- 31
- 100 153
Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable
United States
Приєднався 20 лют 2012
The Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable is a forum for the study of the Shakespeare canon, the Elizabethan theater, and the socio-political life of the period, with an emphasis on an open-minded exploration of the Shakespeare authorship debate. Each year the Roundtable produces multiple speaker events on Zoom as well as a Newsletter. Please join us!
Elizabeth Quattrocki Knight: Is Philip Sidney the "Fair Youth" of Shakespeare's Sonnets?
By using her Theory of Mind analysis, Elizabeth Quattrocki Knight (MD, PhD), examines the correspondence between French diplomat, Hubert (ooh-bear) Languet (long-gay) and Sir Philip Sidney to create a profile of the personality and emotional state of the author of the Fair Youth Sonnets (1-126).
Переглядів: 632
Відео
Geir Uthaug Talks to SAR About Queen Elizabeth I & The Harsh Methods Used to Protect Her Rule.
Переглядів 7688 місяців тому
Geir Uthaug, Norwegian writer, poet and translator, has written a new book on the Authorship Question: The Battle for Shakespeare's Identity. Soon to be translated into English! Link below to an interview on why he wrote the book, the first in Scandinavia, about the Authorship Question. ua-cam.com/video/yfjpuPD0XdQ/v-deo.html
Professor Rima Greenhill: Elizabeth I & Ivan the Terrible as Inspiration for Love's Labour's Lost.
Переглядів 68010 місяців тому
Rima Greenhill has taught all levels of Russian at Stanford, and prior to that at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, England. She has translated the letters and other historic items that went into the creation of her book, "Shakespeare, Elizabeth and Ivan: The Role of English-Russian Relations in Love's Labours Lost'". www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Elizabe...
Mysteries of the First Folio Part 2 Q&A
Переглядів 1,5 тис.Рік тому
In the order that they spoke in Part I, Gabriel Ready, Marianna Iannaccone and Bonner Miller Cutting all answer questions put to them by our host Michael Delahoyde.
Mysteries of the First Folio Part 1: A 3-Speaker Roundtable Event
Переглядів 5 тис.Рік тому
For the 400th Anniversary of this extraordinary book's publication, we gathered 3 wonderful speakers with different angles regarding the creation of the most highly valued book currently in existence. Question and answer discussions from the event to follow in Part 2. Thank you to Michael Delahoyde for being out host, and to Gabriel Ready, Marianna Iannaccone and Bonner Miller-Cutting for their...
Prospero's Wrath
Переглядів 220Рік тому
Proposing that Edward de Vere speaks to us through the Tempest's main character... This video by the poet Linda Muhlhausen won the 3rd place, $150 prize in our first ever Authorship Candidate Video Contest. You can see the other winners here: www.shakespeareauthorship.org/contest/whodunnit
Shakespeare "WHODUNNIT" Contest Introduction
Переглядів 666Рік тому
All in good fun. You can see the winning videos at www.shakespeareriddles.com/contest. We will do this again in 2 years for our 40th Anniversary! Welcome to the 1st ever Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable contest to promote awareness regarding the Authorship Question. Videos should be between 3-5 minutes. They can be animated, acted, Power-Pointed or any other creative medium. 1st prize is $500....
Bob Prechter on Thomas Nashe Part 2 + Q&A
Переглядів 3,8 тис.Рік тому
Part 2 which includes a lively Q&A at the end. For more info on who was (and was not) a literary persona of the 17th Earl of Oxford, please visit: oxfordsvoices.com/ Support the Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable! Sign up for our Newsletter at www.shakespeareauthorship.org Having the urge to make a Zoom presentation to our well-versed followers? Email us at: shakespeareauthorshipdotorg.com. Our ...
Bob Prechter on Thomas Nashe Part 1
Переглядів 3,6 тис.Рік тому
Robert Prechter came to speak on another one of Oxford's Voices, Thomas Nashe. Many people are quite sure that the poet Thomas Nashe existed as a full-fledged member of Elizabethan literati. Watch the video to see why that may not be the case! oxfordsvoices.com/ Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/iGmgQcdsa-E/v-deo.html Check out his presentation from last year on George Peele: ua-cam.com/video/L5oOp2GXVJ...
Elizabeth Winkler Talks to SAR About the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy.
