Hi Phoebe, I love your videos but I have a question. I understand that several of DeVere's plays were first performed, in earlier versions, at Elizabeth's court. The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream come to mind. In those cases, Edward DeVere was known to be the author. If, sometime later, a very similar play was performed for the public, under the pseudonym Shakespeare, wouldn't the play have been recognized as a work by DeVere? Of what use was the pseudonym then? I'm firmly in the Oxfordian camp but I wonder if the pseudonym argument is valid. Thoughts?
@@edwarddevere3663Sorry. Not very clear. I think the point being made was that if the plays were originally performed at court and then adapted for the public stage, then there would be people in the audience who would recognise them. I think it's a reasonable point, and I find the suggestion 'plausible deniability' a little unconvincing. But I do apologise, it was not a helpful or clear reply.
Simple answer. He DIDN'T have to write under a pseudonym. Many books, including the early quartos, are published anonymously. Nothing to stop him from just carrying on with the practice. Nobody would have noticed or cared.
Edward de Vere would sign documents with two Vs which looked like a W. If you take away the W from William you're left with illiam which sounds like Ilium, where Achilles defeated Hector with his shaking spear, aided by Pallas Athene, or Minerva. Edward de Vere was known as "our Minerva" because he was a patron of fellow poets.
Phoebe, I saw someone comment on a video by Robert Boog entitled: Why Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. Their comment was that a schoolboy in Elizabethan England, of William Shaksper’s social class, would have studied more Latin than Edward De Vere. This sounds irrational and completely ridiculous to me. Can you make a video refuting this fallacy? Thank you.
It is true that Latin was taught at grammar school. There is, however, no record that William Shakspere ever attended grammar school; only a supposition that he had to have done so to write the plays. Unfortunately for the traditional view of authorship, the author of the plays not only covered the curriculum of the grammar school, but also university, law school, etc.
6 scribbled signatures - lack of education- no mention of his works being passed to anyone after his death ( because none were his) - nails in the Stratford man’s coffin. Large nails.
Great video. I am french so i definitly was not brain washed this way. The effect of that era is still quite active in extremist religious groups like the fundamentalists christian.
In your opinion, with the broad array of topics and expertise manifest in the Shakespeare canon, is it possible that multiple writers were involved, perhaps shepherded by a brilliant leader and editor?
I’m very staunchly against group authorship as a theory personally but anything is possible! , I recommend checking out Robert Prechter’s work on de Vere’s other output,
None of this makes any sense. Yeah, Tudor Theatre was heavily censored. So? Given the plays were still accepted and put on, that means they passed the Censor's tests. Also -- and this is something I've notice Shakespeare Truthers hate talking about -- Shakespeare's writing got around many of these restrictions by not challenging the political idealogy of his day, but diving into it. In his plays, the crown is a heavy burden, one only a very few are worthy of bearing, and which exacts a terrible toll even on the best of them. And once again, the Shakespeare Truthers offer zero evidence to back up their theory. Because they have none. They simply presume all kinds of hidden meanings, many of it very elitist, with the presumption that those of "noble" blood really are somehow different from the rest of us. Little wonder this whole so-called Authorship Question initially arose from the same intellectual milieu as Eugenics, the notion that some breeds of human are superior to others. Telling this person decides to attack someone's disability.
After de Vere’s death in 1604, why didn’t anyone come forward and say de Vere wrote Shakespeare’s plays? At some point in time, it must have been safe to confess the hoax.
The last authorized revision of a Shakespeare play was Hamlet in 1604. There were no other authorized plays printed after 1604. Edward de Vere died in 1604.
What are you talking about? "Last authorized"? You mean the Second Quarto? Missing one important monologued and 100+important lines, which we don't get until the First Folio? Ugh....
If the author of Shakespeare's plays was so opposed to James' succession, why was James such a fan of the plays? Going so far as to sponsor the group that performed them and have them acted in his court.
