Great discussion, you two have a great rapport. I thought the audiobook for Shakespeare By Another Name was fantastic, the narrator must've been a trained Shakespearean actor.
Daniel, thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to leave this kind, supportive, lovely comment! I’m thrilled you enjoyed the interview and really appreciate you letting me know 🙏🥰✨ Thabsk for watching. Excited to have you be a part of this channel. And YES I loved the audiobook narrator as well 📖🎙
Shelby makes such things easy. She's a wonderful and engaging interviewer in addition to her talents as an actor, a teacher, and an audiobook artist. (And a pretty great person as well!)
Watching this reminded me of what a joyous time I always have talking with you, Shelby.....and not just about Shakespeare! Thanks, as always, for your generosity and friendship.
I felt the same David!! 🥰🙏💗 That’s why it was such a joy to edit. I love talking with you. And now we have two of our beautiful conversations recorded and able to be watched back at any time. So truly grateful. Thank you again for taking the time to share your curiosity, expertise, and openness in this interview and in our friendship. You are an incredible soul and scholar and human being. I am deeply happy to have you in my life 💕 And on this channel! We shall face the slings and arrows together 😉
Here's the bigger picture life-lesson or "truism" - especially in the political/geopolitical context: "the bigger the lie or the untruth is and the longer it's been sustained and unquestioned the easier it is to ridicule those who challenge it with scepticism and doubt". Paul G
This is, indeed, a fun interview! I really enjoyed the way you two interacted and played off each other's ideas. I am only now rediscovering Shakespeare's plays (after a miserable high school English experience many, many decades ago). Last summer, I read Romeo and Juliet, and loved it (and thank you Shelby for your video "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" tutorial!). i followed R&J with A Midsummer Night's Dream which is so much fun. (As a musician, I found the changing meters delightful.) I'm finishing Richard iii now, and I'll devote the whole summer to Hamlet. I can't wait! I had heard about the authorship question only recently and was curious about it. I tried to go into it with a completely open mind,. After reading and listening to many people debate this topic, I have to say the Shakespeare-wrote-Shakespeare people seem to have the edge. As a student of music history, I know that some of the greatest composers (Bach, Mozart, Mendelssohn) were born into musical families and received first-rate music education. Others (Handel, Haydn, Berlioz) had to learn "on the job" so to speak. Maybe Shakespeare didn't need university training; perhaps his theater company was his university. Anyway... I agree completely with Dr. Montee that James Shapiro should not have brought up the Holocaust in his book. Context is everything, and I understand what Mr. Shapiro was trying to say. He was making a point about conspiracy theories in general, and he mentioned the moon landing, JFK, and Elvis. Had I been his editor, i would have said, "James, you've made your point, Stop there!" Anyway Shelby, please keep these videos coming! I recently rewatched your video about Shakespearian books to read. And because of you, I "discovered" Emma Smith wonderful, witty, and spicy book "This is Shakespeare." Thank you!
Eric, thank you SO MUCH for this extremely generous and eloquent comment! I appreciate your patience in my reply as I’ve been busy acting in and directing Shakespeare plays. But I’m finally BACK and I will absolutely keep the videos coming 🥰🙏🥹 Especially after your warm encouragement. It means more to UA-camrs than you know. Looking forward to posting more and more, and to interacting with you in the comments. Anon good sir! 🙌💖
Good show, I am not willing to completely throw out North as the writer of the earlier versions. Oxford's theatrical group likely swapped out some plays with Leicesrer's men which launched Oxfords career of editing and improving plays. Norths early versions need some work. I think it is evident that Oxford is the unifying voice. I think of Oxford as equally likely to be the midwife on many of the plays, genius nonetheless.
Wonderful conversation. I love the topic, and am always on the lookout for someone finding the smoking gun in this issue, proving once and for all that Shaksper didn't write the plays, and that someone else did. I was introduced to this six years ago, and have been looking for six years for that one piece of evidence since. Unfortunately, I suspect we'll never get that smoking gun, but what a fun topic nonetheless.
Agreed! Thanks so much for watching and subscribing Joseph 🥰 So great to have you on this channel! Yesss we shall all hope for a smoking gun. I'm so grateful people from a variety of interests are still looking for it.
92 0 seconds ago "Certain" is a word that any wise scholar should probably use with caution when dealing with either side of this argument. Which is really the whole point and validity of the authorship doubt. It seems to me that the people who claim that something is "certain" in examining the issues are usually the people who are the most ignorant of--or most eager to ignore or dismiss--the actual evidence that has come down to us from the time.
great interview. i live a few miles from stratford upon avon so i find the authorship debate very interesting. i should really be defending our local hero, but tbh, i find it all increasingly embarrassing. i really wish i'd remained a proud, ignorant peasant. personally find stratford quite shoddy. essentially its a gigantic car dealership with a historical fraud in the middle. millions of cars and urban sprawl rather detracts from any charm the fraud might have had.
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare thanks a lot. my pleasure. i will watch again. i post comments in case people from further afield, who doubt the narrative, dont think we local yokels from warwickshire all believe the cock and bull story we have been fed from childhood. for most of my 55 yrs, and like most ppl, i didnt have an opinion about it one way or another. im absolutely fine with shakespeare being marlowe, bacon and de vere. i live about 10 miles from stratford. and i lived in canterbury too for 5 yrs which is marlowes place. we did ALOT of shakespeare at school. i have to admit, ive only been there about 3 times and never visited the moniment. i really should go. it will be far more interesting now i know what it means. i find alexander waughs work absolutely fascinating. ive been told by stratfordians to take it at face value. that theres nothing hidden in it. no riddle. but there so obviously some hidden message in it. i dont like being gaslighted.
@@andy-the-gardener I agree with you wholeheartedly. I find Alexander Waugh's research into the matter insightful, witty, and sharp as a razor. No wonder he annoys the traditionalists so much.
In my musical Stealing Shakespeare, the actors sing... Who writes the plays for Shakespeare? It doesn't really matter As long as there's admission From an audience that gathers...
Thanks for commenting Leon and watching our interview all the way through to the end 😍🙏 Those lyrics are really clever! Thank you for sharing them & congratulations on your musical 👏🎶
You should watch the movie Anonymous. So fun. Edward de vere performed his play a Midsummer Nights Dream before Queen Elizabeth when he's like 14. He then later has a child with her and we learn he was also her child from a previous dalliance. Interesting plot twist but turned what might have been a decent stab at the truth into a laughable tale brushed off by Stratfordians.
@@leonh.kalayjian6556 "Last Will and Testament" is a short documentary; runs about an hour, and it effectively summarizes the Authorship issue, with some input from both Oxfordians and Stratfordians. Very entertaining as well.
How did he know about so many subjects? he read widely, he will have moved in many different circles, he observed, he meditated, he used his imagination
Thanks for all 3 comments Jay! 🙌 I hope you were able to watch the whole interview as David excellently lays out exactly how *much* William Shaksper would have had to read, what languages he had to have known in order to read them, etc. in order to be widely read enough to allude to all of the literature at a time when books were scarce and much more inaccessible than now. No public libraries even! I think he talks about that around 54:33? Ahh wouldn't all that be nice. I certainly wish I could meditate and write what he wrote! But, yes, I still personally lean towards the authors' adage of "Write what you know" -- meaning I believe Shakespeare's writings came equally from what he knew coupled with imagination rather than from imagination alone. But regardless of who wrote these incredible works, I'm just so grateful they exist 😇 Excited to hear your thoughts on some of my other videos! I think you'd especially enjoy the film reviews!
Very interesting. I will leave such investigations to others though, and refer to Shakespeare as Shakespeare. Since there does not seem to be a (capital THE), a singular truth to be found. I still think "rabbit hole" is an apt phrase for its pursuit, just because a singular truth is likely never to be found. Exploration of the authorship question is certainly not crackpot. Though it's worth is far less than that of the writings. (Just my thoughts. Which are worth far less still). I enjoyed the interview, and still adore your content. Keep it coming!!!
I completely agree with you, Rick, that, ultimately, "the play's the thing!" But I also have to say that the research done by the various folks out there when pursuing this issue has enhanced my appreciation and understanding of the plays and the sonnets immensely....and that appreciation was already pretty high before I began to read about these matters about a decade ago. Apparently, I'm not alone in that, as other actors and directors such as Derek Jacobi, John Gielgud, Mark Rylance, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael York, Sir Tyrone Guthrie, etc., etc., seem to feel (or have felt) the same. I also personally know numerous other actors, directors, and scholars who feel similarly, but don't want to "come out" about it due to the vitriol that even the discussion of it sometimes ignites from an uncivil faction. (Alas, the trials of social media! ;-) ) I've also found that, under the right teachers, the issue can ignite more student interest in the plays, particularly from those whose focus may lie more in history than in literary studies. I do appreciate your response.
@@davidmontee9892 If 'the play's the thing' then this trampling over the memory of the writer wouldn't be happening. Non English anglophobes and self loathing English people cannot abide the idea that the world's greatest was a specific Englishman living at a specific time. If tradition held that the deliciously French sounding named de Vere was the author anglophobes would be arguing against him today.
