Відео

Not only that, but you'd for sure own dozens of books like all famous contemporary writers--but wait, Shaksper owned not a single book. Books were incredibly valuable, but none appeared in his will--only things of lesser value. He had no books. Back then books were worth between approximately $150 to $1000 each in modern money. He had $5-10 stuff in his will for the most part. There you go. It is likely he could not even read or write. He wrote nothing--he's a folk hero. The stuff of made-up legends.

40:51 Excellent counterpoint. Prechter and many Oxfordians don't know what to do with Leicester... Sidney lurks in the distance. 46:21 Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Stylistic consideration must still occur and be explained. We could have hired hands or misdirection yet. This is one of the many reasons I struggle with Prechter.

👍 Thumbs up !

👍 Thumbs up !

👍thumbs up !

Thank you for brining some humour to the Shakespeare Authorship Question. We tire of the Oliver Kamm raving factless diatribes.

Isn't the pen mightier than the sword

LOL That about sums it up.

Love this😂👏👏👏

Not enough Dorothea and Bonner here but they shine as usual

In regards to Marlowe, although I'm a die-hard Oxfordian -- and have been since c. 1990 -- there is an author whom I greatly admire, named Joseph Atwill. He wrote a jarring re-think about the origins of Christianity titled "CAESAR'S MESSIAH" which I'm convinced is at least mostly right and perhaps entirely right. In brief, he makes the case that the Flavian emperors of Rome invented Christianity and typologically modeled the 3 & 1/2-year ministry of Jesus on the 3 & 1/2-year military campaign of Titus; both Jesus and Titus have exploits at the same locations in the same sequence, but set 40 years apart -- Jesus c. 30 CE and Titus c. 70 CE -- with the Jesus activities in each locale pre-echoing what happens one 'generation' later . . . to darkly comic effect. Atwill wrote a 2nd book, though, titled "SHAKESPEARE'S SECRET MESSIAH" in which he makes a case for Emilia Bassano Lanier having been Marlowe's lover and then -- after his decease -- having become 'Shakespeare'. I'm not convinced that she was 'Shakespeare', but Atwill's 'take' on Marlowe's "THE JEW OF MALTA" as well as on several Shakespeare plays (especially "TITUS ANDRONICUS" and "ROMEO AND JULIET") do seem to show that Marlowe and 'Shakespeare' both knew the same basic themes regarding the Flavian origins of Christianity that he went public with in his 2005 book "CAESAR'S MESSIAH." Atwill dismisses Oxford-as-'Shakespeare' in a mere 2 pages of his 2nd book, which I find grossly inadequate, of course. He sees the works of 'Shakespeare' as Jewish Revenge literature, Bassano being from a family of Jewish converts who went from Italy to England. The name 'Baptista' (or 'Battista', etc.) denoted someone -- most often a Jew -- who had been 'baptized' a Christian despite having been born a Jew, usually out of necessity in a time when Jews were regularly persecuted. We Oxfordians, in my opinion, ought to read Atwill's work -- "CAESAR'S MESSIAH" to get the full import of his Flavian creation of Christianity theme, and then "SHAKESPEARE'S SECRET MESSIAH" to see the evidence he presents showing that the former themes are present not only in Marlowe's "THE JEW OF MALTA" but also in several of the 'Shakespeare' plays. If the Bassano family had been secretly aware of the Flavian origins of Christianity, and if it was through them -- i.e. through Emilia Lanier in particular -- that Marlowe learned of it -- especially as his "atheism" might well be due to his having learned of the Titus/Jesus parallels -- then the subtle inclusion of such material in the 'Shakespeare' corpus has to be thought through. Atwill thinks Emilia was 'Shakespeare', but we Oxfordians don't; however, it is obvious that Oxford would have known her and her family, so IF IF IF the subtle Flavian themes came to him via her and her family, then that would account for how he knew enough to insert it into several of his plays. This might even supply some basis for his enemies' accusations against him regarding Religion. I urge all Oxfordians to read Atwill's two books. I don't believe -- as he does -- that Emilia Lanier Bassano was 'Shakespeare', but it's hard to maintain that the Flavian Themes he sees in several of the plays aren't really THERE. They ARE there, and in addition to all the multifarious reasons we have to believe that Oxford wrote the 'Shakespeare' canon, we have to explore how the Flavian Theme came to be a part of it. Waugh argues in one of his videos that Oxford came to detest Marlowe's 'atheism' . . . but perhaps that was only an initial detestation . . . followed by a soul-searing realization that neither the Catholicism of his ancestors nor the Anglican Protestantism touted by the State during his lifetime were 'true'. Might Oxford have had a crisis of Faith by the time he adopted the 'Shakespeare' guise, one he dare not EXPLICITLY admit to, yet which he might give voice to in cryptic, subtle ways in those plays which Atwill specifically explicates?

