John Milnes Baker-The Case for Edward De Vere as the Real William Shakespeare
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ต.ค. 2020
- The Kent Memorial Library presents a Book Talk with Kent resident John Milnes Baker. Join us as John discusses his recently published book The Case for Edward de Vere as the real William Shakespeare. Thursday, September 17 at 7:00 p.m.
John Milnes Baker here. I'm gratified to see that my video has triggered so much interest and lively commentary. Thanks to all! I have a theory and wonder if anyone would care to comment. I became an Oxfordian about 1990. (You can search "How I became an Oxfordian" ) and my booklet was first published about 2020. That's thirty years. It's now three years later. Over those thirty years I've asked no end of English majors - and some high school teachers and a few college professors: "What do you think about Edward de Vere?" More puzzled responses than opinions. The vast majority never heard his name and certainly never heard of the "Shakespeare Authorship Question"! I have not kept count, but I believe there are are just as many in the last three years who have not only heard of de Vere, but are well aware of the "SAQ". One typical response these days is: "I believe that most Shakespeare plays were the result of collaborative efforts by gifted writers." That's an encouraging indication that there is an ever-increasing number of curious skeptics. I would take that as a valid response, but I would propose that NO creative artist/writer/film maker, and so on, ever works in a social vacuum. ALL ask someone they respect - a teacher, an editor, a colleague, "What do you think of this?" - whatever "this" is. I encourage anyone with natural curiosity to search: "Fisher's Folly" and the "University wits". Then think of Frank Lloyd Wright's "Studio" in the first decade of the 20th century. The "Master" (or perhaps 'mistress'?) with brilliant and talented office supporters - draftsman, job captains, etc. who execute the final designs under the supervision and guidance of the master. Have fun!, and thanks again for your comments! John Milnes Baker
I have contended for some time that Shakespeare is less a pseudonym and more like a brand name such as Disney. With the essence of that brand being Euphemism, if Im using the term correctly. De Vere essentially ran an entire college of playwrights at one point. He cannot be seen as just the “author.” He is patron, producer, editor, musical composer, and poet.
In fact Shakespeare--the real Shakespeare, the Stratford guy--fits your description far better than the Earl of Oxford ever could. Shakespeare was a general partner in the Lord Chamberlain's Men, which became the King's Men in James' reign, and he and his colleagues were part of the leading acting company of the day. So, yes, you are correct that "NO creative artist/writer/film maker, and so on, ever works in a social vacuum," and Shakespeare didn't. The way to learn what works in the theatre is to work in the theatre--and Shakespeare did precisely that. There would have been lots of opportunities for creative give-and-take between him and his partners. It was a partnership that was noteworthy in staying together for decades. The Earl of Oxford's published poetry reveals him to be a dilettante, which is exactly what would be expected. Do a comparison of "What Cunning Can Express" (published in an important Elizabethan anthology four years before Oxford's death) with Shakespeare's Sonnet 130. It's like putting a paint-by--numbers effort alongside a Rembrandt.
@@jaybuckeye2866 except that your statement referring to Sgaksper is just not true, and doesn’t fit what we now know. The Earl of Oxford is connected to the theatre, acting, and the publishing of plays and writers of the time throughout his life, and this is not contestable. The plays themselves, their internal references, belong to a Tudor era, not Stuart. Keep researching, theres enough information now that its incontrovertible. If you don’t believe you haven’t researched enough or have made up your mind regardless of all the evidence. it’s sad to see so many learned people unable to learn new things, but I guess thats the times we live in.
@@Widdowson2020I'm actually very happy to learn new things--as long as they're real. So I hope you'll share the incontrovertible evidence for His Lordship writing Shakespeare's plays. That would of course include all those many mentions in His Lordship's surviving letters and documents to plays and theatre. And certainly any incontrovertible evidence would include the documented connection between Shakespeare's plays and Oxford's Men. That's because if His Lordship wrote the plays, he'd obviously choose to have his very own acting company perform his plays. So please share the documentary evidence showing Shakespeare's plays being performed by Oxford's Men. BTW, here's something you get to learn. There's a formal legal document for Shakespeare's purchase of New Place in Stratford in 1597 that gives Shakespeare's name five times. This document, with a seal attached, was written in a special handwriting used in legal documents, not the ordinary Elizabethan secretary hand. So it's clear that it was prepared by highly competent legal counsel in Stratford. In all five cases Shakespeare's name is given as … "Shakespeare." So you'll want to correct your spelling of Shakespeare's name. Always happy to help!
It is pointless to engage in youtube comments debates. There are whole societies, organizations, researchers and authors who would be happy to do so. Go seek them out. I am sure with your staggering intellect you can prove them all wrong. Can’t wait to see it. Standing by with my popcorn.
Great debate from learned Oxfordians and Stratfordians. Thank you Ladies & Gentlemen!
Thank you! I enjoyed this. I'll be looking for the book.
This is a fantastic video, by the way. I think you’ve covered the essentials and then some.
In short ... quote act, scene, line. Don't just make vague assertions about how amazing the writer must have been.
Well done sir. The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt is easily available on line. I am certainly not an intellect of note, but as a common man I signed and those of you reading this can join me.
Better hurry. The signatories are dying off quicker than they're being added.
@@JeffhowardmeadeSignatories are being added most days currently
@@joecurran2811 And being deleted by mortality. There just aren't enough gullible people for you to have any real growth.
Great discussion.
I really don’t think it could possibly have been Abraham Lincoln who wrote the Gettysburg Address because Lincoln was only formally educated for one year in his whole life.
And he had illiterate parents to boot!
Enormously enjoyable talk. Thank you. In my case you were preaching to the already-converted.
I am convinced that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare. I hope you keep doing more video's.
I have been intrigued also for years. Glad to see you are not far away. There is no question in my opinion that Shakespeare was de Vere.
Have you ever read Shakespeare's testament?
I advice you to read it.
Edward de Vere appears to be the primary--or sole--author of the great literary works. ~
@@laurids2007 not as of yet. Have at least five other books to read also
@@ericvanjames8395 Yes, de Vere's life bleeds Shakespeare
@@laurids2007 what is "Shakespeare's testament"?
Do you mean his will?
I am Italian and I cannot absolutely imagine this kind of debate taking place in Italy about Dante, Boccaccio or Petrarch, whose authorship never once has been disputed over the centuries, as all of them left plenty, plenty of proof in their lifetime to be the true authors of their works.
The mere fact that there is a "Shakespeare Authorship Question' sounds incredible, absolutely incredible
I think it is a result of the author's need at the time to be incognito in a time of spies/treason etc...but also a will on the part of his many close 'brethren' to continue his ruse so that only the 'initiated' might know. But the events of the mid to late 1600's erased so much of the1590's; civil strife, Oliver Cromwell's new model army, the reformation etc put Shake-speare beyond reach......but the name it's self is a constant reminder.
Indisputable facts are never incredible.
And yet there has been a similar ‘reasonable doubt’ as well in France for a whole century (!) by now, regarding Molière’s authorship.
Very much the same debate and the same probabilities, especially because Jean-Baptiste Poquelin (alias Molière) was essentially mentioned at the time as the brilliant actor and metteur en scène of the plays. The rather convincing hypothesis in question is that the famed Pierre Corneille was secretly the actual writer, for financial reasons (but not only), possibly developing the plots suggested to him by ‘’Molière’’, though. The whole literary myth around the central figure of Molière has been elaborated only two centuries later. (If ever interested, you’ll find serious publications and documentaries on the subject).
No serious person takes it seriously.
Well it sounded implausible to me.....until some of the many arguments, masterfully put by J. T. Looney, and those of Twain, and now the wealth and weight of Alexander Waugh's reasoning, made the scale tip for ever, and come down on the side of Oxford.
Edward De Vere did not want to be known as the author of Shakespeare's plays and poems. We should honor his wish.
Odd that hd was so well known as a writer of comedies that he was listed as a playwrjght by Francis Meres, who also listed Shakespeare. Maybe lord Oxenford (yes thats how he spelled his name) thlught that these comedies lost to history were brilliant while his tradgedies hamlet macbeth lear etc were so embarrassingly bad he didnt want wnyone to know he had written them, and in 1623 when the first folio was publjshed they didnt want to embarrass the family of the writer who had been dead 19 years
my father
richard paul roe
agrees
thank you so much
for supporting and acknowledging
his position
he wrote the italian plays book amazon
much favor
many blessings
thank you
If Roe was your father, he was seeing what he wanted to see. I went to Italy and fact checked his book. It was mostly bunk.
An excellent book.
Im pretty convinced now
Movie ‘Anonymous’ - all the dope…very funny in places - ultimately a loving & sincere portrait of Tudor life!
🙏🏽💔🙏🏻
Roland Emmerich makes absurd disaster films. Anonymous is an absurd film that was a disaster.
It was fun to watch, though. My friends and I were in an empty theater, so we went MST3K on it.
Well, I love it as a movie, what’s not up like about Rhys Ifans playing a tortured de Vere?? But didn’t it imply that Anne Cecil was still living at the time of his death? Still, I think it is likely that he passed the manuscripts on to Ben Jonson-who was arrested multiple times. The Cecils were basically raiding the wealth of those kids who were Elizabeth’s wards. Another video on TH-cam goes into great depth of detail about this and how it also provided cover for the peccadillos of the courtiers. The plays lampoon both Cecils relentlessly. No wonder they resented Elizabeth’s generosity to de Vere who they considered a wastrel.
@@rosezingleman5007 And Robert Cecil even helped him get his welfare check renewed under James and then helped the young 18th Earl get one after De Vere went toes up.
I'm the second most powerful person in the kingdom and you murder my father in effigy on stage? Guess how much help you're going to get from me.
Wow. The level of falsehoods and distortions in this video is breathtaking.
Wonderfully done!
I'm not a scholar, but I would be gutted if it turned out that Edward de Vere was the author. He was a thoroughly repulsive human being, who literally murdered a servant, deserted a pregnant mistress and refused to serve his country in its most difficult crisis. To be honest, I think he was too busy writing begging letters to have time for writing poems or plays. Our dear British aristocracy are seldom noted either for the intellects or their literary skills, with the notable exception of Lord Byron, who was such an outsider that I don't think he counts.
The big problem is ... that there is no problem. The man from Stratford had the same background as most playwrights of the time. So there's actually isn''t an 'authorship question'. Just a good many old men trying to keep busy during their retirement.
You're right DeVere was a thoroughly repulsive human Being, Arrogant while lacking the Character and intelligence tO write deeply on so maNy subjects. The actual author wrote a play about DeVere, as the misogynist character Bertram in "All's Well That Ends Well."
But the Stratford also did not have anything to do with being the author as he was a decoy brought to prominence by a play within a play with the help of David Garrick and then later with the hustling vision by PT Barnum that turned Stratford into a town without pity that enjoys the tax benefits from the Crown allowing people like Stanley Wells to practice their literary witchcraft.