A very convincing interview and analysis ( one of the best ever!) of the authorship problem. But it remains a historical conspiration. ….and the most plausible or logical (for me the only) solution is the only accepted contemporary poetical genius Christopher Marlowe, who was forced (for life saving reasons) to abandon identity and write under a multiplicity of pseudonyms.( not only SHAKESPEARE, DRAYTON, WITHER etc)🎉
Hello Bastian, and thanks again for writing to me and David on this 😁❤️ I love hearing about the many different theories, and Marlowe keeps popping up for sure! I appreciate you watching and commenting and supporting my channel 🙏
Meaning a sonnet? That’s not a project I personally want to do, but you should totally do that for Halloween. Shrek-speare 😜💚 Great suggesiton! Thanks Maxwell.
genius is genius. Shakespeare's mind, a capacious imagination, could synthesise poetry, metaphor, language, psychology, history, human insight like nobody else who has ever lived
Thanks so much for watching and commenting Jay! 🥰 YES I love that David answers that exact point at 52:14. He says that "even genius requires context and opportunity," which I happen to agree with. But all opinions are welcome! It's exciting to know we have a firm Stratfordian in this group of Shnerds. So grateful to have your voice on this channel!
Eh what Bohemia has a coast?! Dad never told me about that! Is it on the "Sea of Post Modernity" perchance? (Perhaps "Kde Domov Muj?" should be "kde je moje moře?"). I am composing my rebuttal, and will post in due course...
History, my friend, history. The world actually existed in different borders before the 20th Century. "The truth is that the sea coast of Bohemia, generally supposed to have been a mere creature of fancy and imagination, once was a reality. It is true that, at the present day, Bohemia, situated as is in the heart of Europe, does not touch the sea anywhere, and owns no seaports of her own; in her days of glory, however, under the King Přemysl Otokar II., she really had a sea coast and harbors on the Adriatic. Let us hear what Mr. Robert H. Vickers, the historian of Bohemia, says in his essay on Přemysl Otokar II." ---The Bohemian Review, Volume 1, #9 (published 1917)
@@davidmontee9892 Yes, but look at the date and the source and the context of the time. This is not history, my friend, but (a laudable) attempt to establish national legitimacy and independence (no doubt inspired by Shakespeare's' error). It's like saying Austria had a port called Trieste! Which of course it did but wasn't on the coast of Austria. But ultimately this is irrelevant to the central argument.
@@jerrygerza7565 I'm sorry, but I'm not following the argument you're trying to make. I said, in the interview, that Shakespeare's play that claims there is a coast in Bohemia has been unjustly attacked and ridiculed for that assertion, since (the critics say) there is no coast in Bohemia. But it's a fact that ONCE UPON A TIME (in keeping with the "fairy tale" quality of A WINTER'S TALE) there WAS a coast in Bohemia. So what's your point? If you're saying that there wasn't a coast in Bohemia at the time of WINTER'S TALE composition, I have to respond: So? There wasn't an oracle of Apollo at Delphi (also in WINTER'S TALE) in Elizabethan/Jacobean times either. It isn't a history play, after all; it's a romance. And de Vere was well acquainted with Greek mythology and European history, romantic legends of old, because he was educated by the best tutors (including Golding, who translated Ovid's METAMORPHOSES, from which "Shakespeare" drew heavily) and university teachers. Was Will Shaksper? No record of that whatsoever; it's only an assumption that he even attended the Stratford grammar school. And even if he did at least that, it's unproven conjecture that he was able, there, to learn anything of substance about either mythology or history. And almost certainly there was no study of European languages, literature or culture, from which many of the plays' stories are drawn. There was no established national grammar school curriculum. There were no textbooks or libraries in Stratford. There survives no syllabi from rural British grammar schools of the time. It's all conjecture, based on a very faulty understanding of the reality of Elizabethan history and culture. And after all....the primary proponents of the Stratfordian mythology of the "boy genius" who somehow absorbed all of his education and experience by some magical osmosis are virtually all literary academics. Not historians. Most of the people now rightfully questioning the long-accepted myth of the Stratford lad are not literature professors. They are historians, of both culture and politics of the time. And the literary academics are clearly fearful of the invasion of their territory, as they well should be. But it's about time that it happened, as the questions have been swirling for centuries, even when "Shakespeare" was alive. But again: what's your point? Maybe I'm just missing something. From Robert H. Vickers, as noted in my prior reply: “The wise annotators and critics of Shakespeare, including such eminent names as Voltaire, Ben Johnson, Saint Beuve, Thorold Rogers, Charles Knight, Southey, Sterne and the Times, of London, have attempted to apologize for the immortal William. But the poet was right. Bohemia extended to the Adriatic, and included the ports and harbors and coast for a considerable distance, the boundary being nowhere fixed. It was not only possible but was a constant occurrence for navigators to pass by sea direct from Sicily to the “desert of Bohemia”, between the years 1262 and 1276. Again, Ottokar, and Conrad and Conradin, the last of the Hohenstaufen line, were all personally acquainted and may be said to have been brought up together. The supposed incidents, then, of the Winter’s Tale may be placed with but slight poetic allowance during the period of Conrad’s rule over Sicily. Although the years do not exactly correspond, yet there is no blunder in Shakespeare’s description of a ship touching at the desert of Bohemia during that period.” The sea coast of Bohemia will now, we hope, be admitted to have been a reality.
Shakespeare's immediate source for The Winter's Tale was Robert Greene's Pandosto. In that book, the jealous king was from Bohemia and the accused friend was from Sicily. By the time Shakespeare wrote his version, King James was allied with Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II, who was also King of Bohemia. Shakespeare likely swapped the kings of Sicily and Bohemia so as to not offend his patron. Also, in ancient times there was an oracle on the Isle of Delos, known as Delphos in Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare also copied this detail from Greene, so right out wrong it's on Greene's head. Lastly, there was never a place called "Bohemia" which had a coastline. Ottokar II briefly conquered what is now mostly Slovenia, but it did not get renamed Bohemia any more than Scotland or Ireland became England when the English conquered them.
Great video, very entertaining and informative. While being an authorship doubter, to say the least, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to have settled on a candidate. It is a frustration to me that Marlowe doesn't get more consideration.The easy out is "Well, he was dead." However, there is a lot of information out there that lends support to the possibility that he was either allowed to escape or even relocated by the Secret Service. Ros Barber haswritten on this fairly extensively along with her wonderful, albeit fictitious,The Marlow Papers. I will just make a few point suggesting that there is more to the Marlowe "death" story. 1. He was summoned to the Queens Privy Council to answere to the charges of atheism, a capital offense, but was released on his own recognisance to return in ten days.What? 2. All three men involved in the incident were associated with the Secret Service. 3.The house in which the "death" occurred was owned by Eleanor Bull who had been in the Queen's Court. 4. Said house was on the waterfront of the Thames. 5. It is well documented that Marlowe was a spy, working for years with the Secret Service, and had travelled extensively in Europe, sometimes undercover, and spoke and read multiple languages. 6. As a spy, Marlow was valuable to the Crown. 7. Marlow had friends in high places including his"very close" friend Thomas Walsingham, the nephew of Sir Thomas Walsingham, who ran the Secret Service for decades and who, I believe, sat on the Queens' Privy Council. 8. Friends in high places is also evedenced by the fact that the Queens Privy Council, yes them again, intervened when Cambridge University threatened to not grant him his Master'sdegree due to excessive absence (probably espionage work). Marlow was already an established and highly successful playwrite. 10. Etc... He deserves more consideration.
Thanks for watching and commenting James! 🥰 So glad you enjoyed our discussion. And this information on Marlowe is FASCINATING. I had no idea he was a spy! Very cool stuff. I love this authorship question and am very excited to hear all of these different theories. Glad you’re in our Shakespeare community!
" Richard " was his father, lol. "No evidence shakespeare was an actor " apart from the evidence from Ben Jonson because he was lying. There you have the conspiracy theorist at their best. Moan about a lack of documentary evidence for something, then when it is presented dismiss it as a lie. Now thats tragedy. Shakespeare is also listed as an actor in the first folio. There is also a reference to him in his lifetime playing the "kingly parts in sport".
