Gabriel Harvey writes to Oxford in Latin: 'Macte animo, flammaque ista Praenobile pectus, te vinces, vinces alios; tua gloria passim Oceanum glacialem ultra, spatiabitur ingens' which T. H. Jameson (1938) translates: 'With that mind and that fire, noble heart, you will surpass yourself, surpass others; your great glory will everywhere spread beyond the frozen ocean'. This oration was given at Audley End and published in quarto by Henry Bineman in September 1578. Harvey's praise for Oxford is derived from Oxford's Latin praise for Baldassare Castiglione (1571) as shown in this video.
Have you actually read it? Seriously. Please read it. Ignore the slant on this video. Just ... read the lines, and work out what they mean. Here it is: An Active Swain to make a Leap was seen which sham’d his Fellow Shepherds on the Green, And growing Vain, he would Essay once more, But left the Fame, which he had gained before; Oft did he try, at length was forc’d to yeild He st[r]ove in Vain, - he had himself Excell’d: So Nature once in her Essays of Wit, In Shakespear took the Shepherd’s Lucky Leap But over-straining in the great Effort, in Dryden, and the rest, has since fell Short. The shepherd made an amazing jump, but could never manage it again. And in the same way, Nature created Shakespeare, and in doing so, achieved a prodigious feat which she could not replicate in any subsequent poet. That's not just an interpretation. It's what it says, in plain Englisn.
@@bootube9972 Not at all. I love poetry, ancient & modern, and have no time for the charlatans whose only interest in poetry and drama lies in pretending that they are coded references to this or that. No time either for the dishonest characterisation, which seems to be de rigueur, of anyone who pokes holes in their fantasies as 'Stratfordians'. And no time for people like Richard Waugaman who uncritically embrace and parrot their dishonest nonsense.
Thank you Alexander. I start to think, after a long read of the Reasoanable Doubt documents and the de Vere documents, plus watching numerous videos, that I am so lucky to live at the age where the real Shakespeare (aka Edward de Vere) starts to be acknowledged; albeit too belatedly...
Mr. Waugh... interesting video and interpretation of the poem. After watching twice and continuing to consider your thoughts, I have to say that I have come to a different conclusion regarding the meaning of the poem. Forgive the normalized spelling. "An active swain to make a leap was seen, Which shamed his fellow shepherds on the green." In general, our thoughts are consistent, though the "leap" appears to be a one-off (or, one-hit wonder), and not permenent as I believe you suggest, as we see in the next four lines. "And growing vain, he would essay (try) once more, but lost the fame which he had gain'd before. Oft did he try, at length was forced to yield He stove in vain, - he had himself excelle'd." So, somewhat full of himself, he gives it a number of additional attempts, but doesn't have it, which is recognized by those around him ("lost the fame")... he continues to try and finally recognizes he must stop ("yield")... his work was in vain (note: a very nice use of both definitions for "vain") and he had been passed ("-he had himself excelle'd"). This person pre-dated Shakespeare, which is why Nature acts. "So Nature once in her essays (attempts) of wit, In Shakespear took the Shepherd's lucky leap. But overstretching in the great effort in Dryden, and the rest, has since fallen short." Nature moves from unnamed one-hit wonder swain to shepherd Shakespeare ("lucky leap"). And here it is permanent ("overstretching in the great effort") and after, no one has surpassed him ("in Dryden, and all the rest, has since fell short"). Candidly, I do not see any connection to a pseudonym. I see Vanilla Ice ("the swain") and Eminem (blessed by Nature). If the above interpretation is correct, it would naturally create some challenges for you follow on conclusions. I appreciate you giving me a chance to weigh in.
Thank you. I think your interpretation, which is both interesting and astute, misses out a little on the stressed singularity and connection of Nature’s and the nameless Swain’s leap and fails to address why the Swain should be anonymised and occupy such a prominent position in a poem ostensibly about Shakespeare that is inscribed into a place of honour in Shakespeare’s First Folio. However I doff my cap to you as the only interpreter, as far as I am aware, to make any effort to draw the poem away from its more obvious Oxfordian connotations. The cryptic message of this poem and so many others of the period are devised precisely so that more than one interpretation is possible.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 thank you for your friendly and thoughtful response. I would suggest that the singular and anonymised Swain is a device to address the "every poet" prior to William Shakespeare. I also interpret that it was Nature's wit which provided for Shakespeare's lucky leap (the shepherd). To me, the poem appears to be an homage to William Shakespeare in a place of honor in his complete folio of work. To your comment above, many interpretations are possible. I look forward to reviewing some of the other videos on your site. Again, I appreciate your willingness to conside my thoughts. Patrick
That’s a great observation! It really does seem as a great tribute to Shakespeare by comparing him to all others who fell short because HE was the one that Nature took the lucky leap with, however that point of view then leaves the introduction rather clumsy. Why is that particular, anonymous swain worthy of several lines in a tribute to Shakespeare? Perhaps the singularity of that noun wasn’t meant literally and somehow applies to all? Not sure.. I still believe that it refers to the original author’s fame (before he chose his pseudonym) compared to the fame of “Shakespeare”, but your interpretation was nevertheless very clever and interesting! Then there’s the question of how could he get so much better at writing to overshadow everyone, including himself? That leads me to believe that perhaps Shakespeare was indeed a team effort after all!
@@rouxsterman EXACTLY. The shepherd made an amazing jump, but could never manage it again. And in the same way, Nature created Shakespeare, and in doing so, achieved a prodigious feat which she could not replicate in any subsequent poet. That's not just an interpretation. It's what it says, in plain English.
Hi Alexander! I'm having dinner with the Grand Master of the Masons tomorrow night Friday 16th October, for Sible Hedingham, which Castle Hedingham is part of his area! As a true believer in Edmund De Vere, and NOT a Mason, what do you think I should ask him, as I want to put him on the spot? Best Regards
@@tempest957 Inform him that the First Folio was dedicated to the GRAND MASTER IN ENGLAND, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke ---------------------------------------------------------------- . "Moore C W The Freemasons Monthly Magazine Vol IV 1845" . tinyurl.com/yykurxjk . GRAND MASTERS, OR PATRONS, OF THE FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS IN ENGLAND, from the coming in of the Saxons to the year 1839, Compiled and condensed from the most authoritative records, by Br. Thomas Joseph Tennison, President of the Masonic Council of Armagh, Ireland. ................................................................... 1618. William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was chosen Grand Master. . He appointed Inigo Iones his Deputy. --------------------------------------------------------------- And then ask him if the word *IAOM* means anything to him. --------------------------------------------------------------- askville.amazon.com/signs-symbols-handshakes-Freemasons-order-... 'Tubal Cain' is the password of a Master Mason, which is the 'Third Degree'. Not to be confused with the password. *The Word* (always capitalized) is so secret that initiates are taught it one letter at a time. First they learn A, then O, then M, and finally I. *The Word* is *IAOM* . ------------------------------------------------- . Twelfth Night : Act II, scene V . MALVOLIO: *M,O,A,I*. This simulation is not as the former: . and yet to crush this a little, it would bow to mee, . for EVERy one of these Letters are in my name. -------------------------------------------------------
@callyharley NO lol He changed the subject but said the Masons had nothing to do with the movement of Edward De Vere to Westminster Poets corner!! He winced when I mentioned TTTT Tuois!!
Dear Sir, could you please examine the title page of john Milton's Paradise Lost. It looks odd. Also, it was published in 1667, but written before and maybe finished in 1666.
At the 12:00 minute mark, you have pointed out the statement that Shakespeare had excelled himself and surpassed others. I have discovered ANOTHER refernce to this statement in the Ben Jonson dedication. Here it is in a modern typeface. Preface to The First Folio (1623) Original spelling with explanatory comments in { }. Ben Jonson To the Reader {This text is facing Droeshout's portrait of Shakespeare prefixed to the First Folio.} This Figure, that thou here feest put, It was for gentle Shakespeare cut: Wherein the Grauer had a strife with Naure, to out-doo the life: O, could he but haue dravvne his vvit As vvell in frasse, as he hath hit Hisface; the Print vvould then surpasse All, that vvas euer in frasse. But, since he cannot, Reader, looke Not on his picture, but his Booke.
The oldest brass (frasse) engraving indented the second lines so as to accentuate the (T)his (W)herein and (O) meaning two vertically. Above the word Print (Capitol P) the letters I and N have a dot above them as German letters may have. In my mind, this TWO is alluding to the two dots and the double meaning of Prints and Prince. The new corrected spacing and lines now read "She has hid His face; the Prince would then surpass all that was ever." I hope this provides further insight into the true identity of W.S. Glen Atwell.
Im not in doubt of your thesis. There may exist a mathematical theorem that explains the correlation between the combinatorics of language with respect to its finite or linear chain. Having saud that is it possible that william shakespeare wrote shakespeare? Thats humor of course. Proving he namely william shakespeare did not write the works ascribed is simply showing he did not exist. Secondly its nit unreasonable to read other works or commentary of shakespeare of the time. Thirdly if the pseudonym is used concurrently with the works then could it not have existed before in literature? As in per se a story about shakespeare himself. Shakespeare is more interesting as a rogue author not an academic. Art today has archetypes of its predecessors including if with the eyes and ears correct a seemingly uncanny knack to predict outcomes. Shakespeare although its stories reach across class do not seemingly translate well into english. Meaning english seems to overturn itself for its magical quality fir a more stringent dialectic. If we take modern television or literature ney drama -what makes its usage obsolete if modern movies for example cast actors as themselves that play themselves to conceal a thing. If shakespeare was a character in shakespeare -who praetor was he? Which character to an expert would the author project himself or herself into? What would influence one person to write such a collection? Today its money. For it is the live if it or the live of something. Is it possible that shakespeare was juliet? Consequently the tempest seems related. Yet all literature has over lapping and entwined themes. Im not saying it is juliet or a female but no seems to understand that juliet was not supposed to be nit with romeo. Its not symbolic. There is a tendency to make them symbolic. My only point is that life has consequences. This is shakespeare. If thus than that. The authors voice is not exclusively one aspect if this pointalism. I understand everything i have said is meaningless and simply contemplative. I simply feel there is more to shakespeare as some do than implied even here. I thoroughly enjoy your expertise and adventure. Its very very interesting and learning about your research is compelling. Raising questions is not an insult. Its what professors do as a craft seemingly lost to time and societal constructs. All the best.