@@tvfun32 Do you subscribe to Q anon as well? It's weird that dear old Sir Stanley Wells is made into a Bond villain. Presumably he's disliked by you lot because he's staggeringly knowledgeable.
PT Barnum TRIED to buy the birthplace house. but his plan was to take the building to America. He had nothing to do with the bardolatry that turned Stratford into a delightful tourist trap. You seem to have garbled together some half-understood claptrap. The BIRTHPLACE TRUST avoids taxes because of its charitable status. Not the town of Stratford.
And it was Charles Dickens who got the that going. And Garrick simply held a soggy outdoor festival or two there. But Garrick's involvement is handy, because at this time, Shakespeare's descendants were still living in the house. Which is one of the reasons why we know that the much altered and restored building is truly the right one, though because it was one of a row of terraced houses, it's hard to be sure where the Birthplace began and the next door house ended.
@@MrMartibobs What is your source for " Shakespeare's descendants were still living in the house," which would be about 1769 when Garrick had his first revels?
"Reverend Francis Gastrell bought the house in 1753 but quickly got irritated with tourists wanting to see it, says architectural historian Gavin Stamp. He is also said to have been in a dispute over taxes with local officials.
Gastrell was already in the town's bad books after chopping down a mulberry tree planted by Shakespeare in the garden. Then, in an extraordinary fit of spite, he demolished the whole house in 1759. It was never rebuilt and only the foundations remain."
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21587468
Stanley Wells may be knowledgeable but lacks wisdom on who wrote Shakespeare. The Birthplace Trust is an oxymoron.
@@tvfun32 Yes. That was New Place. The Birthplace is a different house. New Place was the House Shakespeare bought for his family. The Birthplace is the house where he was born.
This is information that is freely available.
@@tvfun32 And another evidence free assertion about Wells. If you want to make accusations, it's a really neat idea to provide evidence.
Insults won't do the trick.
Look at the evidence with an open mind and there is really only one reasonable conclusion. Thanks for posting this.
I hope by "open mind" you don't mean "Automatically believe anything anyone claims." If that's the case, you'll fall sucker for every charlatan.
@@Jeffhowardmeade As did thousands of scholars and historians who fell prey to the hoax that an illiterate grain merchant wrote anything. His alleged signatures are just the tip of the anti-Stratfordian evidence doubters can use to bolster their claims and demolish the Stratford one. None of the alleged six (or is it nine? the numbers keep changing) signatures, for example, look identical as you would expect from a literate man. Indeed, the 2 most legible signatures in the will (in which the bequest for the mourning rings was interposed later) do not match at all. The redundant phrase "by me" is another clue something is up. You do not need to use that phrase on a will unless there is doubt about the testator's identity or ability to write. Furthermore, a close look at the last signature shows it may have been written by a clerk since the one on page 2 is such a mess. That last signature has near-prefect secretary hand while the other two are scrawling messes. And the argument he had palsy or a stroke does not hold up since his son-in-law Dr. John Hall never mentioned his father-in-law suffering from any afflictions in his last weeks. Another thing which helps to reduce the Stratford claim is that Shakspere's daughters never learned to read or write. Would a writer not ensure his children could enjoy his works for posterity? Shakspere of Stratford evidently did not.
@@ronroffel1462 If it were anyone else, I would think they were simply ignorant, but you're lying and you know you're lying. Every last thing you wrote is factually wrong and you've had it pointed out to you over and over again.
Are you so insecure about your case that you don't think you can make a point without lying?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Nothing I post is a lie and I rarely use ad hominem attacks or insult people as Stratfordians do. Which is what you are doing. Look up anything I claim if you dare.
@@ronroffel1462
Lie #1 "...the numbers keep changing" No, they haven't. It's been a solid six since 1912, when a new one was located. The signature on the title page of Archaionomia isn't certain and isn't included on anyone's list.
Lie #2: "by me" is a clue something is up. No, that's a standard formulation on wills of the era.
Lie #3: "Dr. John Hall never mentioned his father-in-law suffering from any afflictions..." He never mentions him at all, since his case book begins after Shakespeard died, and is of patients whom he successfully treated and the treatments he used.
Lie #4: "...Shakespeare's (fixed it for you) daughters never learned to read or write." You have no way of knowing if Judith learned to read, since writing was taught separately, and Susanna Hall could both read and write.
And I CAN document everything I claim, which means when you say you can document the opposite, you're lying.
And saying that you're lying isn't ad hominem when it's true.
Gosh I love Shakespeare's writing whoever wrote it.
This is the right response unlike that of those who, with closed minds and no rationale, insist it was an illiterate nobody.
@@annmowatt7547 Got any evidence that Shakespeare was an "illiterate nobody"?
@jeffhowardmeade *Even considering those times, still pretty hard to swallow, for example, the fact the only six existing items of the alleged Stratford Bard’s OWN HAND-WRITTEN SIGNATURE aren’t all spelled in one single very same way…
Were his contemporary fellow-writers as absent-minded too ?!?
@@Jeffhowardmeade She's saying that the dolt who's considered to be William Shakespeare was just a guy in Stratfor Upon Avon with no particular talent and no evidence whatsoever that he was capable of such authorship. He had none of the background and life-experience of this literary giant and wasn't part of the class this prolific man wrote about, but a country bumpkin.
@@ninecatsmagee8384 Yet isn't it strange that he comes from precisely the background of nearly every other poet of the era? As to your other errors: he also left three pages of a play manuscript in his handwriting, which is more than we have for most poets, and was identified as the poet Shakespeare by more than twenty contemporaries. He had a lifelong association with the company with the exclusive right to perform the plays of Shakespeare, which is to say he had a lifelong association with the plays of Shakespeare. He mentioned people, places, and events from his home town in his plays, including three Hamlets. All of his poetry written specifically for publication was produced by a kid he grew up with in Stratford.
Now why don't you present some evidence that he was an "illiterate nobody" besides your inability to read Early Modern handwriting?
John Milnes Baker is an architect by education and trade.. How is he to be considered an expert in literature, history, Tudor England, or Shakespeare?
@@Tsukiyomi-san One is curious: Dost Thou know of a case in which an unqualified individual successfully proved his theory?
Why should one accept and take seriously the word of anyone with a theory backed up by elaborate speculation?
@@heidih3048 As soon as a theory is proven correct, the individual who proposed it becomes qualified by definition.
How those "experts" who rejected theories that are later proven true - were they ever really qualified in the first place?
1)How about the Theory of Plate Tectonics? Rejected for decades by "qualified geologists" because it was proposed by an unqualified amateur, but is now accepted as fact. They just had to wait for all the old-timers to die off before the young guys could accept a new theory.
2) Or the theory that Thomas Jefferson fathered children through his slave Sally Hemings? Rejected out of hand by the so-called qualified historians until DNA testing proved that it was absolutely true. What happened to all the idiot historians who rejected the evidence that now seems obvious?
2) Or String Theory, which seems to be nonsense based on it's total lack of experimental verification - but that doesn't stop the so-called qualified individuals from being paid good money for creating fancy equations which have no basis in the physical universe...
English Professors are not Historians - they are literature teachers. What qualifications do they have except that they are able to repeat what they have been told by previous English Professors who were not historians either? What would the world think of English Professors if it turned out they were wrong about the identity of Shakespeare? They would become instant laughing stocks. IT's no wonder that they are not interested in taking on question.
How do you think explorers found new lands? They didn't know the lands were there, but kept sailing until something was in sight. Who invented mathematics or physics or anything that wasn't there in the first place? Inspiration and imagination are the source of everything we know. At one time there was no domestic use of fire, nor did anybody know how to tame and harness an animal. The most important discoveries of humankind always required someone enterprising who dared to question conventional wisdom, as the man says.
When you can't refute the arguments, then you must attack the man. Ad hominem fallacy.
@@lachenmann I didn't attack him. I merely pointed out his questionable trustworthiness.
His theory is based on speculation, not hard evidence of any kind. That fact alone caused me to question whether he had any known training in literary or historical research. This is why I checked his credentials-- it appeared he did not know how to back up his claims with actual evidence.
Sorry, but there is so, so, so much written evidence that logically points to Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the plays. The problem is there's not one single written word anywhere that states that deVere wrote the plays. Ben Johnson is supposed to have been a main participant in the massive cover-up, but in his personal notes discovered only after his death, he praises Shakespeare (of Stratford). He also criticizes Shakespeare privately of writing that Bohemia had a shoreline, a mistake that an educated deVere would presumably never make. In order to make deVere the author, Oxfordians need to 'force' all kinds of statements and writings about Shakespeare of Stratford to either originate by ignorance or by belonging to the massive cover-up; there's nothing in-between where you'd find someone not participating in the cover-up to know deVere wrote the plays. Either way there's still much of a mystery as to how the plays were written, but please don't waste anyone's time suggesting that Shakespeare of Stratford isn't a serious candidate.
Jonson never in his notes wrote that he was from Stratford, ever.
Bohemia did have a shoreline, but briefly. The Encyclopedia Brittannica says: "Despite its landlocked location, there were brief periods in the Middle Ages during which Bohemia had access to the Baltic and Adriatic seacoasts-which no doubt was on William Shakespeare’s mind when he set much of his play The Winter’s Tale there." The period in question was during the 13th century when Ottokar II of Bohemia ruled what is now Slovenia, which still has a seacoast. He ruled from 1253 to 1278. This demonstrates de Vere had a good knowledge of Medieval European history. And yes, he could have known this through sources available to him from William Cecil's vast library to the libraries of his tutors Sir Thomas Smith or Sir Laurence Knowell (who had the only extant copy of Beowulf which was the basis for Hamlet's last speech).
There was no need to "force" anything in this reply, was there?
By the way, there was no massive cover-up, only the relentless but unspoken pressure of de Vere's family, his descendants, and in-laws to force writers who knew to keep quiet. They had eyes and ears everywhere and represented the English elite. It was easy for them to monitor the small number of printers (around 23) and the community of writers to see who would leak the secret out. Because of this, it became a game between writers who wanted to test the waters as it were and see who could create the most puzzles, clues, and allusions to de Vere. They were playing a game of chicken with the authorities, and who doesn't want to do that from time to time?
@@ronroffel1462 We have no private notes from Jonson, but we do have William Drummond's notes of Jonson's private comments about Shakespeare. He describes his friend as not being educated. Does that sound like your supposedly highly-educated Earl?
Jonson also poked fun at the coastline gaffe. The very well- educated Jonson knew that Bohemia never had one. When a ruler gains control of addition realms, the name of the place doesn't change. When James IV of Scotland became James I of England, did Scotland suddenly extend to the English Channel?
Try studying some actual history rather than reading what some other desperate idiots wrote.
@@ronroffel1462 The similarity between Beowulf and Hamlet's last speech is .... (wait for it) ... they both expressed a wish to be remembered. THAT'S IT!!!!
That is probably the most brain-dead argument I have ever heard. It is utterly cuckoo. It's potty. It's whacko. A dying person has three choices:
1 want to be remembered
2 want to be forgotten
3 no preference
Most probably want to be remembered. And you build an entire edifice on the idea that two dying people want to be remembered?