Non-sequitur: 'James would only enjoy plays written by a political supporter.' But, even if that were true, in 1603, Shakespeare, in Sonnet #107 seems to admit that he was wrong to be worried about the fall-out from the accession of James to the throne: 'Not mine own fears, nor the prophetic soul Of the wide world dreaming on things to come, .... And the sad augurs mock their own presage; Incertainties now crown themselves assur'd And peace proclaims olives of endless age. Now with the drops of this most balmy time' Though the next line must be hard for a Stratfordian to swallow: 'My love looks fresh, and Death to me subscribes,'
@@Jeffhowardmeade Actually, I can establish the date of its composition using (you didn't guess?) The Laws of Probability. There are three events specifically mentioned: 1. The death of Elizabeth, 2. The freeing of Southampton from the Tower, and 3. The peaceful accession to the throne of James. Ergo, it is 1603. Perhaps you'd like to offer the nice audience three other events from Elizabethan history that point to a different year?
@@Jeffhowardmeade You are simply repeating your failure. I've given you a specific explanation based on the information Shakespeare provided us. Based on probability. As in, the science of. You can't do the same, you can only desperately whine that you don't like my exposition. You have not attempted an alternative explanation. You lose.
@@patricksullivan4329 Sonnet 107 was written in 1582, after Alencon had left and all marriage hopes had gone. The mortal moon (QE) had survived her menopause. Many had (sensibly) predicted catastrophe. There would be no heir of her body. No more Tudors. Yet no one could say out loud what all were thinking. They mocked their former worries, and gloried in the 'incertainties' - at least this is how the poet sees it. He still fears those prospects. "My love (QE) looks fresh" - menopausal flushes, following a play on balmy/barmy. She's infatuated with Raleigh (the 'prophetic soul') and partly shares his vision of an empire, which "insults o'er dull and speechless tribes". Oxford is still under house arrest, in Raleigh's care. He regards him as 'Death'. . . much more to say, but enough for now.
You give a great summary of what life was like in Elizabethan times. It was more like today's dictatorships than "merry olde England" which was an invention of Victorian fans of the "hard bard".
@@heartofjesusdj Her half-sister Mary wasn't a slouch, either. Elizabeth's torturer was also known by name (though I forget it) among the commoners, which means he had a fearsome reputation.
Lets get this straight. Shakespeare was a pseudonym to protect the author BUT the plays were still put on anyway. Wouldnt the actors be arrested and tortured to give up the name of the author? Its noticeable that on You Tube thete are 100s of videos devoted to the notion that De Vere, Marlowe, Bacon, JK Rowling etc. wrote Sharespeare. We could do more with the facts that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare with collabaration along the way.
What makes you so sure and convinced that the mediocre Edward de Vere and not the true poetic genius Marlowe wrote under a multiplicity of pseudonyms, all of which are grotesquely today considered collaborators of William ? Or Edward? (as Drayton, Chapman, Heywood,Webster,Marston,Wither , Breton, Markham and many more….why speaking by reading so fast?
I guess the interesting question is how falsifiable are any of these competing theses, given the horizon of history from over four hundred years ago. Meaning, one might aver this thesis is more likely, by what %, I do not know. I think Harold Bloom (who held to the possibly romantic notion that WS was the historical author) was at least onto something that the true scandal of the author of these plays is that such a singular genius ever existed at all. Here is a thought-provoking contrast: Compare the distance between the historical WS to the historical King Henry VIII (meaning in terms of powers of cognition etc.) Call that X. Then compare the distance between King Henry VIII and the author of Hamlet (whoever that actually was). Call that Y. The interesting thing here to point out is that Y is very likely immensely > X, meaning that even being a king does not guarantee the supererogatory powers of language that this author had. In other words, the jump from WS to King Henry 8th is plausibly easier to make intellectually than the second leap, the plays are so extraordinary. This contrast just puts the highlight on the aesthetic transcendence of the works themselves. But it also suggests there may be something so singular about this genius that no external paradox is completely off the table, since such powers of cognition are beyond class or rank.
