+scotty It it doesn't matter what does it matter to you that people look at the evidence? That evidence doesn't have anything in it that would produce the conclusion that the Stratford Shakspere (as he spelled his name, he never spelled it "Shakespeare") was anything but a businessman who was a part owner of several theaters and who was named as a "broker" by, among others, Ben Jonson, whose paper trail proves he was what the Stratford man does not prove, one of the most active playwrights and poets and writers of the Elizabethan and Jacobian eras. I would bet that just about every single thing you believe you know about "Shakespeare" is a myth made up by his "biographers" over the past hundred twenty years or so.
I have watched this twice with great interest. I do wish there were a proper debate conducted, something like a court hearing, where every side would be able to speak at length (not for 5 or 10 minutes). Perhaps, we would not discover the truth, but many things would probably be clarified then.
After examining the evidence, one discovers that the attribution of the works to the man from Stratford is merely an hypothesis, and one resting on very dubious foundations. This is a very complex issue that deserves genuine research, not merely academic pronouncements.
Waugh talks about having a cross examination approach to debate- the fact that they completely ignored this speaks volumes. They will never do this as it would be a literary bloodbath.
1. John Florio added more than one thousand new words to the English language, the same contribution attributed to William Shakespeare. Furthermore, Florio compiled the first Italian/English dictionary. The 1611 edition contained 74,000 Italian words and 150,000 English words. Frances Yates, author of Florio’s biography (1934) defines Florio’s dictionary as the epitome of the era’s culture. 2. John Florio and his father Michel Angelo, a former Franciscan monk who converted to Protestantism (and the son of converted Jews), are two erudite Italian scholars like few at that time in England. They possessed a vast knowledge of the arts, science, literature, theology, botany, medicine, falconry, law and seamanship - an encyclopedic knowledge which Shakespeare clearly commanded. Few knew European literature like John Florio who, having read the material in the original languages (Italian, French and Spanish), also taught it. 3. Immersed between the Jewish traditions of his ancestors and the Catholic and Protestantism religions of his father Michel Angelo is John Florio, whose vast knowledge sacred scriptures coincides with Shakespeare’s. 4. William Shakespeare and John Florio display the same bombastic style: the same exaggerated use of metaphor, rhetoric, wit (quips and puns), poetic sense and extensive use of proverbs. They even coin words in the same fashion. This is easily verified in the introductory texts of Florio’s scholarly works: Il Dizionario, A Worlde of Wordes (1598), First Fruits (1578) and Second Fruits (1591), two brilliant Italian/English teaching booklets. Thousands of words and phrases written by Florio appear later in Shakespeare’s works. Two of Florio’s phrases become titles of William Shakespeare’s comedies. Florio is a juggler of words and a polyglot: he speaks four modern languages, as well as Latin, Greek and probably Hebrew - the same languages known by Shakespeare, according to scholars. 5. John Florio translated Montaigne’s Essays and Boccaccio’s Decameron, two exceptional works. The “idea” of translating these fundamental texts during such a crucial time for the development of English culture is in itself an extraordinary feat. Florio’s translations prove that he is a great writer, a poet close in spirit and style to Shakespeare. If we keep in mind that Florio was writing “in prose” and not in “verse” like Shakespeare, this closeness is undeniable. 6. The impressive knowledge of the Bible and liturgies, both Catholic and Protestant, which Shakespeare supposedly possesses matches perfectly with John Florio’s biography. The two Florios, father and son, are regarded by critics as minor characters within the small Protestant and heretic Italian diaspora. In reality, they were the first major promoters of Italian culture abroad. The younger Florio studied at the German University of Tübingen with Pier Paolo Vergerio, an ex-Catholic bishop of Capodistria, converted to Protestantism. In England, he befriended the circle of reformed scientists and scholars which included Teodoro Diodati, the brother of Giovanni, a Calvinist and the first Italian translator of the Bible. 7. John Florio owned 340 books in Italian, French and Spanish and an unknown number in English. He read 252 books in preparation for his dictionary New World of Words. These are the same books which Shakespeare had to have read in the original language as inspirations for his plays. Florio’s will bequeaths his library of Italian, French and Spanish books to his friend and protector William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. 