Thanks for your post; I always appreciate lovers of Shakespeare willing to engage in an honest exchange about the growing scholarship surrounding the Folio authorship question. To briefly respond: 1. In answering an earlier post here, I freely admitted that my comment in the interview about Richard Shakespeare being Will's father was a slip of the tongue; as you know, he was Will of Stratford's grandfather, and John was his father. But I hardly think that slip on my part negates everything else discussed here. 2. If you have read Ben Jonson's works and know the details of his life, you know that he was famous in his writings and commentary for purposeful ambiguity, irony, and speaking against what he would say--to paraphrase Angelo in Measure For Measure. It's a trademark of his thinking, his political carefulness (he was no stranger to occasional trouble with ruling authorities as a result of his satires), and his writing style. He knew how to communicate to discerning readers and audiences in a sort of sly code. One of the things that both Stratfordian and post-Stratfordian scholars agree on now is that Ben Jonson was the author of the prefatory material in the Folio that is attributed to Heminge and Condell; that in itself might lead to a careful examination of what Ben Jonson's role was in the promotion of the idea that Will Shakspere of Stratford was one and the same man as the "William Shakespeare" who authored the Folio plays. Perhaps Jonson even had a hand in editing the material; I personally think that's likely. Also recall that the Folio was funded and patronized by the Herberts (as noted in the Folio preface), both of whom had strong connections to Edward de Vere as well as his son and daughters, and therefore were likely the "grand possessors" of most of the primary textual material written by "William Shakespeare" during his lifetime....those authorial manuscripts and primary texts that have, strangely, left no trace whatsoever. 3. John Davies of Hereford, the man who spoke of Shakespeare playing "kingly parts in sport", was just as likely speaking of the writer who was using the authorship pseudonym as he was the Warwickshire entrepreneur. The crux of the problem was not whether there WAS a William Shakespeare who wrote the plays, and acted in them, either in their earlier court presentations or--occasionally, perhaps--in the public theater (making himself a "motley to the view" as a sonnet says); the debate is WHO that "Shakespeare" actually was. 4. There was no "conspiracy". Those who knew that "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym of a writer whose personal circumstances dictated anonymity, knew the truth--and were extremely cautious about saying it out clearly, especially in those tumultuous and dangerous years of Elizabeth's and James's rule. To understand why, you have to study the times with care and attention--and in doing so, realize how daring those plays truly were in questioning, criticizing, or satirizing various government policies and issues. Those public theater playgoers who didn't know the truth, wouldn't have even cared....any more than the vast majority of people today watching the latest popular streaming series or film really care who writes it. They just enjoyed the entertainment value--which was considerable, we would agree. I encourage you to read Elizabeth Winkler's recent best-selling book (2023) if you haven't already. It's a fascinating explanation of all that I'm talking about here, and she outlines it all very clearly, and in a balanced way. I believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name of a brilliant Early Modern poet and playwright; and Will Shakspere was a shrewd businessman from Warwickshire who dabbled in various commodities both in London and Stratford, made successful real estate deals, and became a financial shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men. Perhaps he was a knowing "beard" for the man behind the plays because of the similarity of his name to the pseudonym that had been utilized since "Venus and Adonis" was published in 1592. I think that it's entirely plausible that such an arrangement was to the advantage of both men for different reasons, and several allusions in plays and writings of the time even suggest that this was what was going on. A goodly number of contemporary historians of the period are coming around to the increasing evidentiary likelihood that Will Shakspere of Stratford did not write the Folio plays . It's the English literature professors who have remained inexplicably defensive regarding these legitimate questions, and who have ignored the political/cultural context of the Elizabethan/Jacobean times who remain behind the curve. The Sonnets hold the key to the identity of "William Shakespeare".
@@davidmontee9892 you havent answered that you bemoan a lack of evidence then when presented with it claim that the person was lying. What possible reason to put shakespeare on a cast list if he wasnt an actor. Why would shakespeare be the only member of the lord chamberlains men then Kings men who was not an actor?. By the way he wasnt the only member who was also a writer.
@@davidmontee9892 No people do not agree that Jonson was responsible for the Heminges and Condell preface to the first folio. Wiki and other bios of the two show them as the authors of the preface to the folio. Also jonson later remarks critically on their comment on not receiving a blot on Shakespeares papers which makes no sense if he wrote the comment. Also Digges poem on thefirst folio refers to the stratford monument so why jonson would include that if shakespeare was Oxenford is a mystery. Oxenforders ludicously say de Vere lived in Hackney which is a few miles from a London Stratford as if that place miles away for which no monument to de vere or shakespeare has ever been mentioned shows the extreme insane limits people will go on this.
Why do people call the Stratford man Shaksper? There are only two examples of that spelling and one of those refers to Shaksper's sonnets so according to the Oxenforders, must not refer to the stratford man. There are several instances where the stratford man is spelled shakespeare including property purchases and fines, a London court case, in a fellow actors will to fellow actors including shakespeare. Even his father is never referred to as Shaksper, but as early as the 1550s was Shakysper and Shakisper and on two draft coats or arms as John Shakespeare. You can see the original documents on Shakespeare documented. But still the ignorant fall for that dishonest trick, 'lets call the stratford man Shaksper and the poet Shakespeare.'. Well no lets call the stratford man as rhe court scribe in London called him 'william Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon'.
Wow David! What a thorough and generous response!! This global debate is so much richer with your knowledge and warmth being a part of it. Thank you for taking the time 🙂❤️
Thank you, David (if I may) for your reply. No need to apologise for the slip of the tongue - when one considers the error in Shakespeare’s ODNB entry, viz muddling the two wives of Robert Arden - your mis-speak is minor. I doubt your brain is more ancient than mine, too!
Regarding the grammar school curricula in the 16th/early 17th century, I would refer you to the epic work of T W Baldwin, published in various works in the 1940s, but more recently to Kate Emery Pogue’s Shakespeare’s Education - How Shakespeare learn to write. The schools in and around Stratford -Worcester, Warwick, Chipping Campden, Coventry, to name a few, as well as the schools in London and elsewhere (Westminster for Jonson, Canterbury for Marlowe aka Marley aka other corruptions) all followed a pretty consistent approach. Sadly, there is no record of the attendees at Stratford’s King’s School in WS’s time, but If you would like evidence of the products of the school, I can supply a list of those who went on to the universities. But there were many others who, like WS, did not enter the universities - those who became apprenticed, many in London, like Field. My current view is that Shakespeare’s missing years, were spent in a similar ‘learning’ capacity in London.
One’s view of the actual writings that can be attributed to Edward de Vere are subjective, but to commandeer the 36 plays in the First Folio to him is a bit of a leap of credulity. As an historian and genealogist, but I am not really interested in debating whether it was him or any of the other of the other, some better, possible candidates; others are better placed to do that. However, I would refer you to research the current stylistic evidence for the collaborative nature of playwriting in London in the late 16th and early 17th century.
The perception of Stratford and its inhabitants as a bunch of uneducated, illiterate yokels is often cited by anti-Stratfordians. Again, most of those who state these views have done zip in the way of researching any of the people who actually lived in the town and surroundings. My own work published in 2011 and 2018 examined some of these documentarily, at one time on Amazon, but I fear it may now have been removed.. Latterly, I have produced something of a sequel to these publications. Unfortunately, this is not widely available outside of libraries and archives - such work is not considered not sufficiently commercial for publishing houses.
Always interesting hearing the views of those passionate for Shakespeare - whoever the author is felt to be.
Thank you, John. Whatever the truth of authorship turns out to be--or if it is ever entirely proven, one way or the other--the debate is fascinating, and I love hearing of new leads to follow! Thanks for that. Every new thing I learn about the times and culture that produced the plays makes me appreciate them all the more, whomever their primary author may be. And I agree entirely with what you're saying about the collaborative nature of the texts that have survived from the time. It appears that the latest edition of the Oxford Complete Works of Shakespeare is finally committing solidly to that understanding as well. I see that your study entitled Shakespeare's Country Families is indeed still available on Amazon, but only on Kindle...and old-fashioned curmudgeon that I am, I still prefer printed books whenever possible. Is there a print version available of the title, by any chance?
Thank you for watching our interview all the way through, Jeff, and commenting! I appreciate your support of my channel 🥰📜🙏 ‘Tis true that I love exploring this topic and also don’t encourage controversy for controversy’s sake-especially the angry, highly emotional, oft rude and personal comments. That’s when those who are obviously intelligent and articulate betray their passion for this topic by becoming childish. And, for me, that disappointing behaviors undercuts any argument either side hopes to make. Debate can be fabulously thrilling and enlightening! But when discussion gets unkind, I stop listening. I believe the authorship question is a valid question to be asked & that’s about it! I honestly don’t see what angers people so much about admitting that there’s not enough evidence to prove *any* candidate, including the man from Stratford and even Oxford. Thanks for asking! 😊
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare I am not angered by the question. I'm not even angered by the suggestion that there isn't enough evidence, since what constitutes "enough" is subjective. I am annoyed when someone sets the bar unreasonably high for Shakespeare, and then places it on the ground -- or in many cases, buries it -- for their own preferred candidate. And yes, I am angered when someone willfully lies or manufactures evidence. This happens ALL THE TIME in Anti-Stratfordian camps, and others who only bother to read one side of the matter then in ignorance repeat these lies. The truth is that there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence that Shakespeare was the author of the works attributed to him. He was identified as the "Man from Stratford" by friends and peers who referred to him by his name (in various spellings), his social rank (gentleman), his profession (player), his educational attainments (few), and on several occasions his place of birth. He was a lead actor and part owner in the theater company which held the exclusive rights to perform the plays of Shakespeare, and in the theaters where they were performed. He had lifelong friendships with the actors who brought to life the roles he created. He infused his plays with people and events from his home town. The case for Shakespeare is so compelling that a recent Anti-Stratfordian sideshow has been to claim that those who identified Shakespeare as the "Stratford Man" KNEW the truth and were actively assisting the cover-up when they identified him. Another recent tactic is to heap caveats onto the evidence, such as ruling anything post-mortem or not by a verifiable close friend inadmissible, and then to declare that said evidence doesn't exist. This is why I'm aghast (in starting to run out of synonyms for "shocked and perturbed") when people claim there is little, and more often NO evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was a poet. It exists in heaps and piles. I'm dumbfounded (okay, that's the last one) when people climb over it in order to latch on to things like hidden codes or "pirates!" Does it really matter? After all, there's no law against slandering the dead, and the dead own no property. It's not like Anti-Stratfordians are making much progress, are they? I'm not a religious person. If we leave behind a "soul", I think it's the legacy of the things we did and the effect we had on others. By that standard, Shakespeare was truly the "Soul of the Age", and trying to take that from him is profoundly immoral.