The authorities (including QE herself and R. Cecil} were perfectly capable of seeing through allegories, and prosecuting their authors. Indeed they did so with excessive enthusiasm. So your basic 'historical theory' falls at the first hurdle, even if it's almost Oxfordian orthodoxy. You've accepted far too much of the Strat 'thinking' e.g. that the plays were written for public audiences (who supposedly could understand most of them). They weren't. They date from much earlier in QE's reign and have nothing to do with R. Cecil nor a prospective King James. QE explicitly or implicitly gave permission for discussions (in the plays) about when it was ok to discard a bad ruler. At that time she felt little threat, trusted the playwright intimately, and ensured that the works were seen only by tiny audiences, all of whom she knew personally.
If Shakespeare was proven to have been Edward de Vere, then academics would change their whole opinion of the Works. To the so-called scholars the Works would cease to be brilliant works of genius, and they would cease to be remembered at all after a short while. De Vere knew this - he wrote under a pen name so that his works would be remembered long after he was forgotten. Sonnet 81 Or I shall live, your epitaph to make; Or you survive, when I in earth am rotten; From hence your memory death cannot take, Although in me each part will be forgotten. Your name from hence immortal life shall have, Though I, once gone, to all the world must die; The earth can yield me but a common grave, When you entombed in men’s eyes shall lie. Your monument shall be my gentle verse, Which eyes not yet created shall o’er-read, And tongues to be your being shall rehearse, When all the breathers of this world are dead. You still shall live, such virtue hath my pen, Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.
Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.
You should look into Petter Amundsen's work within the authorship. It's highly credible and eye-opening. It shows how truly endlessly deep this rabbithole really goes, and his discovery is the reason behind the existence of a realityshow on History Channel that ran for 10 seasons.
@Soltron oh yes. Even if the show is complete shit, the fact and the evidence that Petter found the mercy point is remarkable. Even the name Shakespeare is a code.
@@LeonIsdal So you are saying that everything about the show is faked? I visited Nova Scotia in 1983 and back then every map, clue, and enigma was there for all to see, long before the Lagina brothers began their explorations. Furthermore, the Nova Scotia and Canadian governments would not willingly be involved in such a high-profile fraud and neither would the Mic Ma'q (I hope I spelled that right). Besides, the authorship issue has no real bearing on what they have found.
@@ronroffel1462 @Ron Roffel I don't believe that any of their findings are faked. I truly believe there is an unique mystery hidden at oak island. I just don't care about the small stuff they have found. Mercy point is imo where the possible big secret lies. I highly recommend and advice you see the documentary called Cracking the Shakespeare code. The Lagina's is in there also. It is free on YT. The show is made with the intention of making 100 hours of TV-time. That is for the sake of making more money.
It was ILLEGAL to write history? Wow, then Holinshed, on whose extensive works of history Shakespeare based a number of his plays, must have been VERY lucky to escape the gallows. And if it was illegal to write history, why wasn't the actual living breathing William Shakespeare arrested for his history plays, particularly after the Essex rebellion? And which bits of the canon do you think are satire? You're in a bind here. If you think they ARE satire, then why wasn't he arrested? And if they WEREN'T satire, why the need for a pseudonym?
"On June 1, 1599, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London banned the further printing of satires, epigrams, and unlicensed histories and plays."
