance Colbert Why are eulogies not helpful? Did the people who eulogized Shakespeare (most of whom had documented ties to him) somehow forget who he was? Price INCLUDES eulogies on her list of acceptable evidence, but cuts them off a a year so as to avoid the inconvenient truth that LOTS of people identified Shakespeare as the poet in eulogy.
Specifically: Leonard Digges was the stepson of the overseer of Shakespeare's will. He mentions Shakespeare's Stratford monument. He wrote an inscription in a book demonstrating his familiarity with Shakespeare's works. He knew both the man and the works.
James Mabbe was a friend of Leonard Digges and described Shakespeare in theatrical terms, including referring to the afterlife as a "tyring roome". Mabbe knew that the poet was the actor.
Hugh Holland also referred to death as a "tyring house", named Shakespeare as an actor and even named his theater. Holland knew that the poet was Shakespeare the actor.
Ben Jonson... do we even need to go there? Sure, whatever. He referred to Shakespeare as having limited education. He called Shakespeare the "Sweet Swan of Avon". The swan was the symbol of his first patron, the Baron Hunsdon, and the Avon flows less than a hundred feet from Shakespeare's grave. It's in the name of the town he was born and died in. A few years earlier, he described Shakespeare as the fellow of actors to William Drummond.
Hemminges and Condell -- they knew Shakespeare the poet was their fellow actor.
William Davenant said Shakespeare stopped off at his parents' tavern once a year on his way back to Stratford. His brother confirmed this to Aubrey. Davenant, later poet laureate, said his first poem was a eulogy called "In Remembrance of Master Sgakespeare" which he wrote at age 12 (about 1618). It mentions the banks of the Avon.
William Basse suggests that Shakespeare should have been buried in Westminster next to Spenser and Beaumont. The title of his memorial poem specifies Shakespeare's date of death.
John Stow (who knew EVERYTHING), wrote the following about Shakespeare. It was published after his death but while Shakespeare was still alive:
"Our moderne, and present excellent Poets which worthely flourish in their owne workes, and all of them in my owne knowledge lived togeather in this Queenes raigne, according to their priorities as neere as I could, I have orderly set downe (viz) George Gascoigne Esquire, Thomas Church-yard Esquire, sir Edward Dyer Knight, Edmond Spenser Esquire, sir Philip Sidney Knight, Sir Iohn Harrington Knight, Sir Thomas Challoner Knight, Sir Francis Bacon Knight, Sir Iohn Dauie Knight, Master Iohn Lillie gentleman, Maister George Chapman gentleman, M. W. Warner gentleman, M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman, Samuell Daniell Esquire..."
Not only does he point out that he knows these poets personally, but he includes their social rank, so that there can be no confusion about who the Willi. Shakespeare in question was.
John Weever was a certified Shakespeare fanboy who had written an epigram on his hero. He visited Stratford in about 1618 and transcribed the epitaph on Shakespeare's monument. He labeled this entry "Willm. Shakespeare the famous poet."
Richard Field was from Stratford, raised just up the street from one another. His father and Shakespeare's were friends in allied trades. He printed everything Shakespeare ever wrote specifically for publication. He printed Shakespeare's claims to the authorship in the dedications to Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.
Am I missing any? Probably. Several poets and publishers produced plaudits to Shakespeare and identified him as an actor and a gentleman.
When these well-placed individuals identify Shakespeare as being the gentleman and actor, they are referring to the man from Stratford, who was the only William Shakespeare to bear either of those labels. They are DEFINING him as the Stratform man.
That makes their identifications definitive.
You're welcome.
The recent discovery of the Shroud of Avon proves without a doubt that Shakespeare wrote all those plays and sonnets.
Which discovery? Google cannot find anything with the query: "shroud of avon" shakespeare
@@Arcane-Magician That was a joke. The religion that has formed around Will is as fanatical as that around Jesus. Both are equally spurious.
@@stephenjablonsky1941Jokes are supposed to be funny.
th-cam.com/video/ljM11ib4Apk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qc_F_iOf2Vo7Cvqi
@@JeffhowardmeadeWell it got under your skin 😂
In 1618, after Shakespeare's death, the 12-year-old Davenant wrote an ode "In Remembrance of Master Shakespeare"
In Remembrance of Master Shakespeare (c. 1618)
by William Davenant
Beware, delighted poets, when you sing,
To welcome nature in the early spring,
Your numerous feet not tread
The banks of Avon, for each flower
(As it ne'er knew a sun or shower)
Hangs there the pensive head.
Each Tree, whose thick, and spreading growth hath made,
Rather a Night beneath the Boughs, than Shade,
(Unwilling now to grow)
Looks like the Plume a Captive wears,
Whose rifled Falls are steeped i'th tears
Which from his last rage flow.
The piteous River wept itself away
Long since (Alas!) to such a swift decay;
That reach the Map; and look
If you a River there can spy;
And for a River your mock'd Eye,
Will find a shallow Brook.
And do you believe he wrote it in 1918?
@@axsos It's not as good as his mature works, but it does seem rather sophisticated for a 12 year-old. Remember, though, that a grammar school education back then didn't bother with history or math. It was all rhetoric and Latin. Davenant would have read a LOT of poetry by age 12.
@@Jeffhowardmeade oh please, give me a break. You and your nonsense comments on every anti-Stratfordian videos on youtube.
@@axsos What about my comment is nonsense? Please, be specific.
To begin with, it was published in 1638, when Devenant would have been 32. Other than that, he claimed all sorts of things, such as that he was the son of Shakespeare. It appears he too was confused about who wrote what and under what name. Last but not the least the one who signed his works Shakespeare (Shake-speare) was Edward de Vere, not William of Stratford. We never find him signing his name that way, his signature being the only thing written in his own hand we have today.
This setting is so deliciously Inspector Morse-like. One can easily imagine any moment someone screams hysterically that there has been a murder!
Who wrote inspector Morse? Is it just coincidence that Colombo is so similar?
@@vectravi2008 apart from being detective series, they couldnt really be more different. morse is fairly conventional, in that the viewer does not know the murderers identity. but we know exactly who the murderer is in columbo. columbo is unique, afaik, in that respect. which is better. hmm, columbo probably. but both must surely rank as the two best detective series ever made. as to who shakespeare was, i think theres a cracking case to be made that it was the man from canterbury what done it. marlow is a genius, born in the same year. and it seems weird that shakespeare writes nothing until marlow dies. that seems pretty suspicious to me. M was a spy, capable of assuming different identities, had a big motive for disappearing, and had the means to do it. he was chums with william cecil, the most powerful man in england.
@@andy-the-gardener excellent reply, hat off to you.
Unless someone comes up with a viable alternative, I'm sticking with Shakespeare.
I was so shocked that Jonathan Bate began by essentially saying " I won't (can't) defend against cryptograms..." etc. I respected the guy for taking the challenge, to the point where I thought my views would be destroyed, but then he started to attack the group rather than the argument: in essence this is refusing to contest the arguments posed on a level playing field because they were not canon. My God this is blatant! Big shout-out to my best bud. Caius Martius Coriolanus, who crops up with ready answers to all people on TH-cam with the obvious anti Stratfordian questions, yet makes no videos AT ALL to further the clearing out of this supposed insanity, wherewith he/she could well dispel the questions of all the freethinking people - for instance my own mother, born in the 1940s was told by her English tutor of that era that Shaxpere did not write the plays of Shake-Speare. This is not a modern thing, it is just becoming more obvious over time and WHY ON EARTH do not people like Caius Martius Coriolanus make their own videos? What would they lose? Close comments, put the mainstream view out there and surely it will trump "Fake News". Why would they not do it, I expect the reply woule be - "We KNOW the story, it is not in question", but what on earth does debate stop apart from wars?
Leif Grahamsson I'm not a video guy. I type on a keyboard. I have no Adobe Whatzit Suite skills.
As for the cryptograms, it is quite simply impossible to defend against them, just as it is impossible to logically prove a negative. Waugh uses a multi-stage decryption to reach his intended goal. The fact that you can get from any random starting point to any desired ending point if you use enough short hops doesn't prove that some bored 17th Century poet didn't do just that. You can make the Bible say "Satan is God" if you're the one providing all the decryption.
Just an example: Waugh's decrypts rely heavily upon the occurrence of four letter Ts in close approximation to one another. This, says he, is a symbol for St. Peter, who, after Christ and the two criminals crucified with him, was said to have been crucified upon the "fourth cross" (never mind that he was crucified upside down--not a T). This "Fourth Cross" denotes the burial place of the Author as the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, aka Westminster Abbey. Since Shakespeare was actually buried in Stratford, then he must not have been the Author. Not only is this logically tenuous, but it relies upon Waugh's identification of St. Peter with the "Fourth Cross".
AND HE INVENTED THAT. There is no classical tradition of referring to St. Peter's cross as the "Fourth Cross".
And Waugh is full of those inventions. He claims a slightly bent capital T is actually meant to evoke the zodiac symbol Taurus, which is a bull, of which an Ox is an example, and therefore it refers to Oxford.
Can I prove that you can "decode" a text to say anything you want if you provide the convoluted method? Yes, I can. Can I prove that someone in 1609 or 1623 DIDN'T use precisely to method to hide a secret? No, I can't. Nobody can do that.
Right. Thanks for the post.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Also its difficult to make a video while hiding your identity.
@@rstritmatter You think making a video involves turning on your laptop camera and ranting at it for an hour. Sorry, but if I were to make a video about the SAQ, I would put some effort into it.
And my name is Jeff Meade. I'm a police officer in California. It's not like I have to worry about someone doxxing me over my odd hobby. My sergeant already thinks I'm weird for being a Shakespeare geek.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Yes that's what I thought, Jeff, since you told me that a few years ago that was your name.
Then someone else told me you were from Denton County, which I found odd. So I'm glad to get that cleared up that you're actually in California.
Of course, you must be aware that some of your confederates, like the testosterone-overcharged Mr. Leadbetter, the Oxfraud "janitor," do go by multiple sock puppets and sometimes even hold conversations with themselves.
Regarding your your "hobby" yes I get it that standing up for the Truth about Shakespeare gives you a real thrill. That makes a lot of sense. And the fact that you do it under the name of a character who betrayed his own country out of his misplaced confidence in the ideals of "honor at any cost" makes even greater sense.
Coming up with a pseudonym that's a wordplay on the name of an actor and has several other shades of meaning including a naughty one is such a perfect Shakespearean joke. I have to wonder if the Stratfordians have any sense of humor at all.
