Excellent presentation. Tom Regnier is one of the best communicators - in a very, very clear, engaging, well ordered and easily comprehensible manner - of the case against Shakspere as the author of the Shakespeare plays and poems. I think people who know little or nothing of the Shakespeare Authorship Question could not do better than to begin their journey of exploration with these talks by Tom - and also the excellent videos by Dr. Keir Cutler. For much more intricate and detailed analysis of the Edward de Vere as Shakespeare hypothesis, perhaps the most stimulating researcher is Alexander Waugh (grandson of the fine novelist, Evelyn Waugh).
I love your presentations - so brilliant and clever but more than that - so very polite to your audience! We lost so much, over the last 60 years (modesty, chastity, courtesy, the Latin Mass, architecture, milk for schoolchildren to name a few) but more than that, we lost simply being polite. Thank you Alexander - faith restored!!!
I was convinced after reading Looney’s Shakespeare Identified alone. The rest is icing on the cake celebrating Edward de Vere as the true and real author.
It had to be someone like [ Edward de Vere ] well educated , a person of the court . . Writing about political intrigue was probably a life and death matter . . 🧛🏻♂️
Several people I mentioned this controversy to instantly went into an emotional Hissy Fit. They won't even hear of it. As the old saying goes; Easier to Fool people than to tell them they have been fooled. One of the defects in humans.
Yes, the name ‘Shakes-Speare’ referred to the goddess Athena, the spear-shaker. But the Greek Athena was Britannia - the symbol and icon of the British nation - and she is depicted upon Romo-British coins back in the 3rd century. Greek coins depict her in the same fashion as British coins. What better an author of such works, than Great Britain herself? Furthermore, Elizabeth I dressed in the armour of Athena-Britannia, to repel the Spanish Armada with her fiery and famous speech. So these plays were actually dedicated to the royal patron of this famous but hidden author - Elizabeth herself. P.S. Guillaume and Wilhelm both mean “Guide and Navigator” (helmsman). RE
I remember trying to find out about Shakespeare's life when I was still at school and although there's all sorts of legal documents there's absolutely nothing about Shakespeare the writer. We know far more about Dante and Chaucer who lived hundreds of years before than we do about Shakespeare, for example Chaucer had a scribe called Adam. But we know absolutely nothing about Shakespeare's manuscripts or who copied them or how they came to appear in book form. It also seems weird to me that a writer as eminent as Shakespeare should barely have got a mention during his lifetime or upon his death. Something fishy was going on. I'd love to know who really did write the "Works of Shakespeare".
I live in Stratford and I feel I have a connection (and a love) of WS. But honestly Oxford is only 20 minutes down the road so I can't say I'm hung up on the authorship. Whatever the future, Stratford will always be the town of Shakespeare especially due to the theatres and the RSC. That will not change for a very long time.
The Earldom of Oxford actually had nothing to do with the town of Oxford. He was from East Anglia. The title Earl of Oxford was one chosen by his ancestor Aubrey De Vere from four possibilities offered.
From what I understand the real W. Shakespeare was an astute businessman and a shareholder in a theater of performers - perhaps he fulfilled the role of what we today would call a "producer"? I would imagine the different jobs in the theater of the day were not allways clearly defined and probably overlapping as formal and specified education of which we are accustomed to today was rare.
If there was evidence that John Webster was a writer(15:05) then it is significant that Webster credits Shakespeare as a writer in his preface to "The White Devil". In the collected works of Fletcher and Beaumont there are constant references to Shakespeare by the contributing authors. One of these people is George Buck ,who met Shakespeare and knew him and what he did, he references Shakespeare as a great poet and playwright in a eulogy on Beaumont and Fletchers works. On it goes. Literally hundreds of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy, or dumb beyond belief. This whole thing is a fantasy by people seeing what they want to see and quoting "evidence" that is biased and seen through prejudiced eyes. For example "Alexander Waugh has demonstrated that Avon meant Hampton Court " .... only to himself and people who desperately want to believe this mountain of nothing.
How sad. It was a wonderful talk, I had hoped to meet him to tell him so, and to cheekily remind him that Samuel Clemens coined the name Mark Twain when he was 27 years old in Virginia City, NV. Otherwise, I learned a lot and am sorry to hear of his passing. Thanks for letting us know.
Very well argued...along with Alexander Waugh's discussion of the printed sonnets which bear coded references to de Vere as author, My only hesitation comes from Oxford's early death in 1604.Macbeth was clearly written for the new King James I (Scottish and with a fixation on witchcraft). James became king in 1603 and the play was first performed in 1606, it seems. Hard to believe this was de Vere's work due to its topical references? Personally I think Bacon, and perhaps others, also lent a hand.
Yes, Macbeth gives me a problem too. But since we don’t know how de vere died, only when, 1604. He could have penned it for the new King. He also would have known Elizabeth was getting near the end and who the new king would be. Love Macbeth, but upon reflection, might not be the death knell for de vere that I originally thought. I think the De Vere theory is correct though.
And half the plays were published only 7 years after Shakspere of Stratford died, but that never seems to bother anyone, due to Stratfordian circular thinking.
I'm missing the most obvious point: when a play was presented wasn't Shakespeare or the Earl of Oxford present to put on the play, to hand the actors their lines? When Macbeth was presented to James the First who presented it? Was it Oxford or Shakespeare?
OK the only thing I have doubts about are his contemporaries..... Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Kyd, George Chapman, Ben Jonson, John Marston, and John Fletcher ......surely someone would have implied or clearly stated he was/was not the author.....I'm no expert but is there evidence that people who knew him had clearly addressed the authorship issue?.....
Tom Regnier in sparkling form--so tragically soon taken from us. Tom speaks of Oxford's reputation as a writer of comedies, and this always reminds me of Samuel Johnson's remark on Shakespeare's age: that plays were produced, that by changing the "catastrophe" (Johnson's term for the conclusion) could be comedies one day, tragedies the next. So calling Oxford a comedic writer is possibly a slight oversimplification. (This is not taking anything away from Tom's excellent presentation.) Troilus and Cressida, called a comedy in a preface of the time, is really a hybrid of both forms, comedy (the farcical reductions of Trojan and Greek heroes) and tragedy (Troilus suffering from Cressida's betrayal, Achilles' unscrupulous assassination of Hector).
Unrelated fun fact: the picture used for King Lear at 50:01 has cut off the face of Alice Liddell, the woman who partly inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. You can find the same photo on her father's wiki page. Another fun fact: Shakespeare died tweve years after de Vere.
It just so happens that Oxford University Press co-credited Christopher Marlowe of writing Henry VI Parts 1,2 and 3 in 2016. Apparently they went on the research of 20 scholars to reach this conclusion. Interesting stuff, I think.