This isn't shaky foundations. It's not even building on sand. It's building on wet Jell-o. It is SHAMEFULLY stupid. I wish
@@ronroffel1462 If you landed at Calais in 1942 ... would you call it the German coast? No? So ... Bohemia NEVER had a coast. for a brief period, it had ACCESS to one.
@@ronroffel1462 De Shakespeare Nostrat
"I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him: “Cæsar, thou dost me wrong.” He replied: “Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause; and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." BEN JONSON
Oops ... sorry .... case closed. Now let's forget this crap and enjoy the work of that talented man from Stratford.
Sonnet 76: “That EVERy word doth almost tell my name.”
-------Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
"Every Word" is an anagram for "Edwor Very" which is "almost" Edward Vere.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Lucky for you your guy wasn't named Bucephalus Bretchgirdle. You wouldn't be able to find an anagram for him literally EVERywhEre and might have to go looking for some actual evidence.
Look Ma! No "ever"
O, no! it is an ever-fixed marke
=
I am Oxford Seventeen i ark i
So, no "ever" but Oxford and Seventeen should count for something. Also notice the ark of the covenant inside the temple. Lucky for me, I guess.
Oh, and more luck:
Prove Deformed = M. de Vere, Opford.
Oops! Opford is wrong! Cross out the wrong letter (try this at home).
Oops! Now it's right! Not only is it right, but a crossed out P is a chi ro.
The ark of the covenant and the chi ro. Opford likes religious symbolism, apparently.
@@Jeffhowardmeade
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Really man, take the meds. Your doctor isn't trying to poison you. They work quickly and you'll be back to sanity in no time.
You can't keep can you? What a joke. Does it concern you that pretty much EVERyone thinks your a bozo? @@Jeffhowardmeade
Truth enjoy the information!!
40:16 "Titian, 1498-1676". Wow, 178 years old. These renaissance painters looked after themselves!
Thank you for this video. I don't understand how an author having had a pseudonym is so controversial: maybe just that DeVere was so clever in the way he set it up?
There's nothing controversial about pseudonyms. Since Shakespeare is the name of a real person, if he was not the author, then "Shakespeare" is an allonym.
In this case, those who deny Shakespeare's authorship are attempting to deny him credit for one of the most remarkable literary achievements in history.
Not cool.
@@Jeffhowardmeade well, try watching the lecture here in this youtube, there is no proof that Will wrote anything, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting he did not
@@DianePaulson-my1ks "Proof" is for alcohol, baking, and mathematics. What you are thinking of is "evidence", and there is a huge amount of evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was the author of the works attributed to him. Anyone who says there isn't is either deluded or lying.
Which are you?
@@Jeffhowardmeade The Brits love their fake and lucrative historical sites. Look at all of the phony King Arthur sites. Who would think to look for him in Shropshire? Only the most intrepid of researchers would both look and find. Why do Shaksper signatures look like scribble jibbble? In what world does it make sense for a man of letters to not even be able to write his own name?
@@MrAbzu "Why do Shaksper signatures look like scribble jibbble?"
Because you can't read 16th Century handwriting.
That was easy!
James Shapiro’s “Contested Will “
Awful book
@@joecurran2811 That's the highest praise a Shakespeare authorship denier can bestow on Shapiro's book. Had I not already read it, I'd have been stirred to read it by your insubstantial denunciation. It shows that you can neither identify any serious problem with the book's evidence and logic but nor can you allow a mention of it to stand without impotently snarling at it.
6:45 - "... James Joyce ... " - James Joyce was a Stratfrodian.
As were Hawthorne, Holmes, William James (he's thinking of his brother Henry), Gielgud, Emerson, and many more Anti-Stratfordians regularly claim as deniers.
Congratulations to John Milnes Baker for this outstanding talk, which is deservedly gaining many views on TH-cam, it appears, including desperate attacks from those determined to prop up the implausible traditional story about Shakespeare authorship. It appears he has struck a nerve! This indicates to me we are making progress!
On the contrary, it's just a regurgitation of old hypotheses which have no evidence behind them.
Calling Shakespeare's story "implausible" is one of those absurd notions which flies in the face of all available evidence. He not only came from a similar background as most of his peers, he came from a background similar to that of nearly all successful writers.
You are making no progress. Anti-Stratfordians are dying off faster than new ones are being recruited, and most of the new recruits are complete nutterbutters looking for evidence on Oak Island or searching for hidden codes in the works.
@@Jeffhowardmeade I note the irony of Caius Martius Coriolanus using a pen name to publish this.
@@patricksullivan4329 My real name is Jeffrey Meade. I'm a retired police officer from California. Feel better?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Knowing your real name has no bearing on my emotions. It does not erase the irony that you published something using other than that real name, just as Mark Twain, George Orwell, Voltaire, George Eliot, and thousands of others have done. Including, according to all the available evidence from the Stratfordian's lifetime, Shakespeare.
@@patricksullivan4329 You will notice that (like me) it is well known that those were pen names and what the real names of those authors were.
What "all available evidence" would there be that William Shakespeare was a pen name? I'll take any contemporary documentation.
"Child abuse can take many forms..." that line got an out-loud laugh from me! You nailed the horrible modern habit of substituting "just-so stories" for actual history there.
The form it took in the 16th Century was sexual abuse. The number of children Edward De Vere abused is staggering.
thumbs up !
Albert Einstein did not excel at school, then at polytechnic he did not do well enough to convince any of the professors to offer him a teaching assistant job. Einstein got a job as a patent application reviewer. He could not possibly have been the original source of both the Special and General theories of Relativity as well as an explanation of the photoelectric effect.
The public has been lied to about practically all of history, so it's not hard to believe that Shakespeare was only a pen-name. But most people will cling to the tales they've been told since the cradle, and never question anything.
Nobody wants to admit they were fooled. The very recent past (C-19 etc) should be evidence of that.
@@rosezingleman5007 they would turn blue in the face before admitting they were fooled.
@@rosezingleman5007That would explain why no amount of evidence has ever convinced an Oxfordian that he or she was wrong.
@@keepitsimple4629Not true at all. Try me. Present some actual evidence that Shakespeare wasn't the author or that someone else was and see how I react.
@@Jeffhowardmeade It's not my job to prove anything to you. It's your job to research.
Stratfordians are the equivalent of creationists. And it’s pointless presenting them with evidence
Feel free to ante up your "evidence" all day long. I'll see your assumptions and guesswork and raise you with actual documentary evidence.
@@Jeffhowardmeade
"If this be error and vpon me proued,
I neuer writ,nor no man EVER LOVED"
(the last 2 words are an anagram)
and so:
"If this be error and vpon me proued,
I neuer writ,nor no man.
LOV,
ED VERE
(love is spelled LOU in line 8)
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Feel free to find me any contemporaneous letter signed "Lov[e], whoever". That's a modern, and particularly American, formulation. Also, Eddie De Vere never signed his name "Ed", even as an abbreviation, nor did anyone ever call him that. It's an anagram, after all, so you could have reversed "Ed" to "De" and at least been partially accurate.
Wait...you don't care. It doesn't matter how anachronistic or accidental it is, so long as it reinforces your delusions.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Ed is short for Edward - I don't think I am reaching to suggest that he was "Ed" to his close friends.
"William Shaksper" never called himself anything but that doesn't stop those who call him Bill and Will and Willie...
Whether "Lov" closed letters or not, the anagram is there, and is yet another Ed Vere anagram hidden in Shakespeare's Work. You can't make them go away, but they would be rendered meaningless if contradictory anagrams could be derived from the same source. Which they can't. I've looked at tons of stuff and I have never come across a Marlowe or a Bacon solution, but I have come across quite a few solutions that indicate that Ben Jonson objected to England's treatment of Ireland which I was not even looking for. Needless to say there has never been a hint of the Stratford boy.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 First off, the contemporaneous nickname for Edward was "Ned", not "Ed". For William it was "Will", as in Sonnet 136 where he says "...my name is fucking Will." Yeah, he called himself Will. Did anyone call him "Bill"? Doubtful, since "Bill" and "Billy" weren't adopted as nicknames for William until much later.
And as I predicted, you really don't care that your bonkers anagrams cannot possibly be intentional. That's a level of logic well beyond you. The fact that you can't even prove that English anagrams were a thing is entirely lost on you, so who could possibly expect common sense?
Excellent work!!
👍👍👍
I have been a doubter of the Stratford theory after reading Joseph Sobran's book Alias when it first came out.
You should consider reading about all the evidence that says it actually was Shakespeare. When you read only one side of it, and that being a side that likes to play fast and loose with the facts, you're bound to be misled.
In the UK snobbery and the class system poison society , I am no expert in anything but I know the devious nature of the elite and to have a commoner write the most respected literature in history does not sit well..they expect only the wealthy to have that kind of adulation and historical awe...
Were being treated as animals now with Covid regs...as the top one percent cream the profits off the misery and we are imprisoned...that's all sanctions are based on in the uk
@@Jeffhowardmeade you mean Shaksper or Shagsper the man who couldn't even write his own name? Shake-speare which was a pen name.
@@mstexasg6243 I mean Shakespeare as it was spelled in his grant of a coat of arms, in his patent as a groom of the chamber, or Shake-speare as it appeared in the cast list of a Ben Jonson play. There is no evidence whatsoever that it was a pen name.
And he wrote his name just fine. It's in an archaic script you can't read.
John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623.
The two Folio epistles with the names of the actors subscribed below are actually written by Ben Jonson.
@@rstritmatterWouldn't change a thing even if it were true.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Do you normally make a habit, Jeff, of making arguments that "wouldn't make a difference"?
What a curious strategy.
@@rstritmatter Your whole career has been made up of them.
How many people signed the DORD? They didn't all compose it.
You can tell them this till you are blue in the face honestly..they will say the names were added as a delinternation, and on Planet Oxford that isn't because the will was being updated but part of some bizarre conspiracy to pretend an illiterate wool merchant from Stratford was the write of the plays. I am unclear on who they think the William Shakespeare in London was. They can't dismiss him as simply a pen name as he has a real life record. I am not quite sure they understand the theory themselves..but at all costs they have to deny he came from Stratford. Due to sheer snobbishness as far as I can see.
I must have wrote down the epic of gilgamesh atleast 4 or 5 times.. in my diaries... I think one time I even took crayons to the text..
just cuz... felt mystically connected..
Don’t forget Twain. Twain left school in the fifth grade due do his father’s death. And yet.
My point being you don’t need be royalty or have a phd to be brilliant.
@@Stonerville1And it shows. He never got to high school where they taught logic, which is why he was a Shakespeare denier.
@@Stonerville1 Nobody ever questions Mozart or Mendelssohn being Wunderkinder... To be honest with you: yes, to question that one of the most brilliant writers in history had a great imagination, is the weakest argument imaginable... I just DO applaud the debate, because a lot just doesn't add up and other theories seem more sound to me. For what it's worth...
@@cornelisvanzutven2134There are a lot of gaps in Shakespeare’s history.