@@jeffmeade8643 Again....read--or re-visit if you've already read--your fellow Stratfordian David Ellis's solid study entitled The Truth About William Shakespeare, in which he very honestly admits and documents how much of what Stratfordians proclaim as the "MASSIVE amount of evidence" for Will Shaksper's authorship of the plays is comprised of surmise, faulty conclusions, legend, and unsubstantiated anecdotes repeated as fact by generations of so-called literary scholars (not historians). When such assertions are repeated again and again and again for 4 centuries, it's perfectly understandable that people now confuse legend and anecdote with certifiable fact. It's comforting not to question the "reality" that we have been taught throughout our lives, and wish to continue to believe. As far as the questioning of the true authorship being an "immoral" endeavor; I would gently remind you that Galileo's theory that denied the Earth's place as the center of our solar system....nay, even our universe....was once declared as both immoral and heretical when it was first proposed. In fact, that's often the normal evolution that research and scholarship follows in human history: what is first condemned as outrageous, and even immoral, by establishment academia is very often ultimately accepted as the truth as more and more evidence is uncovered. I think that's the process which is currently occurring regarding the authorship question of Shakespeare's plays.
@@davidmontee9892 I don't need "...surmise, faulty conclusions, legend, and unsubstantiated anecdote..." to prove my case. I use original documents and contemporary publications. They show overwhelmingly that Shakespeare's friends and contemporaries clearly and unequivocally identified William Shakespeare the poet as the gentleman and actor who was born and who died in Stratford-upon-Avon. Claims such as "a hyphen identifies a pseudonym" are completely unsupported (and in fact contradicted by Camden in his Remaines, 1605) by contemporary evidence. Yet when John Davies clearly identifies the poet "Mr. Will: Shake-speare" as both a gentleman and an actor, which can only refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, the hyphen is touted and the plain English ignored. Why is that?
Shakespeare was just a well educated grammar school boy who read widely and moved between different classes of people. He was a genius. How did Mozart compose what he composed? Its unfathomable.
Yes great point about Mozart! As David mentions in the interview, Mozart was absolutely a prodigy, but it's also true that he had that same "context and opportunity" that David argues true genius requires to flourish. Mozart's father supported (and pushed) Mozart's talent extremely hard, which is how baby Mozart was playing palaces at age 4. Mozart had resources and immense support. You can be an incredibly gifted piano player, but you still need a piano to play on, right? Thanks again for watching through the whole and commenting your passionate thoughts! 🙏🙂
My ancestor founded a school in Elizabethan times, and through my research on his work I know that the records of English school curricula still exist in the language of their charters. The first free school in Warwickshire was chartered in 1545 “to teach all children born and brought up in Warwick from the accidence [rudiments] to grammar without taking anything after they were fit to the accidence.” Compare the Warwick charter to the grammar school in Skipton, York where in 1548 the school was chartered to “teach the boys the alphabet and afterward grammar.” In Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, 1548, the school was to “teach boys and youth whomsoever resorting thither in grammatical science, in Greek and Latin literature.” The Stratford-on-Avon charter was made sometime before 1553 as “a free Grammar school for the education of children and youth in the borough.” Note that at the time, the term “Grammar” meant Latin…not English. Liberal arts educations in reading English and writing and arithmetic were not routinely offered in 16th Century England.
Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel Laureate in Physics 2020, is yet even another "kook" who has retired the orthodox story and leans toward Edward de Vere. BTW Einstein was running his mind experiments while a clerk in the Swiss PATENT Office.
Tom thank you for watching the whole interview! I really appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment- and that’s so fun to know about yet ANOTHER brilliant mind who believes this question is worth asking! 🙌💗🙂 So glad to have you on this channel!!
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare Dr. Montee indicated that knowing the author of a play can give a play life, for example, knowing Tennessee Williams leavens the performances of his plays through our knowledge of his period in the twentieth century American South. That is why my interest in this debate grew as I was contemplating the role of Hamlet which I performed as a teenager without the benefit of a background biography available from the life of Oxford. I like the new glasses.
You're making the mistake of reading out 'evidence' from the plays - a la the 'As you Like it' conjecture. I appreciate the potted history of Shakespeare at the outset, which rightly speaks to how little we know of the actual person. Probability is, as is true today, the plays were all collaborative. But you fall into the trap of the kind of conjecture you question in the first place. My wonder at the whole authorship question is that it falls on a binary position - either this person who was Shakespeare wrote the plays, or this same person didn't. That is historical nonsense. Mostly, the naysaysers come at it from a classist position that patronises those of us who appreciate the work. The classist position of course being that a regular person of modest education couldn't possibly write such wonderful work. As if the likes of James Joyce hasn't existed since. For the same reasons perhaps they'll be questioning Joyce's authorship in several hundred years time. However, my conclusion is you all ought to have the humility to say we just don't know and likely will never know - except for the fact that at the time production of plays was collaborative and the persons involved and playgoers too were a diverse set of folks. It amazes me how many supposed intelligent commentators on this subject start with the 'facts' just before blowing off into a position that has no more credibility than any other. You might enjoy the speculation - have at it - but please present it as that. Otherwise there are much more interesting things to say about the writers, artists, producers of the time. And much more important things you could actually be doing to bring the wonderful works of WS to people right now. To talk about the delicious sensuous pragmatic forceful poetry of the language might be more effective than to indulge in a long-tired discourse that, until physical evidence is found, wastes time, energy, and worse, the work necessary to bring people to engagement with the works.
I agree that until solid evidence--a smoking gun, as it were--is presented by some new discovery, this will all be conjecture and surmise. In my mind, if establishment Shakespeare academicians can at least arrive at and accept that very admission as truth, a large part of this debate will have been worthwhile. As for working more toward bringing people to a greater appreciation of the incredible power and depth of the works of "William Shakespeare"--whomever that was in actuality--I spent 40 years of my theatrical career doing just that. I've taught Shakespeare acting classes, directed more than half the Shakespeare canon, acted major Shakespearean roles, and published a book on it all. And the authorship question was left largely on the sidelines during those activities, to which Shelby will surely attest. (After all, I was a Stratfordian myself during the majority of those years.) The art is the art; but the historian part of me finds that my appreciation of that art grows with my clearer understanding of the times and the probable truths of authorship. Questions of "class" only come into the picture when one examines honestly what opportunities Elizabethan culture would have offered to specific social classes. And what opportunities almost certainly would have been denied to others.
@@davidmontee9892 Yep. Kudos to you for keeping the authorship question out of what has clearly been valuable work on your part. I'm not saying supposition isn't fun game down at the pub, but I do feel that, apart from whatever discipline it is that combs the archives for evidence (archivists I guess), those literary academics pouring over the question (and various charlatans mostly from the Oxfordian camp) could be better spending their time elsewhere. Truth is, any biography of WS the man should be about as short as your introductory comments here, which were well put. I think Bill Bryson made a fair case of it in his biography - also Michael Rosen too. All the best.
@@trevorjones8969 By the way, Trevor....as theatre was my career before recent retirement, I absolutely 100% agree with you that the Shakespeare plays as they have been handed down to us through the First Folio and various quartos were undeniably collaborations, some intentional as such, some not. That is....the primary author of the plays--whether it was the remarkable lad from Stratford, whose genius would have had to have been near supernatural, considering the lack of opportunities that the age would have afforded anyone in his class, education, or social status--or de Vere, or North, or whomever....the texts were almost certainly adapted in various ways by the players staging them, or by subsequent writers associated with the King's Men. Perhaps, in some instances, even by printing house folks or court authorities. Echoes and traces of contributions by Middleton, Munday, Marlowe, and Lyly seem evident (to me, and to various linguistic scholars) throughout the canon. Of course, we do not know how many of these passages were done in direct collaboration, and how many were later unauthorized amendments or revisions. I appreciate your comments. I love talking about this issue, both with people who agree with me or disagree....as long as civil discourse holds! (Which it sometimes doesn't, as you probably know.)
Trevor, thank you for watching our interview all the way through and taking the time to leave this comment! I appreciate your support of my channel and wish you the best 🥰🙌
Great discussion, you two have a great rapport. I thought the audiobook for Shakespeare By Another Name was fantastic, the narrator must've been a trained Shakespearean actor.
Daniel, thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to leave this kind, supportive, lovely comment! I’m thrilled you enjoyed the interview and really appreciate you letting me know 🙏🥰✨ Thabsk for watching. Excited to have you be a part of this channel. And YES I loved the audiobook narrator as well 📖🎙
Shelby makes such things easy. She's a wonderful and engaging interviewer in addition to her talents as an actor, a teacher, and an audiobook artist. (And a pretty great person as well!)
There is now a 1,200 paged, 2 volume set titled, "The Shakespeare Allusions Book" by Prof Roger Stritmeyer & Alexander Waugh.
Thanks Beaulah! And thank you for watching & commenting our interview 🤗
Watching this reminded me of what a joyous time I always have talking with you, Shelby.....and not just about Shakespeare! Thanks, as always, for your generosity and friendship.