The "Thorn" letter is still used in Iceland today. Thorn or þorn (Þ, þ) is a letter in the Old English, Gothic, Old Norse, Old Swedish, and modern Icelandic alphabets, as well as some dialects of Middle English. It was also used in medieval Scandinavia, but was later replaced with the digraph th, except in Iceland, where it survives. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
I love this stuff! It's so exciting when history is rediscovered and clarified. It is such a worthy endeavor. Thanks to all who dedicate their time and talents to the pursuit of truth.
Absolutely true. This is the alien abduction branch of the authorship question. Edward de Vere was born entirely green, because he was the result of an interaction between an alien and Penelope Devereux, who Mr Waugh reckons was at it with everyone - even small green men from the Andromeda Galaxy. Fascinated by the electrical appliances in the space craft, she was putty in the hands of the aliens. Thus the word 'vert' is a secret signal, communicating the fact that the writer was half-human, half kitchen timer. He could not only write wonderful poetry, but popped up precisely on cue to produce the perfect soft-boiled egg.
Have you ever come across a work called "The Impossible Doublet"? - it is a work examining the vest worn by Shakespeare in that portrait in the first folio . . . very interesting
Your knowledge is very impressive. Could you perhaps give a talk on why Bacon, Oxford, Mary Sydney et. al (collaboration theory) be not plausible as Shake-speare?
I think I could partially answer that on his behalf (how presumptuous of me). Bacon had too little time to write the plays. He was Attorney General to the government so he had to oversee legal disputes, attend to law courts and make judicial appointments as per royal orders. This left him little time to write what we know he wrote and pursue his scientific research. Mary Sidney could have helped with the plays since she had the time after her children (the patrons of the First Folio WIlliam and Philip Herbert, no less) had grown up and had revised her brother Philip Sidney's Arcadia. It is plausible that de Vere asked for help with certain parts of the plays, but that is unlikely.
Given some of the plays already show signs of Marlowe's involvement, I'd add Bacon & Amelia Bassano Lanier as well. And while a collaboration may not have exactly looked like the writers of Saturday Night Live around a table, there's too much evidence of the same nature as for De Vere
Hi Alexander! Can I just say I admire your incredible research and outstanding academic arguments. who could possibly disagree with your clear evidence?? This seems to be something as " the King with no clothes" ! The truth is staring you in the face, but you choose to ignore the truth! Till someone stands up and says "look the King is Naked"! The naked truth is to much to bear!! ( for society)
This isn't remotely like the emperor's clothes - it's the total opposite: You'd have to be a monger of baseless conspiracies to go along with this pseudo-academic lunacy.
The rabid fever found on both sides of the argument indicate that WS has become a religious figure rather than a literary one. I must, therefore, assume that he was the product of an immaculate conception, was buried, and rose on the third day. Over the centuries innumerable artists have made him look the part of England's greatest genius and for that they must be congratulated.
Sir. Even if your reading of the poem were spot on, (and I'm convinced it is not), it would demonstrate only that one scribbler, a century after De Vere's death, hinted that in his opinion there might be a connection between Shakespeare and De Vere. And you claim that this is a huge embarrassing problem for Stratfordians?! Of course not. It's literally irrelevant. Again, even if your reading is correct, the writer is anonymous, we have no indication that he knew what he was talking about or that he had reliable sources. Now, to your reading of the poem itself. You boil-down the first half to the idea that a famous poet (Oxford) took a leap (adopted the Shake-speare pseudonym) and surpassed himself, losing his fame. But as others have pointed out, your boiling-down ignores and misrepresents much of what the poem tells us. The writer categorically does *not* say that the poet made a leap and surpassed his peers and himself, causing him to lose his fame. No, sir. That is either an embarrassing misreading or else wilfully misleading. Anyone can read what the sequence actually says: He took a leap, achieved fame and surpassed his peers, grew vain, made another attempt, lost his fame, tried often to recapture it with further attempts, but admitted defeat and realised he had previously excelled himself. If you can demonstrate that this corresponds to Oxford, then by all means do so. Did De Vere become a famous poet, grow vain, and try to maintain his fame by making work that equalled his previous poetry, only to admit defeat and realise that in his earlier work he had surpassed himself? If not, then this unnamed poet is not De Vere. You can either demonstrate that the narrative (all of it!) fits him, or you can admit that it isn't him. But what you can't do - and expect to be taken seriously - is to hand-pick lines that you think you can apply to Oxford, and disregard the rest, simply ignoring such significant lines as though they weren't even there. Because actually they are the crux of the entire piece: just as the unnamed poet made a leap, achieved fame, then failed to reach such heights ever again despite many efforts, so Nature makes the leap in creating Shakespeare, and fails to equal the achievement in subsequent poets. Your reading robs the metaphor of symmetry, in fact it robs it of any meaning whatsoever, reducing it, as usual, to a mere vehicle for Oxfordian code. If the first half described what you claim it does - a poet adopting a pseudonym whose fame surpasses his own - then nothing about it would be analogous to the second half of the poem, in which Nature makes one lucky leap it cannot repeat. Nature does not adopt a pseudonym and find fame only in another guise. Both the poet in the tale, and Nature, do something so great that they can do it only once. That symmetry is the entire conceit of the text, as slender as it is. You have completely mangled this poem in your desperation to find Oxford hidden within its corpse. Your reading is a patchwork of cherry-picking. The unnamed poet is clearly shown to be a lucky one-hit wonder. You're going to ignore that clear meaning, reduce it to three hand-crafted motifs, decontextualized and carefully designed to mirror Harvey's address to Oxford, reflecting Oxford's Castiglione epistle, so that you can bamboozle your stupefied admirers with the gotcha moment, that this poem MUST be yet another coded reference to De Vere's adoption of the pseudonym William Shake-speare. Thought exercise: If you want to see just how nutty all this is, then instead of working backwards and reaching your preferred conclusion, start from the beginning and put yourself in the anonymous poet's place. He has his Folio, and he wants to write something in it communicating his secret knowledge that De Vere wrote Shakespeare, but without, you know, actually saying so. He wants to drop super-cryptic clues, of course. Even though De Vere has been dead a century. And even though he can write it anonymously and keep it safe on his bookshelf... So, to communicate cryptically his secret knowledge that De Vere was Shakespeare, he decides to write a poem in which an unnamed poet becomes a one-hit wonder, struggles to recreate his success, but fails, and his fame fades away. It’s an odd choice of subject matter for the task at hand, because it doesn’t fit Shakespeare or Oxford, but we’ll go with it for now. He includes in this poem the phrase, "sham'd his fellow shepherds", because he knows that anyone reading it will realise that "sham'd his fellow shepherds" can only be - must obviously be - a self-evident reference to that time 130 years previously when an Earl of Oxford stated that Castiglione "surpasses others". What else could it possibly refer to? The two phrases are virtually identical, after all. And that association with high praise and Castiglione will be confirmed when they read that the newly-famous poet cannot repeat his success, and is now a failure, his brief window of fame over, having once luckily excelled himself... Again, what else could that possibly refer to, if not to Harvey’s praise of Edward De Vere’s praise of Castiglione? Ideas about Nature, and art excelling Nature, are hardly ever found in poetry, especially in encomia, so a reference to Nature finding it impossible to equal its accomplishment in creating Shakespeare, will surely confirm to any educated reader that this can only be a third clue relating to an epistle De Vere wrote about Castiglione. No other reading is possible, surely! So he has his clues all in place. He needs only an attentive reader to see their connection, and to make that leap, to deduce that what is actually being insinuated, despite not being so much as hinted at, is that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by none other than.... Baldassare Castiglione! Sorry, no - by none other than... Gabriel Harv - what? Not him either? Oh, by Oxford? It's an absurd scheme. If he wanted to drop clues about the Oxford authorship secret, this poem doesn't even do that. You had to misrepresent the first half of the poem in order to crowbar-in the idea of an author taking a pseudonym. Think about what - at most - you’ve managed to actually demonstrate: that one literate and educated late 17th century reader of Shakespeare *might* (if your tortured reading of clues were correct) also have read the most popular edition of Castiglione, or might merely have had in the furniture of his mind several stock clichés found in encomia by the boatload, three that don’t correspond entirely with De Vere’s epistle, or with Harvey’s address, unless you massage them significantly. These are non-clues, saying literally nothing about the Shakespeare authorship, in an anonymous poem written insignificantly in a stolen book a hundred years after De Vere had waved his final perfumed glove. My challenge to you, Mr Waugh, is to have the courage to acknowledge that you misrepresented the poem: acknowledge that the unnamed poet does not, as you claim, take a leap that makes him lose his previous fame. Acknowledge that, to the contrary, the poet clearly makes a leap that brings him renown, but that in his vanity he tries again, and fails, and fails every subsequent time he tries, until he yields, and acknowledges that he had excelled himself and cannot repeat it. This narrative, unlike your calculated representation, CANNOT describe a famous poet taking a pseudonym and thereby voluntarily relinquishing his fame. Will you acknowledge that? That would certainly be a more admirable course than resorting to arguments about poetry being cryptic and ambiguous. I vividly recall in my Oxfordian days seeing Charlton Ogburn excoriating Stratfordians for resorting to “it’s just poetry” arguments when confronted with supposed Oxfordian clues. It would be a shame to see the most prominent Oxfordian now retreating to the same safehouse when his reading of a remarkably uncomplicated amateur poem is shown to be fatally flawed.
