Regarding the Catholic-versus-Protestant elements in HAMLET, I would suggest that Prince Hamlet -- having returned to Elsinore from Wittemburg, famous for being where Luther nailed his tract to the cathedral door, igniting the Protestant Reformation -- had been taught to be a Protestant, someone who rejected the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory . . . only to hear the ghost of his murdered father speak of the fearful circumstances he's been dealing with in his Afterlife -- described as Purgatory, a state of TEMPORARY punishment -- yet wrongly assumed by Prince Hamlet to be ETERNAL punishments in Hell. Hamlet seeks to force the hand of God to condemn his father's murderer -- his own uncle Claudius -- to Hell in 'revenge' for him having supposedly sent his brother-king to Hell by murdering him in his sleep, preventing him from shriving his soul. This is the same DAMNABLE sin that Hamlet perpetrates against Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, forging a new letter authorizing the English to kill those false friends with "no shriving time allowed" etc. I think that De Vere believed in the tenets of the Catholic religion -- including the doctrine of Purgatory -- but that he vehemently opposed the Pope's edict authorizing Catholics in England to overthrow their monarch, who ruled 'Dei Gratia' -- by the grace of God -- and felt that he would be guilty of the sin punished in the 9th Level of Dante's INFERNO were he to follow the Pope's egging-on to murder Queen Elizabeth: Betrayal, Treachery, Treason. Torn between Catholic doctrines he still believed in and Protestant political views which defied a Papacy that was unwilling to address corruption within its Church, Oxford had to straddle the fence, with one foot in each camp, defying a Pope's unrighteous edict while still secretly adhering to certain doctrines that Protestantism had rejected.
Well said! And it's consistent with Oxford's extraordinary capacity to tolerate complexity, rather than chasing false binaries, as most of us tend to do.
After I read charlton ogburn book I wondered how the stratfordians could still keep up the fraud of shaksper as the bard. I read looney book as well. Excellent detective story. Mark Anderson book also good bio of devere. Anyone who knows anything about elizabethan england knows only a nobleman could have written these plays. And of all the nobles devere seems the likeliest candidate. Give this great man his due.
Is it true that the actor John Heminges was one of the 1613 purchasers of the Blackfriars East Gatehouse? And if he were one of the purchasers, is there any evidence, independent of this purchase, that he was a Catholic?
If as I suspect Heminges was not Catholic but was a 1613 purchaser of the Blackfriars Gatehouse, then the fact that Shaksper of Stratford was also such a purchaser is not the conclusive evidence of Catholicism that the video says it is.
I agree with Your opinion that Francis Meres recognized in Shakespeare a pseudonym, but by no means necessarily of the Aristokrat ( Edward de Vere).. Regard (in ‚Meres‘ Palladis T) the much greater signifikance of Drayton compared to Shakespeare or ‚de Vere‘ .- For me , also Drayton belonged …Like Shakspere… to the multiple non-Aristokratic pseudonyms of Marlowe. ua-cam.com/video/57LKIFQTkFo/v-deo.htmlsi=Gc7CCM4S2u7BKKR5 😮
The huge counter fact to the idea that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare is that he died in 1604 while Shakespeare's last plays are dated 1605 - 1613. Namely: King Lear Dated 1605-06. Performed at court December 1606 and seems to refer to eclipses of September and October 1605 Macbeth 1606. Certainly more Jacobean than Elizabethan based on the play's several compliments to King James Antony and Cleopatra Dated 1606-07, registered for publication in 1608 and perhaps performed at court in 1606 or 1607 Coriolanus Perhaps written in 1608. Allusion to 'coal of fire upon ice' in Act 1 could refer to the great frost of winter in 1607/08 Pericles 1608. Registered for publication in 1608; Wilkin's novel The Painful Adventures of Pericles, cashing in on the success of the play, was published in 1608 Cymbeline 1610. A performance in 1611 is recorded. Theatres were reopened in spring 1610 after a long closure due to the plague After 1610 The Winter's Tale 1611. Performed at the Globe May 1611; dance of satyrs apparently borrows from a court entertainment of January 1611 The Tempest 1611. Performed at court in November 1611; uses source material not available before autumn 1610 Henry VIII 1613. The first Globe theatre burnt down in a fire that started during a performance of the play on 29 June 1613 The Two Noble Kinsmen 1613-14; 'our loss' in the Prologue probably refers to the Globe fire of 1613 Source: RSC
All those "dates" you cite are based on first performance and first publication. Please read Roger Stritmatter on the date of The Tempest, and stop spreading false information about it.