It is certainly handicapped. But what would you expect? They are the butt of the biggest joke of the last four hundred years of English literary history.
basilrose We have a great sense of humor. We think Anti-Strats are hilarious, for example.
@Caius Martius Coriolanus -- Good one! So in the play Coriolanus is motivated by vengeance and in the end is destroyed by his co-conspirators -- an ideal analogy for Stratfordians! Well Done!
basilrose See, there you go! I picked the name because it's my favorite Shakespeare play, and because I must confess to seeing myself in the scarred, over-proud warrior who cannot bring himself to lie to the rabble for their approval.
Yet you read untold layers of unintended meaning into it. No wonder 2+2 never equals 4 in your world.
@Caius Martius Coriolanus -- I apologize, no offense intended, it was an attempt at banter based on your previous comment. Thank you for your service. It does perplex me, though, why there is so much resistance among Stratfordians to the raising of reasonable questions. It seems anti-scholarly to me, frankly.
It's my guess that Shakespeare wrote his own works.
They say he was too provincial to have all that life experience.
Given the expanse of his works, nobody could have lived that long to write about it all .
It's dead easy to see..he read about it all .
It cannot be otherwise.
It's like claiming I , myself, can't read up on history.
All sound and fury,if you ask me, signifying..
Sir Jonathan countered the Argument, why there are no letters from Shakspere (min 23:38) with the reply: „Well ! we do have a couple of Shakespeare‘s letters, they were appended to his poems which made his name „Venus & Adonis“ and „Lucrece“, they are rather servile, they are saying: please give me patronage Milord Southampton.
How could it happen that Bate equated printed dedications of Shakespeares opus 1 & 2 to Henry Wriothesley with handwritten letters? - Has Sir Jonathan ever thought deeper about Shakespeares opus 1 and 2?
th-cam.com/video/Oi7nFkhbDjM/w-d-xo.html
bastian conrad It's easy to make the equation. To a Shakespearean, it's the content of the letters that matters. To an Anti-Stratfordian, the content is irrelevant. If one is an Oxfordian, the supplicating tone of clear class difference exhibited by a working poet in search of patronage is best ignored altogether.
You're obviously the one to answer this question, Bastian. Why would a guy pretending to fake his death reach out to a third party? He didn't need the money, and Southampton had no political cover to offer. So why him? Why at all?
The post-stratfordian recognizes flim-flammery when he reads it. He or she also knows that talking about "letters" is a complicated matter. It is certainly the case that the Stratfordians lack a substantial evidentiary witness because they have not correspondence written in their hero's handwriting. It also the case that, based on the internal evidence of the plays, Shakespeare the author is obsessed with problems and possibilities of communicating by correspondence, as he highlights them far their importance in his sources, in such plays as Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, or even King Lear. The the second point has a significant bearing on the first. Where we might have readily dismissed the absence of a correspondence trail to the shyness of the writer, it is pretty clear from the plays that Shakespeare, as he has been called, was the greatest fictive letter writer of his age. Are you seriously, Caius Martius, trying to convince us that this is not at the very least a tiny impediment to the Stratfordian rock of faith on you which have built your online persona?
We could go in this vein to consider the problem of Shakespeare's missing books, but as this topic is becoming even more embarrassing than the first for Stratfordian ideologues, let's conclude by considering the question of the two dedications to the narrative poems. I have read these dedication closely, and often. While I understand the point you are trying to make about the tone, especially, of the ROL dedication, which is not so much servile as paternalistic, I really wonder if you have considered how the Earl of Southampton would have responded to the ornate literary vulgarities, coupled with the emphasis on "deformity," in the dedication to Venus and Adonis. The belief that one may easily reconcile this underlying problem by pointing to the patronage seeking fiction of the dedications is a surprising one coming from a discipline that supposedly prides itself on understanding the equivocal nature of literary discourse.
Howdy psi sci - Your word salad is in the style used by Roger Stritmatter. Are you he? Moving on. How characters in Will Shakespeare's play react to letters may not reflect how Will felt about letters. There is no extent evidence to support anyone's claim as to how Will personally felt about letters. As for why no letters have come down to us, 1. Why would Will need to write letters to his fellow company members if he saw them day in and day out? 2, If Will, when he was staying in Stratford when the London theatres were closed, did write to his fellow company members about about business matters, why would a company member feel the need to save the letter? 3. If there were letters, who would want the letters of a middle class man like Will Shakespeare? Did any library in England collect the private letters from the middle class? Turning to your hero, Edward de Vere, where are his letters about the plays he may or may not have seen on his travels? Where are his letters about the latest play he has written?
As for the debate, Sir Jonathan kicked Alexander's butt. Sir Jonathan remained cool, calm and collected; Alexander ran around like a comedian covered in flop sweat.
psi sci Dude, every playwright used letters read on stage. They still do to this day. In any case, I'll bet Ben Jonson wrote a lot of letters. He probably wrote one to Drummond which said:
"Dear Bill, I'll be stopping by for a visit soon. Since it's 1619, and mail doesn't travel any faster than I do, that's probably me knocking right now.
Cheers, Ben"
How many letters do we have from Ben? How many to him? Considering that he outlived Shakespeare by two decades, and enjoyed much better patronage, you would think his collected letters would make Sartre and De Beauvoir's seem meagre by comparison.
In the 17th Century, used paper was worth more than linen rags or raw flax, because paper mills didn't have too process it, just chuck it in the beater. From what I can tell, the only way to get a letter preserved in the late 16th or early 17th Century was to send it to someone whose last name was Cecil.
psi sci And yes, I understand that the Oxfordian position is that nothing as relates to Shakespeare is what it seems, that it's usually the exact opposite of what it ostensibly means, and that De Vere must have been trying to ape all the other obsequious dedications to Southampton (and to him) as part of the ruse. If his dedicatory letter to Clerke's translation of Il Cortegiano is anything to go by, writing the kiss-up dedication to V&A must have been painful.
And I see nothing paternalistic about the dedication in Lucrece. Clearly more familiar than the one in V&A, but deferential all the same.
The collaborations in the late plays are actually rather a pro Oxford argument. There are collaboration in the early plays (Titus Andronicus, Henry VI plays) but then they stop for almost all of the great plays written during the 1590ies. Only plays that appeared on stage after 1604 show collaborations again and it is a very convincing argument that those weren't active collaborations of living authors but rather completions of unfinished plays. Especially Macbeth which is by Shakespeare's standards short and elliptic gives the impression of being just patched up to make it ready for the stage.
I have great respect for Jonathan Bate that he came to the arena for this debate. Which for people close to the matter was of course rather disappointing since there is no new evidence but just the same circumstantial argumentation that is now exchanged for many years.
I'm curious though about the "new evidence" Alexander Waugh announced to reveal today at the Globe theatre.
There are two issues with this hypothesis. First, there are three plays that fall within a 1603-1604 time frame that show the hand of Middleton. Timon of Athens the first and most present but also Alls Well and Measure for Measure. The second is both sets of writers working off of each other and imitating each other's style. Fletcher and Shakespeare show this the most with Henry VIII and Two Noble Kinsmen. which date 9 years after Oxford's death. If you accept Double Falsehood, attribution as the lost Cardenio. The sections that aren't Theobald's follow this Fletcher-Shakespeare imitation. So this play forms a very late career Fletcher-Shakespeare trilogy.
I don't see the issues. None of the three plays with the hand of Middleton were performed within Oxford's lifetime. They may very well have been the first plays that have been completed after Oxford's death. There is a performance record of Measure by Measure in late 1604 (Oxford died in June 1604). The plays with Fletcher's hand were probably in a far more sketchy state and what is considered as imitating Fletcher in the parts attributed to Shakespeare is probably by Fletcher as well, patching up loose ends and unfinished verses.
The first recorded performances of Timon and Alls Well were 1678 (albeit with a highly altered script) and 1741 respectively. This just the first found recorded performance not the actual first performance so you can't say with any real certainty that they weren't performed in Oxford's lifetime.
The first recorded performance of Measure was the Christmas season of 1604/5 however, this wouldn't have been the debut. As a court performance it would have been tried out in the public theaters first before being presented in front of the King. All of these plays have hallmarks of the "city comedy" which is a biting satiric bent born around 1600 with Jonson and Middleton so the style could easily fit before Oxford's death. In Timon, which has the greatest presence of Middleton, there is the added problem where several scenes have the presence of both writers reading like its being written in concert (scenes 1, 4, and 11).
To say the state of either Henry VIII and Two Noble Kinsmen was "sketchy" doesn't really hold up as both plays have very coherent narratives when played unlike Henry VI, part 1. Kinsmen reads very similar to Timon where you have whole scenes that can be assigned to each writer and then scenes where the picture is muddied to the point where its difficult to discern who wrote what line.
Even if you discount the Fletcher plays, you have 2 to 3 early Jacobean plays and 4 Elizabeth era plays (Henrys, Titus) with Edward III and Arden of Faversham possibly in the mix in the same decade. All of these have "Shakespeare" working with other writers. In order to explain any of these you either have "Shakespeare" working directly with the other writer(s) or picking up their work and punching it up. In either scenario, Oxford seems like a real stretch. Why would a nobleman work as a script doctor or work with socially inferior playwrights he had no connection with?
There's really nothing in Oxford's background that would indicate that he ever collaborated with other writers. Even in his theater heyday (1580s) when he had two playwrights working for him there is no indication that he had a direct input into their works. John Lyly wrote all of his stuff. Munday on the other hand collaborated all over but as far as I know no one has credited any of his plays with Oxford.
Sorry, but you are piling up hypotheses here, not me. Fact is that there is no evidence of a performance of any late co-authored play in Oxford's lifetime.
Apart from that, correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I remember there is no record of any Shakespeare comedy ever performed at the Globe, so I don't understand where you get the idea that Measure for Measure was performed there.
On the early collaborations. The close ties of Shakespeare's early histories to Marlowe are a commonplace. And whoever he was, Shakespeare did obviously collaborate with Marlowe at some point. Anything beyond this, whether it is more likely that Marlowe would have worked rather with a actor without a University background or with a theater crazy aristocrat, is pure speculation that leads nowhere.