@@Stonerville1 There are a lot of gaps in the histories of a lot of early modern figures from the middle and lower classes, including the ones who were playwrights. The majority of plays were published anonymously, there's only one surviving day-to-day record of business from the era-and the author of that record didn't start recording playwrights' names until 1597-and records were kept only desultorily, plus there was the closure of the theatres in 1642 and the Great Fire of London in 1666. Just take John Webster as an example: we don't know when he was born, we don't know when he died, we don't know how many children he had (but we know he had more than one thanks to a neighbor's will), etc. If you compare class to class and profession to profession, what we know about Shakespeare is no less marked by gaps than the majority of other similarly situated people. Indeed, we often know more about Shakespeare than many of his contemporaries in the Bankside theatres.
Also read Charlton ogburns book. Excellent
The case for for de Vere is overwhelming. Of course, there is a very high threshold that has to be met to establish that, but if youve done your reading you know its been met and surpassed.
Does this "very high threshold" include the production of actual documentary evidence or was that step just skipped?
@@Nullifidian By their standards, magician David Copperfield actually did make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
What is the reason you didn’t read your manuscript in front of you? But instead showing your impressive saccades staring to heaven or somewhere? And why you didn’t at least explain to Your auditorium and children, why Marlowe isn‘t allowed to be discussed as a different logical & plausible candidate?
Superb!
An excellent introduction to the Oxford theory of authorship and why the Stratford claim is based on supposition with nothing other than a name on some title pages to back it up. Too many scholars cannot grasp the simple fact that a noble had to write using a pseudonym during a time when earning a proper living through writing (of all things), acting, and producing plays was beneath the dignity of aristocratic families.
Then why was De Vere repeatedly mentioned as a writer? Why did he sponsor his own company if actors?
The "Stigma of Print" is one of a dozen notions you guys have come up with to bolster your evidence-free hypothesis. They're is no basis in history for it.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Yes there is. I went through an extensive encyclopedia of pseudonymous and anonymous authors (Dictionary of Anonyms and Pseudonyms) to find which nobles and aristocrats used either method to disguise their writing. I found more than 50 nobles and members of the clergy who issued works under either method from the period 1531 to 1600. They include Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Raleigh, Lady Ann Bacon, William Cecil (de Vere's father-in-law), and William Alexander Earl of Stirling. From 1601 to 1623, 35 wrote under assumed names. These include Sir Richard Bolton, Sir Thomas Culpepper, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, Sir Francis Bacon, and Robert Cecil (de Vere's brother-in-law). The peak period was between 1581 and 1620 in which 55 writers disguised their names. Some did so out of expediency because they were Catholic recusants, others did so because of the stigma nobles had against publishing for money. Then as now, the aristocracy by and large find it distasteful to earn a living by one's hands. As you go further back in time to the 16th and 17th centuries, that stigma becomes more pronounced. When added to the low esteem plays and poetry had relative to theology and works on military matters, you can see why de Vere had to disguise his name. Plus, his reputation as a spendthrift who patronized writers and acting companies - always associated with low-life then - forced him to retreat behind a nom de plume. After his death, his family did not want anything to do with the black sheep of the family, so it is easy to assume they either burned any letters he may have written to them about his writing, or hid them out of shame. I hope this helps clarify things for you.
@@ronroffel1462 Actually, what would really clarify is if you could provide a link to this Dictionary.
@@ronroffel1462 No, really. Google has never heard of this "Dictionary of Anonyms and Pseudonyms". Where can I borrow, download, or buy this book which was so incredibly useful to you?
Edit: don't trouble yourself. It's "Anonyms: a dictionary of revealed authorship" by William Cushing. Using the correct title makes it much easier for others to check your work.
But you knew that, didn't you?
@@Jeffhowardmeade The book is actually titled A Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous Literature of Great Britain (4 volumes) by Samuel Hackett and available on the internet Archive, so I apologize for getting the title wrong. Volume 4 has an index of authors which is the source for my list. Not every out of print book is scanned on Google Books, and this is one of millions.
Classical allusions? Study of ancient language and literature was OBVIOUSLY the main item on the Grammar School menu. That's why they were called 'grammar schools'.
People say this stuff - that he's clearly a lawyer, military man, sailor, philosopher/doctor, but what they don't do is quote act /scene/line. Just the bald assertion. And .... there's NOTHING linking de Vere with the plays. Not a letter, not a shred of manuscript, not a name on a title-page, not a mention in a memoir ... no commentator mentions him in connection with the plays. There is literally NOTHING.
What survives of de Vere is mostly bad poetry that looks nothing like the work in the canon, and the endless cringing begging letters.
It would be good to free Edward de Vere from this absurd theory that he wrote Shakespeare's plays anonymously. I'm not sure he did anything anonymously, he seems to have been something of a character, and far too busy to write all those plays, what with having so many debts to sort out.. If you were to stop using him as a weapon against Shakespeare we could enjoy his poetry without this ridiculous theory undermining what he did write.
Are you saying that although De Vere WAS a poet, he couldn't be Shakespeare because he was a busy Accountant? I don't think so.
How does it undermine De Vere's poetry to suggest that it is by the same person who wrote the Works of Shakespeare? - wouldn't that raise it's profile, not undermine it? All of De Vere's poetry would be redefined as the Poetry of Shakespeare - that seems like a big boost. On the other hand, if De Vere were to be recognized as Shakespeare, all the anti-Oxfordians would probably decide that Shakespeare wasn't so great after all.
Three signatures done ... by clerics? Do you mean ministers of the Church of England? I have no idea how or why that would happen.
By "clerics" we mean any clerks. "Clerics" was a generic term often used to describe anyone who could write.
@@ronroffel1462 Mmm. Maybe in the 16th Century. But ... we're not in the sixteenth century.
But actually, I can see no reason to assume that any of the signatures would have been made by a clerk. An illiterate would make a MARK which might be witnessed by a clerk, but that's not what we have in any instance.
@@ronroffel1462 To avoid confusion, I suggest we communicate in the English of the 21st century, even when discussing work from the Early Modern period. No modern dictionary will tell you that 'cleric' and 'clerk' are synonymous. But which of the six signatures do you imagine was written by a clerk?
@@MrMartibobs If you wnat to understand the words as they were written in the 16th and 17th centuries, you must use their definitions and in some texts, they are synonymous. As for the signatures, the last one in the will (otherwise why write "by me" before it?), and the 1602 Combe conveyance were written by clerks. The Combe conveyance signature in particular has two clerical abbreviations which no self-respecting person would accept in a signature unless they were unable to read. The long flourish at the end of that signature was the abbreviation for "per" while the little horizontal mark above the last letter in William is a tittle, a mark which shows clerks that letters are missing. In a legal document, people want their full names to avoid legal issues should any arise. Also, the final signature in the will is much better-written compared to the other two. In fact, the second signature in the will has many starts and stops which forensic handwriting analysts say is a sign that someone is copying from a model and not writing smoothly.
@@ronroffel1462 Mm.
So ... using twenty-first century English, what is your evidence that it was common practice for clerks to forge signatures? It seems a very strange thing to do, because - well - then as now a signature or witnessed mark MEANT something. You seem to be saying that in the lawyer's office, perhaps after Shakespeare's death, some nefarious individual decided to engage in the crime of forgery. To what purpose?
These signatures were probably made (literally) as the writer lay dying. If there are inconsistencies then it's hardly surprising. I presume you are not a handwriting expert. Which professional graphologist has suggested this?
Obviously, the signatures are inconvenient for people of your persuasion, as all six link the man from Stratford with the world of London theatre. This idea smacks of desperation.
I live 15 minutes from Stratford upon Avon. If you know the geography of the place, you would dismiss this theory in 5 minutes. It takes 2 minutes to walk from William's birthplace to the Grammar School. As a wealthy merchant with a sizeable house, why would John's son NOT have attended the school ? It took 2 days on horseback to London. 4 days walking. Shakespeare would not have walked. The map you use is incorrect and shows Stratford almost on the Welsh border which it is not. 2000 inhabitants in those days would have been a very large population !! There is a sizeable research centre next to the birthplace which holds all the documentation to disprove most of your theories. Apart from Gielgud, I think all your other examples of doubters were American ? Most of whom would never have bothered to visit England. I hope you continue to profit from your theories. Maybe one day visit Stratford upon Avon with your ill-gotten (hyphenated) gains and see for yourself. Hopefully it will still be there and everyone will still have a job despite covid and your fellow theorists trying their best to make it irrelevant. And as the founder of Harvard University was descended from a family from Stratford upon Avon, does that also mean that the place was such a dull, uneducated backwater that it brings into doubt the credibility of the institution of Harvard ? England is not a historical theme park for the deluded. Stratford upon Avon is a real place where people live and work and rely on the tourist industry. It is very well preserved and many of the buildings relating to Shakespeare's life are still there. The church is 2 minutes walk from the school along the riverbank. Stratford upon Avon is 15 miles from Warwick and the Castle belonging to the Earls of Warwick. Again this building and the church still remains intact as does most of the town of Warwick and would have had a big influence on Shakespeare. You only have to visit the area for these speculative theories to be proved as utter nonsense.
As to your concerns for the commercial prospects of Stratford upon Avon, I think the connection between Oxford and the Stratford man would greatly enhance research and interest in the works, the author and the relationship between the author and the front man.
@@roberts3784 Certainly, if we could establish that Oxfordianism were true, the plays and poems of Shakespeare would at once be revived after a period of long neglect and become the focus of public interest-maybe they'd even make movies of his plays!-and scholarly research.
Is this your first visit to planet earth?
@@Nullifidian It is my first time taking a Shakespeare class with an English professor who has the dating all wrong and cannot relate to the many contemporary references and topicalities - nor understand the author’s intent- because she has the wrong guy. It’s pathetic. And academia is filled with them.
Take Shakespeare away from the orthodox literature academe and we might make some progress.
@@roberts3784 So, with your I-just-took-one-Shakespeare-class-and-know-everything expertise, would you care to present the evidence that the dating of the plays is "all wrong"? Since you purport to know the "author's intent", can you provide any evidence that what you call "contemporary references and topicalities" were actually intended and aren't being merely read _into_ the plays retroactively by you because you're starting with the assumption that they're written by someone else? In short, can you provide any actual scholarship, or are you just here to rail at your professor for teaching what has been established by scholarship instead of choosing to present an unsubstantiated and meritless conspiracy theory?
And what sort of "progress" do you imagine being made by taking Shakespeare out of the equation? Because anti-Shakespearean notions have been around for over 150 years and their sum total contribution to the understanding of early modern theatre, publishing, printing, etc. has been zero. Oxfordianism, the notion being peddled in this video, is over 100 years old. Its adherents haven't done anything in that time to solve any pertinent problems or address any ongoing issues in the field of early modern literature. Most of them know little to nothing about the works they want to wrest credit from Shakespeare for writing, and they know even less of the other writers of Shakespeare's era.
The snobbery of this hypothesis does bother me. I don't know, but I will keep exploring both sides because I want to compare and contrast the ideas.