8. The works of Shakespeare demonstrate “a culture of exile,” a theme very familiar to Florio. 9. The great influence of Montaigne’s thought and vocabulary upon William Shakespeare, reluctantly recognized by Shakespearean scholars, was demonstrated by George Coffin Taylor’s Shakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne (1925). 10. The vast knowledge of Italian writers, some of whom had not yet been translated into English, could not have been known by the “man from Stratford.” One clear example is Giordano Bruno, a Neapolitan heretic philosopher burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition in 1600. The presence of Bruno’s thought and vocabulary in Shakespeare’s works is evident - it is a “physical” presence, which is refuted or ignored by Shakespearean scholars. This closeness is unexplainable if one considers the “man from Stratford,” but natural and normal if one remembers that John Florio and Giordano Bruno were house guests of the French ambassador in London for more than two years (from 1583 to 1585). Many of their works cross-reference each other. 11. William Shakespeare’s impressive musical knowledge is surprising, and very difficult to explain. John Florio, on the other hand, was a musician and was responsible for inviting musicians to perform at the royal court. 12. William Shakespeare is shown to possess a strong aristocratic persona. Yet the man normally credited with writing the plays is the son of illiterate parents, and father of two illiterate daughters. John Florio, on the other hand, was a teacher and friend of powerful aristocrats and the Groom of the Privy Chamber to James I and Queen Anne for 16 years. 13. All the “friends” of Shakespeare who appear in the colourless biography of the man from Stratford are John Florio’s historically documented friends - from Lord Southampton to William Pembroke. William Shakespeare’s presumed godfathers were John Florio’s well-known students and protectors. Ben Jonson considers Florio as a father and master of his muses, a tribute shared by the Earl of Oxford and other nobles. 14. William Shakespeare demonstrates an undeniable Italian sensibility. Examples abound, as 16 plays boast Italian plots. The man from Stratford shows an excellent knowledge of Italian, as if he read the arduous Giordano Bruno, Ariosto, Aretino (another one of the Bard’s major inspirations) in the original. Naseeb Shaheen states in his Biblical References in Shakespeare's Plays (1999) that, when an English translation is available, Shakespeare’s words resemble the original Italian. 15. Finally, there is an ontological and sociological proof all in one. If two such characters - Shakespeare and John Florio - had lived in London at the same time, if they had shared patrons, friends, interests, passions and abilities, then why have they never met nor is there any mention of them meeting? Perhaps they would even have clashed, leaving behind visible traces. Instead, there is a total void. They could not have met, of course, since they are one and the same!
If the authorship question doesn't matter, why is it that, every year, so many people make pilgrimages to Stratford and celebrate the man traditionally thought of as the author? Why do so many people delve into his life and try to connect him to the writings?
When Robt Greene accused Shakespeare of being a crow getting beautiful with the feathers of others, he was obviously stating that Shakespeare was a front for another writer or writers. His comments make sense on that basis
Ely Pevets That logic only works if you forget the second half of the sentence, and then the admonition to the three poets to go write serious poetry and let people like the Upstart Crow continue to imitate their past successes.
A couple of questions for Alexander Waugh: Since the patron of Shakespeare's company, the Baron Hunsdon, also signed the petition to block Shakespeare's company from playing in the Blackfriars theater, does that mean that their own patron hated them as well? Which of the other Thomas Russells in and about Stratford could lay a claim to being addressed, as Shakespeare did in his will, "Thomas Russell, Esquire"?
This is still the best debate on "The Shakespeare authorship" question by far and it isn't perfect by a long way. I've been looking at this conundrum for nearly 25 years and considered myself a bit of an expert but Alexander Waugh is in another league,i'm just glad he's on the side of truth.The Earl of Oxford is definitely the principal author and had finishing touches added to several plays by William Stanley at most.There is always the slight chance,with recent developments that the plays could have been written in collaboration with Marlowe though.The overriding thought is the praise Edwrds De Vere's plays received and it being stated that he wrote under a pen name that clinches it amongst 33 other good clinchers for me.