The elefant in the room that no one want to see is John Florio. The only one who could resolve the enigma. This umanista fits perfectly as the autor of the first folio.
If only across the last 400 years, even just one person had written that Shakespeare actually hadn't written the works, we'd not have to be discussing this. All the anti-stratfordian arguments are 'indirect' in nature. Over 400 years, no one ever directly-questioned whether someone named Shakespeare wrote any of the plays, and no one directly stated that any other person wrote any specific play. There is so much to take into account here....
At 32:00 It is interesting to note that all on the pseudonyms have the same first letter twice in them Martim Mar-Prelate, Cuthbert Curry- knave Tom Tell-truth, and William Shake-Spear. I heard a policeman say it is common in made up names.
Sweet Swan of Avon: Swans are royal birds. It is an offence for anyone else to kill or eat them. That suggests something special or protected about Shakspere.
A question not put in this film is: How did the Stratford Shakespeare (actor) get his wealth presented in his will 1616? Was he paid by de Vere for his kindness of lending out his name? Shakespeare's friends financed the costly book print 7 years after his (S's) death. Did they get paid too and by whom? de Vere had been dead for 19 years by then and his wife for 11 years. Did someone make a trust/will etc. paying Shakespeare's fellow actors for years? Who was this financier? My advice: search among the “old” theater lovers still living by then. Good luck!
The First Folio is dedicated to two brothers, the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. The Earl of Montgomery was the Earl of Oxford's son-in-law, married to his daughter Susan. The Earl of Pembroke had at one time been in negotiations to marry Oxford's daughter Bridget. Ben Jonson, who is responsible for most, if not all, of the prefatory material in the First Folio and the writings on the Stratford monument, was a longtime associate of Pembroke. The brothers are most likely the financiers of the First Folio. Many scholars believe that Jonson is also the ghostwriter behind Heminges and Condell, Shakspere's two actor friends, who are credited, probably falsely, with making the First Folio possible.
Stratford Shakspere purchased his house in Stratford in 1597 - 1 year before he was mentioned as a playwrite - and it cost more than all the money he hadn't yet made. Clearly someone was financing him, but exactly who and why is a mystery. It seems likely that the Authorship of Shake-speare plays a part...
He wasn’t just an actor. He was barely an actor. He had landholdings, was a money lender, a farmer. He also partly owned the Globe theatre, and was part of an acting troupe that entertained royalty, on the crowns dime.
Shaksper seems to have been a financier, a money lender, an investor in, among other things, theaters and the material performed. What Broadway calls an Angel, or Hollywood calls a Money Guy. He also invested in commodities, tithes and real estate. There are over 70 documents showing his business dealings. There are none, zero, zip, nada demonstrating he was a playwright and poet.
The Lear reference doesn't hold up because Lear was written after De Vere died so his having three daughters is irrelevant. What about that Shakespeare's son who died young was named Hamnet, just before the writing of Hamlet? The point is, it's very easy to go back and find coincidences like these. If you spend enough time looking for overlaps, you always will find it. By the way, not to mention that DeVere died before the writing of Macbeth, Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, the Tempest, etc., is a stain on his argument. He has to address that if he is arguing in good faith.
Shake-Spear is Athene-Minerva. Athene is Britannia - same helmet, spear, shield and pose. Thus the author of these works is Britannia - the nation of Britain herself...! Such a worthy pseudonym for Edward de Vere. RE
I agree with the statement of Shakespeare not writing Shakespeare but the thing with Mark Twain born with that name is false, he was born lived and died as Samuel Langhorne Clemens. The name on his books is a very different story.
Samuel Clemens chose the name Mark Twain while he worked on the river boats on the Mississippi River. Mark Twain was yelled out while measuring the depth of the river, and it meant a safe depth of water.
Superb Presentation! Who can doubt that Edward De Vere is the true Shakespeare?? I live just down from Hedingham Castle The Birthplace of the True Works of Shakespeare!!
Attracted as I am to the idea that de Vere was the real author, some point out that Macbeth carries fairly direct references to some events in King James the First's reign and that de Vere was dead by the time of those events (I do understand that some think portions of Macbeth - stylistically and otherwise - bear a hand not usually associated with Shakespeare's but, nevertheless, "Stratfordians" do make a great deal of fact that de Vere's death was in 1604 - and the "Gunpowder Plot", for example, occurred a year later).
Some have made this argument, for example suggesting that references to "equivocation" relating to the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 are related to references in Macbeth. But the argument turns out to be very weak and has actually been repeatedly demolished by authorship skeptics. "Equivocation" was a concept widely discussed in the 1580s too. You're referring generally here to the argument often known as the (alleged) "1604 problem" about Oxford. But as discussed on the SOF's "Authorship 101" page: "Despite frequent claims to the contrary, no Shakespearean work has ever been proved to be written after 1604. Both Stratfordian and Oxfordian theories depend on the idea that many plays were first published years after they were written, even after both purported authors died. Both theories accept the possibility of co-authorship and posthumous revision." "In late 1604, King James had eight Shakespeare plays produced at court, perhaps a tribute to Oxford. James patronized Shakspere's theatre company, the King's Men. Yet stunningly, when his beloved teenage son Prince Henry died in 1612, causing a paroxysm of national grief, King's Man Shakspere was ... coldly silent? ... There's a pretty simple and obvious answer: "Shakespeare" the actual author was dead by then. When the Sonnets were published in 1609, the dedication referred to the poet as "ever-living," a term only applied to the dead (see Reason to Doubt #12). It could not possibly refer to Shakspere, who lived until 1616, but yet again fits perfectly with Oxford. ... Scholars generally agree the Sonnets were completed by 1604. No references to later events have been found in them. Sonnet 107 alludes to the 1603 death of Queen Elizabeth and the poet states that "death to me subscribes" as well. Oxford died a year later. ... It's actually Shakspere of Stratford (not Oxford) who is confounded by 1604 (and 1616) problems." See generally FAQ #4 on that same "Authorship 101" page.
In the months following Bacon’s death his trusted Rosicrucian Brother Dr William Rawley gathered together and quietly issued a commemorative work in his honour entitled Memoriae honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis de Verulamio, vice-comitis Sancti Albani sacrum. This rare and still virtually unknown work contains thirty-two Latin verses in praise of Bacon, which his orthodox editors and biographers have simply glossed over, ignored, or suppressed, that portray Bacon as a secret supreme poet and dramatist, the writer of comedies and tragedies, under the pseudonym of Shakespeare. ua-cam.com/video/n3UL4MfyAZc/v-deo.html
superb. I wonder.......deVere gathered around him many young writers and players....I wonder if they too wrote scenes and parts .. ...the turnover of fresh plays and entertainment for court would be so demanding.....