But let's be honest. Nobody ever considered the Henry VI plays great masterworks and it is artistically understandable that Shakespeare abandoned this idea once he found his own voice. And he would not have had any reason to revisit it since also with the late (unwilling) collaborations you can say: the more non-Shakespeare is in the weaker are the plays.
leonardo de vinchi wrote the plays after all he was italian
It's 'Da Vinci'
Anyone know if Waugh has made good on his promise to prove that De Vere is buried under the Shakespeare statue in Westminster?
I coudln't find anything on the internet yet, which is strange. Either it didn't happen or it was so nonsense that nobody considered it worth reporting.
MG The Guardian did a write up few days before, where he outlined his "discovery", and of course declared it to be conclusive, as he does with everything he's "discovered". He didn't provide any details, but it seems to be a cipher combined with a secret map made up of the periods (or full stops, if you will) that Thorpe used as spaces in his dedication page, then superimposed over a floor plan of Westminster, or something like that. It makes his claim that the Star Chamber was enforcing the gag order on outing De Vere seen almost sane by comparison.
There are several videos posted by Waugh on TH-cam: Where is Shakespeare REALLY Buried? 1/4
Dec 25, 2017
th-cam.com/video/XqV44taFNUc/w-d-xo.html
Who is that blonde? Holy moly I have a crush on her and her accent
My favorite line so far is Waugh's "we haven't even discussed yet if he could write." Waugh's demolition of the hand d argument, which Provost Bates' water-carriers, the Oxfrauds, have made such great to-do about over the last five years, is also beautiful to watch. Thank you Michael Hayes and Diana Price, for your incredible work on this important topic. Oxfrauds -- Mike Leadbetter, Tom Reedy, Mark Johnson, et al. -- where are you? Why haven't you corrected the lies on your website about hand-D? You are making Jonathan Bate look bad. He's out their endorsing your website, which includes as vital to its mission claims that are now totally debunked. Time to correct your work.
Exactly ... if those scrawls on the last will and testament of the man of Stratford are any indication, he couldn't.
scriabiniste They aren't. Not only are they in secretary hand, which you can't read anyway, they were also written a few weeks before he died. Let's get together when you're on your deathbed and I'll test your handwriting. Deal?
Caius Martius Coriolanus
And not one piece of evidence of handwriting from any other document : not a letter, nothing, from the star of his age. Hmmmm.
scriabiniste The "star of his age"? I'll bet you think Bach, Dickinson, Van Gogh and Melville were the stars of their ages as well.
Almost nothing from anyone of Shakespeare's class survives. That fraudulent list Diana Price created? It would be almost empty were it not for a single document: Philip Henslowe's "diary". His son-in-law, Edward Alleyn, tossed it into a trunk with his other papers and stored it in the attic of a small school he founded, where it sat until the 1830s. By that time, paper was mostly made from wood pulp, and a trunk full of used rag paper was no longer a recyclable commodity. If it had been found a century earlier, that one document that fills out most of Price's list, would have been pulped.
Henslowe, by the way, was associated with a rival playing company. there is no mention of ANY of the Lord Chamberlain's Men anywhere in his diary.
My favorite line is Waugh's "'if passenger had to go' -- Jonathan might remember -- 'if passenger thou canst but read stay' is a poem written by Ben Jonson -- what does it say on the Stratford monument to Shakespeare?"
I believe that oxford wrote these plays but i have never heard any convincing evidence as to how william shakespeare got attached to them.. was it a deliberate deal between him and oxford... i would love to hear your thoughts...
Shakespeare used to be considered a definite front man, most likely being paid by De Vere or [insert chosen secret author here] to act in that capacity. This would explain why everyone who referred to Shakespeare seemed to be referring to the actor from The Lord Chamberlain's and King's men. These days there's more of an effort to show that it was already a pen-name, and the attribution to the actor from Stratford was accidental, a result of his own business savvy, or perhaps applied post-mortem (usually at the instigation of Ben Jonson) to hide the true author's identity from posterity.
@@Jeffhowardmeade thank you.. that is very interesting.. it would account for Shakespeare becoming very rich while in London.. the whole pen name idea is interesting but its quite incredible to believe that there was this pen name and there just so happened to be a man working within the theater world who could front these plays who had a name that was so similar..
@@lryoung3655
Maybe take a look at Sabrina Feldman's book, "The Apocryphal William Shakespeare". It's as good a hypothesis as any, maybe even a tad more compelling.
I think that Oxford's plays were being performed and that the actor Will Shakespeare knew the author couldn't come forward so sometimes he bragged that he was the author. Oxford got wind of it and thought it would be a grand joke to slap Will's name on Venus and Adonis, in the sense of 'let the bumpkin say he wrote this', knowing it was a bit of absurdity. When the poems became popular he just kept using the name hyphenated or not. So basically Will's bragging got him 'slapped' by getting him called out and his name put on an erudite Ovidian epic poem so everyone could rag on him about what a great poet he was. But eventually because Oxford could not put his name to the work what started off as a lark eventually led to all of Oxford's work being published under the Shakespeare name, and after both men were dead Ben Johnson and the publishers of the folio could only put the plays out with the Shakespeare name because Oxford had living relatives and children. Therefore they figured Will of Stratford would get the credit so they put up a monument and did what they could to start the Stratford game because the plays-- if they were to survive and not be suppressed by the court-- had to be separated as much as possible from DeVere.
@@gordoknott7830 For God's sake, grow up!
I see that the Strafordians chose the worst advocate to oppose them. Search: Baconian Shakespeare (right here on TH-cam you'll find powerful arguments not even noted here).
"Who believes that someone else wrote the works? - That is a strong majority" ....... " and so we have a tie!" LOL Ever thought of going into politics? :D
Mark Rylance popping up with the question.
It brought me such joy
Honestly, does Waugh even believe what he's saying himself?
The Star Chamber would visit the direst penalties on anyone leaking the secret of Edward de Vere's 'pseudonym' (actually an allonym, since Waugh accepts that Shakespeare was a real person), but everyone who named Shakespeare-and there were many-did so with a wink and a nod to the 'real' author because... they just liked the danger? They couldn't keep their mouths shut?
And the Star Chamber was evidently the least observant and least competent totalitarian government agency ever, considering that they missed this allegedly extensive list of references that were being made just under their noses. It took four hundred years for these to be 'unearthed' (i.e. made up and read into) by people looking for something to disable the identification of the plays and poems with William Shakespeare.
But the very fact that they have to turn all these references around and claim they're something more than they appear shows that the body of evidence linking Shakespeare with his works is truly enormous. The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I'm irresistibly reminded of the Peter Medawar review of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's book _The Phenomenon of Man_ that he "can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself."
A representative example of this tendency to leave off pertinent information and just spout falsehoods is when he asserted that John Lyly was writing five-act plays in 1585. Yes, he was... for the Children of Paul's at the Blackfriars Theatre! He also rattles off a list of plays, only one of which originally had act divisions before the Blackfriars Theatre was taken over, _The Comedy of Errors_ , and that's because it was played indoors at Gray's Inn for the Christmas Revels and therefore was _also_ lit by candles. His claims that _Much Ado About Nothing_ , _Romeo and Juliet_ , and _Richard II_ originally had five-act divisions are simply lies. There are no act divisions in the quarto of _Much Ado About Nothing_ (1600) nor in the first quartos of _Romeo and Juliet_ and _Richard II_ (both 1597). Consistently throughout this debate Waugh relies on the fact that the organizers stacked the audience with the Oxfordian faithful, so he knows nobody will be calling him out on his misleading or outright false claims.
Gee, thanks a lot! Now I have to add The Phenomenon of Man to my ever-growing pile of books to read!
@@Jeffhowardmeade Actually, I was quoting from Peter (P. B.) Medawar's review of the book, not from _The Phenomenon of Man_ itself. If you want an addition to your ever-growing pile, however, the review can be read in full in Medawar's collection of essays, _Pluto's Republic_ . Medawar is a spectacular science writer with a great sense of humor.
The book is out-of-print, but it can be found inexpensively in secondhand copies, and it's also available at the Internet Archive's Open Library.
Might be simpler if you just added a copy of " How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read " by
Pierre Bayard . ?
Very useful ..
his spiel about the candles was also annoying because it completely fails to acknowledge the realities of attempting to light an indoor space in that period, which us lot in our modern electrically-lit luxury have forgotten.
You'd need _loads_ of candles. loads of them. You couldn't have a few huge ones that would 'burn for 5 years' - the fact elite households also didn't do this should be revealing enough in itself - because they'd be ridiculously expensive (tallow candles might be cheaper, but then the whole place would stink of fat) and also terribly inefficient. Lots and lots of smaller candles makes infinitely more sense to try and light a space, especially a theatre. To put it into perspective, the show Wolf Hall stayed true to period lighting, and the actors had to learn and adjust to moving around the sets because of how dark they were, and they kept walking into things! But Waugh hasn't put thought into the actualities and practicalities of the early modern world he's talking about
(and this becomes very apparent. when he said that early modern people were 'incredibly precise' about how they spelt their names i think i could've leapt through the screen and throttled him. Infuriatingly, he says Bate was 'incorrect' to suggest otherwise, and i was desperately hoping someone would point out how wrong Waugh truly was. Oh for a historian to be sat there too!)
The Spanish genius Miguel de Cervantes died on the same day (April 23, 1616) as William Shakespeare. Any theories on this issue?
They died on the same date but not on the same day. Spain had adopted the modern Gregorian calendar by 1616, whereas England wouldn't begin to use it until 1752. Until then, England was 11 days behind Spain.
Cervantes died on 22 April 1616 (Gregorian). Shakespeare died eleven days later, on 3 May 1616 (Gregorian).
Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni died on the same day. Were they the same person? Conspiracy?
I just started watching this but from my point of view I can't possibly see how William Shakespeare the Actor who had never been out of his country and probably never been out of portions of England could possibly of ever written about faraway lands in such Specifics. I personally believe it was Francis Bacon along with a group of peers that wrote these plays and other works that were anonymous or attributed to others. Is well known That he did indeed have a group that did all sorts Of intellectual things behind closed doors. Only folks I ever see arguing strongly and adamantly that Shakespeare wrote all these plays would be the ones from his the home town and the ones that have studied this in detail and then of course there are rare exceptions such as above
So the people who have studied this issue in detail-i.e. people with genuine expertise-are arguing that Shakespeare wrote his own works, and you think that's reason to disregard them?
I'm not from his home town. I've only been there twice. Saw some good performances and ate some overpriced pub grub. I live nine time zones away, and will argue strongly that he was the author of the works attributed to him. The reason I will do that is because the evidence all says he did.