I felt the same David!! 🥰🙏💗 That’s why it was such a joy to edit. I love talking with you. And now we have two of our beautiful conversations recorded and able to be watched back at any time. So truly grateful.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your curiosity, expertise, and openness in this interview and in our friendship. You are an incredible soul and scholar and human being. I am deeply happy to have you in my life 💕 And on this channel! We shall face the slings and arrows together 😉
Here's the bigger picture life-lesson or "truism" - especially in the political/geopolitical context:
"the bigger the lie or the untruth is and the longer it's been sustained and unquestioned the easier it is to ridicule those who challenge it with scepticism and doubt".
Paul G
Great point Paul. Thanks for watching and commenting! 🤗
This is, indeed, a fun interview! I really enjoyed the way you two interacted and played off each other's ideas. I am only now rediscovering Shakespeare's plays (after a miserable high school English experience many, many decades ago). Last summer, I read Romeo and Juliet, and loved it (and thank you Shelby for your video "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" tutorial!). i followed R&J with A Midsummer Night's Dream which is so much fun. (As a musician, I found the changing meters delightful.) I'm finishing Richard iii now, and I'll devote the whole summer to Hamlet. I can't wait!
I had heard about the authorship question only recently and was curious about it. I tried to go into it with a completely open mind,. After reading and listening to many people debate this topic, I have to say the Shakespeare-wrote-Shakespeare people seem to have the edge. As a student of music history, I know that some of the greatest composers (Bach, Mozart, Mendelssohn) were born into musical families and received first-rate music education. Others (Handel, Haydn, Berlioz) had to learn "on the job" so to speak. Maybe Shakespeare didn't need university training; perhaps his theater company was his university. Anyway...
I agree completely with Dr. Montee that James Shapiro should not have brought up the Holocaust in his book. Context is everything, and I understand what Mr. Shapiro was trying to say. He was making a point about conspiracy theories in general, and he mentioned the moon landing, JFK, and Elvis. Had I been his editor, i would have said, "James, you've made your point, Stop there!"
Anyway Shelby, please keep these videos coming! I recently rewatched your video about Shakespearian books to read. And because of you, I "discovered" Emma Smith wonderful, witty, and spicy book "This is Shakespeare." Thank you!
Eric, thank you SO MUCH for this extremely generous and eloquent comment! I appreciate your patience in my reply as I’ve been busy acting in and directing Shakespeare plays. But I’m finally BACK and I will absolutely keep the videos coming 🥰🙏🥹 Especially after your warm encouragement. It means more to UA-camrs than you know. Looking forward to posting more and more, and to interacting with you in the comments. Anon good sir! 🙌💖
Good show, I am not willing to completely throw out North as the writer of the earlier versions. Oxford's theatrical group likely swapped out some plays with Leicesrer's men which launched Oxfords career of editing and improving plays. Norths early versions need some work. I think it is evident that Oxford is the unifying voice. I think of Oxford as equally likely to be the midwife on many of the plays, genius nonetheless.
Thanks so much for watching and letting us know what you thought in the comments! 🤗 Glad to have you on the channel.
Wonderful conversation. I love the topic, and am always on the lookout for someone finding the smoking gun in this issue, proving once and for all that Shaksper didn't write the plays, and that someone else did. I was introduced to this six years ago, and have been looking for six years for that one piece of evidence since. Unfortunately, I suspect we'll never get that smoking gun, but what a fun topic nonetheless.
Agreed! Thanks so much for watching and subscribing Joseph 🥰 So great to have you on this channel! Yesss we shall all hope for a smoking gun. I'm so grateful people from a variety of interests are still looking for it.
Edward de Vere is Shakespeare.
Loved the chemistry between you and David. Lots of great information presented in a fun way. Add me to the list of "kooks".
Welcome in! 😁 Thank you for watching and commenting Robert.
Is it certain that Shaksper(e) of Stratford and the theatre manager in London were the same man.
Ooo great question! I believe so. David would know more than I 😅
92
0 seconds ago
"Certain" is a word that any wise scholar should probably use with caution when dealing with either side of this argument. Which is really the whole point and validity of the authorship doubt. It seems to me that the people who claim that something is "certain" in examining the issues are usually the people who are the most ignorant of--or most eager to ignore or dismiss--the actual evidence that has come down to us from the time.
Wow, so much to think about!! Loved this.
Thank you SO MUCH for your sweet comment and for watching all the way through Deborah 💗🙏🤩 Glad it gave you a lot to think about. Huzzah for Shnerds!
great interview. i live a few miles from stratford upon avon so i find the authorship debate very interesting. i should really be defending our local hero, but tbh, i find it all increasingly embarrassing. i really wish i'd remained a proud, ignorant peasant. personally find stratford quite shoddy. essentially its a gigantic car dealership with a historical fraud in the middle. millions of cars and urban sprawl rather detracts from any charm the fraud might have had.
Andy, what an insightful perspective from a man-on-the-ground! Thank you for watching our interview and commenting. Glad to have you here :)
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare thanks a lot. my pleasure. i will watch again. i post comments in case people from further afield, who doubt the narrative, dont think we local yokels from warwickshire all believe the cock and bull story we have been fed from childhood. for most of my 55 yrs, and like most ppl, i didnt have an opinion about it one way or another. im absolutely fine with shakespeare being marlowe, bacon and de vere. i live about 10 miles from stratford. and i lived in canterbury too for 5 yrs which is marlowes place. we did ALOT of shakespeare at school. i have to admit, ive only been there about 3 times and never visited the moniment. i really should go. it will be far more interesting now i know what it means. i find alexander waughs work absolutely fascinating. ive been told by stratfordians to take it at face value. that theres nothing hidden in it. no riddle. but there so obviously some hidden message in it. i dont like being gaslighted.
@@andy-the-gardener I agree with you wholeheartedly. I find Alexander Waugh's research into the matter insightful, witty, and sharp as a razor. No wonder he annoys the traditionalists so much.
Edward had the education and he travelled to Italy, Sonnets.. Not sure about North
In my musical Stealing Shakespeare, the actors sing...
Who writes the plays for Shakespeare?
It doesn't really matter
As long as there's admission
From an audience that gathers...
Thanks for commenting Leon and watching our interview all the way through to the end 😍🙏 Those lyrics are really clever! Thank you for sharing them & congratulations on your musical 👏🎶
You should watch the movie Anonymous. So fun. Edward de vere performed his play a Midsummer Nights Dream before Queen Elizabeth when he's like 14. He then later has a child with her and we learn he was also her child from a previous dalliance. Interesting plot twist but turned what might have been a decent stab at the truth into a laughable tale brushed off by Stratfordians.
Yes, “Last Will and Testament” is GREAT. There’s a link to it in the description. Thanks Leon and David!
@@davidmontee9892 but is it a drama, or documentary?
@@leonh.kalayjian6556 "Last Will and Testament" is a short documentary; runs about an hour, and it effectively summarizes the Authorship issue, with some input from both Oxfordians and Stratfordians. Very entertaining as well.
How did he know about so many subjects? he read widely, he will have moved in many different circles, he observed, he meditated, he used his imagination
Thanks for all 3 comments Jay! 🙌 I hope you were able to watch the whole interview as David excellently lays out exactly how *much* William Shaksper would have had to read, what languages he had to have known in order to read them, etc. in order to be widely read enough to allude to all of the literature at a time when books were scarce and much more inaccessible than now. No public libraries even! I think he talks about that around 54:33? Ahh wouldn't all that be nice. I certainly wish I could meditate and write what he wrote! But, yes, I still personally lean towards the authors' adage of "Write what you know" -- meaning I believe Shakespeare's writings came equally from what he knew coupled with imagination rather than from imagination alone. But regardless of who wrote these incredible works, I'm just so grateful they exist 😇 Excited to hear your thoughts on some of my other videos! I think you'd especially enjoy the film reviews!
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare OK I appreciate this, will write more later when I can compose my thoughts some more x
He also knew material from books that had not been translated into English. Ink and paper were also very expensive. Genius is not osmotic.
Very interesting. I will leave such investigations to others though, and refer to Shakespeare as Shakespeare. Since there does not seem to be a (capital THE), a singular truth to be found. I still think "rabbit hole" is an apt phrase for its pursuit, just because a singular truth is likely never to be found. Exploration of the authorship question is certainly not crackpot. Though it's worth is far less than that of the writings. (Just my thoughts. Which are worth far less still). I enjoyed the interview, and still adore your content. Keep it coming!!!
Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment & for watching the interview Rick! 😍 So glad you enjoyed it. Keep it coming I SHALL 🙏😁✅
I completely agree with you, Rick, that, ultimately, "the play's the thing!"
But I also have to say that the research done by the various folks out there when pursuing this issue has enhanced my appreciation and understanding of the plays and the sonnets immensely....and that appreciation was already pretty high before I began to read about these matters about a decade ago. Apparently, I'm not alone in that, as other actors and directors such as Derek Jacobi, John Gielgud, Mark Rylance, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael York, Sir Tyrone Guthrie, etc., etc., seem to feel (or have felt) the same. I also personally know numerous other actors, directors, and scholars who feel similarly, but don't want to "come out" about it due to the vitriol that even the discussion of it sometimes ignites from an uncivil faction. (Alas, the trials of social media! ;-) ) I've also found that, under the right teachers, the issue can ignite more student interest in the plays, particularly from those whose focus may lie more in history than in literary studies.
I do appreciate your response.