Always enjoy your material

This was a long time coming! As usual, the discussion was interesting, informative, and lively. Keep up the great work! As Tom said, it's like old home week. Tom's precis of why Shakspere didn't write the plays and poems is getting better all the time. His introduction to the authorship issue beginning at 2:48 is comprehensive and logical. What should be the most persuasive is the lack of a literary paper trail for the man (3:32 - 3:40). I have a problem with the Marlowe theory and it boils down to this: why would anyone take the trouble of faking his death, moving him to Europe (or wherever he was supposed to go), then transporting valuable manuscripts across hostile borders where there was a real chance they would be confiscated, burnt, or damaged beyond repair? His low "Price Score", that is the number of items in his literary paper trail - 4 - only means that his paper trail was shorter because his career was shorter. The official report of his death beginning at 14:59 sounds extremely plausible. There are small details in the document as relayed by Alex that could not have been easily invented such as where everyone was sitting, where Marlowe retrieved a dagger, and who did what. To me it seems authentic and told by a witness. I like Phoebe's summary of why Bacon was not responsible for the plays and poems. She gives us everything you need to know abut Bacon but were afraid to ask. His interests were in the sciences (aka natural philosophy), theology, and education reform which are topics notably lacking in the works. He was also a mean-spirited, vindictive, and duplicitous man who was not above framing Essex, then being the lead prosecutor against the earl. As Dorothea says near the end of the video (57:55), he had the heart of a scientist. The Spedding books about Bacon Bonner mentions (51:58) can be downloaded at the Internet Archive. Even though there are alternate candidates, for my money, the most convincing evidence points to de Vere as the principal writer behind the name William Shakespeare. There are far more hints and clues in the First Folio and other documents leading to him than any other candidate. De Vere's "Price Score" is 8 out of 10, by the way.

Just don't spill the drinks, Tom! Just getting around to reading Sir George Greenwood's The Shakespeare Problem Restated. This may have been written over 100 years ago (pre Looney) but is is still a very eloquent and devastating destruction of the Stratfordian case. Heartily recommended. Greenwood was a top British barrister and his legal knowledge is very relevant. Easily demolishes the "legend" of Will Shakspere's deer-poaching episode, for example. Read it if you haven't already, Greenwood has a very infectious sense of humour. Some of this older material should not be overlooked when it is this easy to read...and it is available in relatively cheap paperback reprints.

IMO there was a whole group of authors and contributors with Bacon as the great fixer or coordinator as he had been with the production of the King James Bible and many other classic works of literature, history, law, culture, philosophy, and science. People may have had a greater work ethic in those days with fewer distractions than today but this was a massive undertaking and would have required teams of people working either alone or in closer collaboration. With the arrival of printing presses an entire new library of works translated into English was urgently required to help keep up with the French, Dutch, Italians, and Spanish. No time could be wasted or parts ignored. Bacon was the man charged with this task, and only Bacon had the required power, influence, regal permission, talent, motivation, persuasive abilities, knowledge, contacts, and legal clout to make it all happen.