It's not about snobbery it's about evidence. Check the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship for some good videos
@@joecurran2811 So where is the primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony that Edward de Vere wrote the works of William Shakespeare instead of him? Just saying "the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship" is not a sufficiently specific citation to the evidence. I'm also not sure the SOF actually understand what evidence is, since on their page that they themselves characterize as the " *TOP* 18 Reasons Why Edward de Vere (Oxford) was Shakespeare", they list that Edward de Vere had three daughters like King Lear. If that's an argument for him writing King Lear, it's also an argument for him writing the fairy tale of Cinderella. But not only is it perfectly conceivable for an author to write of families with fewer or more children than that the author himself possesses, it's also the case that Edward de Vere wasn't the only man in England with three daughters. So this idiotic argument both over-determines and under-determines the result. And that is among their self-described *TOP* reasons for believing in Edward de Vere, implying that all the other reasons are even *WORSE* than these arguments!
I find it weird how we all know he was 1 of Elizabeth 1s favs, but there isnt much docs about him, we know more about the others. Why is that? So we dont realize he had the know it all to write these plays? Hmmm😊
We know more about Shakespeare than we do about any other poet of the era except Ben Jonson. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or lying.
I know not who Shakespeare was, nor does anyone, nor does it matter. The plays are there,and they are works of unsurpassed genius. We go through all this list of people / pretenders, one of whom may be the real man.. Bacon ( no longer fancied)
Marlowe ( who died, what?, in his 30s some acheivement..but why?, when under his own name he did quite well?) then Will with Kit..couldnt they tell any difference?
(even if they had only Henry VI to go by?? Imagine these egos working so well in tandem that no difference in style can be seen). Now, if these can be dismissed ,so that it seems one was taken up as the last was dropped , how ,apart from being the most recently adopted, does Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford rank any better?
( btw, Alexander Waugh, ardent fan of this contender, suggested here that the deVere theory has been around for " a couple of decades" . He s out by a little
while ! Aquick look at the British movie Pimpernel Smith...circa 1948..will show Leslie Howard's Pimpernel informing his Nazi opponent that Shakespeare
Coulnt have been German..as vonGraum( Francis LSullivan)..had claimed.Why?
" Because he was the Earl of Oxford" so that would put the theoryat about 6
or 7 decades,not2,.." a couple", as Waugh suggested. Inaccuracy of that
extent hardly helps the de Vere claim. But ,as Ive said, what the Hell does it matter ?MW.
I think it does matter. It is disrespectful to the author. It is also misleading and masquerades supposition as evidence, and torturous word games as history.
Grand Master Flash is the true author of all Emenim’s songs, because I believe it’s true. No proof needed.
Did Edward DeVere ever claim authorship of Shakespeare's work? How about Francis Bacon? If they didn't, then they are out of the running. In the place where I live,, you have 90 days to claim your prize if you purchase a winning lottery ticket. 405 years seems like a bit of a long time to stand around waiting for a bunch of strangers to give you your due. This argument is about as stale and overdone as a slice of moldy bread.
"William Shakespeare" never claimed to write anything at all either.
Where does that put the situation?
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Like it or not, there is no blade that cuts quite like Ockham's razor. Since the simplest answer to the question would be William Shakespeare is the author of the works of William Shakespeare, I'm sticking with that. I'm not so madly in love with my ideas that I am willing to die in the ditch with them, so I am still willing to hear you out.
@@Hardrockkenny Okay do "Cooam's Razor" for me...."William Shakespeare" is credited with writing over 100,000 lines using close to 300 different literary sources BUT not one line of writing exists in the hand of William Shaksper of Stratord & not even one source can be traced to him...According to Occam's Razor is it more likely that all the documentary evidence that would prove his vast and long literary career vanished OR is it more likely that it never existed in the first place because no one named "William Shake-speare" actually ever existed, just the name...?
It seems to me that the simplest solution is that things don't just disappear but that they were probably erased so according to Occam's Razor, "William Shake-speare" will be the pen-name of someone who was powerful enough to be able to hide himself while alive and have his wish of anonymity followed after his death.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Ockham's razor would also dictate that Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn. Why? Because that's who Samuel Clemens named the author,, his prerogative.
So, if the "real" Shakespeare was not a man named Shakespeare, but someone who bequeathed his work to this Shakespeare fellow, also his prerogative, in order to protect his anonymity then, by right of inheritance, that work belongs to Shakespeare, whoever he may or may not be.
It sounds a bit simplistic, I know, but that's where you start. I'm really enjoying this conversation. Thanks for offering something less annoying to think about.
@@Hardrockkenny I don't understand how the works "belong" to someone if they are not the actual writer. This is where it is helpful to distinguish between "Shake-speare the Author" and "William Shaksper of Stratford." We know that Mark Twain is the pen-name of Samuel Clemens, but do we know that William Shake-speare is the pen-name of William Shaksper? If Shaksper is getting credit for something he didn't do, then do the Works really belong to him?
This is a great video to put the case that Shakespeare was not the man from Stratford upon Avon, but it falls down as there is absolutely no mention of Francis Bacon, which is a little odd. Re Peacham, I'm not sure why De Vere's name in a list tell us he was Shakespeare? Peacham certainly knew the identity of the true Shakespeare which he secretly encoded in his earlier work Minerva Britannia published in 1612. The work contains a series of Devices or Emblems each with dedication accompanied by one or more verses. Page 33 (33 simple cipher for Bacon) is marked and depicts a hand Shaking a Spear and the opposite page 34 (33+34=67 Francis in simple cipher) is dedicated to “The most judicious and learned, Sir Francis Bacon, Knight” cryptically conveying the secret message that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare. I have a 3 part video in my playlist - The Secret Work of an Age. I think it likely that some of De Vere's lines and even plays were used, but I hope you and readers will consider that he was not the mastermind behind this Rosicrucian project, Bacon was.
Was he really buried in the Hackney churchyard?
Yes. And when his second wife died, she asked to be buried "as near as possible" to him in Hackney, and left money for a "suitable memorial" which was never built.
He left no will (and much debt) and is presumed buried in St Augustine's church in Hackney parish.
Scholar Alexander Waugh claims evidence that he is (re)buried (reinterred?) in ‘Poets’ corner’ (aka the South across Isle) in Westminster Abbey, under a certain famous statue.
youtube.com/@alexanderwaugh7036
@@0u0ak Yes! It’s fascinating.
@@0u0akWhat he is claiming is not evidence. It's text being repeatedly manipulated until it says what he wants it to say.
Specious, snooty, circumstantial, and comical. Someone who's without wealth or higher education can nevertheless be a genius.
Not so. Einstein was unquestionably a genius. Without his technical education, he could not have achieved the breakthroughs he made. "Genius" requires content and skills to work with. Even a genius can't make it all up. Will Shakper of Stratford did not write the works under the name, "William Shakespeare."
@@georgegrubbs2966 We're taking about poetry here, not physics. You don't need a university degree to turn a noun into a verb.
@@Jeffhowardmeade You're just sciencefying me.
@@georgegrubbs2966 See? Even you can do it. Still, I wouldn't quit your day job just yet.
When I need someone who knows about Early Modern History and/or literature, I feel an architect is definitely the best choice. That's why I have my teeth done by a plumber. Edward de Vere was a wonderful human being (apart from that fact that he murdered a servant, abandoned his pregnant mistress, failed to serve his country in the Armada crisis, and did something dubious to an Italian choir-boy which resulted in the poor kid doing a runner). And there's no reason at all why he couldn't have written those works. Except that he was a terrible poet and actually spent his life writing begging letters. Believe it or not, plays were not based on the lives of their writers. Marlowe, for example, was not a Scythian shepherd. Nor was he a Jew living in Malta.
Utter garbage.
@@steveharris8248 You are right. De Vere definitely was utter garbage. As was his poetry. There may be parts of some distant galaxy where worse poetry is written, but I doubt it.
Marty: Stratfordian much?
@@CANNIBoy I'm so sorry. I only speak English. And I can really only discuss a topic based on points made. Well done though. I do recognise both the words you managed to pull off when making your comment. Well done. When your linguistic skills have improved, you might perhaps manage sentences of three or even four words. I always find verbs terribly useful. Good luck!
@@MrMartibobs Hilarious!
Classism and Snobbery. No way someone not a Peer of the Realm could do anything great. After all they were placed there by YHVH's own hand picked and blessed Head of State. Classism, Snobbery, and a perverse need to mold history into your own likeness.
Also, being offended by a book based on no historical fact and writing a book based on no historical fact in rebuttal?
Unknowable quandry. This will not be solved unless further evidence is uncovered. It is fun to speculate and that is as far as we can go at the moment. The plays and poetry are masterpieces of our literature that are to be enjoyed for what they are. Who really wrote them is really not a required fact for their enjoyment.
I have my own opinion of course but I am not going to put anything forward or try to convince anyone one way or the other. The works seemed to contribute so many words and expressions to the english language for the first time in print. Of course it could be argued that american common usage is destroying cultured use of the english language as we speak but that's another debate.
Americanisms are dreadful.
Well, one sonnet ends 'for my name is Will'.
So ... why, exactly would you write that, if your name was Edward?
@@MrMartibobs I know that sonnet: it is 136, and it combines with 134 and 135 to make an interesting puzzle. If you count the number of "wills" in 135, then subtract one of them as per line 13 "Think all but one", you have 12. Then, counting the "wills" in number 136, you have another 6, but that sonnet instructs readers to subtract in line 8: "Among a number, one is reckoned none", to get 5. Adding the "wills" in those two poems gives you 15 + 2 = the magic number 17. Sonnet 135 gives readers the clue the writer is in "that one Will", meaning the final tally of all "wills". You might object that sonnet 136 has 7 "wills", but line 7 has "wils" with only one l, which is not how the other words are spelled. That is a way Jacobeans and Elizabethans spelled "wiles", or tricks. This alerts the reader there is a trick in the poems. Sonnets 135 and 136 also contain many references to money and adding, meaning they are connected. So why is 134 also included with these sonnets? Because the last lines of that sonnet lead logically into the theme for 135 which is that the writer is imprisoned in the dark lady's "will". All three sonnets include the phrase "thy will" which is another clues they are all connected. You can see for yourself if you look at a facsimile of the 1609 sonnet collection that everything I say here is true.
@@ronroffel1462 If only you could demonstrate that Edward De Vere has a clue that he was the 17th Earl of Oxford. His own family genealogy had him listed as 16th.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Look at the pedigree tree on the de Vere Society website and you will see that he was the 17th earl, not the 16th, who was his father, John de Vere. All of the documentary evidence proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is also the 1575 portrait of him explicitly naming him the 17th earl. And no, the lettering is not covering something else up to alter the historical record.
If your source for de Vere facts is Alan Nelson's libelous biography Monstrous Adversary, then you are using the wrong source. You should instead use Charlton Ogburn Jr.'s The Mysterious William Shakespeare or his parent's massive book This Star of England. You could even use Ward's biography which is available on the Internet Archive. Nelson assumes naively that the slanders and charges made against de Vere by Charles Arundel, a Catholic recusant earl who was exiled, were real. The judicial court found they were untrue.