Yep, I ascribe to the Peter Amundsen(sp?) school of thought, that it was akin to the “William Shakespeare Project”… Oxford, Bacon, and a few others working together/in the know; Which would also explain how the author is an expert of farming, science, law, theatre, statecraft, etc etc lol
Quite the contrary! There are lots of evidence that William of Stratford did not write those plays! And in my 5 years study of the authorship question, I have still not yet come across one evidence or argument that say he did! The only reason the myth about William of Stratford being Shakespeare still exists, is that people defy historical facts! It cannot go on much longer now! The truth will be relieved!
He contradicts himself when he suggests De Vere would write under a pen name because it was unsavory for a man of his position should be involved in poetry, but then tells us that he was known to write comedy and was involved with two theatre companies. The biggest coincidence is that a shareholder in the theatre, a man who acted in at least a couple of the plays, went by the name of William Shakespeare, the same name on the First Folio. Um, maybe that guy wrote the plays. Yes, self-taught in many areas. But he's not an expert on the law and Italy in the way a true expert would be. His breadth of knowledge reflects a man of curiosity and retention, not of high position.
The anonymous 1589 Art of English Poesie states that many noblemen would be known as great authors if they would allow their "own" name to be put on their works. It also says Oxford was one of the greatest courtier poets and best author of comedies. Yes, insiders would have known, but not the general public, who might have then read between the lines and realized how many powerful people were being spoofed in the plays.
Hi Tom. I really enjoy your lectures. I would like to know if you or anyone you know have tried to find out about DeVere's involvement in the King James Version of the Bible. Thank you.
That`s easy. No influence. The Bible was commissioned by King James in 1604 and finished in 1611. Dever died in 1604. To have any input he would have had to pre write great tracts of Biblical scholarship and have them fed to the body of scholars that were writing the new Bible post decease. Even had he been alive it is difficult to see anything spiritual in the real life of the Earl of Oxenford. Debauched,fickle ,a pederast (or paedophile in modern parlance) and as Cecil put it "Has abandoned his duty to God". Not a great candidate for the Commission tasked with the great work ,especially as his arse was roasting in hell by the established view of the time.
De Vere is reported to have died on June 24, 1604, but the date itself makes this suspect. June 24 = 6/24, a number sequence that refers to de Vere through his name, which has 6,2,and 4 letters (Edward 6 De 2 Vere 4) and his title (Earl 4 Of 2 Oxford 6). June 24 was also considered to be Midsummers Day, so it would be quite a coincidence that Vere died on the day one of Shakespeare's plays is named for. (The 624 code also appears in other place.) There is a rumour that he faked his death and retired to the Isle of Man, where his daughter Elizabeth (de Vere) Stanley was the first female administrator, and that he spent the remaining years of his life in repentance which he did by YES creating the King James Bible. Despite the claims that the KJV was written by groups of scholars, the evidence is less than convincing, and rather inexplicable when held up against the work itself, which reads seemlessly as if it were written by one person (that person being William Shakespeare), something which would not be expected by different groups supplying various sections. Check out John Anthony's extensive analysis www.youtube.com/@johnanthony8653/videos
The Hidden Master Freemason: "To be hidden amidst crowds is sublime; to come down hidden amongst the crowds from distant generations is doubly sublime." Secrecy, thy name is Freemasonry.
It was that very article which introduced me to the idea that someone else wrote them. I just mentioned it in a livestream on another channel 2 weeks ago. The man I was speaking with was English, well educated and thought Shakespeare works are the most mind numbingly boring. He saif Shakespeare plagiarized all his works.
I'll be happy when this makes it permanently into history text books. The conspiracy theory that the man from Stratford was Shakespeare needs to come to an end.
Not enough time here to deliver the countless arguments for Shakespeare (or whatever spelling) as the real author. The authorship question is completely legit, though...and very perplexing. No matter who wrote the plays, there's missing information as to exactly how they were written.
Regnier forgot to circle back to Mark Twain, a famous writer whose name was Samuel Clemens. One of his works: "Letters from the Earth" was so blasphemous that Clemens left strict orders in his will that the work could not be published until well after his death to protect his family from negative repercussions. De Vere, like all British subjects at the time, had to have permission from the monarch to leave the country, which De Vere had been granted. The need to assume a name would also protect him from other royals and disputes with other nations, even those which appeared in veiled forms or even Queen Elizabeth for whom Shakespeare's Richard II was a bit close to home. What none of the Oxfordians address is that De Vere died in 1604 and Shakespeare's plays continued to be written or maybe continued to be released until 1613. In 1623, the first Folio was assembled by nobles. But also, the monument in the Stratford church went through 3 or 4 transformations. Only the last depicted him with a pen years after it had been erected. Oxfordians also disregard that Shakespeare was an actor, who had a stake in the Globe Theater, giving their company-owned actors, eventually called The King's Men, a home or repatory theater. Most actors at the time moved around. What I think is closer to the truth is that more than one author is responsible for the works attributed to Shakespeare. As an opera singer, knowing details about the identities and lives of the poets/lyricists or composers has no impact on performances or audiences' receptions of performances. Even knowing exact historical information can sometimes interfere negatively when the plays/operas differ from historical facts as we know them. This question is fiercely intriguing but is a vigorous debate for scholars, historians, and interested parties. It has no impact on the application or reception of these great works.
Perhaps DeVere hid his identity because he was employed to write Elizabethan propaganda. Perhaps Shakespeare was pseudonym for more than one writer. Other writers could have used the Shakespeare pseudonym and DeVere could not protest.
The Lord Chamberlain (Baron Hunsdon, aka the Queen's cousin) was the sponsor of the plays during Elizabeth's life. It was clearly propaganda no matter who wrote it. If De Vere wrote the plays, there is no reason why he wouldn't have had his own company of players perform them and hog all the glory for himself.
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.
Actors and playwrights were probably not popular in Puritan era so wouldn’t be surprised if they destroyed evidence on purpose or that Elizabethans in general did not deem that the lives of actors and such like were worth remembering unlike earls, soldiers, admirals, kings, queens, etc. the Scarcity of information on anyone available to general public other than through “scholars” is unbelievable. Also what is equally amazing is that they haven’t open up his grave to check if he’s even there😂
As an Englishman I am so pleased that Americans 'own' Shakespeare as of right. They do, they do. Although there are occasional differences (the Irish progeny in America don't help much, alas) I know many British people regard Americans as honorary Brits.