@@phoebe_devere Mm. It's a good point, but the Archbishop is referring to UNLICENSED plays. Shakespeare's plays were licensed - mostly by the Master of the Revels, Edmund Tilney. Sometimes getting them licensed involved censorship, as in 'Richard II', in which the deposition scene was dropped as politically controversial. On the other hand, Ben Jonson DID get thrown in jail for his play 'The Isle of Dogs' because of its satirical nature. I'm struggling to find whether that was licensed in some way before its performance. It would be a great subject for a PhD paper. Shakespeare DIDN'T get questioned over a VERY controversial performance of Richard II staged before the Essex rebellion, though members of the company did, which could be a point for your side. On the other hand if the author was going to get into trouble, and the author was de Vere, then we could ask why HE wasn't arrested or questioned. I'm not sure about the licensing system for books. But the fact that the Archbishop uses the word 'Unlicensed' suggests that it was POSSIBLE to get histories licensed. In this case, the most controversial topic might have been the accession of Elizabeth's grandfather, Henry VII. Presumably if you make Richard III into a monster, and Henry into a hero, you'd have no problems. Holinshed's version of the story does exactly this. (have to admit I haven't read it myself but that's what they say. ) Interestingly, Holinshed also describes Richard's body being violated and buried at Greyfriars church in Leicester, which turned out (as discovered quite recently) to be absolutely correct. It is brilliant that you don't block unfavourable responses to your excellent videos. I would like to say how grateful I am for that. Many Oxfordians (including Hank Whittemore and Alexander Waugh) simply block anything they don't like. To give polite, reasoned responses to nutters like me is beyond the call of duty. Thank you so much.
History is not a matter of hows but of whys, from which the hows descend. To be more clear, why only Shakespeare is a pseudonym among great playwrights of the time and why Shakespeare was so valued across time that he progressively stood above those other playwrights to the point of becoming the very symbol of English literature and of world's theatre? That's not what usually happens to rebels and outcasts, unless the cause they stand for is the cause of the new power replacing the old (in this case, the Victorian rule?). It's not a mere matter of literary quality. The root of the matter is why did the only "false author" become so important and who made him so important? Whose interests were involved with that? Was there some special meaning in his work that his contemporaries's didn't posses, and which was/is relevant to those who hold the reins?
But there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind that anyone imagined for one moment there was any other author until the mid-1800s. Just as there is ZERO evidence of any kind to support this conspiracy theory. Shakespeare Truthers belong exactly in same category as Flat Earthers and Holocaust Deniers.
"Edward de Vere had spent many years serving as Queen Elizabeth's courtly poet and propagandist" Edward de Vere did not spend one minute of his life as Queen Elizabeth's courtly poet and propagandist. He was a courtier (though he got himself banned from court for misbehaving) and he wrote a few poems but compared to other poets of the day like Daniel, Sydney, Spenser, Drayton, Barnfield, Davies, Marston, Dekker, N ask, Peel and Dyer, he was a poet of limited range and mediocre talent. His work occupies a page and a half of the 900 pages of The Oxford Dictionary of 16c Verse. He was not paid out of a budget for the arts for anything he wrote. And the idea of him advising the Queen on suitors, directly or indirectly through his work, is beyond ridiculous. And these are just a few of the little things you get wrong in this video. Read Shapiro and sharpen up your act.
Hi Phoebe, I love your videos but I have a question. I understand that several of DeVere's plays were first performed, in earlier versions, at Elizabeth's court. The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream come to mind. In those cases, Edward DeVere was known to be the author. If, sometime later, a very similar play was performed for the public, under the pseudonym Shakespeare, wouldn't the play have been recognized as a work by DeVere? Of what use was the pseudonym then? I'm firmly in the Oxfordian camp but I wonder if the pseudonym argument is valid. Thoughts?
Plausible deniability, maybe.
Um, well ... um, OBVIOUSLY you see well, um yadder yadder.
@@thoutube9522 Meaning?
@@edwarddevere3663Sorry. Not very clear. I think the point being made was that if the plays were originally performed at court and then adapted for the public stage, then there would be people in the audience who would recognise them. I think it's a reasonable point, and I find the suggestion 'plausible deniability' a little unconvincing. But I do apologise, it was not a helpful or clear reply.
@@thoutube9522 Thanks for clarifying. Phoebe? Any thoughts?
Simple answer. He DIDN'T have to write under a pseudonym. Many books, including the early quartos, are published anonymously. Nothing to stop him from just carrying on with the practice. Nobody would have noticed or cared.