I'll tell you this: it's shocking to me if this video represents what the traditional opinion has to say on the subject. They seemed like nice men who were very smart and felt absolutely certain that any doubt is ridiculous. That said, they came across as simpletons compared to the other three. The non-Stratfordians are not arguing only for specific persons. That is another issue. They are claiming that there is reason to doubt the orthodox logic related to being certain of the author. This has been laid out much more intelligently that those two orthodox gentlemen could muster. I almost need to assume that those men do not represent the best case against doubt. From the reading I have done so far, unfortunately, they actually were right in line with how the traditional position attempts to justify itself.
On the Shakspere Shakespeare spelling that idiot goes on about, Marlowe signed his name as Marley. Shakespeare gave a testament in a legal case in London,he was referred to as Shakespeare of Stratford. He bought a house in Stratford undee the name Shakespeare. His father John was referred to as Shakespeare in a legal case when Wliliam was 4 years old
No one has any idea how Shakespeares name was pronounced. The assumption is that the shake in shakespeare is pronounced as in milk shake.however it could have equally been pronounced as Shack es Speare
+john smith The name was sometimes hyphenated. Shake-speare. So yes we do know that it was pronounced with a long A. We also know that William's neighbors in Stratford spelled his name Shaksper, Shaxper, Shagsper...so there is a disconnect that can't be explained by traditional thought, but is easily explained through Authorship Studies (its pen-name for somebody who was "shaking his spear" at the authorities (its a bawdy joke, another reason why the real writer was hidden behind a front)).
Wow!!! Brilliant!!! We don't know how MANY words back then were pronounced, do we? They were obviously pronounced differently than they are today!! Rhymes were very different....
Shakspere is probably a version of Jacques-Pierre - Shocks-peer - while Shake-speare was frequently hyphenated so that there would be no doubt that it was meant to convey the sense of a writer "shaking his speare (i.e. his Pen)" at those in power. What say ye, countrymen? will ye relent, And yield to mercy whilst 'tis offer'd you; Or let a rebel lead you to your deaths? Who loves the king and will embrace his pardon, Fling up his cap, and say 'God save his majesty!' Who hateth him and honours not his father, Henry the Fifth, that made all France to quake, Shake he his weapon at us and pass by. Henry VI, Part II [IV, 8] Lord Clifford 2768
I say we should investigate if Shakespeare was an actual individual or a deliberate 'thinktank' of poets - 'shaking the spear' - in the face of the monarchy of corrupt injustice ... if it was a movement - it should be celebrated as such and not a 'stolen identity' of a few common named men worshiped as an idol...
Debates like this are basically a contest between History and Hollywood, truth-seekers versus Myth/orthodoxy. In this particular case, Stratfordians are the literary equivalent of Hollywood. Think of all those old Hollywood biopics about great men: van Gogh, Dickens, Francois Villon, Louis Pasteur, Jesus etc etc and pseudo-historical epics about the Wild West, The Alamo and WW2, which functioned on the principle that film makers should never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
No truth deniers on these comments as the debate shows an incisive victory for the Oxfordian academics and scholars on the whole and Ros is not categorically a Marlovian but for definite a doubter.
William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and the Sonnets. There is SO MUCH evidence of this, that there really is no question about it. Wells knows this, as do all knowledgeable people. It is the neophytes, amateures, weekend scholars, and dilitasttes who question this. Let them look for another author. Who cares. We know who wrote the plays. The most obvious one, not the one hdden behind the corner, or by conspiracy theories, or redating of the plays. Occasm's Razor makes The Gent from Stratford the man. End of story.
Yes, it does matter who it was. These plays were written by a man of the theater not some Ivory Tower moron. These plays and poems are the life's work of man who worked with other professionals and playwrights to create words and works that resonate today.