@@gharqad You make some very good points that are best handled one at a time in a forum such as this. I'm sure they would elicit fair comment if the wood were not so cluttered by all the trees. It is daunting to tackle a whole "book" especially with limited time available to many of us.
"He took a leap, achieved fame and surpassed his peers, grew vain, made another attempt, lost his fame, tried often to recapture it with further attempts, but admitted defeat and realised he had previously excelled himself. " Based on your interpretation of the poem, who is the poet in question? and why would his story be linked to Shakespeare?
O dear I am put in mind of one henry lincoln you are reaching sir you cant honestly believe this stands up as anything remotely pointing to evidence (although im sure this wraps it up for the oxfordians/non-stratfordians) you are preaching to the converted, that is all
Dear Mr. waugh, yesterday I was watching your video about the patron of Shakespeare revealed.. and now, when i continued the video, it was suddenly removed :/ Did you delete it? Is it still possible for me to watch it? Thanks in advance. Great videos btw, you got me hooked. I Am very intrigued by the Deeper symbolysm within all you are showing. Great Work inDeed.
Dear DB, I am so sorry but yes I deleted it this afternoon when I realised there was a flaw in one part of my argument which needed addressing. In a way this is a shame because there was much on that video that was worthy. I am concentrating hard on the matter and may reupload it with a tweak. Sorry to have interrupted your viewing - that was unfortunate - thank you for your patience, Alexander
Another superb video. Bravo! Question: wasn't Marlowe technically 'known' as a poet pre-1593? Or did I misunderstand the point made towards the end of this fascinating presentation?
Thank you. I do not believe that any work by Marlowe was published with his name on the title page until after his death and after the publication of Venus and Adonis.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Could 'known' as a poet not mean, however, that he was known to write plays - at Cambridge - or to have them put on in London? Wasn't it widely known that M. wrote 'Tamburlaine' and 'Faustus' - whether or not the published edition was accessible? Hope to see you soon at the Langton, sir!
I do not believe that there is any documentary evidence from Marlowe’s lifetime to indicate that he was a famous poet or playwright. The first documentary evidence of his writing any plays at all is what? Kyd’s private letter to Puckering? the title page of Dido? I am not sure, but both these records post date Marlowe’s death and the publication of ‘Venus and Adonis’. I am not trying to argue that Marlowe did not have a hand, very possibly the major hand in penning Tamburlaine etc in the 1580s, my point is simply that there is no solid evidence to support the supposition that he was a ‘famous’ poet or playwright before the arrival of the name Shakespeare on the literary scene. There is evidence to show that the plays ascribed to him after his death may have been penned by more than one playwright, as was common practice in those days.
AND WHY would the author of Shakespeare's works need to conceal his identity? And as if they'd leave codes in the texts of plays which were never intended to be read - because never intended to be published. NOBODY doubted the authorship for a couple of centuries, and the multiple candidates proffered since are proof of a modern mania of groundless and jealous class conspiracy. Ben Jonson commemorates the work and personality of Shakespeare, and HE WAS THERE. How do you account for that?
Thank you Erikus, the point is that the three remarks together "he excels others, excels himself and transcends nature'. Are exceptional to Edward de Vere and this poem by Shakespeare. Do you have another example of all three together like this? Yes I agree with you that transcending nature is of itself of no great interest.
Why not just write de vere wrote the plays, why all the secrecy after all the man was long dead when this was pasted into the book. Is it just snobbery to think someone from the lower classes could write like this
Snobbery has nothing to do with it. To understand why the authorship secret was consistently disclosed in this opaque way you need to enter the mindset of the freemason. I have put an enormous amount about this into the videos of this channel. I hope you enjoy exploring them. AW
@@alexanderwaugh7036Fine, i agree with you but i find it so annoying that people with a PHD think they are always right. Newton was a serious intellect but spent the last 20 years of his life looking for a code in the bible having a piece of paper that says I'm a clever boy does not make someone clever.
@@michaelwynn8763 Anyone who thinks he is always right is an arse regardless of his academic qualifications. Newton did not think that. There are numerical codes in the Bible that are well worth exploring.
@@michaelwynn8763 Are you familiar with Dr. Barbara Thiering's scholarly research on codes in the New Testament? Or is your obection based solely upon religious fundamentalism?
@@MrFoolingyu i am not religious. the bible was written in Aramaic then translated into Greek then into Latin then into English, if you think a code could survive this then good for you. And yes, i do think the bible is a good history book if we take away the religion
Why would the person that wrote the "first" Shakespeare poem attach the footnote - The first heir of my invention. ?Why would Oxford ? Why would the man from Stratford ?
Your question is answered by presentations in the playlist ‘Shocking Points’. See in particular ‘Adon’s Flower’. Southampton is described as the ‘godfather’ to the ‘first heir of Shakespeare’s invention’ apropos the surrogation of an heir to the earldom of Oxford. See also sonnets 1-18.
--------------------------------------------- . Henry V (Folio 1, 1623) . Enter Prologue. . The flat vnraysed Spirits, that hath dar'd, On this vnworthy Scaffold, to bring forth So great an Obiect. Can this Cock-Pit hold The vastie fields of France? Or may we cramme Within this *WOODDEN O*. the very Caskes That did affright the Ayre at Agincourt? O pardon: since a crooked Figure may Attest in little place a Million, And let vs, *CYPHERS* to this great Accompt, On your imaginarie Forces worke. ............................................ . *WOODDEN O* = *WODEN + ODIN* ------------------------------------------------------------ www.mythographica.demon.co.uk . ........................................................... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurisaz en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanged_Man_(Tarot_card) ---------------------------------------------------------- . David Roper's Monument Array: ......................................................... . . .{TERRATE (G) ITPOPUL U S M[Æ] R E T O LYMPUSHABE T} ........................................................ . STAYPAS [S] ENGERWH Y G O[E|S) T T H OUBYSOFAST R . EADIFTH [O] UCANSTW H O M{E} N V I O USDEATHHAT H . PLASTWI [T] HINTHIS M O(N|U} M E N T {SHAKSPEARE} W . ITHWHOM [E] QUICKNA T(U)R{E|D} I D E {WHOSENAMED} O . THDeCKY [S] TOMBEFA (R)M O{R|E} t H E NCOSTSIEHA L . LYTHEHA [T] HWRITTL E A V{E} S L I V INGARTBUTP A . GETOSER V EHISWIT T . (RUNES) -33 : Prob. in Roper array ~ 1 in 4930 .......................................................... the probability of David Roper's: {DE} next to {E.UERE} assuming that the 34 letters of the 2nd line: {TERRA TEGIT POPULUS MÆRET OLYMPUS HABET} provide the # key to the ELS array is ~ 1 in 106,000 -------------------------------------------------------- . (S)hake-sp(E)ares . So(N)Nets. . Ne(V)Er befo(R)E ImprinTED. ..................................... . . . (S) h a k e -s p . (E) a r e s S o . (N) N E t s. N e . (V) E R b e f o . (R) E I m p r i . n T E D. . (RVNES) -7: Prob. ~ 1 in 353 --------------------------------------------
"He excels himself, others and nature"...almost sounds like it could've been a common phrase. Are you sure it's not used in other writings during that time?
The power in question was Thomas Kyes and Mary Grey’s son, William Kyes, who returned to England a William Stanley to be Shakespeare’s only employer and owned the players for which Edward De Vere was lead writer. This would seem ridiculous except for the fact that William Stanley” did had to sue his own family for recognition after being out of the country for Shakespeare’s seven lost years. The case was never settle in court because the Stanleys recognize him as long as he did not assert his claim to the throne over that of his nice Ann Stanley. I would argue that both the highly unwanted Thomas Kyes and William Stanley, both potential heirs to the throne of England were sent abroad with unlimited funds to stay out of the country to experience some very wild adventures that the real Willam Stanley did not survive, his second cousin, Thomas Keyes returned England under his name.
I’m enjoying all of your videos. Am slowly going through them. Please can you provide your references for Pembroke and Royal Arch Freemasonry? Thanks. I thought that speculative Freemasonry emerged in 1640s with Ashmole/Moray.
Thank you TBITV: Oxford was tutored by Thomas Smith, Regius Professor of Civil Law, and by Lawrence Nowell, the celebrated legal historian. At the age of sixteen he entered Gray’s Inn to study law and lawyers lived with his family from his earliest years. Samuel Byrd, in 'A friendlie communication or dialogue betweene Paule and Damas' (1580), records that Oxford’s father 'kept Lawiers in his house' while Nashe records the same about Oxford who was to be found among “men of judgment in both laws [i.e., civil and canon law] everie day”. The Alleyns’ lawyer, Hugh Swift, was one of the lawyers who graced Oxford’s table.
I very much appreciate your time and research. This much collaboration/ citation is hard to dismiss. I can't find anything on the argument for Stratford Shakfpeare, aside from what surmounts as " Take our word for it." It's not a stretch really, to imagine an Earl writing under a pseudonym given the political climate of the late 16th century.