This argument is steeped in snobbery.. commoners dont write masterpieces do they? Yes they really do...SOD off the aristocracy.
It's actually weird, considering their obvious advantages, how FEW aristos manage to make a name in literature. Other than Lord Byron (who was a rebel and doesn't really count) there's Lord Lytton and um ... er ... I don't know any others.
@@MrMartibobs You were supporting.. sorry I always seem to misinterprate responses, sorry, thank you for your reply.
@@petostacy1771 I do it myself all the time. Best to you.
You are projecting your anti-aristocratic bias onto writing more than 400 years old which definitely show an aristocratic bias in all plays.
The argument doubters use is not that commoners cannot write masterpieces, only that the man from Stratford cannot be definitively linked to any writing. His son-in-law Dr. John Hall never mentioned he was a writer in his Latin diaries. None of the people who left diaries and lived in Stratford while he was alive mentioned he was a writer. Diana Price (look her up) demonstrated without any room for error that Shakspere from Stratford cannot be linked to any writing.
@@ronroffel1462Have you read the diary? I'm sick of hearing this piece of nonsense. It's a MEDICAL document. It describes the bowel motions and windiness of his wife, but only because he was TREATING her. It's not 'dear diary went to the Dog and Duck and had a few quarts of sack'. It just ain't that kind of diary. That kind of diary was virtually unknown at the time. Of COURSE the plays are filled with aristos. Some of them are histories. Others are stolen stories, mostly concerning the upper classes. OF COURSE. Webster also writes about aristos. He was the son of a carriage maker.
No links between Shakespeare and the writing ? How about the monument erected before 1623 in Holy trinity? How about Jonson's touching account of his relationship with Shakespeare?
"I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand;” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was indeed honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power: would the rule of it had been so too. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned."
And, no, he's NOT writing about the Earl of Oxford. We know this because he is accusing the author of being lazy, and of being too ignorant to carry of a classical play. In short, he takes the piss .... BUT he ALSO praises his unique talents.
In addition to this, in his famous elegy, he says that the author has 'small Latin and less Greek'.
The Earl of Oxford???????
Bollocks.
Oh and er ... TWO sonnets play with the name 'Will', and one ends with the line 'for my name is Will'.
MY NAME IS WILL .... Geddit? Not Ned (de Vere) , not Kit (Marlowe) WILL. You just can't argue your way out of that one.
Could not a middle ground be much more likely: that de Vere indeed wrote the works but that the Stratford man was a fan and proponent, who participated in the plays, and if a well known actor, may well have lent his name to the publishing of certain of the works?
Certainly the works themselves are generally in keeping with the character of Edward de Vere, both good and bad.
How is that a "middle ground"? That's conceding everything to the Oxfordians.
And in what way are "the works themselves... generally in keeping with the character of Edward de Vere"? They don't reflect his use of language, they don't reflect his prosody, they don't reflect his spelling, they don't reflect his rhyme words and quibbles, and approximately ten years' worth of them continued to be composed after he was dead. Often the later plays reflect changes in public taste, in the specific circumstances of Shakespeare's company, and utilize sources that were unavailable to de Vere prior to his death.
He may have a producer. Some even say he wrote the Bad Quartos.
The problem with this particular conspiracy videos is that they start with blatant lies. He lists the way the stratford mans name was spelled as shaksper etc. There are only two instances of it spelt that way and one of those was in reference to "shaksper sonnets". Of course being a dishonest fellow he doesnt mention to many occasions the stratford msns nsme was spelt shakespeare such as in legsl processes in buying his house in stratford, buying shares in the Globe and the court case where he was a witness bellot snd mountjoy where a court official writes his name as william shakespeare of stratford on avon. A friend Thomas greene visied shakespeare in stratford and spelled his name in his diary as shakspere and shakespeare completely randomly. The other lie relates to his father john. His name as can be seen from shakespeare documented was mostly spelled as shakyspere, shakispere and one time shakesper (like his granddaughters at her christening. So he is absolutely lying about that. Why listen to these people when they shamelessly lie to you
Lie is a strong word to preface a disagreement. I don't think you are lying when you fail to point out that the Stratford Man never actually spelled his own name as Shakespeare. The six signatures that are ascribed to him don't match each other at all and it would be reasonable to think that they were all written by a different person. Even the three signatures on the Will don't look the same. , I don't think that YOU are lying, but you are spreading an opinion that is not actually reflected by the facts as available. Instead of calling you a liar, lets just say that your statements are in conflict with the facts.
As far as the Sonnets are concerned, the cover itself is telling us that there is an issue with the writer's name. The cover reads SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS, but the "name" should not be hyphenated and it should have an apostrophe - Shakespeare's Sonnets. Additionally, the space that should contain the name has been included but has been left blank. If a person named William Shakespeare wrote the poems then it should say SONNETS at the top and "by William Shakespeare" should be in the blank space. (The name of the author is hidden in the phrase NEVER BEFORE IMPRINTED).
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756And you would not be lying about either the variable spelling of Shakespeare's name or about the hyphen of you hadn't been repeatedly shown that the signatures are abbreviated differently but spelled consistently, and that contemporaries spelled the family name Shake-speare on several occasions when not referring to the poet.
But you have, and you know the truth, which elevates mere ignorance to wilful lies.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Signatures are not abbreviated. Your whole premise is silly.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Uh... on what planet are they not abbreviated? I've signed everything J. Meade for decades, except where my full name written out was called for, which is rare.
When Weever transcribed the epitaph on Shakespeare's monument, he labeled it "Willm. Shakspeare the famous poet." Shakespeare abbreviated his signature "Willm" on the Bellot v. Mountjoy deposition and on page two of his will.
This is so easy to check. Sometimes I swear you're one of my fellow Oxfrauds writing the most ignorant things you can imagine just to make Oxfordians look bad.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Abbreviation of First initials are not the same thing. You have never abbreviated your Last name as a signature ever. No one ever has. Especially not on a legal document.
The name on the Mountjoy is barely a signature at all. It seems to say Shakspe. Why on earth would a person abbreviate their signature on a court deposition? The space if available and there is no need for haste. Baffling. The clerks spelling is not clear either. The whole thing is suspect.
The multiple spellings of the Shakespeare name is not in itself significant. Spelling was a movable feast at the time, and it was not uncommon for it to change.
"The name of Sir Walter Raleigh was written by his contemporaries either Raleigh, Raliegh, Ralegh, Raghley, Rawley, Rawly, Rawlie, Rawleigh, Raulighe, Raughlie, or Rayly. The name of Thomas Dekker was written either Dekker, Decker, Deckar, Deckers, Dicker, Dickers, Dyckers, or (interestingly enough) Dickens." (RC CHURCHILL)
The 'Shaksper' variant is one of the least common, but of course, the name sounds suitably common (the kind of name that might belong to someone who came to do the drains) so people who have contracted the Oxford disease are very fond of it.
In fact the name (according to Professor David Crystal) would have been pronounced at the time as 'share -k- spare'. Though of course this might vary enormously depending on the accent of the person writing it.
Shakespeare was Christened and buried as Shakspere.
The point is that when Oxfordians say that there are no references to Shakespeare as writer in his lifetime. They are using a get out of jail free card of their own invention. There are course LOTS of contemporary references, including one by Francis Meres in which he lists the two writers (Oxford and Shakespeare) in a way that makes it obvious that he knew they were two different people.
But Jonson's reliable, first-hand account should really have flushed all this down the toilet as the exrement it clearly is by Jonson's account of his friend, colleague and rival in later life.
"I REMEMBER the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him: “Cæsar, thou dost me wrong.” He replied: “Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause; and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned."
Case closed.
You claim this as a case closed.. the spelling aspect is quite right but there are huge questions regarding Shakespeare...
The amount of work he supposedly produced in his lifetime is huge in the short space of time he was working.
The writer of the plays displayed a vast knowledge which Shakespeare could not have obtained.
The writer of the plays lived and breathed poetry and writing while Shakespeare leaves London when his plays are getting popular and returns to Stratford and doesn't write another thing.. he presents as a businessman and money maker.
@@lryoung3655 Let's deal with the easy one first. Shakespeare wrote a total of 884,647 words. The Dickens output makes him a lightweight, with 3,859,231. Dickens, of course, was also editing magazines, travelling and doing readings (America twice, I think) and also organising elaborate amateur dramatics. As well as all this, he found time to bang his mistress and go for ludicrously long walks. There are nearly 600 000 words in 'War and Peace alone, so in one book, Tolstoy manages almost three quarters of Shakespeare's output in just ONE of his 24 books.
Shakespeare actually left London around the time of the Globe Fire.. This was less than four years before his death, which suggests that he might have been ill. This was NOT at the height of his success, and in fact he had been supplanted by Beaumont and Fletcher by this time. He'd been writing plays for over 20 years at this time.
The idea that a creative artist is some geezer in a cravat, swooning around his 'study' doing poetic things is a weird invention . Lowry was an insurance man. T.S. Eliot worked in a bank. Philip Larkin was a librarian in Hull.
As for the 'vast knowledge' I always issue the same challenge. Which line, which scene, which poem, could not have been written by a bright man with a grammar school education?
I'm always hearing this from Oxfordians. He was expert in medicine apparently. Well, he know about laxatives and he knew what a fistula is. Big deal. Legal expertise? Well, he knew some Latin tags. So did most people, I imagine. I'm thick as a jam sandwich, but I know some Latin tags. Knowledge of sailing ships? He lived in a port.
Knowledge of Italy? But he got things wrong. He didn't know there were no tides in the Med, for instance. And he doesn't seem to know many Italian names. When he runs out of names in the source documents, he invents people called 'Sampson', and 'Gregory' and 'Francis' and 'Peter'. Anyone who had lived in Italy would know many more, or would know how to Italianise a Christian name so that Francis becomes Francisco etc.
And ... what's the evidence that the boy from Stratford wasn't a big fan of poetry? Why do you make the assumption that he wasn't? Because of his financial prudence? I think you can like poetry and NOT be a dunce with money.
@@lryoung3655 and you NEED to read what Jonson said. He said Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. In plain prose, unambiguously. End of story.
" I REMEMBER the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him: “Cæsar, thou dost me wrong.” He replied: “Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause; and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned."
@@MrMartibobs thank you so much for the response.. you seem to be very well informed which is great..
You touched upon an interesting point regarding lowery and his paintings.. he was indeed an artist from a working class background and produced work that drew from this background.. same as the writer Catherine Cookson.. dickens too drew from what he knew... in Shakespeare I dont see any of that... if the fiction an artist produces comes from experience then that's not the case if Shakespeare wrote the work..
You also mention a grammar school education.. there is no record of Shakespeare attending grammar school... im not saying that making money and producing literature are mutually exclusive but Shakespeare comes across as a business man and not a writer..