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

I don't get the importance of Heminges and Condell. Their references to WS connect the Stratford man to the theater (we already knew that) through their friendship, but writing about him as if he was also the playwright is no more than hearsay, part of the bluff that was the First Folio. What am I missing?

thank you!

Very interesting subject! The rebellion probably relates history directly to many aspects of the Shake-speare story more than most events! One fascinating fact I would like to add: Immediately after Oxford's death, Southampton was placed under arrest by the king (or by Cecil?) He was released shortly after, but this seems very puzzling? I can only speculate, but it seems to me that James wanted to secure Southampton's assent to any agreements that Oxford had made with Cecil and himself. There's one to run with! One more reason why the Oxfordian perspective is such an amazing detective story!

MORE PLEASE!!! When is the next one coming out?!

I have now watched this video 3 times and the research is incredible.

Brilliant

Is it possible that Thomas North was a second nom de plume for Edward deVere?

I really enjoy this channel!

It's not a religion.

Great insight ladies and gents! Much appreciated!

The authorship question is an argument from absence, never one from evidence. It began with Malone’s insistence that the sonnets (and then the plays) must have been written from experience rather than imagination, and it continues to this day hanging on the single thread that we simply do not have much to go by on Shakespeare’s life. Every candidate put forth exists solely in the vacuum of evidence of Shakespeare’s life. Oxford was traveled, Marlowe educated, Bacon intelligent and ambitious; nevermind the fact that the former two were dead before some of the best of Shakespeare’s plays were written, and the latter has extant examples of how poor a playwright he actually was. And then the irony of using that absence of evidence in the affirmative - “we have no record of Shakespeare traveling abroad” is an oft-uttered dismissal of the possibility that he may very well have visited Italy and France for all we know, which is almost nothing. The authorship question is a nothingburger.

There is argument even among English people about the pronunciation of "Shrewsbury". I use that derived from "shrew". My countryman uses the posh version IMO 🙂

This is one of the best presentations and logic given for the truth to come out Ever The Truth! Tom Regnier Nails It! R.I.P.

As a Stratfordian and a player (but definitely not a 'scholar') there is one overriding argument that is always overlooked. The language of the plays. The way that the words are exactly what a player needs to create character. In the same way that only a musician could have composed the works of Mozart, only an experienced player could have had such an experiential understanding of what it takes to build a character out of the words alone - especially if one takes into account the working practices whereby the player was working in isolation and from a cuescript. Anything which pertains to source material can be acquired by research. Nothing can replace that talent.

Raleigh sounds like a narcissist ...what goes round comes around

Look better at John Florio and Michelangelo Florio…

Given another thousand years of pontificating, it will always remain a mystery. So, spend some time doing something useful.

The real question is why people still believe that the guy from Stratford Upon Avon wrote the plays. The reason IMO is authority. People LOVE to be told what they should know. There are vested interests like the Stratford Upon Avon tourist board. There are also insufferable arrogant bar stewards who claim they are this or that in the academic world. And as for criticising Oxfordians as mostly Americans, so what? I'm English and I listen to people who are truth followers not people who might share the same flag as myself. As a working class boy who went to a grammar school I would love to believe the greatest writer in the history of the world was one of us. The truth is, De Vere had talent and importantly, the best education for a future wordsmith there was possible. Partisanship towards William of Stratford owes a lot to a dislike of privilege. I understand that. Indeed, if anything, the notion that a nobleman was the greatest writer in the English language raises important questions of how education can make such a big difference. It illustrates how much talent there potentially is, if only the right environment was provided for. I mention that Lorenzo Medici, of wealthy heritage is regarded as one of Italy’s finest poets. Given the opportunity and slim demographic De Vere represents, a thousand "Shakespeares" could be turned out every year, but who would do all the donkey work supporting those capable of such Maslowvian self-actualisation? And let’s appreciate De Vere’s teachers as well. As a chess player, I know that a world champion is not only himself and talent but his environment inclusive of teachers and sufficient wealth to travel and play. Oh, to have the foresight to be born to wealthy parents! *** A great presentation and a real pity a content provider has to put up so much arrogance and fallacious argument in the comments. The realisation of De Vere as Shakespeare will grow with every funeral of the current generation of teachers of English Literature…