Переглядів 3,7 тис.Рік тому
Author, Elizabeth Winkler, gave us a preview of her new book: "Shakespeare was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature." The book is out now (as of May 9th). Read more about it here: www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shakespeare-Was-a-Woman-and-Other-Heresies/Elizabeth-Winkler/9781982171261 She interviewed Mark Rylance for her book (among others) an...
Ros Barber Part 2: The Case for Marlowe as Co-Author of the Shakespeare Canon
Переглядів 2,1 тис.Рік тому
The 2nd half of Ros's talk on Marlowe. Includes further discussion of the nature of collaboration during the Elizabethan period and also the viability of the Group Theory and the nature of "genius".
Ros Barber Part 1: The Case for Marlowe as Author of the Shakespeare Canon. Followed by Part 2.
Переглядів 3,6 тис.Рік тому
Ros Barber gave us a scintillating 2-Part talk on Christopher Marlowe. We had a lively question and answer afterwards and Ros provided this Bitly link so that we could read her prior papers: bit.ly/3RQ4N5d Thank you, Ros!
Michael Delahoyde: A Song, A Dance & A Rail with regard to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
Переглядів 1 тис.Рік тому
A very entertaining jaunt through madrigals, voltas and ranting monologues. Includes not one, but two songs by Professor Delahoyde himself!
SAR Season Opener : Many Hands Make Light Work. Was Elizabethan England the World's Greatest Salon?
Переглядів 8782 роки тому
Our 2022-23 Season Opener. For the 2nd year in a row we planned 3 speakers around one theme. Sadly, Ros Barber was unable to attend due to a bout of Covid. She will speak for us on Feb 11th. Please join our mailing list to receive the invite. Peter Dawkins talks about Francis Bacon and how he could have been the leader (with his brother) of a group of writers creating the works of "Shakespeare"...
Addendum to Robert Prechter's Talk on George Peele & Edward de Vere
Переглядів 3,8 тис.2 роки тому
Some new details regarding whether or not the 'real' George Peele had 3 daughters. Also a similarity in signature documents between Oxford and Peele. Ideally, watch this after watching the original video talk which you can find here: ua-cam.com/video/L5oOp2GXVJw/v-deo.html
George Peele, His Only Surviving Letter, and its Connection to the Earl of Oxford and Shakespeare.
Переглядів 10 тис.2 роки тому
George Peele, His Only Surviving Letter, and its Connection to the Earl of Oxford and Shakespeare.
Robin Williams: Does Shakespeare Write Like a Girl? Question & Answer
Переглядів 5512 роки тому
Robin Williams: Does Shakespeare Write Like a Girl? Question & Answer
Does Shakespeare Write Like a Girl?
Переглядів 1,7 тис.2 роки тому
Does Shakespeare Write Like a Girl?
Sabrina Feldman SAR Talk: Question and Answer
Переглядів 8392 роки тому
Sabrina Feldman SAR Talk: Question and Answer
Sabrina Feldman: Discoveries that Change the Future of the Shakespeare Authorship Question
Переглядів 19 тис.2 роки тому
Sabrina Feldman: Discoveries that Change the Future of the Shakespeare Authorship Question
Alexander Waugh speaks for SAR on John Dee & the Authorship Question
Переглядів 18 тис.3 роки тому
Alexander Waugh speaks for SAR on John Dee & the Authorship Question
Alchemy and Metaphysics in Shakespeare's Time: Part I Julia Cleave - Hosted by Gerit Quealy
Переглядів 2,2 тис.3 роки тому
Alchemy and Metaphysics in Shakespeare's Time: Part I Julia Cleave - Hosted by Gerit Quealy
Alchemy and Metaphysics in Shakespeare's Time: Part III Lisa Wolpe - Hosted by Gerit Quealy
Переглядів 1 тис.3 роки тому
Alchemy and Metaphysics in Shakespeare's Time: Part III Lisa Wolpe - Hosted by Gerit Quealy
Sir Thomas North as a Shakespeare Authorship Candidate by Michael Blanding
Переглядів 2,2 тис.3 роки тому
Sir Thomas North as a Shakespeare Authorship Candidate by Michael Blanding
Proof for Sir Thomas North as Shakespeare by Dennis McCarthy
Переглядів 2,3 тис.3 роки тому
Proof for Sir Thomas North as Shakespeare by Dennis McCarthy
How Sex & Bastardy Gave Birth to William Shakespeare
Переглядів 4,8 тис.3 роки тому
How Sex & Bastardy Gave Birth to William Shakespeare
John Yeomans (Part 1) - Mary Sidney & The Sonnets
Переглядів 2,2 тис.3 роки тому
John Yeomans (Part 1) - Mary Sidney & The Sonnets
Shakespeare's Greater Greek Earl Showerman Part 2
Переглядів 5373 роки тому
Shakespeare's Greater Greek Earl Showerman Part 2
Bonner Cutting on J.T. Looney SD 480p
Переглядів 1,4 тис.3 роки тому
Bonner Cutting on J.T. Looney SD 480p
This video would have been much stronger if it had noted that an archaic meaning of the word “main” is ocean.