Edward de Vere would sign documents with two Vs which looked like a W. If you take away the W from William you're left with illiam which sounds like Ilium, where Achilles defeated Hector with his shaking spear, aided by Pallas Athene, or Minerva.
Edward de Vere was known as "our Minerva" because he was a patron of fellow poets.
Phoebe, I saw someone comment on a video by Robert Boog entitled: Why Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. Their comment was that a schoolboy in Elizabethan England, of William Shaksper’s social class, would have studied more Latin than Edward De Vere. This sounds irrational and completely ridiculous to me. Can you make a video refuting this fallacy? Thank you.
It is true that Latin was taught at grammar school. There is, however, no record that William Shakspere ever attended grammar school; only a supposition that he had to have done so to write the plays. Unfortunately for the traditional view of authorship, the author of the plays not only covered the curriculum of the grammar school, but also university, law school, etc.
@@rstritmatter thank you for your answer
6 scribbled signatures - lack of education- no mention of his works being passed to anyone after his death ( because none were his) - nails in the Stratford man’s coffin. Large nails.
@@jeffmeade8643Not really sure there was such a thing as a formal law degree then? Bit of a strawman it appears to be.
Great video. I am french so i definitly was not brain washed this way. The effect of that era is still quite active in extremist religious groups like the fundamentalists christian.
interesting perspective, thank you!
In your opinion, with the broad array of topics and expertise manifest in the Shakespeare canon, is it possible that multiple writers were involved, perhaps shepherded by a brilliant leader and editor?
I’m very staunchly against group authorship as a theory personally but anything is possible! , I recommend checking out Robert Prechter’s work on de Vere’s other output,
None of this makes any sense. Yeah, Tudor Theatre was heavily censored. So? Given the plays were still accepted and put on, that means they passed the Censor's tests. Also -- and this is something I've notice Shakespeare Truthers hate talking about -- Shakespeare's writing got around many of these restrictions by not challenging the political idealogy of his day, but diving into it. In his plays, the crown is a heavy burden, one only a very few are worthy of bearing, and which exacts a terrible toll even on the best of them.
And once again, the Shakespeare Truthers offer zero evidence to back up their theory.
Because they have none.
They simply presume all kinds of hidden meanings, many of it very elitist, with the presumption that those of "noble" blood really are somehow different from the rest of us. Little wonder this whole so-called Authorship Question initially arose from the same intellectual milieu as Eugenics, the notion that some breeds of human are superior to others. Telling this person decides to attack someone's disability.
After de Vere’s death in 1604, why didn’t anyone come forward and say de Vere wrote Shakespeare’s plays? At some point in time, it must have been safe to confess the hoax.
The last authorized revision of a Shakespeare play was Hamlet in 1604. There were no other authorized plays printed after 1604. Edward de Vere died in 1604.
What are you talking about? "Last authorized"? You mean the Second Quarto? Missing one important monologued and 100+important lines, which we don't get until the First Folio? Ugh....
Love your videos.
thank you!
If the author of Shakespeare's plays was so opposed to James' succession, why was James such a fan of the plays? Going so far as to sponsor the group that performed them and have them acted in his court.
Non-sequitur: 'James would only enjoy plays written by a political supporter.' But, even if that were true, in 1603, Shakespeare, in Sonnet #107 seems to admit that he was wrong to be worried about the fall-out from the accession of James to the throne:
'Not mine own fears, nor the prophetic soul
Of the wide world dreaming on things to come,
....
And the sad augurs mock their own presage;
Incertainties now crown themselves assur'd
And peace proclaims olives of endless age.
Now with the drops of this most balmy time'
Though the next line must be hard for a Stratfordian to swallow:
'My love looks fresh, and Death to me subscribes,'
@@Jeffhowardmeade Actually, I can establish the date of its composition using (you didn't guess?) The Laws of Probability. There are three events specifically mentioned: 1. The death of Elizabeth, 2. The freeing of Southampton from the Tower, and 3. The peaceful accession to the throne of James. Ergo, it is 1603.