How does a list of performances prove when something was written? How is a play about a murderous Scots man who is cursed by witches, steals the throne and is then murdered on stage a "compliment" to King James -- the most superstitious and witch-fearing monarch in history? It's a silly conjecture presented without evidence. The only way the dates could be used in this argument was if there was evidence for when they were written. You'll see in another video from this year's conference that what has always been the case about "dating" Shakespeare plays is that there is no evidence to tell us when any of the plays were actually written. The traditional dating is now being reconsidered in all of academia because it was constructed without evidence to fit into the lifetime of the Stratford man. "Probably" refers to... "apparently borrows from..." "Source material not available before..." These are conjecture. The Tempest date is based on the thinnest of falsehoods -- the one most often used to rule out Oxford would also rule out Shaksper. But there were many earlier shipwrecks that could have provided the "source material." Every argument for dating plays after 1604 is easily refuted. There are no conclusive dates for any plays, only a range of dates within which we can safely say they must have been created.
I'm convinced that the Gunpower Plot was an entrapment of Catholics arranged by William Cecil. John Gerard’s 1897 “What Was The Gunpowder Plot”, available from Amazon, makes compelling reading that everything was not as most now believe. The Shakespeare Authorship question is both trivial and profound. This channel and related authors have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, De Vere was Shakespeare. I’m not sure the “Oxfordian” and “Stratfordian” labels help. While the establishment favours… well the establishment “truth”… the question is not one of “debating” but putting the evidence out there. Anyone - not matter however academically “clever” - is either a fool or mortgage paying slave who believe that the bloke from Stratford was the author. In this sense, the question is trivial. It is profound in the sense that these things are still be hidden by what we might call the deep state. As such it is but one example, and “Oxfordians” who confine themselves to this single mystery while neglecting world events, say, of the last twenty five years might lack that political insight of how the state likes and needs to protect its "infallibility". The people who believe and write books about the Stratford Man are a subset of academic whores who go along with many other mortgage paying paradigms in history, science, and economics that are aligned with TPTB. That William Shaksper bought a residence associated with Catholics along with the lending of his (similar) name to De Vere's work, suggests he might be an intelligence asset of some sort. So he may not have actually been a Catholic. What little we seem to know of him suggests he was money rather than religion orientated. I might add, I’ve been involved with politics and a minority party infiltrated by the state, so I have first-hand experience of political ne’er-do-welling that many academics have not. I really enjoy the work the Oxford Fellowship puts out…so thanks 🙂
The comments about Shakespeare the grain engrosser or hoarder are highly over-blown. The reference to the grain he held is among the mentions to many other men in Stratford who held grain in the corn enquiry of February 1598, when he held 10 quarters of grain - unspecified as to what type. This was almost certainly for the production of ale, and equally likely for personal consumption in his own household, and again likely the province of his wife and her servants, rather than the man himself. In any case, Stratford was a brewing town and there were commercial brewers, like Robert Perrott and Robert Salisbury, both men well-known to John Shakespeare, and fellow councillors and also sometime bailiffs of the town, like himself. So this line of argument is extremely weak if it is sought as evidence that the 'Stratford man' was a common grain merchant - he wasn't! I note that the speaker also made a lot out of WS being a Catholic. Again, making a case out of the purchase of the Gatehouse as some sort of priest hiddy-hole Shakespeare was promoting is wild speculation, grounded on nothing. The research over recent years has veered (no pun intended) towards many of the plays of the period, including many previously assigned to a single author, as being collaborative or co-authored. None is attributed to Edward de Vere having been involved, openly or furtively. The London players needed their material to be readily available, which is why they had in-house playwrights or access to jobbing writers. De Vere's known work is not in the class of these writers and he was never reported being around for the interpretation or production as men like Shakespeare Jonson, Marlowe et al were. It never ceases to amaze me that English professors think plays can be produced without the involvement of their authors, at least in their original production. Even today, when their parts in the plays of the canon can be recited by professional actors by memory, the putting together of the whole is a lengthy effort requiring skilled production and direction.