If you roofed a house with shake and added a spare row, there is some chance it would fall off, full extraneous
Columns and rows being of interest
The enormous supernova SN1604 is not in the works. Everyone alive at the time knew about it. Waugh's solution to the Sonnets is unarguable, but is effortlessly dismissed. Stritmatter's solution to Paladis Tamia is likewise. IMHO, if this guy is in he has to be part of the scriptorium. We know who VVilliam Shake-Speare was. Great presentation thanks
30:20 what is the source for Oxford knowing Greek, which stuff like Aeschylus might not even be translated yet into English. Can't get inspiration on these guys from Plutarch alone.
Of all the alternate candidates, Oxford checks far more boxes than the next nearest candidate. The more you research the subject the more obvious it becomes that Oxford is the true author.
BRAVO
One of the best lectures on the subject I have heard. Inquiry: Could the "bad quartos" have been penned by say a less sophisticated writer, someone like Oxford or Sackville, and then later "touched up" by Ben Johnson for the First Folio?
Bravo!
122 likes after 2 years. This should be good.
If we accept the evidence of the ecologue on page 238 of the Old Arcadia, Languet should be pronounced with a hard t.. The Songe I sange oulde Languette had mee taughte, Languette the Shepehearde best swifte Ister knewe, For Clerckly reade, and hating what ys naughte, His faythfull harte, Cleane mowthe and handes as trewe, With hissweete skill, my skilless youthe hee drewe, To have a feeling Taste of hym that sittes, Beyonde the Heaven, farre more beyonde oure wittes.
But he's French, and spelled with one t you would not pronounce the t. It's sort of like the way the Spanish pronounce the t in Merlot. Languette is maybe an English revision of the French?
what an interesting video 😊 thank you for sharing it ❤
Concerning Stylometric analysis using Edward II as the Marlowe example .... I attempted this and realised almost immediately that there were stylistic anomalies in that work which make it significantly different to Marlowe's other plays, and therefore not a good example for comparison. The language of The Jew of Malta and Doctor Faustus are arguably closer to Shakespeare than to Edward II
Where did Florio want his library of books to go after he died? Unfortunately that critical destination is unintelligible in both audio and captions. Do we know why Herbert rejected Florio 's request?
Respectful corrections to Bonner's otherwise informative presentation about Susan Vere and her marriage to James' teenaged favorite Philip Herbert: - on the "unlucky business" (separation circa 1610) and reconciliation slide where Bonner you assert they reconciled by 1616 "because" their first son was baptized 29 Aug 1617 but that is apparently incorrect just looking at the slides: - on the next slide, citing Lyson Vol 2, it actually says: 1. In latin: MARIA daughter of Philip Herbet count of Montgomery 👉🏽BURIED 12 July 1616.👈🏽 (Note: We dont know if this was a live birth or when conception occurred but note baby Maria has a name.) 2. In latin: JAMES Herbert son of Philip Herbert Earl of Montgomery 👉🏽BURIED 29 Aug 1617.👈🏽 (Sepulta! Not baptized but buried, Bonner. Again just relying on this document and not other records, we dont know when conceptoon occured or whether this baby was carried to full term or lost prematurely.) Second loss. Also, though not relevant to date of initial reconciliation after separation: 3. In English: my lord of Montgomery's young son [NN HERBERT] 👉🏽BURIED April 1618.👈🏽 (Note: this is their third lost baby in a row. NN = We dont know the name of this baby, or whether it was live born etc. Probably not since no name?) Third loss. 4. In latin: CHARLES Herbert, son of Philip Earl of Montgomery 🙏🏼baptized 19 Sep 1619.🎉 (This is the son who later married Mary BUCKINGHAM and then died shortly after.) First son to survive birth/infancy, heir apparent, but sadly he died without children during his father's life. 5. In latin: PHILIP Harbert son of "Mr. William Harbert" 👉🏽BURIED 25 Nov 1620.👈🏽 (Note this is apparently not their son so not relevant; it doesnt mention Montgomery and it's not Philip's son its somebody called William's son.) 6. In mix of latin and English: PHILIP Herbert son of Philip Earl of Montgomery 🙏🏼baptized🎉 21 Feb 1621 (NS). (Note: this is second surviving son, eventual heir, next Earl, who d. 1669; Susan's at-least 5th pregnancy, that we know about, and now she's delivered two living boys in a row and... interestingly right during peak FF prep window before going to press.) 