This debate is ridiculous--- one must be certain, and dogmatic, and completely closed minded, that Marlowe wrote the plays of Shakespeare. Stylometrics is not a pseudo-science, it is a difficult statistical art, and when it is done properly, as Peter Farey does, it demonstates beyond reasonable doubt that Marlowe and Shakespeare's plays were written by the same person. Ros Barber understands this, but does not emphasize it, so as not to look arrogant. Well, damn it, she is right, 100% right, and one must be arrogant in order to be heard. This is the one propaganda lesson that the Marlovians, being careful and scholarly, don't ever learn, because it's a lesson associated more with Joseph Goebbels than with Galileo, although Galileo did it too, and well. They need to be DISRESPECTFUL to the Statfordians to remove their goddamn authority and certainty, because these idiots can't think for themselves, and wouldn't know a p-test if it bit them in the leg. There is no point n debating with the statistically illiterate. The deVere nonsense is refuted by the evidence Peter Farey presents, the sylometrics show the works were written in order in roughly the dates standard scholarship has shown for them, and deVere was never worthy of serious consideration, because he is a ridiculous smoke screen for Marlowe. The large number of Oxfordians need to die already so that Marlowe can get his proper due. Their candidate is a product of snobbery and stupidity.
Professor Nelson's book on De vere is an absolute vitriolic disgrace ,showing an anti royal streak and poor scholarship ,due to bias of the worst kind.
Have you actually read it? It's full of original documentation, which Oxfordian biographies generally lack. You folks prefer to summarize the evidence, so that you can put your own spin on it.
J Ingham Of course it does as De Vere was original but accepting the orthodox chronology makes the author a thief as well as the tax dodging,semi illiterate,broker and country bumpkin of the criminal persuasion.
If it doesn't matter who Shakespeare was it doesn't matter who anyone is. Shame on those who refuse to investigate this great man.
+scotty It it doesn't matter what does it matter to you that people look at the evidence? That evidence doesn't have anything in it that would produce the conclusion that the Stratford Shakspere (as he spelled his name, he never spelled it "Shakespeare") was anything but a businessman who was a part owner of several theaters and who was named as a "broker" by, among others, Ben Jonson, whose paper trail proves he was what the Stratford man does not prove, one of the most active playwrights and poets and writers of the Elizabethan and Jacobian eras.
I would bet that just about every single thing you believe you know about "Shakespeare" is a myth made up by his "biographers" over the past hundred twenty years or so.
Then will one agree that the Bible was written by Islamic scholars? The authorship question matters.
Well said.
I have watched this twice with great interest. I do wish there were a proper debate conducted, something like a court hearing, where every side would be able to speak at length (not for 5 or 10 minutes). Perhaps, we would not discover the truth, but many things would probably be clarified then.
After examining the evidence, one discovers that the attribution of the works to the man from Stratford is merely an hypothesis, and one resting on very dubious foundations. This is a very complex issue that deserves genuine research, not merely academic pronouncements.
Waugh talks about having a cross examination approach to debate- the fact that they completely ignored this speaks volumes. They will never do this as it would be a literary bloodbath.
1. John Florio added more than one thousand new words to the English language, the same contribution attributed to William Shakespeare. Furthermore, Florio compiled the first Italian/English dictionary. The 1611 edition contained 74,000 Italian words and 150,000 English words. Frances Yates, author of Florio’s biography (1934) defines Florio’s dictionary as the epitome of the era’s culture.
2. John Florio and his father Michel Angelo, a former Franciscan monk who converted to Protestantism (and the son of converted Jews), are two erudite Italian scholars like few at that time in England. They possessed a vast knowledge of the arts, science, literature, theology, botany, medicine, falconry, law and seamanship - an encyclopedic knowledge which Shakespeare clearly commanded. Few knew European literature like John Florio who, having read the material in the original languages (Italian, French and Spanish), also taught it.
3. Immersed between the Jewish traditions of his ancestors and the Catholic and Protestantism religions of his father Michel Angelo is John Florio, whose vast knowledge sacred scriptures coincides with Shakespeare’s.
4. William Shakespeare and John Florio display the same bombastic style: the same exaggerated use of metaphor, rhetoric, wit (quips and puns), poetic sense and extensive use of proverbs. They even coin words in the same fashion. This is easily verified in the introductory texts of Florio’s scholarly works: Il Dizionario, A Worlde of Wordes (1598), First Fruits (1578) and Second Fruits (1591), two brilliant Italian/English teaching booklets. Thousands of words and phrases written by Florio appear later in Shakespeare’s works. Two of Florio’s phrases become titles of William Shakespeare’s comedies. Florio is a juggler of words and a polyglot: he speaks four modern languages, as well as Latin, Greek and probably Hebrew - the same languages known by Shakespeare, according to scholars.