There's no evidence to suggest that the sonnets were all written by one person, that they are chronological, that they are coherent, or even that they are complete. All I can say is that when I read the sonnets the most instinctive feeling I get is that they were written by different people, by women and men, across different times in their lives, such that they tell, or not even tell but rather obliquely allude to, lots of different stories in the private and public lives of these tifftoffkniffknoff aristo women and men that we as outsiders at four centuries of distance will never know for sure what they were writing back and forth about. In my opinion they're a collection of private correspondence between various parties that were never meant to be published...And apart from the florid and highbrow language that one can usefully borrow quotes from to sound intelligent, and the occasional gem such as that summer's day malarkey, or the genius of that mortal war between mine eye and heart that stretches across multiple sonnets, and a few other pearls amidst the swine, in my soul most of them are atrociously dull and affected English literature that do not resonate for me in the way that a delightful play like As You Like It resonates from beginning to end...In fact in my soul the majority of the sonnets are so dull as to almost sit on a par with the complete works of Charles Dickens. PS Essex Shmessex...He was an even bigger loser than Roger the handgliding man in Wedding Crashers. And PPS no offence to Hank at all, I've watched your True Story of King Henry IX and it's an absolutely brilliant one man performance with plenty of insight! And intentionally funny in parts too! (And I've read your Monument. Big book.) Good to see you're well!

How to win the authorship debate: Step 1: find some evidence. Step 2: there is no Step 2. Just find some evidence and it's a done deal.

So you are a retired lawyer...I'm one of the most prolific directors of Shakespeare's works worldwide and studied under the founder of UK University drama, Prof Wickham. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Little green men from Mars did not build the pyramids either. When Prof Wickham was confronted with a rebellious graduate student who wanted to write his dissertation on this absurd theory he refused to mark it. All the evidence is there in the brilliant CONTESTED WILL by Prof Shapiro. Oxford was a terrible writer, by the by.

Oxfordian Percy Allen maintained that, where the documentary record shows gaps (deliberate erasures or deletions?) the literature, poetry or drama, can supply much of the hidden history, albeit cryptically worded--as the Sonnets evidently are a kind of history.

Anagrams Never Before Imprinted = De Vere In Tomb Fire Pen R (R = 17) Never Before Imprinted = De Vere in Tomb Pen Firre (Firre is Forty in Danish) Never Before Imprinted = Mente Videbor Fire Pen R (By the Mind I Will Be Seen - Fire Pen 17) Never Before Imprinted = Mente Videbor Firre Pen (By the Mind I Will Be Seen - Pen Forty)

Think there is another factor in all this ..which is the merchants and bankers of London...the gold and silver smiths always had money to invest.They formed a generation later the square mile in the City of London{which the monarch had to ask permission to enter}

Are we seriously expected to accept the argument that the William Shakespeare born in Stratford-upon-Avon was the same William Shakespeare that was a member of the Lord's Chamberlain's men, couldn't possibly have been the same William Shakespeare who wrote plays performed the Lord's Chamberlain's men because early records of his name are spelt differently? I've no doubt the glovemaker's son went to school, but also he would have been steeped in oral history and storytelling, because of the family history of his mother. If you don't recognise the value of oral history to writers go have a look at Walter Scott. I get that people like being controversial, but I feel a bit sorry for de Vere here, he may well have seen and enjoyed a few of Shakespeare's plays, and not want to be used as a weapon against him, Lay down your arms, this is controversy for the sake of it.

Interesting lecture. Misprision of treason seems to be acts or expressions that are construed by officials to oppose central authority. Modern equivalent in bad thoughts in CCP China, anti state acts in Putin's Russia. Think of verbal treason committed against the church/state cult, but condemned in a non fatal pew. Phew!