@@johntaplin3126 De Vere's work is not in the class of the other writers, unless of course he was Shakespeare, in which case it is still in a class of it's own. De Vere's "known" work was considered to be of high quality until 1920 (when de Vere was identified as Shakespeare), and up to that time it was held to be a sad mystery that the drama and poetry that was said to be by the Earl had for some reason ALL gone missing. Shaksper of Stratford has no literary biography and direct link to his supposed works, while Edward de Vere is a documented writer whose writings are all missing, at least under his own name. Math may be required.
De Vere's 'known work' such as it is, is juvenile at best. On the reasoning that only an aristocratic could have written the Shakespeare canon, then the same logic must apply to all the other writers of the period - is this your contention? This is evidently rubbish - no it's only Shakespeare that needed a genius aristocratic to do the job. A 'known' aristocratic writer for whom nothing is available, except all the stuff that was produced by an acting company that just happened to have a player among its members called William Shakespeare. But by putting hyphen between this man's name the genius aristocratic 'hid' himself in a cunning pen name. OK, that settles it then. Do you actually know anything about the Stratford of Shakespeare? I very much doubt it.
Fantastic introduction to the real Shakespeare!
Regarding the Catholic-versus-Protestant elements in HAMLET, I would suggest that Prince Hamlet -- having returned to Elsinore from Wittemburg, famous for being where Luther nailed his tract to the cathedral door, igniting the Protestant Reformation -- had been taught to be a Protestant, someone who rejected the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory . . . only to hear the ghost of his murdered father speak of the fearful circumstances he's been dealing with in his Afterlife -- described as Purgatory, a state of TEMPORARY punishment -- yet wrongly assumed by Prince Hamlet to be ETERNAL punishments in Hell. Hamlet seeks to force the hand of God to condemn his father's murderer -- his own uncle Claudius -- to Hell in 'revenge' for him having supposedly sent his brother-king to Hell by murdering him in his sleep, preventing him from shriving his soul. This is the same DAMNABLE sin that Hamlet perpetrates against Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, forging a new letter authorizing the English to kill those false friends with "no shriving time allowed" etc.
I think that De Vere believed in the tenets of the Catholic religion -- including the doctrine of Purgatory -- but that he vehemently opposed the Pope's edict authorizing Catholics in England to overthrow their monarch, who ruled 'Dei Gratia' -- by the grace of God -- and felt that he would be guilty of the sin punished in the 9th Level of Dante's INFERNO were he to follow the Pope's egging-on to murder Queen Elizabeth: Betrayal, Treachery, Treason. Torn between Catholic doctrines he still believed in and Protestant political views which defied a Papacy that was unwilling to address corruption within its Church, Oxford had to straddle the fence, with one foot in each camp, defying a Pope's unrighteous edict while still secretly adhering to certain doctrines that Protestantism had rejected.
Well said! And it's consistent with Oxford's extraordinary capacity to tolerate complexity, rather than chasing false binaries, as most of us tend to do.
Fabulous series.
After I read charlton ogburn book I wondered how the stratfordians could still keep up the fraud of shaksper as the bard. I read looney book as well. Excellent detective story. Mark Anderson book also good bio of devere. Anyone who knows anything about elizabethan england knows only a nobleman could have written these plays. And of all the nobles devere seems the likeliest candidate. Give this great man his due.
thank you
Is it true that the actor John Heminges was one of the 1613 purchasers of the Blackfriars East Gatehouse? And if he were one of the purchasers, is there any evidence, independent of this purchase, that he was a Catholic?