Shakespeare was a member of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, an acting company sponsored by Baron Hunsdon. His symbol, which they wore on their livery (uniforms) was a swan.
Seems strange to me that unlike Mozart for instance, his 'genious' was latent and didn't appear until he went to London in 92. before then he was a poacher, a glovemaker and a general nobody until he ran away to join a troop of strolling players. Some of is ribald passages are in a complete contradiction to his other scribblings of a more serious nature. He never left England as far as we know, on the other hand, Frances Bacon ……...…………...…...…..?
I think this whole debate is silly. None of us know mucn of anything about Shakespeare. Hell, he didn't even know how to spell his own name (joke). What difference does it make which guy you can't find out much about wrote the texts? Focusing on this also weirdly decontextualises the plays, turning them into mere works of individual genius, rather than products of a scene, made to fit conditions and expectations, and made largely out of pre-existing materials. A play is not much of anything sitting on a desk. There has also been an element of classism in the debate, not unlike the racism in the aliens built the pyramids hooey. Not assigning that to the presenter. But come on, guys, this is dumb. The social and logistical and institutional context of the plays is much more interesting, and much more subject to inquiry.
No serious academic that I know of doubts that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare. I have directed most of his major plays across the world - he has one voice. It is a rural voice (see Midsummer Night's Dream). How would an Earl ever invent Flute the Bellows mender? Besides as someone below points out Oxford died before the Gunpowder plot and Bahamas shipwreck which are essential to MACBETH and The TEMPEST. Why do people want to believe that Mossad and the CIA blew up the Twin Towers and the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems?
Because he did. A rural man could not possibly have known the inner workings of the nobility like Oxford did. It’s easy to write about rural life, not so easy to write about intimate details of the monarchy.
No serious academic is willing to risk their reputation by openly going against the groupthink on this issue, but some 18% admitted to the NYT anonymously that they have strong doubts about it.
If Albert Einstein was born 400 years in the past we would be today doubting it was him that wrote the theories attributed to him. This is the problem with Genius .It can not be accounted for. Both Shakespeare and Einstein would seem unlikely candidate for their achievements.
Nonsense. Nobody questions Sir Issac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, or even Ovid, the author who inspired Shakespeare and died in 43 AD. There is more biographical information about Plato as the author of The Republic than of Sheakespeare. Plato's student Aristotle, whose genius and breadth of knowledge rivaled Shakespeare's, has never been questioned as the author of the work attributed to him. He wrote about physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government.
Michael Rowsell, Genius uses the material that it has to hand. In the case of Einstein, we know his father worked for an electrical company. We know the mathematics books that Einstein read at age twelve. We know where he graduated and where he got his PhD. Now let's take Leonardo da Vinci, bastard child of a small town notary. We know he was the child of a highly literate family, and that the precise time of his birth was recorded in his Grandfather's diary. . We know that his Uncle Francesco commenced teaching him science as a child. We know that when he was 14, his father moved to Florence so his son could be apprenticed to the largest art workshop of his day. The skills that he learnt as an artist included training him to observe accurately. This he later applied to his scientific observations. He learnt the mathematics of linear perspective, metallurgy, paint chemistry, and anatomy. We understand his process of studying science because he meticulously recorded his observations, his testing of theories, and his conclusions in several thousand pages of script. . In other words, Leonardo's creative genius was amazing, but we know EXACTLY where the KNOWLEDGE, the basic tool to which he APPLIED his genius, came from. With Shakespeare, we know that he MAY HAVE gone to Grammar School. We know that he could sign his name using an ornate and old-fashioned script. We can presume he owned no books at the time of his death, because none are mentioned in his will. He appears never to have travelled abroad. Since he did not attend University, he didn't have access to a library. He COULD have lived, or frequently visited the home of some person wealthy enough to have a library..... but there is no evidence of this. So there is no way to account for Shakespeare’s detailed knowledge of History, Classics, Law and foreign countries. He could not acquire this knowledge without extensive reading and/or travel. There were NO public libraries. There was no internet. An inventive imagination does not provide a knowledge of Henry V's military campaign in France. An inventive imagination does not provide a clear picture of rivalries between noble families in the society of an Italian principality which is VERY DIFFERENT to any society existing in England at that date. The writer of Shakespeare's plays KNEW about these things, and a great many more. This was a scholarly person who had access to a great deal of knowledge, both literary and experiential.
Per Oskarsson So did Shakespeare! And also, what Michael is saying is, if he (E) had written 500 years ago, who knows? Record keeping wasn’t exactly like it is now. And take into account fires, lost papers, etc. Try to find some paperwork on your ancestors. Doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, or do many things that weren’t written down, or did and have been lost.🤷♀️
Excellent presentation. Tom Regnier is one of the best communicators - in a very, very clear, engaging, well ordered and easily comprehensible manner - of the case against Shakspere as the author of the Shakespeare plays and poems. I think people who know little or nothing of the Shakespeare Authorship Question could not do better than to begin their journey of exploration with these talks by Tom - and also the excellent videos by Dr. Keir Cutler. For much more intricate and detailed analysis of the Edward de Vere as Shakespeare hypothesis, perhaps the most stimulating researcher is Alexander Waugh (grandson of the fine novelist, Evelyn Waugh).
A terrible loss to family, friends and the Oxford Shaksper Community. A wonderful presentation.
I love your presentations - so brilliant and clever but more than that - so very polite to your audience! We lost so much, over the last 60 years (modesty, chastity, courtesy, the Latin Mass, architecture, milk for schoolchildren to name a few) but more than that, we lost simply being polite. Thank you Alexander - faith restored!!!
I was convinced after reading Looney’s Shakespeare Identified alone. The rest is icing on the cake celebrating Edward de Vere as the true and real author.
It had to be someone like [ Edward de Vere ]
well educated , a person of the court . .
Writing about political intrigue was probably a life and death matter . .
🧛🏻♂️
Several people I mentioned this controversy to instantly went into an emotional Hissy Fit. They won't even hear of it. As the old saying goes; Easier to Fool people than to tell them they have been fooled. One of the defects in humans.
Yes, the name ‘Shakes-Speare’ referred to the goddess Athena, the spear-shaker. But the Greek Athena was Britannia - the symbol and icon of the British nation - and she is depicted upon Romo-British coins back in the 3rd century. Greek coins depict her in the same fashion as British coins. What better an author of such works, than Great Britain herself?
Furthermore, Elizabeth I dressed in the armour of Athena-Britannia, to repel the Spanish Armada with her fiery and famous speech. So these plays were actually dedicated to the royal patron of this famous but hidden author - Elizabeth herself.