7. In mix of latin and English: WILLIAM Herbert son to Rt Hon Philip Earl of Mountgomery, baptized🎉 28 May 1622. (Third son. Survived, but died unmarried.) 8. In mix: JAMES Herbert, son to Rt Hon Philip Earl or Montgomery, baptized🎉 12 Nov 1623. (Fourth son, survived, ancestor to Herberts of Oxfordshire circa Lyson.) 9. Laslty: Master John Herbert son of Philip Herbert Earle of Montgomery, baptized🎉 2 May 1625. Poor Susan. 😢 She lost a lot of babies early on and that after an already-difficult start to marriage with Philip who was probably an "ex favorite" with some behavioral health issues given his tendency to unprovoked violence and public assaults. Less favorited men would go to the Tower for that. Glad things turned around for her in the '20s with the surviving boys.
Overall, as a genealogist, I would assume Susan was separated from her husband from approx 1610-1615. It is possible, however, given the run of baby deaths in infancy and/or late miscarriages... that the Herbert's reconciled earlier but had trouble conceiving. It is also possible her husband was not interested in his wife, until their sovereign stopped being interested in him? 🤷🏼♂️ I think we saw her father do exactly the same thing to her mother, a generation earlier, with his sovereign (amongst others).
Let me help here. Marlowe was a mask for Francis and Anthony Bacon. You're welcome. Do not send any money.
To tired and I don't know what to say. Be back tomorrow ·
Thamk you Universoty of Michigan
The Six So called signatures of William Shakespeare ua-cam.com/video/Xq9CeRZwD2w/v-deo.html
The 2011 movie anonymous is one of my favorite movies. I love this subject! Great video! Such a handful of possible other writers. I have my own channel where I talk about books
Me too. I just wish they had stuck to the authorship question and didn't include the Southampton/ Elizabeth/ DeVere patrimony-maternity nonsense. It dragged the very credible authorship question into conspiratorial nonsense. A good movie all the same.
@@williamberven-ph5ig I agree
@@williamberven-ph5ig the fact the movie tried to say he had sex with his mother was ridiculous
Just thinking about how much attention and possibly reputation some people achieve from peddaling the idea that Shakespeare didn't exist-copied other peoples works-was the name of a company. HA HA. some people just need to get a life or, maybe earn a reputation and living by actually producing something real.
WOW! that Dido speech you read is so beautiful. So Shake-speare.
Excellent. I've always found his plays very cold hearted; beautiful lines but ultimately no real genuine warmth.
This is stupid. There is no conspiracy, just facts. Up to each person to make up their own mind.
Intentionalism at its worst.
'Gender'? No thanks.
👍 Thumbs up !
Close but no cigar. John Florio had four dedications from Leicester's Men in his First Fruits published in 1578. John Florio is credited with bringing the Italian novel to English plays. No doubt he borrowed heavily from North. Later Robert Green would complain about an "upstart crow, pluming himself with the feathers of others", thought to be Shakespeare, makes perfect sense if John Florio is Shakespeare. In 1611 Queen Anne's New World of Words was published which introduced several thousand new words to the English language. Several hundred of these new words first appeared in the First Folio and nowhere else in any prior English publications. It would appear that the Great Magpie, John Florio, began a career of improving other peoples plays with Leicester's Men and continued to do so until he created a large enough English vocabulary with Queen Anne's New World of Words to write his Magnum Opus of revisionism, the First Folio. No one else in England had a large enough vocabulary to write a word salad like the First Folio in 1623. Obviously.
Just so well-researched. It would indeed be surprising if any work written in the late sixteenth century could possibly have been penned by anyone other than Edward de Vere, with the possible exception of the King James Bible, though even that was clearly based on an early draft by the Earl of Oxford.
Now that was an outstanding rebuttal. Really dealt with the arguments there. Case closed.