What is the motivation for these writers to not take credit for “their” writings?
Good writers have something called imagination.
I'm undecided . Would we doubt that the Beatles wrote their songs as they did not have a classical music training ?
I have to be critical of Sir Jonathan Bate here for, within his allocated speech time, he turns to refuting the case for Oxford, knowing that it is Waugh's position, but that Waugh has stated that he is not taking up that particular case at THIS debate.
Has Sir Jonathan not got sufficient evidence to bring forward in the case for Shaksper of Stratford, without the individual refutation of other possible authors?
I do not agree with Waugh over the case for Oxford, but I thought that he presented the case against Shaksper of Stratford very well.
I have to agree with you to a certain extent. Sir Jonathan didn't put up a great defense of Shakespeare. As for his taking the fight to Waugh, I have no problem with that. Anti-Stratfordians are keen to have debates where they get to take shots at Shakespeare while not having to defend their own positions. I don't know why anyone would agree to a fight where they weren't permitted to hit back.
@@Jeffhowardmeade ,
No. Shakespeare of Stratford is the standard, accepted position. THAT is what needs defending.
This debate was not a question of Stratford or Oxford. It was Stratford or NOT Stratford.
Waugh admirably defended the position that Stratford was NOT the playwright. He did not have to prove a case for Oxford or anyone else.
Sir Jonathan, on the other hand, only had the task of defending the generally accepted position, stating that the Stratford man WAS INDEED the playwright.
let me put it this way-
If Bate COULD NOT defend the Stratfordian position, except by reference to Oxford, then there clearly is not sufficient evidence for the defence.
And this is the ongoing problem with the man from Stratford; there simply IS NOT sufficient evidence with which to defend his cause.
@@MandyJMaddison I get that that's the way you want it to be, but I don't care to be a professional spear catcher, and those who try to make the case for their candidate by hiding him (now also her) while taking pot shots at Shakespeare are, frankly, cowards. They know their candidates are so thoroughly bereft of documentary evidence that an open comparison with the evidence for Shakespeare would be humiliating.
If Anti-Stratfordians feel that they cannot make their case without first tearing down Shakespeare, why can the case for Shakespeare not include the fact that it wasn't anyone else?
There are a few Anti-Stratfordians who claim not to know who really wrote the works of Shakespeare, but they're lying. There's nothing in the documentary record to suggest that it WASN'T William Shakespeare of Stratford. Therefore, the only reason to doubt the piles of evidence that says he was is to believe it was someone else.
Being permitted to show how poorly someone else's claim (indeed, EVERY other claim) stacks up against Shakespeare's is only fair.
I would be more than happy to defend Shakespeare's documentary record in a debate where the spear chuckers have some actual skin in the game. Please explain why you are unwilling to openly defend your candidate.
@@Jeffhowardmeade
What?
My candidate is Christopher Marlowe! Why are you challenging me as to whether I am prepared to defend him? You and I have discussed Marlowe before.
I am not here to deceive anybody. I was quite happy to have Waugh present my case AGAINST Stratford, as long as he kept Oxford right out of it, which he did.
@@MandyJMaddison We HAVE discussed Marlowe before, but you never said he was your boy. Like most Anti-Stratfordians, you spend most of your time trying to clear the deck so your candidate has some place to land. The only ones I see regularly trying to promote their own candidate are the Oxfordians, and, well, you've seen the goofballery they get up to with their hidden codes and poor math and Latin skills.
I admit that a Shakespeare vs. Marlowe debate would be mostly about Shakespeare, because the case for Marlowe is so meager. I would probably need about two hours (without the obligatory cross-examination) to lay out all of the evidence that points to William Shakespeare as the author of his works. How long does it take to point out the supposed irregularities in Marlowe's coroner's inquest, similarities between his and Shakespeare's writing, and a coincidental publication date? Ten minutes? How long if you're limited just to documents or testaments which state explicitly or even by reasonable inference that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare?
Quote by Waugh "we have no evidence that he was a writer in his lifetime" 47:42 In 1593, the narrative poem Venus and Adonis was published by Stratford native Richard Field, with a dedication to the Earl of Southampton signed "William Shakespeare." This is what is known as good evidence.
Not good.
The poem has no name on the title page, yet it is a masterpiece of printing. The author and publisher poured over every detail except the most important page? Oh, but the name is in the dedication- spelled a way the Stratford man never used in his life. This dedication is a fawning plea for forgiveness lest he offend the Earl of Southampton- whom the Stratford Man never met and had no relationship with.
The publisher from Stratford had no connection to Stratford Will and published works by London authors-his connection to Stratford tells us nothing about the author’s home.
It is no evidence that Shakespeare is not a pen name- in fact it is very good evidence that William Shakespeare is the invented name of a hidden author who did not want his name on the title page.
@@floatingholmes Venus and Adonis was printed by Richard Field, who grew up just around the corner from Shakespeare. Shakespeare's father and Field's father were friends. Field printed everything Shakespeare wrote specifically for publication. Shakespeare gave Field a shout-out in Cymbeline, a late play. Not surprised that you try to deny such a blatant connection.
Why does it matter that Shakespeare's name was only on the dedication? Most poetry of that era had no author identification at all. The dedication is a plea for patronage, similar to many others of the era.
Half a dozen official documents referring specifically to the man from Stratford spell his name "Shakespeare", including the patents which declared him a gentleman and a member of The King's Men.
Plus everyone said Shakespeare of Stratford was the author, which sane people consider to be "evidence".
@@Jeffhowardmeade You invent a connection where there is none. Living near someone does not make you the author of works they publish under a name you never used and that your father never used. You invent a friendship where there is none. I do deny your blatant misrepresentations because they are as manipulative as they are transparent. You are too familiar with the case to try to deny how little actual evidence supports these flowery claims.
What does it matter whether the money obsessed Shaxper put his name on the the most successful publishing sensation of his age? Not one bit more than it matters why no record exists of him receiving a penny for the work. None other than it is inconsistent and raises doubts about how a man who couldn't sign his own name the same way twice could possibly have written this work.
No document before this work, however, shows him using the name "Shakespeare". And he never starts using that spelling until such a time as it becomes likely that his name "Will Shaxper" could be confused with the name of the author who famously wrote the poem's dedication.
Your new "evidence" that "everyone said Shakespeare of Stratford was the author" is fascinating.
I wonder why no one else has ever heard of it?
I wonder why you don't use it to prove the case?
Produce this evidence and the SAQ is finished. If you had a record of even half of "everyone"-- or a third-- or a millionth part of "everyone" saying "Shakespeare of Stratford was the author" there would be no SAQ. But not one person in a position to know said anything of the kind.
Your dishonesty and contempt make you the worst person to be out defending the Stratford case. If you aren't paid well for all the time you spend on it, you should ask for a raise.
@@floatingholmes EVERYONE has seen the evidence. I'm not inventing anything. Don't you wonder why the SAQ is this tiny little group of fringe nutterbutters whose gatherings are held in the small conference room at the Travelodge? Everyone else has seen the evidence for themselves.
Evidence doesn't matter to whackadoodles. I can point out that the 1603 patent creating The King's Men spelled his name Shakespeare. I can point out that the 1596 patent granting a coat of arms spelled his name Shakespeare. The "Shaksper" spelling you love so much was used by a church clerk responsible who kept the ledger. As early as 1556 Shakespeare's father's name was spelled Shakyspere, and was spelled Shakespere in a 1597 court case.
I notice how you brush off the fact that Richard Field, whose father was friends with John Shakespeare, and who grew up around the corner from Shakespeare, printed all of Shakespeare's poetry. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. It's probably also just a coincidence that a large number of Shakespeare's primary sources were printed by a guy who grew up with Shakespeare. If we didn't have any other evidence (though we do), that would be stronger than anything you can present in favor of any other candidate.
I have personally examined every single piece of evidence there is. You can find them easily on the Folger's website, and examine them for yourself. But you won't. You're afraid to.
Well I'm not afraid to look at any contemporary documentary evidence you can present that says Shakespeare wasn't the author, or that anyone else was. Please present some.
@@Jeffhowardmeade
Your boast of having no fear of looking at evidence is valueless. You are openly incapable of interpreting anything in a way that opposes your prejudices.
You continue to pile on lies to "prove" lies. You overstate the nature of Jon Shaxper's relationship with Field. You invent and assume and misrepresent Shakespeare and Field as chums who "grew up together." What gas-baggery. You lie with ease. You seem afraid that anyone might interpret things differently than you have. Sorry, charlie. Not only is your claim to have "personally examined every piece of evidence there is" ludicrous -- it calls to mind the hilarious image of someone actually taking seriously any examinations conducted by someone as belligerent and dishonest as you.
There are lots of real jerks out here, but your endless personal name-calling and your penchant to attempt mind reading like, "you won't look at evidence" are particularly distasteful. This consistently repulsive behavior rides along with your apparent passion for this interesting subject. It make you a Frankenstein-monster of a personality. You know some facts of the case. You know how to think and berate. But you don't know how to acknowledge the legitimate gaps in the record and you refuse to meet reasonable differences with respect. And, for that, you deserve no respect.
You are the single most disgusting person I have interacted with online. I will not engage with you again.
Wouldn’t an actor have to be literate to be able to read what he is acting? And haven’t actors been using false names for years? Maybe he slightly changed his name to Shakespeare as an actor, and kept it so people could put a face to to the plays? There is also no debate that Shakespeare had 7 missing years in his life. Could get quite an education in those years. Alexander also never explained why if the Earl of Oxford had players, why didn’t he write for his own company? We also must keep in mind that Shakespeare wasn’t considered the greatest writer in the world while he was alive. There were quite a few others more famous, but those writers have all said how wonderful a writer they thought Shakespeare was. So, taking that into account, why, after Shakespeare died, did they continue the myth? There would be no reason to, unless he was the true writer. I went into this debate with an open mind, but this debate was clearly won by Jonathan for me. Especially since he clearly stated his evidence and Alexander was just all over the place. If you believe in your evidence, why did Alexander not debate it?
The 17th Earl of Oxford needed a male heir and didn’t have one. He made an agreement with his mistress and his best friend .., those two produced a male child and Oxford passed it off as his own. This was a big BIG lie that affects all kinds of inheritance issues. That is the reason underpinning the need to remain quiet, even after his death, about authorship. But many people knew who he was and referred as cryptically as they could in their own writings or forwards.