5. John Florio translated Montaigne’s Essays and Boccaccio’s Decameron, two exceptional works. The “idea” of translating these fundamental texts during such a crucial time for the development of English culture is in itself an extraordinary feat. Florio’s translations prove that he is a great writer, a poet close in spirit and style to Shakespeare. If we keep in mind that Florio was writing “in prose” and not in “verse” like Shakespeare, this closeness is undeniable.
6. The impressive knowledge of the Bible and liturgies, both Catholic and Protestant, which Shakespeare supposedly possesses matches perfectly with John Florio’s biography. The two Florios, father and son, are regarded by critics as minor characters within the small Protestant and heretic Italian diaspora. In reality, they were the first major promoters of Italian culture abroad. The younger Florio studied at the German University of Tübingen with Pier Paolo Vergerio, an ex-Catholic bishop of Capodistria, converted to Protestantism. In England, he befriended the circle of reformed scientists and scholars which included Teodoro Diodati, the brother of Giovanni, a Calvinist and the first Italian translator of the Bible.
7. John Florio owned 340 books in Italian, French and Spanish and an unknown number in English. He read 252 books in preparation for his dictionary New World of Words. These are the same books which Shakespeare had to have read in the original language as inspirations for his plays. Florio’s will bequeaths his library of Italian, French and Spanish books to his friend and protector William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke.
8. The works of Shakespeare demonstrate “a culture of exile,” a theme very familiar to Florio.
9. The great influence of Montaigne’s thought and vocabulary upon William Shakespeare, reluctantly recognized by Shakespearean scholars, was demonstrated by George Coffin Taylor’s Shakespeare’s Debt to Montaigne (1925).
10. The vast knowledge of Italian writers, some of whom had not yet been translated into English, could not have been known by the “man from Stratford.” One clear example is Giordano Bruno, a Neapolitan heretic philosopher burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition in 1600. The presence of Bruno’s thought and vocabulary in Shakespeare’s works is evident - it is a “physical” presence, which is refuted or ignored by Shakespearean scholars. This closeness is unexplainable if one considers the “man from Stratford,” but natural and normal if one remembers that John Florio and Giordano Bruno were house guests of the French ambassador in London for more than two years (from 1583 to 1585). Many of their works cross-reference each other.
11. William Shakespeare’s impressive musical knowledge is surprising, and very difficult to explain. John Florio, on the other hand, was a musician and was responsible for inviting musicians to perform at the royal court.
12. William Shakespeare is shown to possess a strong aristocratic persona. Yet the man normally credited with writing the plays is the son of illiterate parents, and father of two illiterate daughters. John Florio, on the other hand, was a teacher and friend of powerful aristocrats and the Groom of the Privy Chamber to James I and Queen Anne for 16 years.
13. All the “friends” of Shakespeare who appear in the colourless biography of the man from Stratford are John Florio’s historically documented friends - from Lord Southampton to William Pembroke. William Shakespeare’s presumed godfathers were John Florio’s well-known students and protectors. Ben Jonson considers Florio as a father and master of his muses, a tribute shared by the Earl of Oxford and other nobles.
14. William Shakespeare demonstrates an undeniable Italian sensibility. Examples abound, as 16 plays boast Italian plots. The man from Stratford shows an excellent knowledge of Italian, as if he read the arduous Giordano Bruno, Ariosto, Aretino (another one of the Bard’s major inspirations) in the original. Naseeb Shaheen states in his Biblical References in Shakespeare's Plays (1999) that, when an English translation is available, Shakespeare’s words resemble the original Italian.
15. Finally, there is an ontological and sociological proof all in one. If two such characters - Shakespeare and John Florio - had lived in London at the same time, if they had shared patrons, friends, interests, passions and abilities, then why have they never met nor is there any mention of them meeting? Perhaps they would even have clashed, leaving behind visible traces. Instead, there is a total void. They could not have met, of course, since they are one and the same!