The plays were first performed at court. Then Elizabeth realised that the they needed to be shared. Inorder to educate the coman peasant. If it was not for Edward De Vere daughter Susan. We would be non the wiser. Sorry to the Stratfordians but truth must come first.
Ok..it was not Neville the Earl of Southampton ...it was The Earl of Oxford...Could be right, due to the fact both were members of high ranking class close to Royal Court who can not expose themselves as playwriters....under their social status...
This is possibly persuasive. But let’s get it right first. A book is stolen from a library and when it eventually turns up hundreds of years later, some verses have been written inside it. What do we know about the author - Nothing. Yet the presenter treats these verses as if they are holy writ, and cannot be questioned. Hmmm…. Edward de Vere was a poet and a playwright and numerous examples of his work are available for study. If he was indeed the ‘real’ Shakespeare, direct comparisons could be made with the work reputedly that of ‘the man from Stratford’. It would be quite impossible for his particular writing style to be disguised and the matter could be laid to rest. But, strangely, none of this easily-obtained and irrefutable proof has been provided. Edward de Vere had a volatile temperament and was known for erratic and violent behaviour. This contributed to the dissipation of his estate and constant money worries. He seems to have been in frequent trouble and became involved in political and religious intrigues, none of which reflected well on him. In one spectacular dispute he was accused of atheism, lying, heresy, disobedience to the crown, treason, murder for hire, sexual perversion, habitual drunkenness, vowing to murder various courtiers, and criticizing the Queen for doing "everything with the worst grace that ever woman did”. He was also charged with serial child rape. And detailed testimony from nearly a dozen victims and witnesses substantiated the charge. Two of the boys named had sought help from adults after De Vere raped them violently and denied them medical care. This paints a picture of a man with the very grossest and cruellest of minds, and is about as far removed as is possible from the measured, empathetic, cerebral work required to produce his masterpieces. Additionally, the enormous output of the ‘real’ Shakespeare required very considerable discipline to establish a manageable work routine. Firstly, he had to somehow carve out time from his hectic acting/managing life in the theatre. Then dedicate himself totally to his craft. Rejecting the numerous leisure-time activities enjoyed by fellow actors he had to spend long lonely hours writing and thinking - throughout the 20-25 years of his working life. These are very obviously not the habits of a man rampaging through life in the manner described. But life finally caught up and, long weakened by poor health, Edward de Vere died in June 1604, aged 54. Shakespeare’s output continued for years after that, and included such works such as Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, The Winter’s tale, The Tempest and others…
Despite the fact that his contemporaries regarded Vere as a great playwright, zero samples of his plays have survived (under his own name). We do have samples of his poetry, and frequently it is indistinguishable from the poetry of Shakespeare, in format, style and content. The first clue that Vere might be Shakespeare was the striking similarity of one his poems to Shakespeare's "Venus & Adonis." Your entire third paragraph is so outrageously exaggerated that it is essentially a fabrication. Vere wasn't "charged" with anything. He was "accused" by people that he was testifying against, but it is clear they were trying to impeach Vere's credibility by attacking him - this is a common tactic by people charged with crimes, even today. The accusations may have been examined, but they were ultimately dismissed as no doubt they deserved to be. The serial rape charge and the Queen Elizabeth insult appear to be complete fantasies. Did you pull these from the Wikipedia entry for Edward Vere? It's a character assassination, not worthy of real scholarship.The citations show that the bulk of the article is pulled from Stratfordian Nelson's hit piece on Vere, which is more than a little biased, and not available online. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Vere had an artist's temperament, as you point out. He also had a staff of secretaries standing by to record his dictation. He could spend all day doing whatever he wanted, and still get more writing done then the most disciplined craftsmen. There is no record of Shakespeare managing a theater, but there are nearly 70 documents that show that while the plays of Shakespeare were being written, William Shaksper of Stratford was definitely busy with affairs in Stratford. Can't be in two places at once. There is no known composition date for any Shakespeare play. William Shaksper of Stratford died in 1616 at he age of 52; he must have been living an even harder life than Edward de Vere. Half of Shakespeare's plays were not published until years after his death, which means they were written before he died. Perhaps they were written before 1604.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Who said De Vere was a great playwright? Puttenham said he was good at "comedy and enterlude". Meres also said he was "best for comedy." Nobody ever said he wrote whole plays.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Poets wrote a lot of different things. Sidney was a great writer of sonnets. Spenser wrote epic poems. Neither was a playwright. De Vere was apparently fond of fart jokes. I'm not a fan, but maybe a guy named PUTTenham was.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Shakespeare used fart jokes and dick jokes and cu*t jokes. Hyphenating the name into Shake-speare is itself a dick joke. Apparently there was some affinity of mind between Shakespeare the joker and Vere. Go figure.
So "it was known", some 100 years after the plays were written, who had actually written them, then forgotten over the next 200, to be rediscovered from scratch by Looney? Or would the knowledge / rumours not have perpetuated somehow?
Yes, the knowledge/rumours were perpetuated. I shall come to subsequent acknowledgements of Oxford's authorship in future presentations. Thank you for watching.
I have posted a video on Marlowe’s contribution to the Shakespearean canon and the next edition of the De Vere Society Newsletter will carry a long piece on this subject. I am a lifetime member of the Marlowe Society and Chairman of the de Vere Society. You will find the evidence for Vere and Marlowe laid out clearly in a book called ‘My Shakespeare’ with contributions by me and Ros Barber.
Largely because many of those who like to boast about themselves as being open-minded are not analytical at all, but simply pursue their hobby-horses and favoured conclusions while twisting anything that comes their way into supporting 'evidence', and pretending that they are being analytical.
Some people love the ciphers, others are impatient of them. There is nothing that does not fascinate me about the Renaissance mind and when one of their ciphers is really good - John Dee's for instance - it is simply breathtaking. Glad you enjoyed the main point of this one!
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I am looking at your message and I notice that if you take the last two letters from "love" and the last two letters from "are" you have "vere." Are you sure you wrote this reply?
To the reader ..... Don't judge this common man. Nature has given him a gift so don't judge a person by who they are but by what they do. or . Never meet your hero's cuz they'll only disappoint you maybe
No. Here it is: An Active Swain to make a Leap was seen which sham’d his Fellow Shepherds on the Green, And growing Vain, he would Essay once more, But left the Fame, which he had gained before; Oft did he try, at length was forc’d to yeild He st[r]ove in Vain, - he had himself Excell’d: So Nature once in her Essays of Wit, In Shakespear took the Shepherd’s Lucky Leap But over-straining in the great Effort, in Dryden, and the rest, has since fell Short. A shepherd achieved a massive jump. But he never managed it again. Nature also achieved wonders in creating Shakespeare. But she never managed to repeat the achievement, and all subsequent poets fell short.
This is not a “manuscript.” This is a printed page. I’m all in on deVere, but this is irresponsible and stupid. The point of talking about DeVere is to present clear headed, clear eyed evidence, not stupid clickbait. Shame on you. You do disservice to the Oxfordian cause.
Mr Yarosh, Get off your high horse. This presentation is not about a “printed page”. Look at the thumbnail - it is about a “manuscript”which means something written by hand. Get a dictionary and do a little research before venting hot air and halitosis.
Gabriel Harvey writes to Oxford in Latin: 'Macte animo, flammaque ista Praenobile pectus, te vinces, vinces alios; tua gloria passim Oceanum glacialem ultra, spatiabitur ingens' which T. H. Jameson (1938) translates: 'With that mind and that fire, noble heart, you will surpass yourself, surpass others; your great glory will everywhere spread beyond the frozen ocean'. This oration was given at Audley End and published in quarto by Henry Bineman in September 1578. Harvey's praise for Oxford is derived from Oxford's Latin praise for Baldassare Castiglione (1571) as shown in this video.
This is absolutely beautiful, Alexander! So stunning. Thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of our true bard, E of O. 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Terrific scholarship! No wonder the Stratfordians have ignored this poem, hoping everyone else would also ignore it!
Have you actually read it? Seriously. Please read it. Ignore the slant on this video. Just ... read the lines, and work out what they mean.
Here it is:
An Active Swain to make a Leap was seen
which sham’d his Fellow Shepherds on the Green,
And growing Vain, he would Essay once more,
But left the Fame, which he had gained before;
Oft did he try, at length was forc’d to yeild
He st[r]ove in Vain, - he had himself Excell’d:
So Nature once in her Essays of Wit,
In Shakespear took the Shepherd’s Lucky Leap
But over-straining in the great Effort,
in Dryden, and the rest, has since fell Short.
The shepherd made an amazing jump, but could never manage it again.
And in the same way, Nature created Shakespeare, and in doing so, achieved a prodigious feat which she could not replicate in any subsequent poet.
That's not just an interpretation. It's what it says, in plain Englisn.
@@bootube9972 Thank you very much for some simple sense. I really grow rather tired of Waugh's parlour-games.
@@timothyharris4708 Me too, Timothy. Thanks for your support.
@@bootube9972 Not at all. I love poetry, ancient & modern, and have no time for the charlatans whose only interest in poetry and drama lies in pretending that they are coded references to this or that. No time either for the dishonest characterisation, which seems to be de rigueur, of anyone who pokes holes in their fantasies as 'Stratfordians'. And no time for people like Richard Waugaman who uncritically embrace and parrot their dishonest nonsense.
Well why on earth are you watching, then?
Thank you Alexander. I start to think, after a long read of the Reasoanable Doubt documents and the de Vere documents, plus watching numerous videos, that I am so lucky to live at the age where the real Shakespeare (aka Edward de Vere) starts to be acknowledged; albeit too belatedly...