@@amazinggrace5692 I may be being very dull here, but what on _earth_ does this alleged issue with primogeniture have to do with Oxford's supposed authorship? And do you have any evidence for this story other than the fact that you've concocted it to explain the silence around why people didn't identify the Earl of Oxford as a playwright, which can just as easily be explained by the fact that he wasn't?
It is very difficult to make something out of your comment. That said, de Vere could not have his own company play his plays because this way everyone could make the connection and the real name of the one who signed William Shakespeare would have been exposed.
"There is also no debate that Shakespeare had 7 missing years in his life." First time I hear this, and I have been studied this topic intensely. Also, assuming he got "quite an education" during that time is no evidence he did. Once again, he came from a family of illiterates, there is no proof he went to Grammar School or any kind of school, his wife and children were illiterate. Not a big fun of getting an education, one would have to think.
"Shakespeare wasn’t considered the greatest writer in the world while he was alive." You're right, and isn't that funny? The one considered the greatest writer in the world was Edward de Vere, and most everyone was hinting at the fact that de Vere was Shakespeare.
"If you believe in your evidence, why did Alexander not debate it?" Not sure what you refer to here, but if you are interested in knowing the facts and your opinion is not carved in stone, read Alexander Waugh "Shakespeare in Court." You can read it over the weekend, and it is the best and most clear anti-Stratfordian argument.
@@sorellman "The one considered the greatest writer in the world was Edward de Vere..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
PHEW! Good one, man! Precisely three people praised De Vere's writing -- one for being "best for comedy". If his extant poetry is anything to go by, they were being generous.
@@Jeffhowardmeade You're being misleading. Comedies are a type of play, or certainly in the Elizabethan age. You know, to make people laugh.
Linguistic fingerprinting is like DNA.
Yes, I thought that point alone proves that Shakespeare was the author of his works. The audience did not want to hear Sir Jonathon Bate's arguments, although all his facts and evidence knocked Waugh's woolly rambling well off the stage.
Whoever wrote it would have needed to know the meanings of the words but definitely not the way they were put together - that's the artistry, that's beyond normal intelligence. It's a supraintelligence.
I think the main reason that Shakespeare is said, by some, not to be the author of the plays and sonnets in his name is because of snobbery. I can well believe that other playwrights were jealous and resentful of a man who without the benefit of a university education could write so well. I think this attitude still holds today. The notion that a creative writer who came from a poor background, and who had no higher formal education after grammar school could become such a great playwright is something they cannot believe or accept.
A good grammar school education as Shakespeare obviously had - of course his father would take advantage of a free grammar school education for his son, what father wouldn't want the best for his son? - would have opened Shakespeare's mind and he would have read a great deal, talked with many people who were well educated and had travelled.
Shakespeare had a great creative mind, empathy, understanding and humour. He was a great playwright and poet. It exasperates me that his name is being diminished by those who claim he did not write his great plays, and who seek to attach other's names to his works. Sir Jonathon Bate put forward indisputable evidence and facts to prove that Shakespeare is the playwright who is credited with all his great works.
@@justacrocodile9486 Some of it is just that his vocabularly couldn't have been anything but that of an aristocrat or royal courtier of some kind - dozens of royal tennis, falconry and legal terms that there's no evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare would have truly been knowledgeable about. Contemporary legal scholars have asserted that it's only a lawyer who could have written them due to their accuracy for the times. There's also an abundance of military terms that probably weren't around in books at this period, and that kind of high military awareness was generally only known to the aristocracy in that period. Then there's the often intricate knowledge of Italy, where so much of his work has been set, with no evidence that the alleged Shakespeare ever went there.
@@ReturnOfTheJ.D. "dozens of royal tennis, falconry and legal terms that there's no evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare would have truly been knowledgeable about."
There is no such thing as "royal tennis"; there is only tennis, and it was played by the middle-classes as well.
As for falconry, the language of falconry and the language of hawking were the same. Shakespeare's analogies to falconry are simple and mostly have to do with _training_ the birds (e.g. , rather than hunting with them. Needless to say, the nobility didn't train their own falcons; they had servants named falconers for that. So even if you take it as read that Shakespeare had to be familiar with falconry itself, rather than merely hawking, the nature of the analogies _undermines_ the idea that the author was a member of the nobility. Furthermore, Shakespeare frequently makes reference to the practice of liming, which the nobility disdained because it involved trapping birds by using a sticky substance called "birdlime", whereas falconry is all about using the falcon to hunt birds in mid-flight. Liming was a disreputable practice employed by lower-class poachers. Also, this is another instance when anti-Shakespeareans reveal their ignorance of other writings of the era, because there's more convincing detail on falconry in a few pages of _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ by Thomas Heywood than there are in the entirety of the Shakespeare canon.
"Contemporary legal scholars have asserted that it's only a lawyer who could have written them due to their accuracy for the times."
You don't actually cite any specific sources for "legal scholars" who assert that the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare must have been a lawyer, so I will cite one: George W. Keeton, author of _Shakespeare's Legal and Political Background_ , in which he concludes that Shakespeare exhibits no greater knowledge of law than any other Bankside playwright of his day, though he concedes that Shakespeare's understanding of the relatively small amount of law he knew was more accurate than his fellows. Keeton was not only a trained lawyer himself, but also an expert in the history of the Court of Chancery (and international law, but that's not relevant here), so he knew what the law was in early modern England and he took the step of evaluating Shakespeare's knowledge against his contemporaries, rather than just assuming, as anti-Shakespeareans tend to do, that any reference at all automatically proves Shakespeare's expertise.
"There's also an abundance of military terms that probably weren't around in books at this period,"
"Probably". In other words, you're basing your entire argument on an unfounded assumption. But in point of fact, there were many books on the art of war and the duties of the soldier in wartime because it was a belligerent age. There were campaigns within the British Isles against the Irish and Scottish, wars in the Low Countries, the Spanish Armada, etc. Ordinary people had every reason to be broadly familiar with warfare just as much as they did during the Napoleonic Wars and World Wars I and II.
"...and that kind of high military awareness was generally only known to the aristocracy in that period."
Because only the aristocracy fought battles. It was just a few dozen of them going at it while ordinary working-class people stayed at home. No ordinary person was ever impressed into the wars by the thousands, nor did they ever take up the career of a soldier when prospects were bad at home. And they certainly didn't haunt the stalls at St. Paul's looking for work, licit or illicit, once they were turned off from the wars on the continent, where anyone could have asked them for the price of a pint of beer about their experiences of war.
"Then there's the often intricate knowledge of Italy, where so much of his work has been set, with no evidence that the alleged Shakespeare ever went there."
Indeed, such intricate knowledge that he wrote two plays with Venetian settings and never mentioned the canals. When he mentions the Ponte di Rialto in _Merchant of Venice_ , it's obvious he thinks it's a public square and doesn't understand that it's a bridge (he indeed leaves off the word "Ponte", which means "bridge"). However, he doesn't mention the one major Venetian public square that actually existed: St. Mark's. Shakespeare not only thinks that it's feasible to get to Milan from Verona by ship, but also that this waterway has tides. (He was analogizing from the Thames, which does have tides.) Verona and Milan are both inland cities. He placed Padua in Lombardy rather than the Veneto, because he was copying a popular atlas of the day. Shakespeare thought of Italy as England in summer and doesn't put as much accurate information in his plays as John Webster and Ben Jonson did in their Italianate plays, and neither of them can be proven to have visited Italy either. Once again, anti-Shakespeareans simply don't read Shakespeare's contemporaries, nor do they read his sources, so they don't know how to distinguish exceptional erudition from commonplaces of the time.
@@Nullifidian What do you say to the fact that his daughters were illiterate and could only sign their own names with an X? And that he left no books or manuscripts in his will, just his "second best bed" to his wife? And that his bust in his tomb had a sack of grain originally and not a quill, because he was known in Stratford as a grain trader? And that the Quatros he published under his own name are clearly inferior copies of real Shakespearan works, suggesting he initially tried to make them slightly different than the originals, in order to sell them as his own, but couldn't keep their quality by doing that? And that during that era, it was commonplace to publish under another name if you were a member of the aristocracy, because the standard punishment for insulting a king was a public beheading (hence the phrase which hails directly from that time: "off with their heads"). A whole range of simple utterances that would be thought of today as trivial were punishable by order of the King or Queen with instant death. What aristocrat could risk that? To besmirch the name of his House and even end the line of succession, over mere words in a play?
@@ReturnOfTheJ.D. Part 1:
"What do you say to the fact that his daughters were illiterate and could only sign their own names with an X?"
I say that you're clearly basing this question purely on what you've been told by anti-Shakespearean cranks and haven't looked at the evidence yourself, because _neither_ of his daughters signed with an X and one of them, Susanna Hall, _did_ leave an extant signature together with that of her daughter. Moreover, there is an account of Susanna demonstrating her knowledge of one of her late husband's books to a potential buyer even though it was in Latin, her epitaph praises her as "witty above her sex" and says "something of Shakespeare was in that", and she's thought to be the person who composed the epitaph for her mother, Anne.
shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/susanna-hall-signs-settlement-estates-which-she-inherited-her-father-william
Judith Shakespeare signed with a mark, but that mark _wasn't_ an X but a kind of doodle that consisted of two connected loops.
shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/judith-shakespeare-william-shakespeare-s-daughter-witnesses-mark-deed-conveyance
Since many otherwise literate people signed with marks at this time, nothing about Judith's literacy can be inferred from this, and it's certainly not a mark against Susanna's literacy, which was demonstrated above. But even if _both_ his daughters had been provably illiterate, it would still be irrelevant to the subject of his authorship for two reasons. First, female literacy, though it was increasing in the early modern era, wasn't seen as important as male literacy, so if Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate it would simply have made him a man of his times. Second, Shakespeare was in London for most of the year, and was only free to travel to London in the winter months when it was too cold to play in the outdoor theatres, or when the theatres were closed by the city for other reasons, so he was in no position to personally oversee his daughters' education even if he wanted to.
"And that he left no books or manuscripts in his will, just his 'second best bed' to his wife?"