P.S. Guillaume and Wilhelm both mean “Guide and Navigator” (helmsman).
RE
Wow!. That about finishes the Stratford man.
I remember trying to find out about Shakespeare's life when I was still at school and although there's all sorts of legal documents there's absolutely nothing about Shakespeare the writer. We know far more about Dante and Chaucer who lived hundreds of years before than we do about Shakespeare, for example Chaucer had a scribe called Adam. But we know absolutely nothing about Shakespeare's manuscripts or who copied them or how they came to appear in book form. It also seems weird to me that a writer as eminent as Shakespeare should barely have got a mention during his lifetime or upon his death. Something fishy was going on. I'd love to know who really did write the "Works of Shakespeare".
Edward De Vere
Have you ever heard John Florio ?
I live in Stratford and I feel I have a connection (and a love) of WS. But honestly Oxford is only 20 minutes down the road so I can't say I'm hung up on the authorship. Whatever the future, Stratford will always be the town of Shakespeare especially due to the theatres and the RSC. That will not change for a very long time.
The Earldom of Oxford actually had nothing to do with the town of Oxford. He was from East Anglia. The title Earl of Oxford was one chosen by his ancestor Aubrey De Vere from four possibilities offered.
Great presentation! Not only is it really informative but it flows really well and is very entertaining!
'Avon' is from AFON, the Welsh word for 'river.' These names came from the British Celtic people than preceded the Saxons.
From what I understand the real W. Shakespeare was an astute businessman and a shareholder in a theater of performers - perhaps he fulfilled the role of what we today would call a "producer"? I would imagine the different jobs in the theater of the day were not allways clearly defined and probably overlapping as formal and specified education of which we are accustomed to today was rare.
The person you are referring to wouldn't have the education, exposure and experience to write the works of Shakespeare.
@@Wavecurve You've missed the point. Read it again.
If there was evidence that John Webster was a writer(15:05) then it is significant that Webster credits Shakespeare as a writer in his preface to "The White Devil".
In the collected works of Fletcher and Beaumont there are constant references to Shakespeare by the contributing authors. One of these people is George Buck ,who met Shakespeare and knew him and what he did, he references Shakespeare as a great poet and playwright in a eulogy on Beaumont and Fletchers works.
On it goes. Literally hundreds of people would have to have been in on the conspiracy, or dumb beyond belief.
This whole thing is a fantasy by people seeing what they want to see and quoting "evidence" that is biased and seen through prejudiced eyes. For example "Alexander Waugh has demonstrated that Avon meant Hampton Court " .... only to himself and people who desperately want to believe this mountain of nothing.
My favorite video on this channel. Thank you, Tom, for such an enlightening lecture!
Tom succumbed to the corona virus last Tuesday....RIP Tom.
So sorry to hear of Tom's passing, he contributed so much and in an ongoing way!
How sad. It was a wonderful talk, I had hoped to meet him to tell him so, and to cheekily remind him that Samuel Clemens coined the name Mark Twain when he was 27 years old in Virginia City, NV. Otherwise, I learned a lot and am sorry to hear of his passing. Thanks for letting us know.
I don't think they got the speaker's joke that Mark Twain was of course Samuel Clemens' real name.
Ever heard of Samuel Langhorn Clemens?
Very well argued...along with Alexander Waugh's discussion of the printed sonnets which bear coded references to de Vere as author, My only hesitation comes from Oxford's early death in 1604.Macbeth was clearly written for the new King James I (Scottish and with a fixation on witchcraft). James became king in 1603 and the play was first performed in 1606, it seems. Hard to believe this was de Vere's work due to its topical references? Personally I think Bacon, and perhaps others, also lent a hand.
Yes, Macbeth gives me a problem too. But since we don’t know how de vere died, only when, 1604. He could have penned it for the new King. He also would have known Elizabeth was getting near the end and who the new king would be. Love Macbeth, but upon reflection, might not be the death knell for de vere that I originally thought. I think the De Vere theory is correct though.
And half the plays were published only 7 years after Shakspere of Stratford died, but that never seems to bother anyone, due to Stratfordian circular thinking.
I'm missing the most obvious point: when a play was presented wasn't Shakespeare or the Earl of Oxford present to put on the play, to hand the actors their lines? When Macbeth was presented to James the First who presented it? Was it Oxford or Shakespeare?
Well done
OK the only thing I have doubts about are his contemporaries..... Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Kyd, George Chapman, Ben Jonson, John Marston, and John Fletcher ......surely someone would have implied or clearly stated he was/was not the author.....I'm no expert but is there evidence that people who knew him had clearly addressed the authorship issue?.....
Plese see Alexander Waugh videos for contemporary doubters
Tom Regnier in sparkling form--so tragically soon taken from us. Tom speaks of Oxford's reputation as a writer of comedies, and this always reminds me of Samuel Johnson's remark on Shakespeare's age: that plays were produced, that by changing the "catastrophe" (Johnson's term for the conclusion) could be comedies one day, tragedies the next. So calling Oxford a comedic writer is possibly a slight oversimplification. (This is not taking anything away from Tom's excellent presentation.) Troilus and Cressida, called a comedy in a preface of the time, is really a hybrid of both forms, comedy (the farcical reductions of Trojan and Greek heroes) and tragedy (Troilus suffering from Cressida's betrayal, Achilles' unscrupulous assassination of Hector).
RIP Sir 💔
Sonnet 76: "EVERy word doth almost tell my name." Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
Sir Francis Bacon was the Shakespearean author at least some of the time . Did Jimi Hendrix really write Purple Haze ? That is the question . 😊
Most impressive presentation I have seen, of the case for Edward De Vere.
Watch Alexander Waugh's presentations on the subject on UA-cam and the case is closed tightly.
Oxfordianism is growing.
Unrelated fun fact: the picture used for King Lear at 50:01 has cut off the face of Alice Liddell, the woman who partly inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. You can find the same photo on her father's wiki page.
Another fun fact: Shakespeare died tweve years after de Vere.
Was the mark twain comment a joke? Mark twain was not his real name
Must have been
It just so happens that Oxford University Press co-credited Christopher Marlowe of writing Henry VI Parts 1,2 and 3 in 2016. Apparently they went on the research of 20 scholars to reach this conclusion. Interesting stuff, I think.
The elefant in the room that no one want to see is John Florio. The only one who could resolve the enigma. This umanista fits perfectly as the autor of the first folio.
Why oh why only 34,000 views???
This is entertaining as it informative, c'mon youtubists 'get with the programme'
KP
The colleges and prep school teach Stratfordian, unfortunately.