@@davidmontee9892 If 'the play's the thing' then this trampling over the memory of the writer wouldn't be happening. Non English anglophobes and self loathing English people cannot abide the idea that the world's greatest was a specific Englishman living at a specific time. If tradition held that the deliciously French sounding named de Vere was the author anglophobes would be arguing against him today.
A very convincing interview and analysis ( one of the best ever!) of the authorship problem. But it remains a historical conspiration. ….and the most plausible or logical (for me the only) solution is the only accepted contemporary poetical genius Christopher Marlowe, who was forced (for life saving reasons) to abandon identity and write under a multiplicity of pseudonyms.( not only SHAKESPEARE, DRAYTON, WITHER etc)🎉
Hello Bastian, and thanks again for writing to me and David on this 😁❤️ I love hearing about the many different theories, and Marlowe keeps popping up for sure! I appreciate you watching and commenting and supporting my channel 🙏
Would you do Princess Fiona ( Shrek ) in her real form she'll do a shakesspeare poem.
Meaning a sonnet? That’s not a project I personally want to do, but you should totally do that for Halloween. Shrek-speare 😜💚 Great suggesiton! Thanks Maxwell.
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare You Too,
genius is genius. Shakespeare's mind, a capacious imagination, could synthesise poetry, metaphor, language, psychology, history, human insight like nobody else who has ever lived
Thanks so much for watching and commenting Jay! 🥰 YES I love that David answers that exact point at 52:14. He says that "even genius requires context and opportunity," which I happen to agree with. But all opinions are welcome! It's exciting to know we have a firm Stratfordian in this group of Shnerds. So grateful to have your voice on this channel!
Great discussion.
Thanks Brendan! Glad you enjoyed it. I appreciate you watching and commenting 🥰🙏
Eh what Bohemia has a coast?! Dad never told me about that! Is it on the "Sea of Post Modernity" perchance? (Perhaps "Kde Domov Muj?" should be "kde je moje moře?"). I am composing my rebuttal, and will post in due course...
Thank you for commenting and watching all the way through the interview, Jerry! Glad to have your support on my channel 🥰
History, my friend, history. The world actually existed in different borders before the 20th Century.
"The truth is that the sea coast of Bohemia, generally supposed to have been a mere creature of fancy and imagination, once was a reality. It is true that, at the present day, Bohemia, situated as is in the heart of Europe, does not touch the sea anywhere, and owns no seaports of her own; in her days of glory, however, under the King Přemysl Otokar II., she really had a sea coast and harbors on the Adriatic. Let us hear what Mr. Robert H. Vickers, the historian of Bohemia, says in his essay on Přemysl Otokar II."
---The Bohemian Review, Volume 1, #9 (published 1917)
@@davidmontee9892 Yes, but look at the date and the source and the context of the time. This is not history, my friend, but (a laudable) attempt to establish national legitimacy and independence (no doubt inspired by Shakespeare's' error). It's like saying Austria had a port called Trieste! Which of course it did but wasn't on the coast of Austria. But ultimately this is irrelevant to the central argument.
@@jerrygerza7565 I'm sorry, but I'm not following the argument you're trying to make. I said, in the interview, that Shakespeare's play that claims there is a coast in Bohemia has been unjustly attacked and ridiculed for that assertion, since (the critics say) there is no coast in Bohemia. But it's a fact that ONCE UPON A TIME (in keeping with the "fairy tale" quality of A WINTER'S TALE) there WAS a coast in Bohemia. So what's your point? If you're saying that there wasn't a coast in Bohemia at the time of WINTER'S TALE composition, I have to respond: So? There wasn't an oracle of Apollo at Delphi (also in WINTER'S TALE) in Elizabethan/Jacobean times either. It isn't a history play, after all; it's a romance. And de Vere was well acquainted with Greek mythology and European history, romantic legends of old, because he was educated by the best tutors (including Golding, who translated Ovid's METAMORPHOSES, from which "Shakespeare" drew heavily) and university teachers. Was Will Shaksper? No record of that whatsoever; it's only an assumption that he even attended the Stratford grammar school. And even if he did at least that, it's unproven conjecture that he was able, there, to learn anything of substance about either mythology or history. And almost certainly there was no study of European languages, literature or culture, from which many of the plays' stories are drawn. There was no established national grammar school curriculum. There were no textbooks or libraries in Stratford. There survives no syllabi from rural British grammar schools of the time. It's all conjecture, based on a very faulty understanding of the reality of Elizabethan history and culture. And after all....the primary proponents of the Stratfordian mythology of the "boy genius" who somehow absorbed all of his education and experience by some magical osmosis are virtually all literary academics. Not historians. Most of the people now rightfully questioning the long-accepted myth of the Stratford lad are not literature professors. They are historians, of both culture and politics of the time. And the literary academics are clearly fearful of the invasion of their territory, as they well should be. But it's about time that it happened, as the questions have been swirling for centuries, even when "Shakespeare" was alive.
But again: what's your point? Maybe I'm just missing something.
From Robert H. Vickers, as noted in my prior reply:
“The wise annotators and critics of Shakespeare, including such eminent names as Voltaire, Ben Johnson, Saint Beuve, Thorold Rogers, Charles Knight, Southey, Sterne and the Times, of London, have attempted to apologize for the immortal William. But the poet was right. Bohemia extended to the Adriatic, and included the ports and harbors and coast for a considerable distance, the boundary being nowhere fixed. It was not only possible but was a constant occurrence for navigators to pass by sea direct from Sicily to the “desert of Bohemia”, between the years 1262 and 1276. Again, Ottokar, and Conrad and Conradin, the last of the Hohenstaufen line, were all personally acquainted and may be said to have been brought up together. The supposed incidents, then, of the Winter’s Tale may be placed with but slight poetic allowance during the period of Conrad’s rule over Sicily. Although the years do not exactly correspond, yet there is no blunder in Shakespeare’s description of a ship touching at the desert of Bohemia during that period.”
The sea coast of Bohemia will now, we hope, be admitted to have been a reality.
Shakespeare's immediate source for The Winter's Tale was Robert Greene's Pandosto. In that book, the jealous king was from Bohemia and the accused friend was from Sicily. By the time Shakespeare wrote his version, King James was allied with Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II, who was also King of Bohemia. Shakespeare likely swapped the kings of Sicily and Bohemia so as to not offend his patron.
Also, in ancient times there was an oracle on the Isle of Delos, known as Delphos in Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare also copied this detail from Greene, so right out wrong it's on Greene's head.
Lastly, there was never a place called "Bohemia" which had a coastline. Ottokar II briefly conquered what is now mostly Slovenia, but it did not get renamed Bohemia any more than Scotland or Ireland became England when the English conquered them.
Great video, very entertaining and informative. While being an authorship doubter, to say the least, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to have settled on a candidate. It is a frustration to me that Marlowe doesn't get more consideration.The easy out is "Well, he was dead." However, there is a lot of information out there that lends support to the possibility that he was either allowed to escape or even relocated by the Secret Service. Ros Barber haswritten on this fairly extensively along with her wonderful, albeit fictitious,The Marlow Papers.
I will just make a few point suggesting that there is more to the Marlowe "death" story.
1. He was summoned to the Queens Privy Council to answere to the charges of atheism, a capital offense, but was released on his own recognisance to return in ten days.What?
2. All three men involved in the incident were associated with the Secret Service.
3.The house in which the "death" occurred was owned by Eleanor Bull who had been in the Queen's Court.
4. Said house was on the waterfront of the Thames.
5. It is well documented that Marlowe was a spy, working for years with the Secret Service, and had travelled extensively in Europe, sometimes undercover, and spoke and read multiple languages.
6. As a spy, Marlow was valuable to the Crown.
7. Marlow had friends in high places including his"very close" friend Thomas Walsingham, the nephew of Sir Thomas Walsingham, who ran the Secret Service for decades and who, I believe, sat on the Queens' Privy Council.
8. Friends in high places is also evedenced by the fact that the Queens Privy Council, yes them again, intervened when Cambridge University threatened to not grant him his Master'sdegree due to excessive absence (probably espionage work).
Marlow was already an established and highly successful playwrite.
10. Etc... He deserves more consideration.
Thanks for watching and commenting James! 🥰 So glad you enjoyed our discussion. And this information on Marlowe is FASCINATING. I had no idea he was a spy! Very cool stuff. I love this authorship question and am very excited to hear all of these different theories. Glad you’re in our Shakespeare community!
I prefer Edward de Vere
" Richard " was his father, lol. "No evidence shakespeare was an actor " apart from the evidence from Ben Jonson because he was lying. There you have the conspiracy theorist at their best. Moan about a lack of documentary evidence for something, then when it is presented dismiss it as a lie. Now thats tragedy. Shakespeare is also listed as an actor in the first folio. There is also a reference to him in his lifetime playing the "kingly parts in sport".
Thanks for your post; I always appreciate lovers of Shakespeare willing to engage in an honest exchange about the growing scholarship surrounding the Folio authorship question. To briefly respond:
1. In answering an earlier post here, I freely admitted that my comment in the interview about Richard Shakespeare being Will's father was a slip of the tongue; as you know, he was Will of Stratford's grandfather, and John was his father. But I hardly think that slip on my part negates everything else discussed here.