I would say that you can't prove that he didn't leave any books in his will, and he wouldn't likely have had manuscripts to leave because they were the property of the theatre, not his personal property. This argument just goes to show how little anti-Shakespeareans bother to understand the theatrical and printing practices of the time. As soon as the manuscript was delivered to the theatre, it was then turned into cue scripts (as well as prompt books for the person we'd now call the stage manager) by scriveners paid by the theatre. Later, these papers might be turned over to printers for the publication of plays, in which case the manuscripts were no longer important because a print copy was available. However, we can infer that many manuscripts had to be accessible _somewhere_ , whether in the care of someone affiliated with the King's Men, or among Shakespeare's private papers at New Place because 17 plays in the First Folio are printed there for the first time, so they had to be prepared from some kind of manuscript copy, and a further few are more authoritative than the quarto versions, indicating that they were also prepared from manuscripts, or at least that manuscript copies informed the editing of the text.
Now, getting back to why I said you can't prove he didn't leave books in his will is that wills are not inventories. They do not exhaustively itemize everything that a person possesses. They only identify legatees and the items that go to them. If a person dies possessed of items not mentioned in the will, then they go to the residuary legatee(s). In this case, the residuary legatees were Dr. John Hall and Susanna Hall (née Shakespeare), who also inherited New Place. So if Shakespeare had books to leave, they would be on the shelves of the home going to his residuary legatees anyway. So why mention them? You should read _Playhouse Wills: 1558 - 1642_ by E. A. G. Honigmann and Susan Brock, where the authors analyze the wills of dozens of people associated with the theatre. Their book includes coverage of the wills of fifteen playwrights, Shakespeare included. Of these fifteen, only _three_ playwrights bother to mention books in their wills. That's why this argument from absence of evidence is futile.
Also, he left a hell of a lot more than just the second-best bed, which I'm sure you're mentioning to disparage him, but this ignores that Anne would have been entitled to 1/3 share of the value of the estate, though perhaps not the real property, as her widow's dower and the second-best bed was probably the marital bed, since the guest would have gotten the best bed. Guests in Shakespeare's time were always given the best of everything-a rule of hospitality that was modeled on that of the ancient Greeks.
At 2:30 the introduction is over.
As I listened, I couldn't help wondering whether the whole issue was not a cover-up for something deeper. Claire Asquith has comparatively recently written a book that depicts Shakespeare as a committed political activist who had indeed been to Italy, been educated there and who did everything in his power to call out the pernicious influence of the Venetian Party in England. In many of his plays, Shakespeare's vituperous attacks on certain persons of political influence required careful and cunning disguise. For instance, Robert Cecil became Richard III. In this manner, Shakespeare sought to alert the Queen as to the real intentions of Venetian operatives while side-stepping personal danger. To me, given that this debate seems fraught with uncertainties on both sides, it seems quite possible that this all-powerful political party (the Venetian Party) which can be shown to persist until this day (in modified form) has concocted this little controvery in order to obfuscate its own true nature and its own role in steering England and the whole world away from that naturally gracious human dignity that Shakespeare most ardently defended. What better way for this party to achieve this obfuscation than to call into question the authenticity of the writer who most famously exposed its schemes and to distort key elements of this writer's life and education? Just a thought.
Just about every Elizabethan faction has been assigned Shakespeare's support at one time or another. The simple fact is that his patron during the Elizabethan era was Baron Hunsdon. He was QE1's cousin and closest advisor, as well a her Lord Chamberlain. After 1603, Shakespeare's patron was King James, himself.
The notion that Shakespeare was able to get away with politicking from the stage, right under the noses of such politically powerful masters, is frankly absurd.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Claire Asquith's book is called "Shakespeare and the Resistance". It's quite remarkable. I recommend giving it a read before dismissing. The idea that an artist as deeply developed and well-rounded as Shakespeare would not be moved to respond to the social and political exigencies of his day, particularly when well placed to do so, is, to my mind, rather more absurd.
@@RetroResearch Shakespeare, like every other artist of his era, lived to please his patrons, and his patrons were the Protestant establishment. Even openly Catholic writers like Ben Jonson learned to tow the line.
I already read Asquith's Shadowplay several years ago. Just a huge load of speculation intended to support a predetermined conclusion. Predictably, there are secret codes. I don't intend to waste any more time or money on her.
Total nonsense. Shakespeare stayed away from involvement of any sort. Take a look at his answers in the Belott case. He stayed completely neutral.
1. John Florio added more than one thousand new words to the English language, the same contribution attributed to William Shakespeare. Furthermore, Florio compiled the first Italian/English dictionary. The 1611 edition contained 74,000 Italian words and 150,000 English words. Frances Yates, author of Florio’s biography (1934) defines Florio’s dictionary as the epitome of the era’s culture.
2. John Florio and his father Michel Angelo, a former Franciscan monk who converted to Protestantism (and the son of converted Jews), are two erudite Italian scholars like few at that time in England. They possessed a vast knowledge of the arts, science, literature, theology, botany, medicine, falconry, law and seamanship - an encyclopedic knowledge which Shakespeare clearly commanded. Few knew European literature like John Florio who, having read the material in the original languages (Italian, French and Spanish), also taught it.
3. Immersed between the Jewish traditions of his ancestors and the Catholic and Protestantism religions of his father Michel Angelo is John Florio, whose vast knowledge sacred scriptures coincides with Shakespeare’s.
4. William Shakespeare and John Florio display the same bombastic style: the same exaggerated use of metaphor, rhetoric, wit (quips and puns), poetic sense and extensive use of proverbs. They even coin words in the same fashion. This is easily verified in the introductory texts of Florio’s scholarly works: Il Dizionario, A Worlde of Wordes (1598), First Fruits (1578) and Second Fruits (1591), two brilliant Italian/English teaching booklets. Thousands of words and phrases written by Florio appear later in Shakespeare’s works. Two of Florio’s phrases become titles of William Shakespeare’s comedies. Florio is a juggler of words and a polyglot: he speaks four modern languages, as well as Latin, Greek and probably Hebrew - the same languages known by Shakespeare, according to scholars.
5. John Florio translated Montaigne’s Essays and Boccaccio’s Decameron, two exceptional works. The “idea” of translating these fundamental texts during such a crucial time for the development of English culture is in itself an extraordinary feat. Florio’s translations prove that he is a great writer, a poet close in spirit and style to Shakespeare. If we keep in mind that Florio was writing “in prose” and not in “verse” like Shakespeare, this closeness is undeniable.
6. The impressive knowledge of the Bible and liturgies, both Catholic and Protestant, which Shakespeare supposedly possesses matches perfectly with John Florio’s biography. The two Florios, father and son, are regarded by critics as minor characters within the small Protestant and heretic Italian diaspora. In reality, they were the first major promoters of Italian culture abroad. The younger Florio studied at the German University of Tübingen with Pier Paolo Vergerio, an ex-Catholic bishop of Capodistria, converted to Protestantism. In England, he befriended the circle of reformed scientists and scholars which included Teodoro Diodati, the brother of Giovanni, a Calvinist and the first Italian translator of the Bible.
7. John Florio owned 340 books in Italian, French and Spanish and an unknown number in English. He read 252 books in preparation for his dictionary New World of Words. These are the same books which Shakespeare had to have read in the original language as inspirations for his plays. Florio’s will bequeaths his library of Italian, French and Spanish books to his friend and protector William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke.
8. The works of Shakespeare demonstrate “a culture of exile,” a theme very familiar to Florio.
9. The great influence of Montaigne’s thought and vocabulary upon William Shakespeare, reluctantly recognized by Shakespearean scholars, was demonstrated by George Coffin Taylor’s Shakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne (1925).
10. The vast knowledge of Italian writers, some of whom had not yet been translated into English, could not have been known by the “man from Stratford.” One clear example is Giordano Bruno, a Neapolitan heretic philosopher burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition in 1600. The presence of Bruno’s thought and vocabulary in Shakespeare’s works is evident - it is a “physical” presence, which is refuted or ignored by Shakespearean scholars. This closeness is unexplainable if one considers the “man from Stratford,” but natural and normal if one remembers that John Florio and Giordano Bruno were house guests of the French ambassador in London for more than two years (from 1583 to 1585). Many of their works cross-reference each other.
11. William Shakespeare’s impressive musical knowledge is surprising, and very difficult to explain. John Florio, on the other hand, was a musician and was responsible for inviting musicians to perform at the royal court.
12. William Shakespeare is shown to possess a strong aristocratic persona. Yet the man normally credited with writing the plays is the son of illiterate parents, and father of two illiterate daughters. John Florio, on the other hand, was a teacher and friend of powerful aristocrats and the Groom of the Privy Chamber to James I and Queen Anne for 16 years.
13. All the “friends” of Shakespeare who appear in the colourless biography of the man from Stratford are John Florio’s historically documented friends - from Lord Southampton to William Pembroke. William Shakespeare’s presumed godfathers were John Florio’s well-known students and protectors. Ben Jonson considers Florio as a father and master of his muses, a tribute shared by the Earl of Oxford and other nobles.
14. William Shakespeare demonstrates an undeniable Italian sensibility. Examples abound, as 16 plays boast Italian plots. The man from Stratford shows an excellent knowledge of Italian, as if he read the arduous Giordano Bruno, Ariosto, Aretino (another one of the Bard’s major inspirations) in the original. Naseeb Shaheen states in his Biblical References in Shakespeare's Plays (1999) that, when an English translation is available, Shakespeare’s words resemble the original Italian.
15. Finally, there is an ontological and sociological proof all in one. If two such characters - Shakespeare and John Florio - had lived in London at the same time, if they had shared patrons, friends, interests, passions and abilities, then why have they never met nor is there any mention of them meeting? Perhaps they would even have clashed, leaving behind visible traces. Instead, there is a total void. They could not have met, of course, since they are one and the same!
So when did John Florio work as an actor in the Lord Chamberlain's men? There are specific men in this company listed in the plays. Also, all the references and know how of acting and direction in the language. How did this erudite Italian tutor become familiar with the day to day theater life.
Ughhh, I love this! It seems a perfect match. WoW! I am going to research this man. Thank you so much.
Whoever wrote Shakespeare knew Latin which was taught in Grammar School but not much Greek taught in University. My claim is based on the names of gods were Roman names like Venus and Jove not Aphrodite or Zeus
The anti-Stratfordians remind me of the ancient Alian crowd who can't believe humans could build the pyramids
Brilliant analysis
Regardless of the authorship debate, once Mercy is peirced the manuscripts (preserved by Mercury) will tell all.
There are no such manuscripts.
It is very funny I like the debate.
A duck from Strattford or the Swan of Avon; that is the question
Kjell Myrberg Better either of them than a silly goose from Hedingham.
Madness in great ones must not unwatch'd go
Actually an eagle from London that grew up in Soglio.