If only across the last 400 years, even just one person had written that Shakespeare actually hadn't written the works, we'd not have to be discussing this. All the anti-stratfordian arguments are 'indirect' in nature. Over 400 years, no one ever directly-questioned whether someone named Shakespeare wrote any of the plays, and no one directly stated that any other person wrote any specific play. There is so much to take into account here....
This is manifestly not true and can only be said by someone who has no familiarity with the actual paper trail of the early Shakespeare allusions.
At 32:00 It is interesting to note that all on the pseudonyms have the same first letter twice in them Martim Mar-Prelate, Cuthbert Curry- knave Tom Tell-truth, and William Shake-Spear. I heard a policeman say it is common in made up names.
In Elizabethan times, those hyphens usually implied a fake name.
Sweet Swan of Avon: Swans are royal birds. It is an offence for anyone else to kill or eat them. That suggests something special or protected about Shakspere.
A question not put in this film is: How did the Stratford Shakespeare (actor) get his wealth presented in his will 1616? Was he paid by de Vere for his kindness of lending out his name? Shakespeare's friends financed the costly book print 7 years after his (S's) death. Did they get paid too and by whom? de Vere had been dead for 19 years by then and his wife for 11 years. Did someone make a trust/will etc. paying Shakespeare's fellow actors for years? Who was this financier? My advice: search among the “old” theater lovers still living by then. Good luck!
The First Folio is dedicated to two brothers, the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. The Earl of Montgomery was the Earl of Oxford's son-in-law, married to his daughter Susan. The Earl of Pembroke had at one time been in negotiations to marry Oxford's daughter Bridget. Ben Jonson, who is responsible for most, if not all, of the prefatory material in the First Folio and the writings on the Stratford monument, was a longtime associate of Pembroke. The brothers are most likely the financiers of the First Folio. Many scholars believe that Jonson is also the ghostwriter behind Heminges and Condell, Shakspere's two actor friends, who are credited, probably falsely, with making the First Folio possible.
Stratford Shakspere purchased his house in Stratford in 1597 - 1 year before he was mentioned as a playwrite - and it cost more than all the money he hadn't yet made. Clearly someone was financing him, but exactly who and why is a mystery. It seems likely that the Authorship of Shake-speare plays a part...
He wasn’t just an actor. He was barely an actor. He had landholdings, was a money lender, a farmer. He also partly owned the Globe theatre, and was part of an acting troupe that entertained royalty, on the crowns dime.
Shaksper seems to have been a financier, a money lender, an investor in, among other things, theaters and the material performed. What Broadway calls an Angel, or Hollywood calls a Money Guy. He also invested in commodities, tithes and real estate. There are over 70 documents showing his business dealings. There are none, zero, zip, nada demonstrating he was a playwright and poet.
The Lear reference doesn't hold up because Lear was written after De Vere died so his having three daughters is irrelevant. What about that Shakespeare's son who died young was named Hamnet, just before the writing of Hamlet? The point is, it's very easy to go back and find coincidences like these. If you spend enough time looking for overlaps, you always will find it.
By the way, not to mention that DeVere died before the writing of Macbeth, Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, the Tempest, etc., is a stain on his argument. He has to address that if he is arguing in good faith.
Lots of confirmation bias if you only look for corroborating evidence
Excellent
Shake-Spear is Athene-Minerva.
Athene is Britannia - same helmet, spear, shield and pose.
Thus the author of these works is Britannia - the nation of Britain herself...!
Such a worthy pseudonym for Edward de Vere.
RE
I agree with the statement of Shakespeare not writing Shakespeare but the thing with Mark Twain born with that name is false, he was born lived and died as Samuel Langhorne Clemens. The name on his books is a very different story.
Do you think the presenter (and the audience) didn't know this? That was indeed the whole point. 😄
Samuel Clemens chose the name Mark Twain while he worked on the river boats on the Mississippi River. Mark Twain was yelled out while measuring the depth of the river, and it meant a safe depth of water.
In one of the Star Trek movies is was revealed that the plays were originally written in Klingon.
Wow. Eye opening
Brilliant ! ! !
👍 Thumbs up !
Superb Presentation! Who can doubt that Edward De Vere is the true Shakespeare?? I live just down from Hedingham Castle The Birthplace of the True Works of Shakespeare!!
7:40 it doesn't say written by shakespeare.
Attracted as I am to the idea that de Vere was the real author, some point out that Macbeth carries fairly direct references to some events in King James the First's reign and that de Vere was dead by the time of those events (I do understand that some think portions of Macbeth - stylistically and otherwise - bear a hand not usually associated with Shakespeare's but, nevertheless, "Stratfordians" do make a great deal of fact that de Vere's death was in 1604 - and the "Gunpowder Plot", for example, occurred a year later).
Some have made this argument, for example suggesting that references to "equivocation" relating to the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 are related to references in Macbeth. But the argument turns out to be very weak and has actually been repeatedly demolished by authorship skeptics. "Equivocation" was a concept widely discussed in the 1580s too.
You're referring generally here to the argument often known as the (alleged) "1604 problem" about Oxford. But as discussed on the SOF's "Authorship 101" page:
"Despite frequent claims to the contrary, no Shakespearean work has ever been proved to be written after 1604. Both Stratfordian and Oxfordian theories depend on the idea that many plays were first published years after they were written, even after both purported authors died. Both theories accept the possibility of co-authorship and posthumous revision."
"In late 1604, King James had eight Shakespeare plays produced at court, perhaps a tribute to Oxford. James patronized Shakspere's theatre company, the King's Men. Yet stunningly, when his beloved teenage son Prince Henry died in 1612, causing a paroxysm of national grief, King's Man Shakspere was ... coldly silent? ... There's a pretty simple and obvious answer: "Shakespeare" the actual author was dead by then. When the Sonnets were published in 1609, the dedication referred to the poet as "ever-living," a term only applied to the dead (see Reason to Doubt #12). It could not possibly refer to Shakspere, who lived until 1616, but yet again fits perfectly with Oxford. ... Scholars generally agree the Sonnets were completed by 1604. No references to later events have been found in them. Sonnet 107 alludes to the 1603 death of Queen Elizabeth and the poet states that "death to me subscribes" as well. Oxford died a year later. ... It's actually Shakspere of Stratford (not Oxford) who is confounded by 1604 (and 1616) problems."
See generally FAQ #4 on that same "Authorship 101" page.