Mr. Waugh... interesting video and interpretation of the poem. After watching twice and continuing to consider your thoughts, I have to say that I have come to a different conclusion regarding the meaning of the poem. Forgive the normalized spelling.
"An active swain to make a leap was seen,
Which shamed his fellow shepherds on the green."
In general, our thoughts are consistent, though the "leap" appears to be a one-off (or, one-hit wonder), and not permenent as I believe you suggest, as we see in the next four lines.
"And growing vain, he would essay (try) once more,
but lost the fame which he had gain'd before.
Oft did he try, at length was forced to yield
He stove in vain, - he had himself excelle'd."
So, somewhat full of himself, he gives it a number of additional attempts, but doesn't have it, which is recognized by those around him ("lost the fame")... he continues to try and finally recognizes he must stop ("yield")... his work was in vain (note: a very nice use of both definitions for "vain") and he had been passed ("-he had himself excelle'd"). This person pre-dated Shakespeare, which is why Nature acts.
"So Nature once in her essays (attempts) of wit,
In Shakespear took the Shepherd's lucky leap.
But overstretching in the great effort
in Dryden, and the rest, has since fallen short."
Nature moves from unnamed one-hit wonder swain to shepherd Shakespeare ("lucky leap"). And here it is permanent ("overstretching in the great effort") and after, no one has surpassed him ("in Dryden, and all the rest, has since fell short").
Candidly, I do not see any connection to a pseudonym. I see Vanilla Ice ("the swain") and Eminem (blessed by Nature). If the above interpretation is correct, it would naturally create some challenges for you follow on conclusions. I appreciate you giving me a chance to weigh in.
Thank you. I think your interpretation, which is both interesting and astute, misses out a little on the stressed singularity and connection of Nature’s and the nameless Swain’s leap and fails to address why the Swain should be anonymised and occupy such a prominent position in a poem ostensibly about Shakespeare that is inscribed into a place of honour in Shakespeare’s First Folio. However I doff my cap to you as the only interpreter, as far as I am aware, to make any effort to draw the poem away from its more obvious Oxfordian connotations. The cryptic message of this poem and so many others of the period are devised precisely so that more than one interpretation is possible.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 thank you for your friendly and thoughtful response. I would suggest that the singular and anonymised Swain is a device to address the "every poet" prior to William Shakespeare. I also interpret that it was Nature's wit which provided for Shakespeare's lucky leap (the shepherd). To me, the poem appears to be an homage to William Shakespeare in a place of honor in his complete folio of work. To your comment above, many interpretations are possible. I look forward to reviewing some of the other videos on your site. Again, I appreciate your willingness to conside my thoughts.
Patrick
That’s a great observation! It really does seem as a great tribute to Shakespeare by comparing him to all others who fell short because HE was the one that Nature took the lucky leap with, however that point of view then leaves the introduction rather clumsy. Why is that particular, anonymous swain worthy of several lines in a tribute to Shakespeare? Perhaps the singularity of that noun wasn’t meant literally and somehow applies to all? Not sure.. I still believe that it refers to the original author’s fame (before he chose his pseudonym) compared to the fame of “Shakespeare”, but your interpretation was nevertheless very clever and interesting! Then there’s the question of how could he get so much better at writing to overshadow everyone, including himself? That leads me to believe that perhaps Shakespeare was indeed a team effort after all!
@@rouxsterman EXACTLY.
The shepherd made an amazing jump, but could never manage it again.
And in the same way, Nature created Shakespeare, and in doing so, achieved a prodigious feat which she could not replicate in any subsequent poet.
That's not just an interpretation. It's what it says, in plain English.
Who are those lines supposed to be written by? Because Dryden didn't precede Shakespeare.
Hi Alexander! I'm having dinner with the Grand Master of the Masons tomorrow night Friday 16th October, for Sible Hedingham, which Castle Hedingham is part of his area! As a true believer in Edmund De Vere, and NOT a Mason, what do you think I should ask him, as I want to put him on the spot? Best Regards
Ask him if he would be interested in taking a look at some of these videos. Have a wonderful dinner.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Hmm! I have to be subtle, I thing I will start with the 3 TTT. Regards
@@tempest957 Inform him that the First Folio was dedicated to the
GRAND MASTER IN ENGLAND, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke
----------------------------------------------------------------
. "Moore C W The Freemasons Monthly Magazine Vol IV 1845"
. tinyurl.com/yykurxjk
.
GRAND MASTERS, OR PATRONS, OF THE FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS IN ENGLAND,
from the coming in of the Saxons to the year 1839, Compiled and
condensed from the most authoritative records, by Br. Thomas Joseph
Tennison, President of the Masonic Council of Armagh, Ireland.
...................................................................
1618. William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was chosen Grand Master.
. He appointed Inigo Iones his Deputy.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And then ask him if the word *IAOM* means anything to him.
---------------------------------------------------------------
askville.amazon.com/signs-symbols-handshakes-Freemasons-order-...
'Tubal Cain' is the password of a Master Mason, which is the
'Third Degree'. Not to be confused with the password. *The Word*
(always capitalized) is so secret that initiates are taught it one
letter at a time. First they learn A, then O, then M, and finally I.
*The Word* is *IAOM* .
-------------------------------------------------
. Twelfth Night : Act II, scene V
.
MALVOLIO: *M,O,A,I*. This simulation is not as the former:
. and yet to crush this a little, it would bow to mee,
. for EVERy one of these Letters are in my name.
-------------------------------------------------------
@callyharley NO lol He changed the subject but said the Masons had nothing to do with the movement of Edward De Vere to Westminster Poets corner!! He winced when I mentioned TTTT Tuois!!
@callyharley He certainly did and the food was awful! He was droning on with his very timid wife and I fell asleep!!
This is brilliant.
Wonderful use of graphical accompaniment and highlights of text.
Brilliant
Dear Sir, could you please examine the title page of john Milton's Paradise Lost. It looks odd. Also, it was published in 1667, but written before and maybe finished in 1666.
At the 12:00 minute mark, you have pointed out the statement that Shakespeare had excelled himself and surpassed others. I have discovered ANOTHER refernce to this statement in the Ben Jonson dedication. Here it is in a modern typeface. Preface to The First Folio (1623)
Original spelling with explanatory comments in { }.
Ben Jonson
To the Reader
{This text is facing Droeshout's portrait of Shakespeare prefixed to the First Folio.}
This Figure, that thou here feest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut:
Wherein the Grauer had a strife
with Naure, to out-doo the life:
O, could he but haue dravvne his vvit
As vvell in frasse, as he hath hit
Hisface; the Print vvould then surpasse
All, that vvas euer in frasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his picture, but his Booke.
The oldest brass (frasse) engraving indented the second lines so as to accentuate the (T)his (W)herein and (O) meaning two vertically. Above the word Print (Capitol P) the letters I and N have a dot above them as German letters may have. In my mind, this TWO is alluding to the two dots and the double meaning of Prints and Prince. The new corrected spacing and lines now read "She has hid His face; the Prince would then surpass all that was ever."
I hope this provides further insight into the true identity of W.S. Glen Atwell.
Re shepherds ... might that refer to the Arcadian Shepherds?
Standing stance of the time
Interesting.
Im not in doubt of your thesis. There may exist a mathematical theorem that explains the correlation between the combinatorics of language with respect to its finite or linear chain. Having saud that is it possible that william shakespeare wrote shakespeare? Thats humor of course. Proving he namely william shakespeare did not write the works ascribed is simply showing he did not exist. Secondly its nit unreasonable to read other works or commentary of shakespeare of the time. Thirdly if the pseudonym is used concurrently with the works then could it not have existed before in literature? As in per se a story about shakespeare himself. Shakespeare is more interesting as a rogue author not an academic. Art today has archetypes of its predecessors including if with the eyes and ears correct a seemingly uncanny knack to predict outcomes. Shakespeare although its stories reach across class do not seemingly translate well into english. Meaning english seems to overturn itself for its magical quality fir a more stringent dialectic. If we take modern television or literature ney drama -what makes its usage obsolete if modern movies for example cast actors as themselves that play themselves to conceal a thing. If shakespeare was a character in shakespeare -who praetor was he? Which character to an expert would the author project himself or herself into? What would influence one person to write such a collection? Today its money. For it is the live if it or the live of something. Is it possible that shakespeare was juliet? Consequently the tempest seems related. Yet all literature has over lapping and entwined themes. Im not saying it is juliet or a female but no seems to understand that juliet was not supposed to be nit with romeo. Its not symbolic. There is a tendency to make them symbolic. My only point is that life has consequences. This is shakespeare. If thus than that. The authors voice is not exclusively one aspect if this pointalism. I understand everything i have said is meaningless and simply contemplative. I simply feel there is more to shakespeare as some do than implied even here. I thoroughly enjoy your expertise and adventure. Its very very interesting and learning about your research is compelling. Raising questions is not an insult. Its what professors do as a craft seemingly lost to time and societal constructs. All the best.
The "Thorn" letter is still used in Iceland today. Thorn or þorn (Þ, þ) is a letter in the Old English, Gothic, Old Norse, Old Swedish, and modern Icelandic alphabets, as well as some dialects of Middle English. It was also used in medieval Scandinavia, but was later replaced with the digraph th, except in Iceland, where it survives. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
I wonder why they discarded such a useful letter.
Indeed it is the last of the Scandinavian runes to be used in English, as far as I know.
Eschewed when they outlawed thornography, the depiction of prose tuition.
I love this stuff! It's so exciting when history is rediscovered and clarified. It is such a worthy endeavor. Thanks to all who dedicate their time and talents to the pursuit of truth.