This Waugh fella will work himself up to a heart attack if he hasn't already
...ha, like his dad (Evelyn) who died of massive heart in the toilet
Sir Francis Bacon - Shaker of the Spear (of Pallas Athena) ... *Grandmaster* of the Societas Rosecruciana In Anglia.
They didn't exist until a century after he died.
For those who live in the states this is the English equivalent of ranked division UFC debut.
Nah, I'd say that would go to the Bare Knuckle boxers who fight in the bars for glory. Saw a documentary about them. Was pretty interesting.
@@DrMurdercock lol is that the one where the old fat irish guy said he used to dip his hands in a vat of petrol at the plant he worked at to harden his knuckles?
This as a 'debate' was disappointing, but it's a start, somehow, of an open exchange. Simply put, the evidence -- any evidence -- that the man from Stratford wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare -- is nonexistent. If people can set aside their emotions and prejudices, and if arguments are not ad hominem, this is what results. Whether one believes de Vere to have been the author, or anyone else, is another issue; but the Stratford myth is just that -- a bare-faced myth without a shred of evidence to support it. This absence of evidence is very well documented.
scriabiniste Go to Shakespearedocumented.org and you'll see just how well documented it is.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Caius Martius Coriolanus
Please read Diana Price.
scriabiniste Diana Price...Diana Price...oh, right. The faux scholar who made up her own list of criteria for what qualifies as evidence so that she could carefully step around the piles of evidence for Shakespeare and claim it doesn't exist.
Why does Samuel Daniel get a point for "being paid to write" for a payment to one Danyell the poet (no ID that it's Samuel or what it's for), but Shakespeare gets none for a payment to "Mr. Shakespeare" (there was only one), who was an associate of Richard Burbage (again only one of them) for creating the Earl of Rutland's impresa? If Price were honest, Shakespeare should have scored at least a 6/10.
Price's whole M.O. is to turn a lot of very complex evidence into a binary proposition. If it's for anyone else, no matter how vague, it gets rounded up to "yes". If it's for Shakespeare (and hasn't already been ruled out of bounds by her hair-splitting definitions), then it gets rounded down to a no BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
Any reasonable and reasonably intelligent person can see right through her fraud, but strangely, you can't. Maybe it's because you haven't actually read it?
That site is very dishonest in its manner of presentation of those documents. Details forthcoming in a book almost ready for the editors. I would not place your faith in the manner of presentation and analysis of that website.
To which one can add Ogburn, Anderson, Chiljan, and many others.
How did Shakespeare get the money to buy houses and a share in a theatre.He must have received authorship payments.
Perhaps he was paid to allow this work to be published under his own name and keep quiet about the fact. Both the Earl of Oxford and Marlowe's supporters/co-conspirators had the means and potential motivation.
He was a wool-merchant.
@@RalphEllis He was a "wool merchant" who became remarkably wealthy remarkably quickly. Within months, he went from being sued for non-payment of rent in London to buying the largest house in Stratford Upon Avon. This is not how normal business works.
@@jamesbassett1484 I think you are confusing father with son. There IS a little-known theory that Will went to London as an agent for his father at the start of his career, and it's interesting, but evidence-free. You can look this stuff up you know. His father was a brogger (dodgy wool merchant) If you have evidence that Will was then you need to publish it. It would make headlines.
Shakespeare made his money purely from the box office receipts. He was a shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain's Men and, later, the King's Men. The fact that King James was willing to be their patron speaks volumes.
What is certain is, that people cannot agree on anything. One of the reasons why this may be, is the urge to differ. We are not meant to agree…
The first person to invoke Godwin’s Law always loses the debate.
The Bates has resoundly lost this debate.
R
You need to look up Godwin's Law. Nobody compared anyone to Hitler.
@@Jeffhowardmeade He did make an early ad hominem which I think is what Ralph is getting at.
@@joecurran2811 He said some Anti-Stratfordians are Holocaust deniers, which is literally the truth. Joseph Sobran, who thought Shakespeare's frequent use of "writ" meant he must be a lawyer (despite it being used as the past tense of write in most instances) was so anti-semitic that even the National Review fired him. Oxfordian Prof. Roger Stritmatter is a 9/11 Truther.
This is not ad hominem. It shows that you folks are inclined to believe in all sorts of absurd conspiracies, of which Anti-Stratfordianism is one.
I wrote to Bate on April 22, 2014--
'It is time for you to apologize publicly for comparing post-Stratfordians with Holocaust deniers. PBS’s Frontline reported (from interview with you on November 27, 2002):
“Asked why the authorship question matters, he replies, ‘Partly it’s to do with honoring truth, honoring fact. And, you know, without being melodramatic about it, you deny the reality of Shakespeare one moment, you can deny the reality of the Holocaust the next.’ ”
You were not being melodramatic. You were making a repulsive slur, especially to those post-Stratfordians who lost relatives in the Holocaust.'
Two hours later, Bate replied--
'I think you have misunderstood the rhetoric of my usage of “you” - I was not for a moment intending to suggest a causal progression from denial of the historical evidence regarding Shakespeare to denial of the historical evidence regarding the Holocaust and I do indeed apologise to you if that is how my remark has been construed, but rather I was suggesting that “you” - meaning “one”, “we”, “all of us” - should “honour truth, honour fact” and that there are other places and times where the failure of that honouring of historical truth has wider, and as you rightly say morally repugnant, resonances than those of the so-called Shakespeare authorship controversy.'
Terrible how one can be "misconstrued," isn't it?
Kudos to you. What a disgraceful comparison.
Richard Waugaman As one who did lose relatives both in the camps and in the act of ending their masters, I find the comparison inapt, but not vile or repugnant or any of the other hysterical adjectives which might be applied. Things which are monstrous should be compared to other monstrous things. Anti-Stratfordianism is comic entertainment compared to any event which can be quantified by its body count.
That said, the only two Holocaust Deniers I have ever met were also Shakespeare deniers. They were also Birthers, whatever you call JFK assassination theorists, and one believed a whole millennium has been added to the history of Western Civilization (I forget why). I suppose you should not be held accountable for this, but the Shakespeare Authorship Question is highly attractive to nutter butters who believe there is always a little man behind the curtain.
If I were one of you guys, I'd be wearing a tee shirt reading
As low as it gets.
Mr. Waugh repeatedly refers to William Shakspere as the man from Stratford. If that's indeed his name and spelling mattered as Waugh emphatically states than that the man from Stratford wrote the first draft of King Lear published in 1608. The title page is quite clear its says Shak-speare not Shake-speare.
Of course there is that hyphen which according to Waugh denotes a pseudonym however it does not match the actual pseudonym of Shake-speare. As the "e" is missing and since exact spelling mattered we can infer by Waugh's reasoning that this is a pseudonym for the man from Stratford as it matches closer to his name than the pseudonym used by the actual author.
Spelling at that time was free-form and immaterial.
Mark Twain had very little education. Due to his father’s death he left school at grade five. My point is you don’t need to be a prince or have 5 phd’s to be brilliant.
@Joe Twist Thus explaining de Vere's slender literary legacy. He knew virtually nothing, so he wrote virtually nothing.
@Joe Twist He had first-hand knowledge of Tudor London, King Arthur's Court, The Hundred Years War, Africa, and Adam and Eve? Who knew?
@Joe Twist You should look up Occam's Razor. I don't think you get the concept.
@Joe Twist And common sense says dead men can't write plays.
@Joe Twist He made it past elementary school but not much further.
I’m obsessed with Shakespeare but the History student in me requires more proof. A lot of people get blinded by their love/obsession with Shakespeare or what they were taught & Britain uses Shakespeare as a huge national treasure for their country & culture. & keep pushing it. Shak-spur’s home bring so many tourists & money. I think we just don’t know & wont ever know & people will be debating forever. I’ve also seen Bate get things wrong in some of his lectures about the romantic poets. I’m just an obsessed fan of them.just because you have a PhD doesn’t mean you always get everything right. Just my opinion.
Waugh doesn’t present any arguments at all - no evidence whatsoever. He just waffles. I was very disappointed by the debate.
What are you talking about? He presented lots of arguments and evidence, why wouldn't he? Watch it again and listen this time!
Have a look at his TH-cam channel... much more evidence there. It is excellent.
gJb 1 What?
MrDavey2010 doesn't watch videos.
Typical mainstream academics just say "Conspiracy" and it's impossible to defeat their hypothesis,pure genius and lazy non research at it's best lol.
How does one prove a negative? That "You have no evidence" is pretty much self-evident.
Alexander Waugh presents books of evidence do you work for the Shakespeare town of Stratford because i've noticed your repeated questions on 100's of videos?
I get that a lot. I'm a police officer in the US. I've been to Stratford once in my life, and I thought it was a tourist trap. Still, the Birthplace Trust does hold one of the larger collections of historical documents relating to Shakespeare. You know, those records which declare that Shakespeare was the author of his works. The ones that nobody else has any of for their candidates.
Debunking conspiracy theorists is just a hobby. Nobody pays me for the pleasure.
Oh Tom, cop is the perfect job for you. How much evidence do you plant in a given time period? And just exactly what document states explicitly that William from Stratford is actually William Shake-speare the writer?@@Jeffhowardmeade
@@the17thearlofoxford38 My name is not Tom, it's Jeff. All of the documents which identify the author as "Mr.", "Master", "Gent.", or "Gentleman", of which there are several, identify William Shakespeare, who was born and died in Stratford but spent most of his life in London, as the author. There was more than one William Shakespeare in England, but only one was a gentleman.
The amount of time your camp spends trying to justify the "Front Man" hypothesis is a tacit admission that Shakespeare was publicly acknowledged as the author of the works attributed to him. Seriously, you folks should clean up your self-contradictory arguments.
The British Empire which continues to this day needs you to believe that Shakespeare was an uneducated scrub from a lower class background. That he was just a plucky industrious individual who became one of history's greatest literary figures.. This debate was really over the spiritul consonance and contingency of the foundational myths of modernity.
Nobody has ever peddled that myth. Shakespeare was raised wealthy middle-class, by a mother who was gentry and a father who was the local mayor and justice of the peace. He lived in a town with a grammar school where the classics were taught by Oxford-educated schoolmasters.
Shakespeare came from precisely the same class that 99% of all great English writers have come from.
Honestly, wouldn't all these 'great playwright' have an investment in putting down the greatest imagination in English history? Since clearly if he was who we generally believe he was, then it would make sense that all these lesser writers with less prolific output would clearly be put out by such an exceptional human being?