@@lryoung3655 Well, there are no records of William Shakespeare defecating. Not a single product of the bard's posterior has been preserved for ... posterity. But ... I'm going to chance my arm and assume that he evacuated his bowels in the usual way. Similarly, I'm going to guess that the son of a wealthy alderman attended the school 100 yards from his door. This is a well-trodden argument, but ... actually there are hardly any records from ANY schools of the period. There's no record, for example, that Thomas Wolsey went to his local grammar school in Ipswich. So ... do we assume that he didn't go? No. He later went to university, and climbed to become Chancellor of England. So we ASSUME with 99.999999% certainty that he went to the local grammar school. If you read a biography it will tell you that he did. Schools DIDN'T keep extensive records then. Why would they? So you won't find educational certificates, registers, prom photos, year books, or copies of report cards. This is an adventure in the bleeding obvious.
Similarly, nobody disputes that William Shakespeare was an actor. There is good documentary evidence for this. And without a reasonable degree of literacy, you couldn't be an actor. You simply could not do the job. This was not like appearing as a walk-on in East Enders. These were complex plays, and you would be doing a range of different ones in a season that would be a massive challenge to the best modern actors. So ... if Shakespeare was literate, he clearly went to school. It's also worth mentioning that the publisher of the Sonnets was a Stratford man. No record of Richard Field going to grammar school either .... but ... an illiterate publisher? Not possible. Chances are, he was one of Shakespeare's school fellows.
Now ... look at the type of plays being written. They weren't biographical. Marlowe wrote about a Maltese Jew, a Scythian shepherd and a German scholar. He was none of these things. Webster wrote about members of foreign aristocracy and royalty, as did Kyd and Tourneur. Theatre is not really an autobiographical medium. It's not the same as a novel. And .... the plots of the plays are pretty well all stolen. And some were Classical plays (clearly not based on first hand experience) Some were adapted from popular romances (clearly not based on personal experience). Some were histories - again, clearly not based on personal experience.
Being original wasn't the point. The point was to put bums on seats and feet in the groundling pit. So jingoistic history plays with us as the good guys were great for business, and the details could just be stolen from Holinshed almost to the point of plagiarism.
But ... as it happens, there is a play about small-town middle-class life that's very reminiscent of Shakespeare's background. Merry Wives is in theory set in Windsor, but the background is pretty much the same as if it were set in Stratford upon Avon. It even alludes to the local Stratford bigwig family (the Lucies) and has an interchange between a kid called William and his Latin teacher. And I reckon that's as close to self-revelation as you were likely to get at the time.
Baker claims a Shakespeare biography for young readers amounts to "child abuse." What's abusive, frankly, is peddling the claim that people's talents are determined by their parents' status. We know Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare the same way we know Edward de Vere was the Earl of Oxford: the evidentiary record for both facts is unequivocal. In the 404 years since Shakespeare's death, we've continued to find evidence of his life and writing. In the 160 years since people began suggesting a glover's son couldn't possibly have written the plays, 87 alternatives have been proposed, and 0 evidence has been produced.
Of course, if evidence mattered, de Vere's name would never had been floated, SINCE HE WROTE PLAYS UNDER HIS OWN NAME THAT HE HAD PRODUCED BY HIS OWN ACTING COMPANY, OXFORD'S MEN. In a 1598 book now most notable as the first published discussion of Shakespeare's plays and poems, Francis Meres put de Vere first on a list of 17 playwrights (ordered by rank) who were "the best for comedy amongst us.'" Oxford's Men were paid for performances and toured the provinces between 1580 and 1587. Indeed, when de Vere asked Elizabeth's chief advisor to help Oxford's Men drum up business, Lord Burghley (de Vere's father-in-law) complied. His 1580 letter (quoted in the Wikipedia article "Oxford's Men") claims de Vere's players had performed "before the Queens majestie." So much for a man who wanted no one to know he wrote plays or a disapproving palace.
Of course, if evidence mattered, mere math would've collapsed the claim. De Vere died before a full 35% of Shakespeare's plays were written.
If evidence mattered to Baker, he never would've claimed that Shakespeare literally couldn't write, since anyone with an internet connection can find the 3-page speech in the poet's hand that he contributed to "Sir Thomas More" (link below). The research behind the attribution is as voluminous as it is meticulous. The Wikipedia article "Shakespeare's handwriting" is a useful introduction.
If evidence mattered to Oxfordians, they would've factchecked the central tenet of their faith: the claim that "Hamlet" was de Vere's autobiography. The story was 300 years old when Thomas Kyd and, later, William Shakespeare put it on the Elizabethan stage. Hamlet's story first appeared in print in Saxo Grammaticus's history of Denmark published in 1200.
Shakespeare mined sources repeatedly for his plays, and Holinshed’s Chronicles and Plutarch's Lives were his primary sources for information about English and Roman rulers. How do those who propose an aristocratic alternative explain the knowledge of rural life and trades that permeates the plays? Given what we know of Shakespeare's life, it's not surprising the plays are full of references to glove making, leatherworking, and the teachers, schoolbooks, and lesson plans of England's rigorous "grammar schools" like the one in Stratford that the son of Mayor John Shakespeare had the right to attend for free.
I love the plays. I taught them for decades. I'm a retired English & philosophy professor, and (much to my surprise) I'm Edward de Vere's 2nd cousin. If there were the slightest of chances that my family line included Shakespeare, I'd say so: believe me. But facts are facts whether we believe them or not, and the Oxfordians' snobbery is corrosive and cruel. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, and what a wonder that is. I’ve taught the plays to college students in classrooms and in prison cells, and the less privileged the students, the more powerful they find both the plays and the knowledge that they were created by ordinary men: a glover’s son and a cast of commoners whose decades of collaboration have kept theaters lit for 4 centuries with their fierce, fluid imagination.
1. 491 sources about Shakespeare's life & works from his lifetime:
shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/
2. "Sir Thomas More" monologue (manuscript in Shakespeare's handwriting):
www.bl.uk/collection-items/shakespeares-handwriting-in-the-book-of-sir-thomas-more
3. Shakespeare's handwriting & Oxford's handwriting:
oxfraud.com/index.php/HND-handwriting-home
4. Podcast Shakespeare: In-depth examination of the "authorship" issue with a long list of sources:
podcastshakespeare.libsyn.com/006-who-wrote-shakespeare-the-authorship-question
Oh stop. You're just being close- minded. If you would just accept that everyone was in on the conspiracy, and forget everything you know about the English Renaissance, this would all make perfect sense.
Thanks for the podcastshakespeare link, by the way. I have a five hour flight ahead, and this will take up a chunk of it.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Kind counsel from a (very) old friend. I've been attending local meetings of Facts Anonymous. We go around the room and admit the facts we simply can't shake, no matter how hard we try. You know what gets me every time? Gravity.
@@jillpiggott2017 If we were Anti-Stratfordians, we could dismiss gravity by labeling it a conspiracy by people trying to sell brassieres or diet books.
How was your Memorial Day?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Not great. My mother said I was stupid for not believing Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address, but how could someone with no formal schooling write 1 of the all-time greatest speeches? I believe it was written by Dolly Madison. My close-minded mother said how could she write the speech after she was dead, and I said, well, how do you think the Earl of Oxford wrote 12 plays after HE died? But other than that it was OK.
Excellent point on the gravity conspiracy. Big business is definitely invested in keeping the gravity hoax going. Belt and shoe makers are obviously in on it, too, tho I think you're right to focus on bras. What else could Victoria's Secret be?
Well I don't know precisely who wrote the excellent works but if is clear that Shakespeare is a pseudonym or falsely had the work attributed to him.
There is a reason town criers existed for so long through feudal and early renaissance society. The bulk of the population was illiterate. These works indicate that a high calibre professional or nobility had to have written them, not a commoner that came from a poor illiterate family. Also as someone has already stated someone Italian academics stated someone must have travelled and personally seen Venice understanding the details of the region. When you are out on the street trying to survive selling bits and pieces or shovelling hay and shit you are not concerned with the inner workings of the royal court or developing literary masterpieces that survive the test of centuries.
Shakespeare was the son of a middle-class gentleman, civic leader and justice of the peace. There is no evidence that he or any other member of Shakespeare's family was illiterate. Shakespeare's older daughter definitely could both read and write.
Shakespeare made so many errors about Italy (and France, and Switzerland) that it's obvious he was never there.
He was literally a servant to the Lord Chamberlain, who was the Queen's cousin and closest advisor. After that, he was a servant to King James.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Who signed his name with an X just the same. Still lacking education, just as Will’s children did. There’s zero actual proof that young Will attended the grammar school; it’s yet another supposition.
@@rosezingleman5007John Shakespeare also used a drawing of a tool of his trade as a mark. Fellow alderman Adrian Quiney also used a mark, but we also have a letter and several pages of town council minutes in his handwriting. The only examples of John using a mark are in places which specifically called for a mark. That's not evidence of illiteracy.
Shakespeare's older daughter left an elegant signature, was described on her tombstone as "Witty above her sex... there's something of Shakespeare in that" and is documented as knowing the contents of some books she sold. This is all easily checked, which tells me you haven't bothered to do so, and are just repeating what someone told you.
And there are no attendance records for the Stratford -- or any other -- grammar school of the era. If that's evidence of illiteracy, then everyone was illiterate.
I'll stack Shakespeare being the son of the mayor and a justice of the peace who was responsible for hiring the Oxford-educated schoolmasters and been Jonson describing Shakespeare the poet as having exactly the education one received at such a school against you complaint about the missing records.
I am so sick of these theorists.
What a joke. I am sick of people who can't seem to stomach that people who aren't "elite" are creative. If you look at all artists there are very very few who grew up priveleged. Face the fact: Shakespeare was a real man who wrote great plays.
Pope said: "Lord Bacon is the greatest genius that either England or perhaps any other country ever produced." Lord Macaulay admitted that "he had the most exquisitely constructed intellect that has ever been bestowed on any of the children of men." Ben Jonson declared that "he stands as the mark and acme of our language. It is He that hath filled up all Numbers," all forms of versification."
And? Shakespeare was a theater professional and bankside poet. He broke all sorts of rules that Bacon wouldn't have considered doing. And Shakespeare was funny. There was nothing at all funny about Bacon.
Can't English literature have more than one literary genius?
@@Jeffhowardmeade What's Super funny is that the Stratford man left no trace of personal writing along with his family members because he was illiterate. This irony had to be a great inside joke for the man who wrote : "imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is." -Francis Bacon. Apparently Ben Jonson knew personally how much Bacon enjoyed and appreciated humor as they spent alot of time working together.
Dominus Verulamius
ONE, though he be excellent and the chief, is not to be imitated alone; for never no imitator ever grew up to his author; likeness is always on this side truth. Yet there happened in my time one noble speaker who was full of gravity in his speaking; his language, where he could spare or pass by a jest, was nobly censorious. No man ever spake more neatly, more presly, more weightily, or suffered less emptiness, less idleness, in what he uttered. No member of his speech but consisted of his own graces. His hearers could not cough, or look aside from him, without loss. He commanded where he spoke, and had his judges angry and pleased at his devotion. No man had their affections more in his power. The fear of every man that heard him was lest he should make an end."