Perhaps you'd like to offer the nice audience three other events from Elizabethan history that point to a different year?
@@Jeffhowardmeade As I thought you would, you have once again conceded you cannot offer an alternative explanation of the three events.
@@Jeffhowardmeade You are simply repeating your failure. I've given you a specific explanation based on the information Shakespeare provided us. Based on probability. As in, the science of. You can't do the same, you can only desperately whine that you don't like my exposition.
You have not attempted an alternative explanation. You lose.
@@patricksullivan4329
Sonnet 107 was written in 1582, after Alencon had left and all marriage hopes had gone. The mortal moon (QE) had survived her menopause. Many had (sensibly) predicted catastrophe. There would be no heir of her body. No more Tudors. Yet no one could say out loud what all were thinking. They mocked their former worries, and gloried in the 'incertainties' - at least this is how the poet sees it. He still fears those prospects. "My love (QE) looks fresh" - menopausal flushes, following a play on balmy/barmy. She's infatuated with Raleigh (the 'prophetic soul') and partly shares his vision of an empire, which "insults o'er dull and speechless tribes". Oxford is still under house arrest, in Raleigh's care. He regards him as 'Death'. . . much more to say, but enough for now.
You give a great summary of what life was like in Elizabethan times. It was more like today's dictatorships than "merry olde England" which was an invention of Victorian fans of the "hard bard".
You're right about 'Merry England'. It was dictatorship by a succession of psychopaths, with licensed thieving by overprivileged aristocrats.
Elizabeth learned well from her father how to terrorize her subjects.
@@heartofjesusdj Her half-sister Mary wasn't a slouch, either. Elizabeth's torturer was also known by name (though I forget it) among the commoners, which means he had a fearsome reputation.
Lets get this straight. Shakespeare was a pseudonym to protect the author BUT the plays were still put on anyway. Wouldnt the actors be arrested and tortured to give up the name of the author?
Its noticeable that on You Tube thete are 100s of videos devoted to the notion that De Vere, Marlowe, Bacon, JK Rowling etc. wrote Sharespeare. We could do more with the facts that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare with collabaration along the way.
Wasn't Robert Cecil his father in law?
Thanks for the clarity.
What makes you so sure and convinced that the mediocre Edward de Vere and not the true poetic genius Marlowe wrote under a multiplicity of pseudonyms, all of which are grotesquely today considered collaborators of William ? Or Edward? (as Drayton, Chapman, Heywood,Webster,Marston,Wither , Breton, Markham and many more….why speaking by reading so fast?
I guess the interesting question is how falsifiable are any of these competing theses, given the horizon of history from over four hundred years ago.
Meaning, one might aver this thesis is more likely, by what %, I do not know.
I think Harold Bloom (who held to the possibly romantic notion that WS was the historical author) was at least onto something that the true scandal of the author of these plays is that such a singular genius ever existed at all.
Here is a thought-provoking contrast: Compare the distance between the historical WS to the historical King Henry VIII (meaning in terms of powers of cognition etc.) Call that X. Then compare the distance between King Henry VIII and the author of Hamlet (whoever that actually was). Call that Y.
The interesting thing here to point out is that Y is very likely immensely > X, meaning that even being a king does not guarantee the supererogatory powers of language that this author had.
In other words, the jump from WS to King Henry 8th is plausibly easier to make intellectually than the second leap, the plays are so extraordinary.
This contrast just puts the highlight on the aesthetic transcendence of the works themselves. But it also suggests there may be something so singular about this genius that no external paradox is completely off the table, since such powers of cognition are beyond class or rank.
Brilliant work- #facts
thanks!
It was a golden age to those who wrote of it, not for the population, same history as everywhere else.
The authorities (including QE herself and R. Cecil} were perfectly capable of seeing through allegories, and prosecuting their authors. Indeed they did so with excessive enthusiasm. So your basic 'historical theory' falls at the first hurdle, even if it's almost Oxfordian orthodoxy.