If the authorship question doesn't matter, why is it that, every year, so many people make pilgrimages to Stratford and celebrate the man traditionally thought of as the author? Why do so many people delve into his life and try to connect him to the writings?
When Robt Greene accused Shakespeare of being a crow getting beautiful with the feathers of others, he was obviously stating that Shakespeare was a front for another writer or writers. His comments make sense on that basis
Ely Pevets That logic only works if you forget the second half of the sentence, and then the admonition to the three poets to go write serious poetry and let people like the Upstart Crow continue to imitate their past successes.
A couple of questions for Alexander Waugh: Since the patron of Shakespeare's company, the Baron Hunsdon, also signed the petition to block Shakespeare's company from playing in the Blackfriars theater, does that mean that their own patron hated them as well?
Which of the other Thomas Russells in and about Stratford could lay a claim to being addressed, as Shakespeare did in his will, "Thomas Russell, Esquire"?
This is still the best debate on "The Shakespeare authorship" question by far and it isn't perfect by a long way. I've been looking at this conundrum for nearly 25 years and considered myself a bit of an expert but Alexander Waugh is in another league,i'm just glad he's on the side of truth.The Earl of Oxford is definitely the principal author and had finishing touches added to several plays by William Stanley at most.There is always the slight chance,with recent developments that the plays could have been written in collaboration with Marlowe though.The overriding thought is the praise Edwrds De Vere's plays received and it being stated that he wrote under a pen name that clinches it amongst 33 other good clinchers for me.
I love the picture hanging on the wall, I wonder what house/building it is, the style of those times in architecture that has character.
I'll tell you this: it's shocking to me if this video represents what the traditional opinion has to say on the subject. They seemed like nice men who were very smart and felt absolutely certain that any doubt is ridiculous. That said, they came across as simpletons compared to the other three. The non-Stratfordians are not arguing only for specific persons. That is another issue. They are claiming that there is reason to doubt the orthodox logic related to being certain of the author. This has been laid out much more intelligently that those two orthodox gentlemen could muster. I almost need to assume that those men do not represent the best case against doubt. From the reading I have done so far, unfortunately, they actually were right in line with how the traditional position attempts to justify itself.
On the Shakspere Shakespeare spelling that idiot goes on about, Marlowe signed his name as Marley. Shakespeare gave a testament in a legal case in London,he was referred to as Shakespeare of Stratford. He bought a house in Stratford undee the name Shakespeare. His father John was referred to as Shakespeare in a legal case when Wliliam was 4 years old
john smith The ony idiots here are fossilized Stratfordian's your ignorance and ineptitude never ceases to amaze me.
On original 1st folio it says SHAKE-SPEARES
No one has any idea how Shakespeares name was pronounced. The assumption is that the shake in shakespeare is pronounced as in milk shake.however it could have equally been pronounced as Shack es Speare
+john smith The name was sometimes hyphenated. Shake-speare. So yes we do know that it was pronounced with a long A. We also know that William's neighbors in Stratford spelled his name Shaksper, Shaxper, Shagsper...so there is a disconnect that can't be explained by traditional thought, but is easily explained through Authorship Studies (its pen-name for somebody who was "shaking his spear" at the authorities (its a bawdy joke, another reason why the real writer was hidden behind a front)).
Wow!!! Brilliant!!! We don't know how MANY words back then were pronounced, do we? They were obviously pronounced differently than they are today!! Rhymes were very different....
Shakspere is probably a version of Jacques-Pierre - Shocks-peer - while Shake-speare was frequently hyphenated so that there would be no doubt that it was meant to convey the sense of a writer "shaking his speare (i.e. his Pen)" at those in power.
What say ye, countrymen? will ye relent,
And yield to mercy whilst 'tis offer'd you;
Or let a rebel lead you to your deaths?
Who loves the king and will embrace his pardon,
Fling up his cap, and say 'God save his majesty!'
Who hateth him and honours not his father,
Henry the Fifth, that made all France to quake,
Shake he his weapon at us and pass by.