Very entertaining, very well researched and great circumstantial evidence to add to the mountain. Thank you Mr Waugh, enjoyed that
KP
When you keep finding the evidence you expect to find and it is as well verified as this, it's because your contention is in fact right.
‘Shepherds on the Green’.
Any link here to Edward de Ver(t), meaning ‘green’ in French and Latin...?
Ralph
Absolutely true. This is the alien abduction branch of the authorship question.
Edward de Vere was born entirely green, because he was the result of an interaction between an alien and Penelope Devereux, who Mr Waugh reckons was at it with everyone - even small green men from the Andromeda Galaxy. Fascinated by the electrical appliances in the space craft, she was putty in the hands of the aliens. Thus the word 'vert' is a secret signal, communicating the fact that the writer was half-human, half kitchen timer. He could not only write wonderful poetry, but popped up precisely on cue to produce the perfect soft-boiled egg.
@@bootube9972
Without the egg, f***, Bacon's only a half breakfast.
Have you ever come across a work called "The Impossible Doublet"? - it is a work examining the vest worn by Shakespeare in that portrait
in the first folio . . . very interesting
Your knowledge is very impressive. Could you perhaps give a talk on why Bacon, Oxford, Mary Sydney et. al (collaboration theory) be not plausible as Shake-speare?
I think I could partially answer that on his behalf (how presumptuous of me). Bacon had too little time to write the plays. He was Attorney General to the government so he had to oversee legal disputes, attend to law courts and make judicial appointments as per royal orders. This left him little time to write what we know he wrote and pursue his scientific research. Mary Sidney could have helped with the plays since she had the time after her children (the patrons of the First Folio WIlliam and Philip Herbert, no less) had grown up and had revised her brother Philip Sidney's Arcadia. It is plausible that de Vere asked for help with certain parts of the plays, but that is unlikely.
Cheers for the info
And why not Amelia Bassano Lanier?
Given some of the plays already show signs of Marlowe's involvement, I'd add Bacon & Amelia Bassano Lanier as well.
And while a collaboration may not have exactly looked like the writers of Saturday Night Live around a table, there's too much evidence of the same nature as for De Vere
Bacon as editor in chief of The Shakespeare Society seems more plausible.
Hi Alexander! Can I just say I admire your incredible research and outstanding academic arguments. who could possibly disagree with your clear evidence?? This seems to be something as " the King with no clothes" ! The truth is staring you in the face, but you choose to ignore the truth! Till someone stands up and says "look the King is Naked"! The naked truth is to much to bear!! ( for society)
This isn't remotely like the emperor's clothes - it's the total opposite: You'd have to be a monger of baseless conspiracies to go along with this pseudo-academic lunacy.
The rabid fever found on both sides of the argument indicate that WS has become a religious figure rather than a literary one. I must, therefore, assume that he was the product of an immaculate conception, was buried, and rose on the third day. Over the centuries innumerable artists have made him look the part of England's greatest genius and for that they must be congratulated.
Except he isn't remotely a religious writer - nor does the Christian analogy hold.
Sir. Even if your reading of the poem were spot on, (and I'm convinced it is not), it would demonstrate only that one scribbler, a century after De Vere's death, hinted that in his opinion there might be a connection between Shakespeare and De Vere. And you claim that this is a huge embarrassing problem for Stratfordians?! Of course not. It's literally irrelevant. Again, even if your reading is correct, the writer is anonymous, we have no indication that he knew what he was talking about or that he had reliable sources.
Now, to your reading of the poem itself. You boil-down the first half to the idea that a famous poet (Oxford) took a leap (adopted the Shake-speare pseudonym) and surpassed himself, losing his fame. But as others have pointed out, your boiling-down ignores and misrepresents much of what the poem tells us. The writer categorically does *not* say that the poet made a leap and surpassed his peers and himself, causing him to lose his fame. No, sir. That is either an embarrassing misreading or else wilfully misleading. Anyone can read what the sequence actually says: He took a leap, achieved fame and surpassed his peers, grew vain, made another attempt, lost his fame, tried often to recapture it with further attempts, but admitted defeat and realised he had previously excelled himself.
If you can demonstrate that this corresponds to Oxford, then by all means do so. Did De Vere become a famous poet, grow vain, and try to maintain his fame by making work that equalled his previous poetry, only to admit defeat and realise that in his earlier work he had surpassed himself? If not, then this unnamed poet is not De Vere. You can either demonstrate that the narrative (all of it!) fits him, or you can admit that it isn't him. But what you can't do - and expect to be taken seriously - is to hand-pick lines that you think you can apply to Oxford, and disregard the rest, simply ignoring such significant lines as though they weren't even there.
Because actually they are the crux of the entire piece: just as the unnamed poet made a leap, achieved fame, then failed to reach such heights ever again despite many efforts, so Nature makes the leap in creating Shakespeare, and fails to equal the achievement in subsequent poets. Your reading robs the metaphor of symmetry, in fact it robs it of any meaning whatsoever, reducing it, as usual, to a mere vehicle for Oxfordian code. If the first half described what you claim it does - a poet adopting a pseudonym whose fame surpasses his own - then nothing about it would be analogous to the second half of the poem, in which Nature makes one lucky leap it cannot repeat. Nature does not adopt a pseudonym and find fame only in another guise. Both the poet in the tale, and Nature, do something so great that they can do it only once. That symmetry is the entire conceit of the text, as slender as it is. You have completely mangled this poem in your desperation to find Oxford hidden within its corpse.
Your reading is a patchwork of cherry-picking. The unnamed poet is clearly shown to be a lucky one-hit wonder. You're going to ignore that clear meaning, reduce it to three hand-crafted motifs, decontextualized and carefully designed to mirror Harvey's address to Oxford, reflecting Oxford's Castiglione epistle, so that you can bamboozle your stupefied admirers with the gotcha moment, that this poem MUST be yet another coded reference to De Vere's adoption of the pseudonym William Shake-speare.
Thought exercise: If you want to see just how nutty all this is, then instead of working backwards and reaching your preferred conclusion, start from the beginning and put yourself in the anonymous poet's place. He has his Folio, and he wants to write something in it communicating his secret knowledge that De Vere wrote Shakespeare, but without, you know, actually saying so. He wants to drop super-cryptic clues, of course. Even though De Vere has been dead a century. And even though he can write it anonymously and keep it safe on his bookshelf...
So, to communicate cryptically his secret knowledge that De Vere was Shakespeare, he decides to write a poem in which an unnamed poet becomes a one-hit wonder, struggles to recreate his success, but fails, and his fame fades away. It’s an odd choice of subject matter for the task at hand, because it doesn’t fit Shakespeare or Oxford, but we’ll go with it for now.
He includes in this poem the phrase, "sham'd his fellow shepherds", because he knows that anyone reading it will realise that "sham'd his fellow shepherds" can only be - must obviously be - a self-evident reference to that time 130 years previously when an Earl of Oxford stated that Castiglione "surpasses others". What else could it possibly refer to? The two phrases are virtually identical, after all.
And that association with high praise and Castiglione will be confirmed when they read that the newly-famous poet cannot repeat his success, and is now a failure, his brief window of fame over, having once luckily excelled himself... Again, what else could that possibly refer to, if not to Harvey’s praise of Edward De Vere’s praise of Castiglione?
Ideas about Nature, and art excelling Nature, are hardly ever found in poetry, especially in encomia, so a reference to Nature finding it impossible to equal its accomplishment in creating Shakespeare, will surely confirm to any educated reader that this can only be a third clue relating to an epistle De Vere wrote about Castiglione. No other reading is possible, surely!
So he has his clues all in place. He needs only an attentive reader to see their connection, and to make that leap, to deduce that what is actually being insinuated, despite not being so much as hinted at, is that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by none other than.... Baldassare Castiglione! Sorry, no - by none other than... Gabriel Harv - what? Not him either? Oh, by Oxford?
It's an absurd scheme. If he wanted to drop clues about the Oxford authorship secret, this poem doesn't even do that. You had to misrepresent the first half of the poem in order to crowbar-in the idea of an author taking a pseudonym. Think about what - at most - you’ve managed to actually demonstrate: that one literate and educated late 17th century reader of Shakespeare *might* (if your tortured reading of clues were correct) also have read the most popular edition of Castiglione, or might merely have had in the furniture of his mind several stock clichés found in encomia by the boatload, three that don’t correspond entirely with De Vere’s epistle, or with Harvey’s address, unless you massage them significantly. These are non-clues, saying literally nothing about the Shakespeare authorship, in an anonymous poem written insignificantly in a stolen book a hundred years after De Vere had waved his final perfumed glove.
My challenge to you, Mr Waugh, is to have the courage to acknowledge that you misrepresented the poem: acknowledge that the unnamed poet does not, as you claim, take a leap that makes him lose his previous fame. Acknowledge that, to the contrary, the poet clearly makes a leap that brings him renown, but that in his vanity he tries again, and fails, and fails every subsequent time he tries, until he yields, and acknowledges that he had excelled himself and cannot repeat it. This narrative, unlike your calculated representation, CANNOT describe a famous poet taking a pseudonym and thereby voluntarily relinquishing his fame. Will you acknowledge that? That would certainly be a more admirable course than resorting to arguments about poetry being cryptic and ambiguous. I vividly recall in my Oxfordian days seeing Charlton Ogburn excoriating Stratfordians for resorting to “it’s just poetry” arguments when confronted with supposed Oxfordian clues. It would be a shame to see the most prominent Oxfordian now retreating to the same safehouse when his reading of a remarkably uncomplicated amateur poem is shown to be fatally flawed.