I do have my doubts about the whole thing, and even might think Shakespeare was part of a cabul to overthrow the powerful, and that he may have inserted ideas from rather undercover societies, but no evidence I've heard of shows how any aristocrat shows personal ambition or skill in writing plays. E.g.bacon, sir Henry Neville or ear of Oxford. I am yet to be convinced.
I do think that maybe the folio was edited for some purpose to encode some secret societies operations and meanings. Whether Shakespeare was involved in that is not fully known but you could imagine a man who despised much of his world, whose great humanity would make him susceptible to grandiose ideas of change and subversion. His writings are very subversive
It's because of the snobbery of Elizabethan England. It was considered fine for a nobleman to write a serious work, frivolous to write poetry and disgraceful to write plays, because theatres were associated with prostitution, drunkeness and robbery. Hard to believe, but that was actually society at the time!
Amazing passion from Mr. Waugh
Too bad no evidence. Making up facts doesn't make up for a lack of them.
At 34:55 Waugh confidently cites the existence of a "1786" book doubting Shakespeare's identity, etc. Prof. James Shapiro in CONTESTED WILL has shown definitively that this book is a modern forgery. Sir Jonathan's point stands - namely, that it was only in the 19th. century that doubting emerged. Waugh here, as elsewhere, is sloppy in adducing evidence.
Good to know. Thank you.
" it was only in the 19th. century that doubting emerged" - apart from all the doubts arising during Will's lifetime, you mean?
'Please go on the internet and look up the facts'.
Alexander Waugh should be pictured in the dictionary next to the definition of the word handwaving.
And you reached this conclusion, how, John Harrington? Through long and arduous study of the relevant history? Through a detailed close reading of the numerous textual enigmas in the Shakespeare canon? Didn't think so.
@@rstritmatter, even if you refuse to accept my credentials (and I do have them), I'll point out that the vast majority of people who have spent their lives studying Shakespeare find the arguments of people like Waugh utterly, absurdly ridiculous, which is exactly the estimation they deserve.
Regarding the spelling of Shaksper vs. Shake-Speare. There are a number of plays in the period where a character slightly changes the spelling of their name in order to impersonate someone else. It occurs in Chapman's The Gentleman Usher, where base-born Mendice becomes Medice, a pretend noble, who is illiterate by the way. It occurs in Jonson's The Devil is an Ass where "Devil" is changed to "De-vile" by the queen figure in the play in order that he may sound more like he "came in with the conqueror" an allusion to Christopher Sly in the induction to the Taming of the Shrew. These facts disprove Bate's contention of the irrellevance of spelling differences. They are integral plot elements in plays of the period. Jonson't Tale of a Tub is contains another example.
But yes, Stratford upon Avon, or {Potempkin upon Avon if you will) generates 1 billion pounds per year in tourism for Britain. It is much too valuable to let the truth get in the way. Heaven help the British economy if it could no longer sell portraits of Sir Thomas Overbury to unsuspecting Chinese tourists who think the picture depicts a poet. It is one of the great confidence swindles of all time.
Dear Christopher, I am so grateful for your persistence advertising Shakespeare and the Stratford upon Avon tourist industry. Please keep it up!
And of course, the hyphen has no meaning at all that we know of in printed versions of Shakespeare's works. It seems like an aid to pronunciation -- dividing a name that naturally is pronounced as two common words, Shake and Spear. As Bate points out, Shakespeare himself incorporated a spear into his coat of arms, so the joke was not lost on him.
Very feeble, Mike Gordon. For a guy who once posed on facebook with a semi-automatic weapon, talking about what you wanted to do to the Oxfordians, you're slip-slipping-away. Are you seriously telling us that Jonathan Bate's fulminations are actually helping the Stratford tourist industry?
What was your methodology for establishing this conclusion, bomagash? There has been a lot of speculation about the hyphen. Gary Taylor and James Shapiro, for example, both claim that the hyphen was a typographical necessity to "prevent a mess in the print shop." This explanation is nonsense. Do you agree that it is nonsense?
Christopher, thank you for this significant finding. It deserves wider circulation and could help to save Jonathan Bate et al. from further embarrassment should they take the implications seriously.
I was shocked at how flimsy Jonathan Bate's case for William of Stratford was. I was expecting some bombshell evidence - but instead, nothing of any hard substance came forth. He also egregiously lied when he said 'we have two letters from Shakespeare' (or words to that effect) - no we do not have them as physical, handwritten letters at all! He is referring to the two dedications by the Shakespearean author which are PRINTED as introductions to two of the great poems. They are NOT handwritten letters. To mislead the audience in this way is quite shocking and disingenuous.
Also, Jonathan says that nobody doubted the authorship of the Shakespeare works for hundreds of years - when Alexander had just shown us that there were serious doubts raised about the authorship during and not too long after Shakespeare's time.
It is the accumulation of evidence that Will Shakspere was not the great writer, Shakespeare - the failure of Shakspere to mention in his will even the 18 as yet unpublished Shakespeare play MSS, the lack of a single letter from this man anywhere in the entire world, the fact that none of his fellow schoolmates ever remembered Will Shakspere as a budding writer or as being at that Stratford grammar school at all, or even that his own daughter and her medical husband did not once mention Shakspere as a writer - all this and more suggests that Shakspere of Stratford was NOT the great author. Who the true author was - is another matter. But the contemporaneous lifetime evidence for Will Shakspere as a writer of any kind is terribly, embarrassingly thin.
You think? Welcome to the skeptic's club.
Waugh *claiming* that there were doubts at the time and his *showing* it are two different things. One has to accept a series of undocumented and mostly ridiculous logical leaps to believe them. The whole theory that Ben Jonson was a mastermind, misdirecting people from the "real" author by writing ambiguous inscriptions and poems falls apart when you know that Waugh also believes that Jonson had monkey faces carved on the pillars of Shakespeare's monument in Stratford, a few hundred yards from the front door of his family's large home. At other points he claimed that Jonson did not know Shakespeare at all. Seems like a lot of trouble to go to for someone he doesn't know and that nobody at the time associated with the theater, doesn't it?
I wasn't shocked because there is no hard evidence whatsoever to support the Stratfordian. Some of you may remember the wonderful Folger editions of the individual plays of Shakespeare, in which a biographical essay preceded the work: a biography that had nothing to support it but which, as schoolchildren, we took for granted.
You really do need to look at Shakespeare documented site. Your statement of no evidence is very untrue.
Steve Bari
And I recommend that you read Diana Price's exhaustive reexamination from an un -idelogical perspective to boot.
It was Francis Bacon and his team.
Why would someone so precise with his language write plays which were the exact opposite?
The most plausible theory is that William Shakespeare is a collective pseudonym: there was no one person behind the name, who met all the credentials to write all those plays and poems. The three foremost persons behind the name are Oxford, Bacon, and Marlowe. Ben Jonson, compiler of the folios, might have left a more detailed account of exactly how he edited and redacted their writings. One thing is certain, however: whoever William Shakespeare was, it was NOT the Stratford man (whose name was actually spelled and pronounced differently, "William Shaks-peare"). It is a classic case of mistaken identity and attribution, whereby William of Stratford-upon-Avon, or Ann Hathaway's husband, has come down as the great author.
So then why did so many contemporaries identify William Shakespeare of Stratford, gentleman, and groom of the chamber to King James, as the author?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Well: the names were similar, making mistaken identity easy. But two people having the same/similar names is no basis for identifying them as identical. Just look at JULIUS CAESAR: are Cinna the poet and Cinna the conspirator one and the same person?
@@JLFAN2009 The names weren't just similar, they were identical. The College of Heralds, the clerks of not one but TWO royal households, the publisher of Ben Jonson's plays, the clerk in the Bellott v. Mountjoy deposition, the publisher of the Second Return from Parnassus, Antiquarian John Weever, the clerk of the Earl of Rutland, and Master of Revels George Buc, all referred to the man born in Stratford as "Shakespeare".
That John Weever guy, who had published poems lauding the poet, was standing over Shakespeare's grave (which identified him as a great poet) in about 1618 as he wrote "Willm. Shakespeare the famous poet" in his notebook.
But there's more! William Shakespeare bore the social rank of "gentleman". There was only one such Shakespeare in England at the time. After the man from Stratford was bestowed that title, the poet began to be referred to as "Mr." and "gent." Strange coincidence, don't you think?
And of course the poet was often referred to as also being an actor, which described only William and his brother.
And then there's everyone in the First Folio. They knew Shakespeare and identified him as the guy from Stratford.
It's not mistaken identity. Everyone who opined identified the guy from Stratford.
The most plausible fact is that the actor William Shaksper was a cover up for the upstart crow, the Tyger wrapt in a Players hide, 'absolute Johannes factotum' aka Giovanni Florio. Ah. And the same Florio edited the First Folio, before publication. It was his work after all. www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/12/who-edited-shakespeare-john-florio
@@antoeckhart That's the second most plausible HYPOTHESIS (not fact), and it's a distant second. The most plausible theory is that the author was the man everyone said it was. There was no need for anyone to have a front man, and there's no evidence that William Shakespeare was one.
Some readers seem unclear about the definition of the "ad hominem fallacy." Here's the OED definition:
"directing one's argument or criticism against a person rather than against the position that that person is maintaining. Subsequently also in extended use: with respect to a particular person or group, rather than the matter in hand. Opposed to ad rem."
Ad hominem arguments against one's opponents are a characteristic fallacy of groupthink. Gambrill and Gibb's book Critical Thinking for Helping Professionals recommends "identifying and avoiding groupthink ploys such as abusive ad hominem arguments."
Richard Waugaman So you're wrong because you are a poo-head is ad hominem, but you are wrong because of x, y, and z, you poo-head isn't. Got it.
I'm pretty sure referring to Professor Bate by turning his name into a sexualized pun is ad hominem but perhaps it was simply intended as an illustration of what not to do. From where I sit "ploys such as abusive ad hominem arguments" are a prominent feature of both sides of the "debate" and have been for as long as people have been debating the question. My approach is to completely ignore any and all insults aimed at me personally or to try and turn the insult inward, make it a humorous, self effacing rebuttal without saying anything hurtful or insulting about anyone else.
Richard is unclear about almost everything.
Here are some of my own views on the authorship debate:
th-cam.com/video/jsdVFkBZqfM/w-d-xo.html&frags=pl%2Cwn