Philip Sidney was yet another alias of the true bard from Nantwich, Cheshire and he (the bard) had a son called "John Miton". Watch my video, then go to my first video to get more background information on why I believe I am correct If you check Milton's s biography you will see that one of his wives, Elizabeth Minshull, was from Nantwich in Cheshire , and that his "best friend", Nathan Paget was also from Nantwich (son of Thomas Paget - theologian and his wife, Mary Goldsmith). I have written a book in which I explain that the bard himself was born in Nantwich, so Milton's associations would be perfectly natural if his father was born in the town! You have to disregard some of the dates of birth and dates of death death because the bard himself wrote many of the biographies with his own agenda and he resurrected his "dead" aliases, as their sons or nephews, sometimes with the same first name, sometimes not. ua-cam.com/video/H4KBj16zs-c/v-deo.htmlsi=CNZfMTgA1IO7Iei2
I have some difficulties with this theory. During the webinar I posed the question: how would you reconcile Sidney's position on contemporary plays which railed against the mixing of high tragedy and low comedy and that they violated the Aristotlean unities with the content of the plays? "Shakespeare's" plays mix high tragedy and low comedy and do not follow those unities. It is counter to Sidney's position which occupies much of the content of his posthumous book An Apology for Poetry (1595) likely published by his sister Mary. Here is how Sidney puts it near the beginning of the book: “… all their Plays be neither right Tragedies nor right Comedies, mingling Kings and Clowns, not because the matter so carrieth it, but thrust in Clowns by head and shoulders, to play a part in majestical matters, with neither decency nor discretion, so as neither the admiration and commiseration, nor the right sportfulness, is by their mongrel Tragi-comedy obtained.” This does not fit the theory that Sidney was the playwright. His published poetry utterly unlike the sonnets, the long poems, or the contents of the plays. Compared to the writing of "Shakespeare" it seems juvenile or puerile in the words of Wednesday Addams as she described the play Gary wrote for the Camp Chippewa extravaganza. If you accept the Oxfordian theory, isn't it possible that de Vere was writing about himself in the third person (a rhetorical figure known as illeism) and that the word "fair" may have been a pun on is surname? That would clear up many enigmas about the identity of the "fair youth" who was de Vere addressing himself while he was either unmarried or estranged from his first wife Anne and unable to leave behind a male heir. At 35:06 Quattrocki Knight compares the Languet letter mentioning Sidney's ancestry as being 500 years old. By the time de Vere was active, his ancestry was also 500 years old. This also fits Sonnet 59. One last item: how did Languet manage to write sonnets which were so adaptable to elegant English and not leave a trace among his papers? Just a few items to think about.
So, unfortunately, I don't think Dr. Knight is suggesting Philip is penning too much or any of Shakespeare. So I don't think she has reconcile very many of the questions you posed, though Languet Englishing the sonnets is a good good question. I will say Brady and I do have to answer your questions. Hope to have a video on that soon but all of that can be easily resolved. Suffice to say you're not reading Sidney correctly. I have a stack of 40ish essays by Sidney scholars showing most people for most of history didn't and don't read Sidney correctly, so not really your fault. If you want to check out for yourself I recommend Levao, Hager, Honinger. But there's plenty more.
Also Ron, for your own sake, inform yourself on Sidney before you overstep. Ever heard of the Arcadia? It's defined as a tragi-comedy. Also "utterly unlike," seems an egregious generalization as far as the sonnets go. AS 1 has the same diction and themes as WS76, codes be darned. If you have some evidence of these generalizations i'm all ears. But as far as counter-argument goes, this won't be too difficult to overcome. Hope to have that video soon.
@@chancecolbert7249 Thanks for clarifying this for me. I look forward to the explanation of Sidney's work. Thanks also for the recommendations. My understanding of Sidney's work may be limited, but I have the feeling that perhaps nobody got Sidney right. Of all the Elizabethans, his output was mostly posthumous so we will never know when anything was written. One thing is certain; Walsingham and the queen used his death to make him a Protestant martyr. It took weeks for a funeral to be held which is unusual for notable people of the time, though while he was alive barely anyone seems to have paid him much attention.