In the months following Bacon’s death his trusted Rosicrucian Brother Dr William Rawley gathered together and quietly issued a commemorative work in his honour entitled Memoriae honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis de Verulamio, vice-comitis Sancti Albani sacrum. This rare and still virtually unknown work contains thirty-two Latin verses in praise of Bacon, which his orthodox editors and biographers have simply glossed over, ignored, or suppressed, that portray Bacon as a secret supreme poet and dramatist, the writer of comedies and tragedies, under the pseudonym of Shakespeare. ua-cam.com/video/n3UL4MfyAZc/v-deo.html
Mark Twain is the pseudonym for Samuel Clements - just clarifying
superb. I wonder.......deVere gathered around him many young writers and players....I wonder if they too wrote scenes and parts .. ...the turnover of fresh plays and entertainment for court would be so demanding.....
Yep, I ascribe to the Peter Amundsen(sp?) school of thought, that it was akin to the “William Shakespeare Project”… Oxford, Bacon, and a few others working together/in the know;
Which would also explain how the author is an expert of farming, science, law, theatre, statecraft, etc etc lol
Quite the contrary! There are lots of evidence that William of Stratford did not write those plays! And in my 5 years study of the authorship question, I have still not yet come across one evidence or argument that say he did!
The only reason the myth about William of Stratford being Shakespeare still exists, is that people defy historical facts! It cannot go on much longer now! The truth will be relieved!
Definitely Edward DeVere my mother is an Irish DeVere Hunt.
Yeah, Shakespeare is De Vere! And somehow I like Shakespeare even more now.
He contradicts himself when he suggests De Vere would write under a pen name because it was unsavory for a man of his position should be involved in poetry, but then tells us that he was known to write comedy and was involved with two theatre companies. The biggest coincidence is that a shareholder in the theatre, a man who acted in at least a couple of the plays, went by the name of William Shakespeare, the same name on the First Folio. Um, maybe that guy wrote the plays. Yes, self-taught in many areas. But he's not an expert on the law and Italy in the way a true expert would be. His breadth of knowledge reflects a man of curiosity and retention, not of high position.
The anonymous 1589 Art of English Poesie states that many noblemen would be known as great authors if they would allow their "own" name to be put on their works. It also says Oxford was one of the greatest courtier poets and best author of comedies. Yes, insiders would have known, but not the general public, who might have then read between the lines and realized how many powerful people were being spoofed in the plays.
Belief in Stratford Shakespeare is a religious belief.
It’s a devotion to an ancient religion…….of lies
Hi Tom.
I really enjoy your lectures. I would like to know if you or anyone you know have tried to find out about DeVere's involvement in the King James Version of the Bible.
Thank you.
DeVere died in 1604, the year after James I was crowned King of England.
That`s easy. No influence.
The Bible was commissioned by King James in 1604 and finished in 1611.
Dever died in 1604.
To have any input he would have had to pre write great tracts of Biblical scholarship and have them fed to the body of scholars that were writing the new Bible post decease.
Even had he been alive it is difficult to see anything spiritual in the real life of the Earl of Oxenford. Debauched,fickle ,a pederast (or paedophile in modern parlance) and as Cecil put it "Has abandoned his duty to God".
Not a great candidate for the Commission tasked with the great work ,especially as his arse was roasting in hell by the established view of the time.
De Vere is reported to have died on June 24, 1604, but the date itself makes this suspect. June 24 = 6/24, a number sequence that refers to de Vere through his name, which has 6,2,and 4 letters (Edward 6 De 2 Vere 4) and his title (Earl 4 Of 2 Oxford 6). June 24 was also considered to be Midsummers Day, so it would be quite a coincidence that Vere died on the day one of Shakespeare's plays is named for. (The 624 code also appears in other place.) There is a rumour that he faked his death and retired to the Isle of Man, where his daughter Elizabeth (de Vere) Stanley was the first female administrator, and that he spent the remaining years of his life in repentance which he did by YES creating the King James Bible.
Despite the claims that the KJV was written by groups of scholars, the evidence is less than convincing, and rather inexplicable when held up against the work itself, which reads seemlessly as if it were written by one person (that person being William Shakespeare), something which would not be expected by different groups supplying various sections.
Check out John Anthony's extensive analysis
www.youtube.com/@johnanthony8653/videos
The Hidden Master Freemason: "To be hidden amidst crowds is sublime; to come down hidden amongst the crowds from distant generations is doubly sublime."
Secrecy, thy name is Freemasonry.
It was that very article which introduced me to the idea that someone else wrote them. I just mentioned it in a livestream on another channel 2 weeks ago. The man I was speaking with was English, well educated and thought Shakespeare works are the most mind numbingly boring. He saif Shakespeare plagiarized all his works.
Very convincing. Sad to hear the presenter has passed away.
His dad was a bailiff in Stratford and his son would have been freely admitted do to John’s status
I'll be happy when this makes it permanently into history text books. The conspiracy theory that the man from Stratford was Shakespeare needs to come to an end.
Shakespeare is in great doubt--De Vere or Marlowe!
Twain never made it past elementary school and yet he is one of greatest writers.
Lincoln was self taught in law
Reading has always been how most learned persons became highly educated. Authors all recommend voracious reading to become an accomplished writer
And Twain wrote what he knew. This then is a point for the Earl.
Whoever Shakespeare is, his/her heart must have been crushed once.
Not enough time here to deliver the countless arguments for Shakespeare (or whatever spelling) as the real author. The authorship question is completely legit, though...and very perplexing. No matter who wrote the plays, there's missing information as to exactly how they were written.
Regnier forgot to circle back to Mark Twain, a famous writer whose name was Samuel Clemens. One of his works: "Letters from the Earth" was so blasphemous that Clemens left strict orders in his will that the work could not be published until well after his death to protect his family from negative repercussions.
De Vere, like all British subjects at the time, had to have permission from the monarch to leave the country, which De Vere had been granted. The need to assume a name would also protect him from other royals and disputes with other nations, even those which appeared in veiled forms or even Queen Elizabeth for whom Shakespeare's Richard II was a bit close to home.
What none of the Oxfordians address is that De Vere died in 1604 and Shakespeare's plays continued to be written or maybe continued to be released until 1613. In 1623, the first Folio was assembled by nobles. But also, the monument in the Stratford church went through 3 or 4 transformations. Only the last depicted him with a pen years after it had been erected. Oxfordians also disregard that Shakespeare was an actor, who had a stake in the Globe Theater, giving their company-owned actors, eventually called The King's Men, a home or repatory theater. Most actors at the time moved around.
What I think is closer to the truth is that more than one author is responsible for the works attributed to Shakespeare.
As an opera singer, knowing details about the identities and lives of the poets/lyricists or composers has no impact on performances or audiences' receptions of performances. Even knowing exact historical information can sometimes interfere negatively when the plays/operas differ from historical facts as we know them.
This question is fiercely intriguing but is a vigorous debate for scholars, historians, and interested parties. It has no impact on the application or reception of these great works.