Henry VI, Part II
[IV, 8]
Lord Clifford
2768
I say we should investigate if Shakespeare was an actual individual or a deliberate 'thinktank' of poets - 'shaking the spear' - in the face of the monarchy of corrupt injustice ... if it was a movement - it should be celebrated as such and not a 'stolen identity' of a few common named men worshiped as an idol...
Yes it does matter who wrote the plays, now het your heads down intellectuals and tell us
Who is Jacques-Pierre Shocks-peer? Very strange spelling of Shakespeare!!!!
Debates like this are basically a contest between History and Hollywood, truth-seekers versus Myth/orthodoxy. In this particular case, Stratfordians are the literary equivalent of Hollywood. Think of all those old Hollywood biopics about great men: van Gogh, Dickens, Francois Villon, Louis Pasteur, Jesus etc etc and pseudo-historical epics about the Wild West, The Alamo and WW2, which functioned on the principle that film makers should never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
It's always fun to watch Stratfordians make fools out of themselves. Remember, the real author is laughing at you.
Jeffrey rowe Yes, Will did have a good a sense of humor and would have loved the circus of "controversy" surrounding his works.
Anybody else notice how all the Stratfordians avoid this debate and the comments ,yet are all over most 50/50 arguments on other comment sections?
why did they rip into the 2nd speaker over jacobi
No truth deniers on these comments as the debate shows an incisive victory for the Oxfordian academics and scholars on the whole and Ros is not categorically a Marlovian but for definite a doubter.
William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays and the Sonnets. There is SO MUCH evidence of this, that there really is no question about it. Wells knows this, as do all knowledgeable people. It is the neophytes, amateures, weekend scholars, and dilitasttes who question this. Let them look for another author. Who cares. We know who wrote the plays. The most obvious one, not the one hdden behind the corner, or by conspiracy theories, or redating of the plays. Occasm's Razor makes The Gent from Stratford the man. End of story.
Yes, it does matter who it was. These plays were written by a man of the theater not some Ivory Tower moron. These plays and poems are the life's work of man who worked with other professionals and playwrights to create words and works that resonate today.
Truth.
No it doesn't really matter. It's just a good study for historians. Otherwise it doesn't matter.
This debate is ridiculous--- one must be certain, and dogmatic, and completely closed minded, that Marlowe wrote the plays of Shakespeare. Stylometrics is not a pseudo-science, it is a difficult statistical art, and when it is done properly, as Peter Farey does, it demonstates beyond reasonable doubt that Marlowe and Shakespeare's plays were written by the same person. Ros Barber understands this, but does not emphasize it, so as not to look arrogant. Well, damn it, she is right, 100% right, and one must be arrogant in order to be heard. This is the one propaganda lesson that the Marlovians, being careful and scholarly, don't ever learn, because it's a lesson associated more with Joseph Goebbels than with Galileo, although Galileo did it too, and well. They need to be DISRESPECTFUL to the Statfordians to remove their goddamn authority and certainty, because these idiots can't think for themselves, and wouldn't know a p-test if it bit them in the leg. There is no point n debating with the statistically illiterate.
The deVere nonsense is refuted by the evidence Peter Farey presents, the sylometrics show the works were written in order in roughly the dates standard scholarship has shown for them, and deVere was never worthy of serious consideration, because he is a ridiculous smoke screen for Marlowe. The large number of Oxfordians need to die already so that Marlowe can get his proper due. Their candidate is a product of snobbery and stupidity.
Maybe he was a woman . Or is that too incredible a speculation ?
Professor Nelson's book on De vere is an absolute vitriolic disgrace ,showing an anti royal streak and poor scholarship ,due to bias of the worst kind.
Have you actually read it? It's full of original documentation, which Oxfordian biographies generally lack. You folks prefer to summarize the evidence, so that you can put your own spin on it.
it doesnt matter of course
J Ingham Of course it does as De Vere was original but accepting the orthodox chronology makes the author a thief as well as the tax dodging,semi illiterate,broker and country bumpkin of the criminal persuasion.
+J Ingham Of course it does.
love it. thank you so much, but i cant help thinking that the chair is coming up on some quality microdots at times