@@chancecolbert7249 "I don't think Dr. Knight is suggesting Philip is penning too much or any of Shakespeare." Actually, I think she does think that Sidney was involved with the writing of the Shakespeare plays - there was a Q & A session that followed this presentation, which I hope the SAR will upload to youtube - she was asked about some of these questions - and her theory about the plays did seem to involve Philip Sidney.... I think her answer as to how Languet's writings were transformed into Shakespeare's Sonnets was that Sir John Harrington translated Languet's Latin writings to Sidney into English - she wasn't too detailed on that, but that seemed to be the direction she was heading I do think Ron's questions about how Sidney's ideas about drama presented in the Defense of Poesy are valid - no doubt that Sidney was interested in drama, and had definite opinions about literary theory concerning the theatre - I think the question that needs to be confronted head-on: does the conception of drama in Sidney's Defense of Poesy match with the vision of drama we see in the Shakespeare plays, or does Sidney have a different & opposing view of drama? That's the question I would like to see explored & addressed - not so much the question of if Sidney ever wrote theatrical entertainments or was interested in the theatre, that much is clear to anyone who wants to look into it - but I'm more interested in an examination of to what extent Sidney's conceptions of playwriting match what we see in the Shakespeare canon.
It wasn't De Vere. That's a patsy.
This presentation suggests that the Sonnets were written before Henry Wriothesley was born. IT's a non-starter for that reason. Important question that this presentation does not address: What was the relationship of Shakespeare to Henry Wriothesley? Shakespeare dedicates his entire to career to Wriothesley in the dedication to Lucrece: "What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours." Just 6 years later, this same Henry Wriothesley was convicted of Treason for trying to overthrow the crown (and obviously to replace the Queen with someone who had a claim to the thrown). His conviction was reduced to Misprision of Treason, and he was released after Elizabeth died, and restored to all his former glory. Any theory of Shakespeare must address the relationship between Shakespeare and Wriothesley. What claim did Wriothesley have on the throne? Was Shakespeare signalling support for that claim in 1593 by dedicating poems to him? Shakespeare dedicated works to 3 different men. All three were engaged to daughters of Edward de Vere, but two of the marriages did not happen.
Third was after he was dead.
You have to keep an open mind that not all the Sonnets were written by the person you think and exactly when you think as if this stuff is written in stone. The Wriothesley elements are a tale as old as time but it doesn't mean they are accurate. So it's not really a "non-starter" as you put it. The idea presented here is that Mary Sidney translated these letters in Latin and the poetic "missives" included in them at a later date than when they were written. You are free to hang on to your preferred story, but it's unlikely that you have the info or the credentials to refute new ideas that are well-presented.
@@ShakespeareAR I don't know what you mean by "old as time," but I do know that you are avoiding the question: What did Shakespeare know, and when did he know it? Why did Shakespeare dedicate his entire career to a person who would go on to be convicted of treason for trying to overthrow the crown? How does that fit in with your theory?
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Entire career! You're so right! Totally forgot that Sir Toby Belch is a loving portrait of Wriothesly. These kind of blanket generalizations belie a passion, which is admirable, noble even. Dare I say princely? Touché Vet!
@@chancecolbert7249 Where do you get this stuff? Not from me. You are taking straw manning to a whole other level.
No, assholes, it was Wriosthley and Bacon wrote the stuff, and you know it. And you can expect at least three incarnations with schizophrenia if you are one of the people paid to lie about it.
Incarnations with Schizophrenia, sounds like an early 90's deep cut grunge album. And yeah, it's us liars you should be siding with. Those gold brickers over at Oxford University and Shakespeare Birthplace Trust won't send a red cent. We're still waiting on the checks. They got us bent over a barrel. You wanna eat? You better lie. So we lie lie lie and still the checks don't come in. If you come across any of them, let em know there'll be hell to pay, we're hungry and pissed. Trying to start a union so that we can some decent representation. Rights!
This theory has to be a non-starter! Philip Sidney was long dead when the sonnets were written!
You may be right. Or 1) your dating of the sonnets is wrong. 2) Sidney is not dead by 86 3) these sonnets have undergone serial composition since their original penning giving them the appearance of having been written later. Try and keep your mind open to this, you'll only be hearing more of it in the coming months and years. Rightly so too.
@@chancecolbert7249 LOL! GTHO with all these unfounded statements! Also, any comment about your buddy thinking that Sidney was both Shakespeare AND the Fair Youth?
How to say I didn't watch the presentation without saying I didn't watch the presentation. I don't understand the determination of some people to make a spectacle of their ignorance.
Did you watch the video?