Perhaps DeVere hid his identity because he was employed to write Elizabethan propaganda.
Perhaps Shakespeare was pseudonym for more than one writer.
Other writers could have used the Shakespeare pseudonym and DeVere could not protest.
The Lord Chamberlain (Baron Hunsdon, aka the Queen's cousin) was the sponsor of the plays during Elizabeth's life. It was clearly propaganda no matter who wrote it.
If De Vere wrote the plays, there is no reason why he wouldn't have had his own company of players perform them and hog all the glory for himself.
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.
Something must be there……!
I think that shaking a spear is similar to our todays method of giving the finger
Completely wrong! People were very consistent on how their names were spelled. Shakspar is not Shakespeare! This is were it all started to go wrong!
Don’t care who or who didn’t ….nobody making money from family name.
Yes
#WAUGH
Actors and playwrights were probably not popular in Puritan era so wouldn’t be surprised if they destroyed evidence on purpose or that Elizabethans in general did not deem that the lives of actors and such like were worth remembering unlike earls, soldiers, admirals, kings, queens, etc. the Scarcity of information on anyone available to general public other than through “scholars” is unbelievable. Also what is equally amazing is that they haven’t open up his grave to check if he’s even there😂
As an Englishman I am so pleased that Americans 'own' Shakespeare as of right. They do, they do. Although there are occasional differences (the Irish progeny in America don't help much, alas) I know many British people regard Americans as honorary Brits.
Hamlet: Prince of Lear?
It's interesting that in his life Shakespeare was called a sweet swan and an upstart crow ~ birds that everybody knows cannot sing!
Shakespeare was a member of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, an acting company sponsored by Baron Hunsdon. His symbol, which they wore on their livery (uniforms) was a swan.
Seems strange to me that unlike Mozart for instance, his 'genious' was latent and didn't appear until he went to London in 92. before then he was a poacher, a glovemaker and a general nobody until he ran away to join a troop of strolling players.
Some of is ribald passages are in a complete contradiction to his other scribblings of a more serious nature.
He never left England as far as we know, on the other hand, Frances Bacon ……...…………...…...…..?
I come to bury Shakespeare, not to praise him.
I think this whole debate is silly. None of us know mucn of anything about Shakespeare. Hell, he didn't even know how to spell his own name (joke). What difference does it make which guy you can't find out much about wrote the texts? Focusing on this also weirdly decontextualises the plays, turning them into mere works of individual genius, rather than products of a scene, made to fit conditions and expectations, and made largely out of pre-existing materials. A play is not much of anything sitting on a desk. There has also been an element of classism in the debate, not unlike the racism in the aliens built the pyramids hooey. Not assigning that to the presenter. But come on, guys, this is dumb. The social and logistical and institutional context of the plays is much more interesting, and much more subject to inquiry.
No serious academic that I know of doubts that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare. I have directed most of his major plays across the world - he has one voice. It is a rural voice (see Midsummer Night's Dream). How would an Earl ever invent Flute the Bellows mender? Besides as someone below points out Oxford died before the Gunpowder plot and Bahamas shipwreck which are essential to MACBETH and The TEMPEST. Why do people want to believe that Mossad and the CIA blew up the Twin Towers and the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems?
Because he did. A rural man could not possibly have known the inner workings of the nobility like Oxford did. It’s easy to write about rural life, not so easy to write about intimate details of the monarchy.
No serious academic is willing to risk their reputation by openly going against the groupthink on this issue, but some 18% admitted to the NYT anonymously that they have strong doubts about it.
Maybe Shakespeare rented books from a local library 🤷🏻
There were no public libraries in the 1600s, the first one opened in 1850
Bruuuuuhhhhh
If Albert Einstein was born 400 years in the past we would be today
doubting it was him that wrote the theories attributed to him. This is
the problem with Genius .It can not be accounted for. Both Shakespeare
and Einstein would seem unlikely candidate for their achievements.
Einstein not accounted for his work??? He published his results throuout his life and under his own name too.
Nonsense. Nobody questions Sir Issac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, or even Ovid, the author who inspired Shakespeare and died in 43 AD. There is more biographical information about Plato as the author of The Republic than of Sheakespeare. Plato's student Aristotle, whose genius and breadth of knowledge rivaled Shakespeare's, has never been questioned as the author of the work attributed to him. He wrote about physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government.
Michael Rowsell,
Genius uses the material that it has to hand.
In the case of Einstein, we know his father worked for an electrical company. We know the mathematics books that Einstein read at age twelve. We know where he graduated and where he got his PhD.
Now let's take Leonardo da Vinci, bastard child of a small town notary. We know he was the child of a highly literate family, and that the precise time of his birth was recorded in his Grandfather's diary. . We know that his Uncle Francesco commenced teaching him science as a child. We know that when he was 14, his father moved to Florence so his son could be apprenticed to the largest art workshop of his day.
The skills that he learnt as an artist included training him to observe accurately. This he later applied to his scientific observations. He learnt the mathematics of linear perspective, metallurgy, paint chemistry, and anatomy. We understand his process of studying science because he meticulously recorded his observations, his testing of theories, and his conclusions in several thousand pages of script. .
In other words, Leonardo's creative genius was amazing, but we know EXACTLY where the KNOWLEDGE, the basic tool to which he APPLIED his genius, came from.
With Shakespeare, we know that he MAY HAVE gone to Grammar School. We know that he could sign his name using an ornate and old-fashioned script. We can presume he owned no books at the time of his death, because none are mentioned in his will. He appears never to have travelled abroad. Since he did not attend University, he didn't have access to a library. He COULD have lived, or frequently visited the home of some person wealthy enough to have a library..... but there is no evidence of this.
So there is no way to account for Shakespeare’s detailed knowledge of History, Classics, Law and foreign countries. He could not acquire this knowledge without extensive reading and/or travel. There were NO public libraries. There was no internet.
An inventive imagination does not provide a knowledge of Henry V's military campaign in France. An inventive imagination does not provide a clear picture of rivalries between noble families in the society of an Italian principality which is VERY DIFFERENT to any society existing in England at that date.
The writer of Shakespeare's plays KNEW about these things, and a great many more. This was a scholarly person who had access to a great deal of knowledge, both literary and experiential.
Per Oskarsson So did Shakespeare! And also, what Michael is saying is, if he (E) had written 500 years ago, who knows? Record keeping wasn’t exactly like it is now. And take into account fires, lost papers, etc. Try to find some paperwork on your ancestors. Doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, or do many things that weren’t written down, or did and have been lost.🤷♀️
@@peroskarsson8455 Under his own name, just like Shakespeare did.