In the South African Afrikaans language there is an idiom: "'n Goeie begrip het 'n halwe woord nodig."
@Bruce Kilgour fair point. Anything to say about the content rather than the style?
@@gharqad You make some very good points that are best handled one at a time in a forum such as this. I'm sure they would elicit fair comment if the wood were not so cluttered by all the trees. It is daunting to tackle a whole "book" especially with limited time available to many of us.
@Bruce Kilgour Your point is well made, and I appreciate the courtesy with which you offer this criticism. Many thanks, and best wishes.
"He took a leap, achieved fame and surpassed his peers, grew vain, made another attempt, lost his fame, tried often to recapture it with further attempts, but admitted defeat and realised he had previously excelled himself. "
Based on your interpretation of the poem, who is the poet in question? and why would his story be linked to Shakespeare?
Yet again a wonderful presentation Alexander
Excellent work, Alexander. So glad to hear of the active outreach program of the de Vere Society.
Wow! The Runic Shakespeare combines Thurisaz and Hagalaz.
great work, as ever, always looking forward to your latest release, thanks.
Kudos on the continued evidence, brilliant work!
Why would there be a need for secrecy, 60 - 100 years after his death?
What would cause such an extreme motive for a cover up?
Intresting ,you caught me with the title , your scope to be desired
O dear I am put in mind of one henry lincoln you are reaching sir you cant honestly believe this stands up as anything remotely pointing to evidence (although im sure this wraps it up for the oxfordians/non-stratfordians) you are preaching to the converted, that is all
Dear Mr. waugh, yesterday I was watching your video about the patron of Shakespeare revealed.. and now, when i continued the video, it was suddenly removed :/
Did you delete it? Is it still possible for me to watch it?
Thanks in advance.
Great videos btw, you got me hooked. I Am very intrigued by the Deeper symbolysm within all you are showing. Great Work inDeed.
Dear DB, I am so sorry but yes I deleted it this afternoon when I realised there was a flaw in one part of my argument which needed addressing. In a way this is a shame because there was much on that video that was worthy. I am concentrating hard on the matter and may reupload it with a tweak. Sorry to have interrupted your viewing - that was unfortunate - thank you for your patience,
Alexander
I guess there is no way to follow the money paid to the one and only Shakespeare! I think it was 2 or 3 writers being WS.
Very awesome find! Very exciting! I wonder if any other contemporaries also attempted this?
Another superb video. Bravo! Question: wasn't Marlowe technically 'known' as a poet pre-1593? Or did I misunderstand the point made towards the end of this fascinating presentation?
Thank you. I do not believe that any work by Marlowe was published with his name on the title page until after his death and after the publication of Venus and Adonis.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Could 'known' as a poet not mean, however, that he was known to write plays - at Cambridge - or to have them put on in London? Wasn't it widely known that M. wrote 'Tamburlaine' and 'Faustus' - whether or not the published edition was accessible? Hope to see you soon at the Langton, sir!
I do not believe that there is any documentary evidence from Marlowe’s lifetime to indicate that he was a famous poet or playwright. The first documentary evidence of his writing any plays at all is what? Kyd’s private letter to Puckering? the title page of Dido? I am not sure, but both these records post date Marlowe’s death and the publication of ‘Venus and Adonis’. I am not trying to argue that Marlowe did not have a hand, very possibly the major hand in penning Tamburlaine etc in the 1580s, my point is simply that there is no solid evidence to support the supposition that he was a ‘famous’ poet or playwright before the arrival of the name Shakespeare on the literary scene. There is evidence to show that the plays ascribed to him after his death may have been penned by more than one playwright, as was common practice in those days.
Fascinating work
That’s a pretty common stage stance - and a bit of a stretch to represent TH - I’m an Oxford grad alum and never heard that before.
AND WHY would the author of Shakespeare's works need to conceal his identity? And as if they'd leave codes in the texts of plays which were never intended to be read - because never intended to be published. NOBODY doubted the authorship for a couple of centuries, and the multiple candidates proffered since are proof of a modern mania of groundless and jealous class conspiracy. Ben Jonson commemorates the work and personality of Shakespeare, and HE WAS THERE. How do you account for that?
Carbon date the book or it’s fake.
Perfect!
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare’s plays. Simple.
Is transcending nature not a somewhat common way to praise and laudate artists?
Thank you Erikus, the point is that the three remarks together "he excels others, excels himself and transcends nature'. Are exceptional to Edward de Vere and this poem by Shakespeare. Do you have another example of all three together like this? Yes I agree with you that transcending nature is of itself of no great interest.
Why not just write de vere wrote the plays, why all the secrecy after all the man was long dead when this was pasted into the book. Is it just snobbery to think someone from the lower classes could write like this
Snobbery has nothing to do with it. To understand why the authorship secret was consistently disclosed in this opaque way you need to enter the mindset of the freemason. I have put an enormous amount about this into the videos of this channel. I hope you enjoy exploring them. AW
@@alexanderwaugh7036Fine, i agree with you but i find it so annoying that people with a PHD think they are always right. Newton was a serious intellect but spent the last 20 years of his life looking for a code in the bible having a piece of paper that says I'm a clever boy does not make someone clever.
@@michaelwynn8763 Anyone who thinks he is always right is an arse regardless of his academic qualifications. Newton did not think that. There are numerical codes in the Bible that are well worth exploring.
@@michaelwynn8763 Are you familiar with Dr. Barbara Thiering's scholarly research on codes in the New Testament? Or is your obection based solely upon religious fundamentalism?
@@MrFoolingyu i am not religious. the bible was written in Aramaic then translated into Greek then into Latin then into English, if you think a code could survive this then good for you. And yes, i do think the bible is a good history book if we take away the religion
The signature in mirror image has a thorn hidden in it, perhaps coincidence.
Why would the person that wrote the "first" Shakespeare poem attach the footnote - The first heir of my invention. ?Why would Oxford ? Why would the man from Stratford ?
Your question is answered by presentations in the playlist ‘Shocking Points’. See in particular ‘Adon’s Flower’. Southampton is described as the ‘godfather’ to the ‘first heir of Shakespeare’s invention’ apropos the surrogation of an heir to the earldom of Oxford. See also sonnets 1-18.
---------------------------------------------
. Henry V (Folio 1, 1623)
. Enter Prologue.
.
The flat vnraysed Spirits, that hath dar'd,
On this vnworthy Scaffold, to bring forth
So great an Obiect. Can this Cock-Pit hold
The vastie fields of France? Or may we cramme
Within this *WOODDEN O*. the very Caskes
That did affright the Ayre at Agincourt?
O pardon: since a crooked Figure may
Attest in little place a Million,
And let vs, *CYPHERS* to this great Accompt,
On your imaginarie Forces worke.
............................................
. *WOODDEN O* = *WODEN + ODIN*
------------------------------------------------------------
www.mythographica.demon.co.uk
.
...........................................................
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurisaz
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanged_Man_(Tarot_card)
----------------------------------------------------------
. David Roper's Monument Array:
.........................................................
.
.
.{TERRATE (G) ITPOPUL U S M[Æ] R E T O LYMPUSHABE T}
........................................................
. STAYPAS [S] ENGERWH Y G O[E|S) T T H OUBYSOFAST R
. EADIFTH [O] UCANSTW H O M{E} N V I O USDEATHHAT H
. PLASTWI [T] HINTHIS M O(N|U} M E N T {SHAKSPEARE} W
. ITHWHOM [E] QUICKNA T(U)R{E|D} I D E {WHOSENAMED} O
. THDeCKY [S] TOMBEFA (R)M O{R|E} t H E NCOSTSIEHA L
. LYTHEHA [T] HWRITTL E A V{E} S L I V INGARTBUTP A
. GETOSER V EHISWIT T
.
(RUNES) -33 : Prob. in Roper array ~ 1 in 4930
..........................................................
the probability of David Roper's: {DE} next to {E.UERE}
assuming that the 34 letters of the
2nd line: {TERRA TEGIT POPULUS MÆRET OLYMPUS HABET}
provide the # key to the ELS array is ~ 1 in 106,000
--------------------------------------------------------
. (S)hake-sp(E)ares
. So(N)Nets.
. Ne(V)Er befo(R)E ImprinTED.
.....................................
.
.
. (S) h a k e -s p
. (E) a r e s S o
. (N) N E t s. N e
. (V) E R b e f o
. (R) E I m p r i
. n T E D.
.
(RVNES) -7: Prob. ~ 1 in 353
--------------------------------------------
Fantastic job!!! 👍
"He excels himself, others and nature"...almost sounds like it could've been a common phrase. Are you sure it's not used in other writings during that time?
The power in question was Thomas Kyes and Mary Grey’s son, William Kyes, who returned to England a William Stanley to be Shakespeare’s only employer and owned the players for which Edward De Vere was lead writer.
This would seem ridiculous except for the fact that William Stanley” did had to sue his own family for recognition after being out of the country for Shakespeare’s seven lost years.
The case was never settle in court because the Stanleys recognize him as long as he did not assert his claim to the throne over that of his nice Ann Stanley.
I would argue that both the highly unwanted Thomas Kyes and William Stanley, both potential heirs to the throne of England were sent abroad with unlimited funds to stay out of the country to experience some very wild adventures that the real Willam Stanley did not survive, his second cousin, Thomas Keyes returned England under his name.
I think this really solves the Mystery Once and For All!
Yes but as the great Mark Twain said, "no amount of evidence will convince an idiot". 😆
I’m enjoying all of your videos. Am slowly going through them. Please can you provide your references for Pembroke and Royal Arch Freemasonry? Thanks. I thought that speculative Freemasonry emerged in 1640s with Ashmole/Moray.