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Doesn't work when you do it...I didn't make any factual claims. Those are all hypothetical suggestions, which could be found to be false or true with more investigation. Dr.Knight's presentation was lovely and informative. It made a heap of sense to me though she is ultimately not quite right. I have many many many more thoughts on it.
Shakespeare was very clear that everything he did is for Henry Wriothesley. "FAIR" would have been the pronunciation of VERE.
Just read a plausible argument that Sidney had an affair with Anne whilst De Vere was in Italy (1776), birthing a son (after her first girl child) which was the affair De Vere was informed of on his way home, and Cecil had the child killed after 2 days. It seemed quite enlightening, and backed up by sonnets Anne composed / translated, as her son with Edward died after 1 hour.
@@DrWrapperband Sidney was jealous of Edward de Vere enough so that he copied his poetry, but I struggle with the idea of him being the kind of person to have an affair with anyone at all, much less the wife of the dangerous Earl of Oxford. The child that was born in 1576 was Elizabeth De Vere. The son who lived for only a short time was a few years later. Anne Cecil did write a sonnet about her dead son.
Excellent point! Just like how the First Folio is dedicated to Wriothesly! Or those Dark Lady sonnets, which are definitely about Wriothesly in black face and drag. Or those plays like 12th Night, Measure for Measure, Macbeth, King Lear, Julius Caesar, all of which feature Wriothesly as the main character. GTHO here with silly unfounded statements. You'd have done well to say the early 90s poems and stopped there. But that's surely a far cry from everything.
@@chancecolbert7249 From the Dedication to Lucrece: "To the Right Honourable Henry Wriothesly, Earl of Southampton ... What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours..." It's pretty clear. Shakespeare dedicates his entire career to Henry Wriothesley. Nothing unfounded about it.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Lololol see my previous comment. The one about Wriothesly being both Falstaff and Hal aka Halstaff.
Apokalupsis Historia approves of this Sidney dissemination.
So do you think that Sidney is both Shakespeare AND the Fair Youth? Neither seems likely, but both at the same time are nonsensical.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Just want point out: One of the points Oxfordians make to spot DeVere is "forty winters," (which yes Winter is Ver in french) meaning Oxford is 40 and there are seventeen sonnets meaning Wriothesly is 17. Well that still fits here: Walsingham is 40 in 72 and Sidney is 17. Remember who Philip Sidney marries. Also you keep rehashing this hot fiery Ogburnian garbage without any real evidence. You got any proof that Sidney steals from Oxford????? And don't give me Kingdom Cottage Grave, that's a response, not theft. If anything you got it backwards. According to your own theory Oxford doesn't pen a sonnet sequence until 93. Sidney was the first ever in English to do that. If Oxford is WS then he steals the idea of a sonnet sequence from Sidney.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756I (Brady) have no clue, and was more or less saying I just approve of seeing more discussion of Sidney in the SAQ sphere.
@@apokalupsishistoria I already know your position that Sidney was Shakespeare so you can understand why I would think you are being inconsistent in thinking that Shakespeare was both the author AND the subject. The reason that you don't and won't see more of Sidney in the conversation is that it is apparent that he doesn't belong in the conversation. He is the literary antithesis of Shakespeare, and he was even more dead than Marlowe was when they both needed to be very much alive, like during the Essex Rebellion. I trust you have seen the recent analysis of the First Folio that demonstrates that Shakespeare didn't use the letter J, unlike for example Bacon who did use it in his personal writings, but exactly like a certain Earl, who also did not use the letter J in his personal writings. This finding pretty much puts the group theory to rest, and narrows down the potential field of candidates to just one guy as far as I know.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 @vetstadiumastroturf5756 I think you're straw manning Sidney and my position on him, as I will assert here that I'm partial to the "Group Theorist" camp which includes both DeVere and Sidney - we have videos on this very idea, in fact. Our most recent video on DOP would refute your antithesis stance and if anything, Shakespeare is the spiritual successor to Sidney's ideas - and before you drop the "Sidney Aristotle" line, please watch our two recent Enigma of Philip Sidney videos (or read Defense of Poetry again) that will show you're playing right into Sidney's trap by quoting him in that fashion.