2. If you have read Ben Jonson's works and know the details of his life, you know that he was famous in his writings and commentary for purposeful ambiguity, irony, and speaking against what he would say--to paraphrase Angelo in Measure For Measure. It's a trademark of his thinking, his political carefulness (he was no stranger to occasional trouble with ruling authorities as a result of his satires), and his writing style. He knew how to communicate to discerning readers and audiences in a sort of sly code. One of the things that both Stratfordian and post-Stratfordian scholars agree on now is that Ben Jonson was the author of the prefatory material in the Folio that is attributed to Heminge and Condell; that in itself might lead to a careful examination of what Ben Jonson's role was in the promotion of the idea that Will Shakspere of Stratford was one and the same man as the "William Shakespeare" who authored the Folio plays. Perhaps Jonson even had a hand in editing the material; I personally think that's likely. Also recall that the Folio was funded and patronized by the Herberts (as noted in the Folio preface), both of whom had strong connections to Edward de Vere as well as his son and daughters, and therefore were likely the "grand possessors" of most of the primary textual material written by "William Shakespeare" during his lifetime....those authorial manuscripts and primary texts that have, strangely, left no trace whatsoever.
3. John Davies of Hereford, the man who spoke of Shakespeare playing "kingly parts in sport", was just as likely speaking of the writer who was using the authorship pseudonym as he was the Warwickshire entrepreneur. The crux of the problem was not whether there WAS a William Shakespeare who wrote the plays, and acted in them, either in their earlier court presentations or--occasionally, perhaps--in the public theater (making himself a "motley to the view" as a sonnet says); the debate is WHO that "Shakespeare" actually was.
4. There was no "conspiracy". Those who knew that "William Shakespeare" was a pseudonym of a writer whose personal circumstances dictated anonymity, knew the truth--and were extremely cautious about saying it out clearly, especially in those tumultuous and dangerous years of Elizabeth's and James's rule. To understand why, you have to study the times with care and attention--and in doing so, realize how daring those plays truly were in questioning, criticizing, or satirizing various government policies and issues. Those public theater playgoers who didn't know the truth, wouldn't have even cared....any more than the vast majority of people today watching the latest popular streaming series or film really care who writes it. They just enjoyed the entertainment value--which was considerable, we would agree.
I encourage you to read Elizabeth Winkler's recent best-selling book (2023) if you haven't already. It's a fascinating explanation of all that I'm talking about here, and she outlines it all very clearly, and in a balanced way. I believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name of a brilliant Early Modern poet and playwright; and Will Shakspere was a shrewd businessman from Warwickshire who dabbled in various commodities both in London and Stratford, made successful real estate deals, and became a financial shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men. Perhaps he was a knowing "beard" for the man behind the plays because of the similarity of his name to the pseudonym that had been utilized since "Venus and Adonis" was published in 1592. I think that it's entirely plausible that such an arrangement was to the advantage of both men for different reasons, and several allusions in plays and writings of the time even suggest that this was what was going on. A goodly number of contemporary historians of the period are coming around to the increasing evidentiary likelihood that Will Shakspere of Stratford did not write the Folio plays . It's the English literature professors who have remained inexplicably defensive regarding these legitimate questions, and who have ignored the political/cultural context of the Elizabethan/Jacobean times who remain behind the curve.
The Sonnets hold the key to the identity of "William Shakespeare".
@@davidmontee9892 you havent answered that you bemoan a lack of evidence then when presented with it claim that the person was lying. What possible reason to put shakespeare on a cast list if he wasnt an actor. Why would shakespeare be the only member of the lord chamberlains men then Kings men who was not an actor?. By the way he wasnt the only member who was also a writer.
@@davidmontee9892 No people do not agree that Jonson was responsible for the Heminges and Condell preface to the first folio. Wiki and other bios of the two show them as the authors of the preface to the folio. Also jonson later remarks critically on their comment on not receiving a blot on Shakespeares papers which makes no sense if he wrote the comment. Also Digges poem on thefirst folio refers to the stratford monument so why jonson would include that if shakespeare was Oxenford is a mystery. Oxenforders ludicously say de Vere lived in Hackney which is a few miles from a London Stratford as if that place miles away for which no monument to de vere or shakespeare has ever been mentioned shows the extreme insane limits people will go on this.
Why do people call the Stratford man Shaksper? There are only two examples of that spelling and one of those refers to Shaksper's sonnets so according to the Oxenforders, must not refer to the stratford man. There are several instances where the stratford man is spelled shakespeare including property purchases and fines, a London court case, in a fellow actors will to fellow actors including shakespeare. Even his father is never referred to as Shaksper, but as early as the 1550s was Shakysper and Shakisper and on two draft coats or arms as John Shakespeare. You can see the original documents on Shakespeare documented. But still the ignorant fall for that dishonest trick, 'lets call the stratford man Shaksper and the poet Shakespeare.'. Well no lets call the stratford man as rhe court scribe in London called him 'william Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon'.
Wow David! What a thorough and generous response!! This global debate is so much richer with your knowledge and warmth being a part of it. Thank you for taking the time 🙂❤️
Thank you, David (if I may) for your reply. No need to apologise for the slip of the tongue - when one considers the error in Shakespeare’s ODNB entry, viz muddling the two wives of Robert Arden - your mis-speak is minor. I doubt your brain is more ancient than mine, too!
Regarding the grammar school curricula in the 16th/early 17th century, I would refer you to the epic work of T W Baldwin, published in various works in the 1940s, but more recently to Kate Emery Pogue’s Shakespeare’s Education - How Shakespeare learn to write. The schools in and around Stratford -Worcester, Warwick, Chipping Campden, Coventry, to name a few, as well as the schools in London and elsewhere (Westminster for Jonson, Canterbury for Marlowe aka Marley aka other corruptions) all followed a pretty consistent approach. Sadly, there is no record of the attendees at Stratford’s King’s School in WS’s time, but If you would like evidence of the products of the school, I can supply a list of those who went on to the universities. But there were many others who, like WS, did not enter the universities - those who became apprenticed, many in London, like Field. My current view is that Shakespeare’s missing years, were spent in a similar ‘learning’ capacity in London.
One’s view of the actual writings that can be attributed to Edward de Vere are subjective, but to commandeer the 36 plays in the First Folio to him is a bit of a leap of credulity. As an historian and genealogist, but I am not really interested in debating whether it was him or any of the other of the other, some better, possible candidates; others are better placed to do that. However, I would refer you to research the current stylistic evidence for the collaborative nature of playwriting in London in the late 16th and early 17th century.
The perception of Stratford and its inhabitants as a bunch of uneducated, illiterate yokels is often cited by anti-Stratfordians. Again, most of those who state these views have done zip in the way of researching any of the people who actually lived in the town and surroundings. My own work published in 2011 and 2018 examined some of these documentarily, at one time on Amazon, but I fear it may now have been removed.. Latterly, I have produced something of a sequel to these publications. Unfortunately, this is not widely available outside of libraries and archives - such work is not considered not sufficiently commercial for publishing houses.
Always interesting hearing the views of those passionate for Shakespeare - whoever the author is felt to be.
John
Thank you, John. Whatever the truth of authorship turns out to be--or if it is ever entirely proven, one way or the other--the debate is fascinating, and I love hearing of new leads to follow! Thanks for that. Every new thing I learn about the times and culture that produced the plays makes me appreciate them all the more, whomever their primary author may be.
And I agree entirely with what you're saying about the collaborative nature of the texts that have survived from the time. It appears that the latest edition of the Oxford Complete Works of Shakespeare is finally committing solidly to that understanding as well.
I see that your study entitled Shakespeare's Country Families is indeed still available on Amazon, but only on Kindle...and old-fashioned curmudgeon that I am, I still prefer printed books whenever possible. Is there a print version available of the title, by any chance?
You refer to this issue as "SUPER controversial", but it doesn't seem like you actuality want any controversy.
Thank you for watching our interview all the way through, Jeff, and commenting! I appreciate your support of my channel 🥰📜🙏
‘Tis true that I love exploring this topic and also don’t encourage controversy for controversy’s sake-especially the angry, highly emotional, oft rude and personal comments. That’s when those who are obviously intelligent and articulate betray their passion for this topic by becoming childish. And, for me, that disappointing behaviors undercuts any argument either side hopes to make. Debate can be fabulously thrilling and enlightening! But when discussion gets unkind, I stop listening.
I believe the authorship question is a valid question to be asked & that’s about it! I honestly don’t see what angers people so much about admitting that there’s not enough evidence to prove *any* candidate, including the man from Stratford and even Oxford. Thanks for asking! 😊
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare I am not angered by the question. I'm not even angered by the suggestion that there isn't enough evidence, since what constitutes "enough" is subjective. I am annoyed when someone sets the bar unreasonably high for Shakespeare, and then places it on the ground -- or in many cases, buries it -- for their own preferred candidate.
And yes, I am angered when someone willfully lies or manufactures evidence. This happens ALL THE TIME in Anti-Stratfordian camps, and others who only bother to read one side of the matter then in ignorance repeat these lies.
The truth is that there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence that Shakespeare was the author of the works attributed to him. He was identified as the "Man from Stratford" by friends and peers who referred to him by his name (in various spellings), his social rank (gentleman), his profession (player), his educational attainments (few), and on several occasions his place of birth. He was a lead actor and part owner in the theater company which held the exclusive rights to perform the plays of Shakespeare, and in the theaters where they were performed. He had lifelong friendships with the actors who brought to life the roles he created. He infused his plays with people and events from his home town.