Your work is amazing.
So soley De Ver? Seems like there is decent evidence for Bacon and Neville in several ciphers. Was De Ver a lawyer?
Thank you TBITV: Oxford was tutored by Thomas Smith, Regius Professor of Civil Law, and by Lawrence Nowell, the celebrated legal historian. At the age of sixteen he entered Gray’s Inn to study law and lawyers lived with his family from his earliest years. Samuel Byrd, in 'A friendlie communication or dialogue betweene Paule and Damas' (1580), records that Oxford’s father 'kept Lawiers in his house' while Nashe records the same about Oxford who was to be found among “men of judgment in both laws [i.e., civil and canon law] everie day”. The Alleyns’ lawyer, Hugh Swift, was one of the lawyers who graced Oxford’s table.
I very much appreciate your time and research. This much collaboration/ citation is hard to dismiss. I can't find anything on the argument for Stratford Shakfpeare, aside from what surmounts as " Take our word for it."
It's not a stretch really, to imagine an Earl writing under a pseudonym given the political climate of the late 16th century.
Reading Elizabeth Winkler's book brought me here. Excited to learn more!
So who composed this verse? Was it written in the folio in his own hand? And do the bold letters have any significance?
9:35 sounds like reincarned, he bested himself as well as did nature, creating another master of craft
Don't you
stove it in...or bin it...into the stove
in Nottingham.
you "stove" something/ someone in.
do in
fill in.
get stoved
Thank you. Wonderful. Keep going.
The plays were first performed at court. Then Elizabeth realised that the they needed to be shared. Inorder to educate the coman peasant. If it was not for Edward De Vere daughter Susan. We would be non the wiser. Sorry to the Stratfordians but truth must come first.
Ok..it was not Neville the Earl of Southampton ...it was The Earl of Oxford...Could be right, due to the fact both were members of high ranking class close to Royal Court who can not expose themselves as playwriters....under their social status...
This is possibly persuasive. But let’s get it right first. A book is stolen from a library and when it eventually turns up hundreds of years later, some verses have been written inside it. What do we know about the author - Nothing. Yet the presenter treats these verses as if they are holy writ, and cannot be questioned. Hmmm….
Edward de Vere was a poet and a playwright and numerous examples of his work are available for study. If he was indeed the ‘real’ Shakespeare, direct comparisons could be made with the work reputedly that of ‘the man from Stratford’. It would be quite impossible for his particular writing style to be disguised and the matter could be laid to rest. But, strangely, none of this easily-obtained and irrefutable proof has been provided.
Edward de Vere had a volatile temperament and was known for erratic and violent behaviour. This contributed to the dissipation of his estate and constant money worries. He seems to have been in frequent trouble and became involved in political and religious intrigues, none of which reflected well on him. In one spectacular dispute he was accused of atheism, lying, heresy, disobedience to the crown, treason, murder for hire, sexual perversion, habitual drunkenness, vowing to murder various courtiers, and criticizing the Queen for doing "everything with the worst grace that ever woman did”. He was also charged with serial child rape. And detailed testimony from nearly a dozen victims and witnesses substantiated the charge. Two of the boys named had sought help from adults after De Vere raped them violently and denied them medical care. This paints a picture of a man with the very grossest and cruellest of minds, and is about as far removed as is possible from the measured, empathetic, cerebral work required to produce his masterpieces.
Additionally, the enormous output of the ‘real’ Shakespeare required very considerable discipline to establish a manageable work routine. Firstly, he had to somehow carve out time from his hectic acting/managing life in the theatre. Then dedicate himself totally to his craft. Rejecting the numerous leisure-time activities enjoyed by fellow actors he had to spend long lonely hours writing and thinking - throughout the 20-25 years of his working life. These are very obviously not the habits of a man rampaging through life in the manner described.
But life finally caught up and, long weakened by poor health, Edward de Vere died in June 1604, aged 54. Shakespeare’s output continued for years after that, and included such works such as Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, The Winter’s tale, The Tempest and others…
Despite the fact that his contemporaries regarded Vere as a great playwright, zero samples of his plays have survived (under his own name). We do have samples of his poetry, and frequently it is indistinguishable from the poetry of Shakespeare, in format, style and content. The first clue that Vere might be Shakespeare was the striking similarity of one his poems to Shakespeare's "Venus & Adonis."
Your entire third paragraph is so outrageously exaggerated that it is essentially a fabrication. Vere wasn't "charged" with anything. He was "accused" by people that he was testifying against, but it is clear they were trying to impeach Vere's credibility by attacking him - this is a common tactic by people charged with crimes, even today. The accusations may have been examined, but they were ultimately dismissed as no doubt they deserved to be. The serial rape charge and the Queen Elizabeth insult appear to be complete fantasies. Did you pull these from the Wikipedia entry for Edward Vere? It's a character assassination, not worthy of real scholarship.The citations show that the bulk of the article is pulled from Stratfordian Nelson's hit piece on Vere, which is more than a little biased, and not available online. Anyone can edit Wikipedia.
Vere had an artist's temperament, as you point out. He also had a staff of secretaries standing by to record his dictation. He could spend all day doing whatever he wanted, and still get more writing done then the most disciplined craftsmen. There is no record of Shakespeare managing a theater, but there are nearly 70 documents that show that while the plays of Shakespeare were being written, William Shaksper of Stratford was definitely busy with affairs in Stratford. Can't be in two places at once.
There is no known composition date for any Shakespeare play. William Shaksper of Stratford died in 1616 at he age of 52; he must have been living an even harder life than Edward de Vere. Half of Shakespeare's plays were not published until years after his death, which means they were written before he died. Perhaps they were written before 1604.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Who said De Vere was a great playwright? Puttenham said he was good at "comedy and enterlude". Meres also said he was "best for comedy." Nobody ever said he wrote whole plays.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Well that seems like a distinction without a difference.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Poets wrote a lot of different things. Sidney was a great writer of sonnets. Spenser wrote epic poems. Neither was a playwright. De Vere was apparently fond of fart jokes. I'm not a fan, but maybe a guy named PUTTenham was.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Shakespeare used fart jokes and dick jokes and cu*t jokes. Hyphenating the name into Shake-speare is itself a dick joke. Apparently there was some affinity of mind between Shakespeare the joker and Vere. Go figure.
So "it was known", some 100 years after the plays were written, who had actually written them, then forgotten over the next 200, to be rediscovered from scratch by Looney? Or would the knowledge / rumours not have perpetuated somehow?
Yes, the knowledge/rumours were perpetuated. I shall come to subsequent acknowledgements of Oxford's authorship in future presentations. Thank you for watching.
Watch the film anonymous...
Check and mate
Why can’t open minded analytical people agree on the debate between Marlowe and De Vere ? 🤷♂️
I have posted a video on Marlowe’s contribution to the Shakespearean canon and the next edition of the De Vere Society Newsletter will carry a long piece on this subject. I am a lifetime member of the Marlowe Society and Chairman of the de Vere Society. You will find the evidence for Vere and Marlowe laid out clearly in a book called ‘My Shakespeare’ with contributions by me and Ros Barber.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Much appreciated, thanks !
Largely because many of those who like to boast about themselves as being open-minded are not analytical at all, but simply pursue their hobby-horses and favoured conclusions while twisting anything that comes their way into supporting 'evidence', and pretending that they are being analytical.
Good stuff. Thanks for not going over that nonsense about the cipher. Oops, you did it anyway!
Some people love the ciphers, others are impatient of them. There is nothing that does not fascinate me about the Renaissance mind and when one of their ciphers is really good - John Dee's for instance - it is simply breathtaking. Glad you enjoyed the main point of this one!
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I am looking at your message and I notice that if you take the last two letters from "love" and the last two letters from "are" you have "vere." Are you sure you wrote this reply?
😂 I don’t think Trithemius of Sponheim would give you many marks for that one!
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I was looking for B😂acon!
The true identity of William Shakespeare . . . William Shakespeare!
But certainly not Will Shaksper, the illiterate.
EXACTLY!
Thanks for this Alexander! you have done a wonderful job expanding Oxfordian scholarship. Where would we be without your decryptions?
To the reader .....
Don't judge this common man.
Nature has given him a gift
so don't judge a person by
who they are
but by what they do.
or .
Never meet your hero's
cuz
they'll only disappoint you
maybe
No.
Here it is:
An Active Swain to make a Leap was seen
which sham’d his Fellow Shepherds on the Green,
And growing Vain, he would Essay once more,
But left the Fame, which he had gained before;
Oft did he try, at length was forc’d to yeild
He st[r]ove in Vain, - he had himself Excell’d:
So Nature once in her Essays of Wit,
In Shakespear took the Shepherd’s Lucky Leap
But over-straining in the great Effort,
in Dryden, and the rest, has since fell Short.
A shepherd achieved a massive jump. But he never managed it again.
Nature also achieved wonders in creating Shakespeare. But she never managed to repeat the achievement, and all subsequent poets fell short.
This is not a “manuscript.” This is a printed page. I’m all in on deVere, but this is irresponsible and stupid. The point of talking about DeVere is to present clear headed, clear eyed evidence, not stupid clickbait. Shame on you. You do disservice to the Oxfordian cause.
Mr Yarosh, Get off your high horse. This presentation is not about a “printed page”. Look at the thumbnail - it is about a “manuscript”which means something written by hand. Get a dictionary and do a little research before venting hot air and halitosis.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Well, Mr Waugh, you are rather accomplished in that yourself.