The TWO EYES in DA-SKIES are the SUN and MOON. The DARK EYE is the NIGHT EYE the ONE EYE on the MOON-EYE or MON-EYe. MON is ONE ... THUS A EYE on the MON EY is what??? Just that.. the ONE EYE on the MON EYe is simply A EYE written AI (Artificial Intelligence). As seen on the Movie MEN IN BLACK the haf to put the ARC-NET on the MOON to be the first INTERNET placed on the MOON that is forever called SATELLITE ONE *"SAT-A-LIGHT WON"*
"Stylometry" is a fancy word for "garbage in - garbage out"
Surely(so to speak!) the most open-minded and logical conclusion - until proven otherwise - is that a male and female group or 'Shakespeare Salon' of playwrights wrote but NOT co-wrote the plays, then submitted them to the group for read-throughs, finessing, minor or not-so-minor changes and suggestions - just as movie screen-writers do. And as always noone points out that (would-be) female playwrights had one other major reason to hide behind a male pseudonym in Elizabethan England because women were not permitted to write plays and have them publicly performed under their own names or using any female name for that matter! So I'll continue to broad-mindedly believe - until proven otherwise - that the likes of Mary Sidney, Amelia Bassano, Marlowe and Edward de Vere all contributed their own individual but "willfully"(!!) very "Shakespearean' plays to a Shakespeare Salon or collective - and a Mr. Will 'Spellcheck' Shak'spear from Stratford, real actors, closet actresses and others in the theatre business would also frequently attend the Shakespeare Salon's meet-ups. And much (very productive) fun would have been had by all. I can't wait for a now long-overdue movie sequel to "Anonymous" that reflects and both entertainingly and intelligently dramatises all of the above and much much more besides.. Paul G
So, basically the Oxfordian Theory, but with the addition of extra writers.
Marlowe died. Early. Also- mathematically - word frequency and usage etc - proven that de Vere was almost exact match to “Shakespeare”.
De Vere used almost exclusively single syllable words in order to stick to the meter of what he thought of as "poetry". It's repetitive, one- dimensional, and blessedly rare. There's a reason most Oxfordians try to pass it off as childish efforts, despite him being in his early 20s when he submitted one of his worst offenses for publication. In no world does the writing of De Vere bear any sort of similarity to the works of Shakespeare, except that they are both writing in (different) dialects of English.
It seems Florio deserves more study as likely author
I completely agree with you. He is the mastermind.
Essex and Southampton were very likely brothers. Half brothers. Elizabeth probably had several children.
Despite all the literary evidence, I'm skeptical that the elusive Thoman Nashe and William Shakespeare were the same persons. Nashe simply dropped out of sight, whereas Shakespeare lived on, past well past Nashe's disappearance, past Marlowe's murder, to emerge as one of the most brilliant figures in world literature. The Seventh Earl of Oxford claim isn't credible to my mind either, mainly because Shakespeare was well known in his day. He was married with children. known to Ben Johnson, known to dozens of actors and playwrights, at least two of whom he'd collaborated with in plays performed on the English stage--with consideration to Middleton and Kyd--notwithstanding his association to/with Marlowe. The identity of William Shakespeare as the preeminent literary figure isn't in doubt here.
Shakespeare: "tiger’s heart wrapp’d in a woman’s hide" Henry VI 3 Robert Greene "tiger’s heart wrapped in a player’s hide " Groatsworth of VVitt Thomas Nashe "ape's heart with a Lion's case" Terrors of the Night
Thanks for uploading this talk. Us doubters need all the voices we can get and Geir's erudite and truthful voice is welcome. "Merry olde England" indeed... We have been told a lie for generations that Elizabethan England was a happy time for "Shakespeare" (whoever he/she/they may have been) and able to write whatever they wanted. This talk goes a long way to exposing the myth that Renaissance England was "merry" for everyone. You cannot separate the arts from the government, the church (which was the government after Henry VIII) and the politics of the period. Censorship dictated what creative types could do which makes the works by "Shakespeare" all the more remarkable since they are still read and produced today. It was truly a case of "art tongue-tied by authority" as the "hard bard" wrote. I hope his book sells well. More people need to know what was going on and what is going on with respect to discovering the real person(s) behind the most famous name in literature.
thank you for sharing this! this topic is very interesting ❤
ua-cam.com/video/JW84TC9BUiE/v-deo.html&ab_channel=EndoftheTownProductions
ua-cam.com/video/JW84TC9BUiE/v-deo.html&ab_channel=EndoftheTownProductions
'Elizabeth' was a man.
History is the fake news of yesterday.
'Shakespeare' was a female who lived as a man. 'Virginia Woolf' was a dude. Snore on...