The case for Shakespeare is so compelling that a recent Anti-Stratfordian sideshow has been to claim that those who identified Shakespeare as the "Stratford Man" KNEW the truth and were actively assisting the cover-up when they identified him. Another recent tactic is to heap caveats onto the evidence, such as ruling anything post-mortem or not by a verifiable close friend inadmissible, and then to declare that said evidence doesn't exist.
This is why I'm aghast (in starting to run out of synonyms for "shocked and perturbed") when people claim there is little, and more often NO evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was a poet.
It exists in heaps and piles. I'm dumbfounded (okay, that's the last one) when people climb over it in order to latch on to things like hidden codes or "pirates!"
Does it really matter? After all, there's no law against slandering the dead, and the dead own no property. It's not like Anti-Stratfordians are making much progress, are they?
I'm not a religious person. If we leave behind a "soul", I think it's the legacy of the things we did and the effect we had on others. By that standard, Shakespeare was truly the "Soul of the Age", and trying to take that from him is profoundly immoral.
@@jeffmeade8643 Again....read--or re-visit if you've already read--your fellow Stratfordian David Ellis's solid study entitled The Truth About William Shakespeare, in which he very honestly admits and documents how much of what Stratfordians proclaim as the "MASSIVE amount of evidence" for Will Shaksper's authorship of the plays is comprised of surmise, faulty conclusions, legend, and unsubstantiated anecdotes repeated as fact by generations of so-called literary scholars (not historians). When such assertions are repeated again and again and again for 4 centuries, it's perfectly understandable that people now confuse legend and anecdote with certifiable fact. It's comforting not to question the "reality" that we have been taught throughout our lives, and wish to continue to believe.
As far as the questioning of the true authorship being an "immoral" endeavor; I would gently remind you that Galileo's theory that denied the Earth's place as the center of our solar system....nay, even our universe....was once declared as both immoral and heretical when it was first proposed. In fact, that's often the normal evolution that research and scholarship follows in human history: what is first condemned as outrageous, and even immoral, by establishment academia is very often ultimately accepted as the truth as more and more evidence is uncovered. I think that's the process which is currently occurring regarding the authorship question of Shakespeare's plays.
@@davidmontee9892 I don't need "...surmise, faulty conclusions, legend, and unsubstantiated anecdote..." to prove my case. I use original documents and contemporary publications. They show overwhelmingly that Shakespeare's friends and contemporaries clearly and unequivocally identified William Shakespeare the poet as the gentleman and actor who was born and who died in Stratford-upon-Avon. Claims such as "a hyphen identifies a pseudonym" are completely unsupported (and in fact contradicted by Camden in his Remaines, 1605) by contemporary evidence. Yet when John Davies clearly identifies the poet "Mr. Will: Shake-speare" as both a gentleman and an actor, which can only refer to William Shakespeare of Stratford, the hyphen is touted and the plain English ignored.
Why is that?
Shakespeare was just a well educated grammar school boy who read widely and moved between different classes of people. He was a genius. How did Mozart compose what he composed? Its unfathomable.
Yes great point about Mozart! As David mentions in the interview, Mozart was absolutely a prodigy, but it's also true that he had that same "context and opportunity" that David argues true genius requires to flourish. Mozart's father supported (and pushed) Mozart's talent extremely hard, which is how baby Mozart was playing palaces at age 4. Mozart had resources and immense support. You can be an incredibly gifted piano player, but you still need a piano to play on, right? Thanks again for watching through the whole and commenting your passionate thoughts! 🙏🙂
My ancestor founded a school in Elizabethan times, and through my research on his work I know that the records of English school curricula still exist in the language of their charters. The first free school in Warwickshire was chartered in 1545 “to teach all children born and brought up in Warwick from the accidence [rudiments] to grammar without taking anything after they were fit to the accidence.” Compare the Warwick charter to the grammar school in Skipton, York where in 1548 the school was chartered to “teach the boys the alphabet and afterward grammar.” In Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, 1548, the school was to “teach boys and youth whomsoever resorting thither in grammatical science, in Greek and Latin literature.” The Stratford-on-Avon charter was made sometime before 1553 as “a free Grammar school for the education of children and youth in the borough.” Note that at the time, the term “Grammar” meant Latin…not English. Liberal arts educations in reading English and writing and arithmetic were not routinely offered in 16th Century England.
Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel Laureate in Physics 2020, is yet even another "kook" who has retired the orthodox story and leans toward Edward de Vere.
BTW Einstein was running his mind experiments while a clerk in the Swiss PATENT Office.
Tom thank you for watching the whole interview! I really appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment- and that’s so fun to know about yet ANOTHER brilliant mind who believes this question is worth asking! 🙌💗🙂 So glad to have you on this channel!!
@@ShelbyLovesShakespeare Dr. Montee indicated that knowing the author of a play can give a play life, for example, knowing Tennessee Williams leavens the performances of his plays through our knowledge of his period in the twentieth century American South. That is why my interest in this debate grew as I was contemplating the role of Hamlet which I performed as a teenager without the benefit of a background biography available from the life of Oxford.
I like the new glasses.
You're making the mistake of reading out 'evidence' from the plays - a la the 'As you Like it' conjecture. I appreciate the potted history of Shakespeare at the outset, which rightly speaks to how little we know of the actual person. Probability is, as is true today, the plays were all collaborative. But you fall into the trap of the kind of conjecture you question in the first place. My wonder at the whole authorship question is that it falls on a binary position - either this person who was Shakespeare wrote the plays, or this same person didn't. That is historical nonsense. Mostly, the naysaysers come at it from a classist position that patronises those of us who appreciate the work. The classist position of course being that a regular person of modest education couldn't possibly write such wonderful work. As if the likes of James Joyce hasn't existed since. For the same reasons perhaps they'll be questioning Joyce's authorship in several hundred years time. However, my conclusion is you all ought to have the humility to say we just don't know and likely will never know - except for the fact that at the time production of plays was collaborative and the persons involved and playgoers too were a diverse set of folks. It amazes me how many supposed intelligent commentators on this subject start with the 'facts' just before blowing off into a position that has no more credibility than any other. You might enjoy the speculation - have at it - but please present it as that. Otherwise there are much more interesting things to say about the writers, artists, producers of the time. And much more important things you could actually be doing to bring the wonderful works of WS to people right now. To talk about the delicious sensuous pragmatic forceful poetry of the language might be more effective than to indulge in a long-tired discourse that, until physical evidence is found, wastes time, energy, and worse, the work necessary to bring people to engagement with the works.
I agree that until solid evidence--a smoking gun, as it were--is presented by some new discovery, this will all be conjecture and surmise. In my mind, if establishment Shakespeare academicians can at least arrive at and accept that very admission as truth, a large part of this debate will have been worthwhile.
As for working more toward bringing people to a greater appreciation of the incredible power and depth of the works of "William Shakespeare"--whomever that was in actuality--I spent 40 years of my theatrical career doing just that. I've taught Shakespeare acting classes, directed more than half the Shakespeare canon, acted major Shakespearean roles, and published a book on it all. And the authorship question was left largely on the sidelines during those activities, to which Shelby will surely attest. (After all, I was a Stratfordian myself during the majority of those years.) The art is the art; but the historian part of me finds that my appreciation of that art grows with my clearer understanding of the times and the probable truths of authorship.
Questions of "class" only come into the picture when one examines honestly what opportunities Elizabethan culture would have offered to specific social classes. And what opportunities almost certainly would have been denied to others.
@@davidmontee9892 Yep. Kudos to you for keeping the authorship question out of what has clearly been valuable work on your part. I'm not saying supposition isn't fun game down at the pub, but I do feel that, apart from whatever discipline it is that combs the archives for evidence (archivists I guess), those literary academics pouring over the question (and various charlatans mostly from the Oxfordian camp) could be better spending their time elsewhere. Truth is, any biography of WS the man should be about as short as your introductory comments here, which were well put. I think Bill Bryson made a fair case of it in his biography - also Michael Rosen too. All the best.
@@trevorjones8969 By the way, Trevor....as theatre was my career before recent retirement, I absolutely 100% agree with you that the Shakespeare plays as they have been handed down to us through the First Folio and various quartos were undeniably collaborations, some intentional as such, some not. That is....the primary author of the plays--whether it was the remarkable lad from Stratford, whose genius would have had to have been near supernatural, considering the lack of opportunities that the age would have afforded anyone in his class, education, or social status--or de Vere, or North, or whomever....the texts were almost certainly adapted in various ways by the players staging them, or by subsequent writers associated with the King's Men. Perhaps, in some instances, even by printing house folks or court authorities. Echoes and traces of contributions by Middleton, Munday, Marlowe, and Lyly seem evident (to me, and to various linguistic scholars) throughout the canon. Of course, we do not know how many of these passages were done in direct collaboration, and how many were later unauthorized amendments or revisions.
I appreciate your comments. I love talking about this issue, both with people who agree with me or disagree....as long as civil discourse holds! (Which it sometimes doesn't, as you probably know.)
Trevor, thank you for watching our interview all the way through and taking the time to leave this comment! I appreciate your support of my channel and wish you the best 🥰🙌