This matters for far more serious reasons than satisfying the idle curiosity of a few wannabe intellectuals. It shows that great lies and deceptions can and have been carried out by the very top of society and been perpetuated for many hundreds of years. WE WERE LIED TO and we still are being lied to. This was a systematically organised conspiracy to deceive. This involved not only top members of the English aristocracy but Elizabeth and James 1st. The consequences and motivations may have been reasonably benign but what this reveals should make us wonder how many other matters that have formed the foundations of our historical record are also fraudulent? We already know of some of them, but how many more exist that we have have not yet discovered? The truth is that we live in a world of lies and deceptions some of which are far older then this one. In my opinion virtually everything that we believe is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not. This applies to virtually all subject matters, to a great or greater degree. Knowledge is power. This is why our Owners retain so much of the latter and we remain with so little of the former. It is perhaps ironic that the greatest proponent of the Enlightenment namely Sir Francis Bacon was one of the Worlds greatest liars and deceivers as well as one of the smartest and most influential persons ever to have lived. Bacon and his co-conspirators may have had the best intentions in mind when embarking on this great project to deceive the masses, but the motivation is relatively unimportant with regards to its clear implications. This also amply demonstrates that it is far easier to fool someone than convince them that they have been fooled.

Completely off topic I have another question. I can’t seem to find an Oxfordian take on David Garrick. Seems to me that the Stratfordian Shakespeare we all think we know was invented by Garrick in 1769 as a marketing campaign. Is there a good source of information on Garrick in Oxfordian circles?

Fascinating discussion. I’m not convinced but after watching this I went back and reread many of the sonnets with the presumption that they were a man writing to or for his son who he can’t openly acknowledge. And more specifically Oxford and Southampton. So much becomes clear that used to baffle me.

If Southampton was the son of Queen Elizabeth and Oxford and if Venus and Adonis explained the queen’s seduction of Oxford, and if Lucrece explained the rape of Oxford “s wife while he was in Italy and assured Southampton that he was not a half brother of Oxford’s daughter and therefore eligible to marry her, this all makes even more sense than it already does.

Southhampton marrying a Cecil granddaughter would certifiy his safety. Southampton had Plantagenet blood (Henry III, I believe ) and was of the "True" religion...? Could "Truth" and "Beauty" not relate to religion and royalty in this context too? The Plantagenet blood line is still considered one or the 'purest' of English royal blood lines to this day,...there's still pride in that, in some circles!

I would love to know if there's a l connections between (Measure for Measure) Angelo and Robert Cecil, Isabella and (yes!) Penelope Rich, Claudio and Essex...and Duke Vincentio - a forward nod to James Ist? Allegorically speaking...of course.

While I don't yet go for Hank's theory, I immediately admit it is my favorite one in terms of my desire for it to be true. It has EVERYTHING in it. Hank throws down a challenge by asking how there can be any other possible meaning for 'glory' in sonnet 37. This isn't the spot for such a fun debate, but I'll just say that Hank's framing points to one of the weaknesses I see in his overall reasoning: the fact that Hank can't think of any other reasons the word 'glory' would be used in the sonnets tells me that he is so deeply married to this theory that a debate would be nearly impossible. Look up all of Shakespeare's uses of glory. See if he has many different ways he uses it. Hank often begs the question by reading his priors into every interpretation. Which, of course, makes it seem obvious that 'glory' in 37 can only mean one thing, that it is ABSURD to interpret it any other way. But it isn't easy to have fun and useful debates when people simply can't imagine any other interpretation. But, as I said up top, Hank's theory is by far the most fascinating. And it is internally consistent. That is a minimum necessity for any theory. But it often is taken as evidence in itself. It's not. All this said, this conversation on Essex was outstanding. I love this group of fun and highly intelligent Oxfordians. And I hope the bartender never stops his preshow hummings.

Hank, ever since I saw and heard your take on the sonnets....you just breathe a life into them that hasn't happened before in my experience. Sure, there's speculation but you own that.... Anyway thanks to your work there will ever be a beating/feeling heart in Shakespeare's sonnets