If as I suspect Heminges was not Catholic but was a 1613 purchaser of the Blackfriars Gatehouse, then the fact that Shaksper of Stratford was also such a purchaser is not the conclusive evidence of Catholicism that the video says it is.
Good video. There's some evidence De Vere was a Catholic in his younger days, though he does seem to have changed his mind later on.
I agree with Your opinion that Francis Meres recognized in Shakespeare a pseudonym, but by no means necessarily of the Aristokrat ( Edward de Vere).. Regard (in ‚Meres‘ Palladis T) the much greater signifikance of Drayton compared to Shakespeare or ‚de Vere‘ .- For me , also Drayton belonged …Like Shakspere… to the multiple non-Aristokratic pseudonyms of Marlowe.
ua-cam.com/video/57LKIFQTkFo/v-deo.htmlsi=Gc7CCM4S2u7BKKR5
😮
The huge counter fact to the idea that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare is that he died in 1604 while Shakespeare's last plays are dated 1605 - 1613. Namely:
King Lear Dated 1605-06. Performed at court December 1606 and seems to refer to eclipses of September and October 1605
Macbeth 1606. Certainly more Jacobean than Elizabethan based on the play's several compliments to King James
Antony and Cleopatra Dated 1606-07, registered for publication in 1608 and perhaps performed at court in 1606 or 1607
Coriolanus Perhaps written in 1608. Allusion to 'coal of fire upon ice' in Act 1 could refer to the great frost of winter in 1607/08
Pericles 1608. Registered for publication in 1608; Wilkin's novel The Painful Adventures of Pericles, cashing in on the success of the play, was published in 1608
Cymbeline 1610. A performance in 1611 is recorded. Theatres were reopened in spring 1610 after a long closure due to the plague
After 1610
The Winter's Tale 1611. Performed at the Globe May 1611; dance of satyrs apparently borrows from a court entertainment of January 1611
The Tempest 1611. Performed at court in November 1611; uses source material not available before autumn 1610
Henry VIII 1613. The first Globe theatre burnt down in a fire that started during a performance of the play on 29 June 1613
The Two Noble Kinsmen 1613-14; 'our loss' in the Prologue probably refers to the Globe fire of 1613
Source: RSC
All those "dates" you cite are based on first performance and first publication. Please read Roger Stritmatter on the date of The Tempest, and stop spreading false information about it.
How does a list of performances prove when something was written?
How is a play about a murderous Scots man who is cursed by witches, steals the throne and is then murdered on stage a "compliment" to King James -- the most superstitious and witch-fearing monarch in history? It's a silly conjecture presented without evidence.
The only way the dates could be used in this argument was if there was evidence for when they were written.
You'll see in another video from this year's conference that what has always been the case about "dating" Shakespeare plays is that there is no evidence to tell us when any of the plays were actually written. The traditional dating is now being reconsidered in all of academia because it was constructed without evidence to fit into the lifetime of the Stratford man.
"Probably" refers to... "apparently borrows from..." "Source material not available before..." These are conjecture. The Tempest date is based on the thinnest of falsehoods -- the one most often used to rule out Oxford would also rule out Shaksper. But there were many earlier shipwrecks that could have provided the "source material." Every argument for dating plays after 1604 is easily refuted. There are no conclusive dates for any plays, only a range of dates within which we can safely say they must have been created.
Dated does NOT mean written. Post-humous publication is hardly unusual.
Some of the plays were not published until the First Folio in 1623. If Shaksper died in 1616 who wrote them?
Do historians know the names of any Catholic priests who resided at the Blackfriars East Gatehouse during the Jacobean period?
I'm convinced that the Gunpower Plot was an entrapment of Catholics arranged by William Cecil. John Gerard’s 1897 “What Was The Gunpowder Plot”, available from Amazon, makes compelling reading that everything was not as most now believe.