@@tvfun32 Thank you for quoting that for me so I don't have to. Jonson flat-out says Bacon was a stiff. I guess you didn't realize he was saying that.
And keep it up with the "illiterate" comments. It's things like that which keep anyone from taking you seriously. Even if there weren't copious evidence that the poet was the gentleman and actor from Stratford (which there is), your claim that an illiterate could end up as a groom extraordinary of the chamber to King James warns sane people away from you.
@@tvfun32 Oh, and the imagination quote is apocryphal. Bacon never said that. The use of "sense of humor" about 200 years too early should have tipped you off.
The argument that someone of Shakespeare's lowly status would not have had the education to write scenes the aristocracy is a load of rubbish. Shakespeare DID have an education; he was a pupil at the Grammar school in Stratford although this was sadly cut short because of his father's politics. There were a great many sources that he would have had access to including Holinshed and the Greek and Roman Classics. Remember that Latin was used far more widely at the time and was an essential part of the curriculum. Also the classes at that time lived far more cheek by jowl than we do today and the aristocracy was far more visible to the common people. As an actor Shakespeare had performed before Queen Elizabeth I so would have had a first hand experience of palaces and the nobility. We still take a great deal of interest in the doings of royalty and celebrities even today. I do not think that the aristocracy and very wealthy of Shakespeare's day would have taken such an interest in toiling peasants and the hoi poloi, which brings me to my main objection to Edward de Vere being Shakespeare. The wealthy have no conception of what it is to be poor. I myself, am far from wealthy but I am still considerably better off than a good many people in my area, and I find it difficult to imagine how some people are able to manage.That being so - how could De Vere write the comic and bucolic scenes that Shakespeare did so well; apart from the fact that De Vere was an unpleasant miserable sod. We can all imagine being wealthy and powerful as we see it all around us and is what newspapers are so very grateful for. I cannot see the same interest in some postman's back garden bar-b-que. I cannot see that it holds up.
they went to school for 12 hours a day. He had the education. There is such a thing as self-education.
@@edmund184 Too right.
1. No evidence that the Stratford boy went to school
2. No evidence that Shakespeare (whoever he was) ever performed for the Queen.
3. There is nothing in the Works of Shakespeare that could only be written by a commoner, but there are a great many things in the Works of Shakespeare that require that the writer be well-travelled, highly educated, and associated with the machinery of power in ways that no commoner could be, at least without leaving a record
4. It is your opinion, not a " fact that De Vere was an unpleasant miserable sod", an opinion that wasn't shared by his contemporaries, an opinion that is obviously based in your desire to have him not be the author of the Works of Shakespeare. Even so, had he been a "miserable sod" it would not have prevented him from being a writer.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756
1. There's also no evidence that he didn't go to school. Since the King's New School was a free school open to any son of Stratford, it's reasonable to infer that Shakespeare went there. Since they didn't keep class rolls at the time, the lack of evidence is just the same for everybody in early modern England. Even when we think we know that someone went to grammar school, like Ben Jonson, the basis for that is inferential. In Jonson's case, we have the fact that he dedicated a poem to William Camden, who was headmaster of the Winchester School when Jonson would have been there, and he spoke to William Drummond of Hawthornden of his "master Camden".
2. Yes, there is evidence that he performed before the queen. For example, the very first notice of him as an actor with the Lord Chamberlain's Men is that his name appears in the Pipe Office accounts from the Exchequer along with those of Richard Burbage, the leading actor, and Will Kempe, the main comic actor, "for twoe seuerall Comedies or Enterludes shewed by them _before her maiestie_ in Christmas tyme laste paste viz vpon St Stephens daye & Innocents daye [emphasis added]."
3. Like what? Did one have to be particularly well-traveled to falsely locate Padua in Lombardy or think that Milan was a seaport (an error Shakespeare repeats in one of his very last plays, _The Tempest_ , since Prospero's account has them being hustled out of Milan by boat to a rotten hulk in the open sea without mentioning the overland trip to Genoa, the nearest actual seaport to Milan)? Did one have to be highly educated to scatter through the works little bits and bobs of classical erudition, 90% of which have their source in Ovid's _Metamorphoses_ , and which were poetic commonplaces of the era? Did one have to be near the centers of power to write characters who mistake noble titles for family names and who are apparently ignorant of subsidiary styles, as Shakespeare wrote Richard, Duke of Gloucester in _Richard III_ when he greeted Anthony Woodville, the 2nd Earl of Rivers, as "Lord Rivers", "Lord Woodville", and "Lord Scales" in the same passage? Was it an example of the machinery of power in action when Shakespeare depicted Lord Capulet disputing directly with the kitchen staff like some harried Elizabethan bourgeois and entrusting a written list of invitees to an illiterate servant? If Shakespeare knew about the centers of power, why is no dramatic use made of antechambers before _Henry VIII_ , a play co-written with a man who was the son of Queen Elizabeth's personal chaplain (and thus the likely source for the courtly local color)?
4. Re: your claim that Edward de Vere was a miserable sod wasn't an opinion that was shared by his contemporaries. Well, thanks for ending this on a laugh. Edward de Vere was one of the most hated men at count, and then he got banished from court and jailed in the Tower because he knocked up Anne Vavasour, one of Elizabeth's maids of honour. This caused friction not only with Queen Elizabeth but with the family of Anne Cecil. To say nothing of Sir Philip Sidney, with whom he almost fought a duel. Or the undercook he stabbed to death. Or the two men he tried to have murdered by three of his lackeys armed with calivers. And so on.
But it's true that none of these things prevent him from being a writer. The thing that prevents him from being a writer is his manifest lack of talent, and the thing that prevents him from being Shakespeare is that he died ten years too early and spoke a mutually exclusive rustic East Anglian accent from Shakespeare's Midlands dialect, which is reflected in such things as their their spelling and choices of rhyme words, since people spelled things as they sounded to them in the early modern period.
1. It's not REASONABLE to infer Shaksper went to school; it's reasonable to SUSPECT that he went to school. There is no evidence to support that suspicion. The FACT that the only handwriting that exists of poor Mr. Shaksper is six shaky signatures makes it REASONABLE to SUSPECT that he didn't go to school and that he didn't actually write anything.
2. Shaksper might have been an actor. Acting is not writing. The receipt that you refer to does not list him as an actor. You are INFERRING again, but there is no evidence to support your inference.
3. I love how Stratfordians are compelled to denigrate and diminsh Shakespeare, extracting minor errors and inconsistancies that might make a person infer that Shakespeare was an uneducated dunce who was a good writer by accident. Totally at odds with point number one. So was he educated or was he not educated? Make up your mind.
4. Edward de Vere was hardly hated at court at all. But even if he was, that would not preclude him from being Shakespeare. Character Assassination is not evidence, nor is it particularly clever.
5. Your last paragraph is just a bunch of wishful thinking and distortions. I can't believe that an intelligent person would write such a thing, so I can INFER how I should think of you.
6. GFY
@@Nullifidian
Excellent lecture. I recommend Alexander Waugh's TH-cam channel to anyone interested in this topic
@Attila the Pun Ha! Well, that's one way of looking at it
@Attila the Pun I just really appreciate his research
Also the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship channel, and Phoebe de Vere’s channel. Lots of discussions out there.
@@rosezingleman5007 Oh yes, the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship is a great source. I didn't know about Phoebe de Vere’s channel. So, thanks for the tip!
Easy to solve..who owns or owned the copyright and or trademarks to the name
🤣
Shakespeare was CRISTOPHER MARLOWE. Marlowe was Shakespeare.
No; it was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. See Andrew Waugh’s extensive series for more evidence.
There are good cases for Marlowe and Bacon. There may have well been 2 or 3 publishing under the name Shakespeare
@@bluecheese4877 Ben Johnson compares the Great Author with Marlowe, which doesn't make sense if Shak-speare WAS Marlowe.
Shakespeare was Shakespeare. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else was secretly the author of the works attributed to him.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Don't be silly. There is a wealth of evidence and an ongoing debate between Statfordians and Oxfordians. Where have you been?
All these young writers flocked to devere for a reason..funds..seems to me he used funds from queen to buy writings from all these guys...5 thomas marlow green kyd nash ect. Its sad but i believe its a collaboration of about 20 up and coming writers because the queen wanted plays that were more upscale..not mind rotting...lol
If she wanted "upscale" plays, Shakespeare is the last person she would go to. His plays were considered low brow by the standards of the time. When people wanted upscale, they went to educated poets like Ben Jonson, Robert Greene, and Thomas Lodge.
And thanks for persisting about the Shakspere / Shakespeare distinction. Everyone needs to stop referring to the illiterate grain-merchant as "Shakespeare," or that the real author "shared his name." It's not his name!
According to the ultimate authority, the College of Heralds, his name was spelled Shakespeare. That's how it was spelled on his grant of a coat of arms, and in several other government documents.
What fun, poking holes in the presumptuous assumption of the balding bard.
I don't see and holes. You haven't even scuffed the paint job.
@@Jeffhowardmeade More like the snow job, maybe they could set up another fake King Arthur site next door.
@@MrAbzuI doubt it, since we don't have scores of contemporary witnesses to King Arthur as we do for Shakespeare.
William Shake-speare poet was lame. Will Shaxper from Stratford-upon-Avon was not lame. Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford was lame, case closed.
How do you know? Did you dance with him?
This really should be put in cross-stitch and hung on a wall as the paradigmatic way in which Oxfordians 'reason'.
They read the sonnets literalistically, missing the OBVIOUS METAPHOR introduced by the very first word of Sonnet #37, and assume that being "made lame by Fortune's dearest spite" actually refers to a physical handicap.
Then they make up a historically unfounded claim that Edward de Vere was lame, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support the claim.
Then because nobody has bothered to make up an equivalent story for William Shakespeare-even though there is no evidence to show that he was _not_ lame-they reject Shakespeare as the author and substitute Edward de Vere.
I'm cringing in sympathetic embarrassment for you. I truly am. It would take an ice-pick lobotomy to believe that this kind of argument is convincing.
@@Nullifidian Admit it. We both think Ed the Ped was pretty lame.
@@JeffhowardmeadeAs a poet, very much so, but I still haven't seen evidence of a physical infirmity.
@@Nullifidian Oxford described himself as a "lame man" in a 1585 letter to Burghley. He had previously been injured in a fight with a kinsman of his side piece. Hard to see how that was fortune's dearest spite, but chickens coming home to roost doesn't rhyme.
Why don't people think John Lyly was Shakespeare ? He had the most sophisticated use of language apart from Shakespeare.
There was nothing sophisticated about Shakespeare's language. He used nouns as verbs and vice-versa. He used mundane things as metaphors. We still read and perform him to this day because he was NOT sophisticated.
@@JeffhowardmeadeHe invented hundreds of words and phrases still used in common parlance. Ever heard of the 'winter of discontent'?