The Shakespeare Authorship question is both trivial and profound. This channel and related authors have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, De Vere was Shakespeare. I’m not sure the “Oxfordian” and “Stratfordian” labels help. While the establishment favours… well the establishment “truth”… the question is not one of “debating” but putting the evidence out there. Anyone - not matter however academically “clever” - is either a fool or mortgage paying slave who believe that the bloke from Stratford was the author. In this sense, the question is trivial.
It is profound in the sense that these things are still be hidden by what we might call the deep state. As such it is but one example, and “Oxfordians” who confine themselves to this single mystery while neglecting world events, say, of the last twenty five years might lack that political insight of how the state likes and needs to protect its "infallibility". The people who believe and write books about the Stratford Man are a subset of academic whores who go along with many other mortgage paying paradigms in history, science, and economics that are aligned with TPTB.
That William Shaksper bought a residence associated with Catholics along with the lending of his (similar) name to De Vere's work, suggests he might be an intelligence asset of some sort. So he may not have actually been a Catholic. What little we seem to know of him suggests he was money rather than religion orientated. I might add, I’ve been involved with politics and a minority party infiltrated by the state, so I have first-hand experience of political ne’er-do-welling that many academics have not.
I really enjoy the work the Oxford Fellowship puts out…so thanks 🙂
The comments about Shakespeare the grain engrosser or hoarder are highly over-blown. The reference to the grain he held is among the mentions to many other men in Stratford who held grain in the corn enquiry of February 1598, when he held 10 quarters of grain - unspecified as to what type. This was almost certainly for the production of ale, and equally likely for personal consumption in his own household, and again likely the province of his wife and her servants, rather than the man himself. In any case, Stratford was a brewing town and there were commercial brewers, like Robert Perrott and Robert Salisbury, both men well-known to John Shakespeare, and fellow councillors and also sometime bailiffs of the town, like himself. So this line of argument is extremely weak if it is sought as evidence that the 'Stratford man' was a common grain merchant - he wasn't! I note that the speaker also made a lot out of WS being a Catholic. Again, making a case out of the purchase of the Gatehouse as some sort of priest hiddy-hole Shakespeare was promoting is wild speculation, grounded on nothing. The research over recent years has veered (no pun intended) towards many of the plays of the period, including many previously assigned to a single author, as being collaborative or co-authored. None is attributed to Edward de Vere having been involved, openly or furtively. The London players needed their material to be readily available, which is why they had in-house playwrights or access to jobbing writers. De Vere's known work is not in the class of these writers and he was never reported being around for the interpretation or production as men like Shakespeare Jonson, Marlowe et al were. It never ceases to amaze me that English professors think plays can be produced without the involvement of their authors, at least in their original production. Even today, when their parts in the plays of the canon can be recited by professional actors by memory, the putting together of the whole is a lengthy effort requiring skilled production and direction.
Shaskper as an intelligence agent does sound an interesting avenue.
@@johntaplin3126 De Vere's work is not in the class of the other writers, unless of course he was Shakespeare, in which case it is still in a class of it's own. De Vere's "known" work was considered to be of high quality until 1920 (when de Vere was identified as Shakespeare), and up to that time it was held to be a sad mystery that the drama and poetry that was said to be by the Earl had for some reason ALL gone missing. Shaksper of Stratford has no literary biography and direct link to his supposed works, while Edward de Vere is a documented writer whose writings are all missing, at least under his own name. Math may be required.
De Vere's 'known work' such as it is, is juvenile at best. On the reasoning that only an aristocratic could have written the Shakespeare canon, then the same logic must apply to all the other writers of the period - is this your contention? This is evidently rubbish - no it's only Shakespeare that needed a genius aristocratic to do the job. A 'known' aristocratic writer for whom nothing is available, except all the stuff that was produced by an acting company that just happened to have a player among its members called William Shakespeare. But by putting hyphen between this man's name the genius aristocratic 'hid' himself in a cunning pen name. OK, that settles it then. Do you actually know anything about the Stratford of Shakespeare? I very much doubt it.
Didn't Cecil die in 1598? But the Gunpowder Plot was 1604.
Maybe you mean Robert Cecil...
there is no record of other playwriters talking about shakespeare...