You've accepted far too much of the Strat 'thinking' e.g. that the plays were written for public audiences (who supposedly could understand most of them). They weren't. They date from much earlier in QE's reign and have nothing to do with R. Cecil nor a prospective King James. QE explicitly or implicitly gave permission for discussions (in the plays) about when it was ok to discard a bad ruler. At that time she felt little threat, trusted the playwright intimately, and ensured that the works were seen only by tiny audiences, all of whom she knew personally.
I suggest you read Anabelle Patterson, Mr. Crowley.
Yes, maybe. Perhaps, that and his noble rank, was enough to protect him from enemies.
02:54 double V
Thanks 🙏🏼
If Shakespeare was proven to have been Edward de Vere, then academics would change their whole opinion of the Works. To the so-called scholars the Works would cease to be brilliant works of genius, and they would cease to be remembered at all after a short while. De Vere knew this - he wrote under a pen name so that his works would be remembered long after he was forgotten.
Sonnet 81
Or I shall live, your epitaph to make;
Or you survive, when I in earth am rotten;
From hence your memory death cannot take,
Although in me each part will be forgotten.
Your name from hence immortal life shall have,
Though I, once gone, to all the world must die;
The earth can yield me but a common grave,
When you entombed in men’s eyes shall lie.
Your monument shall be my gentle verse,
Which eyes not yet created shall o’er-read,
And tongues to be your being shall rehearse,
When all the breathers of this world are dead.
You still shall live, such virtue hath my pen,
Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.
Why, though? Coulf you explain, why the opinion on them would change?
Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.
the real "SHAKE-SPEARE" was John Florio. Stop!
You should look into Petter Amundsen's work within the authorship. It's highly credible and eye-opening. It shows how truly endlessly deep this rabbithole really goes, and his discovery is the reason behind the existence of a realityshow on History Channel that ran for 10 seasons.
@Soltron oh yes. Even if the show is complete shit, the fact and the evidence that Petter found the mercy point is remarkable. Even the name Shakespeare is a code.
@@LeonIsdal So you are saying that everything about the show is faked? I visited Nova Scotia in 1983 and back then every map, clue, and enigma was there for all to see, long before the Lagina brothers began their explorations. Furthermore, the Nova Scotia and Canadian governments would not willingly be involved in such a high-profile fraud and neither would the Mic Ma'q (I hope I spelled that right). Besides, the authorship issue has no real bearing on what they have found.
@@ronroffel1462 @Ron Roffel I don't believe that any of their findings are faked. I truly believe there is an unique mystery hidden at oak island. I just don't care about the small stuff they have found. Mercy point is imo where the possible big secret lies. I highly recommend and advice you see the documentary called Cracking the Shakespeare code. The Lagina's is in there also. It is free on YT. The show is made with the intention of making 100 hours of TV-time. That is for the sake of making more money.
It was ILLEGAL to write history? Wow, then Holinshed, on whose extensive works of history Shakespeare based a number of his plays, must have been VERY lucky to escape the gallows. And if it was illegal to write history, why wasn't the actual living breathing William Shakespeare arrested for his history plays, particularly after the Essex rebellion?
And which bits of the canon do you think are satire? You're in a bind here. If you think they ARE satire, then why wasn't he arrested? And if they WEREN'T satire, why the need for a pseudonym?
"On June 1, 1599, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London banned the further printing of satires, epigrams, and unlicensed histories and plays."
@@phoebe_devere Mm. It's a good point, but the Archbishop is referring to UNLICENSED plays. Shakespeare's plays were licensed - mostly by the Master of the Revels, Edmund Tilney. Sometimes getting them licensed involved censorship, as in 'Richard II', in which the deposition scene was dropped as politically controversial.
On the other hand, Ben Jonson DID get thrown in jail for his play 'The Isle of Dogs' because of its satirical nature. I'm struggling to find whether that was licensed in some way before its performance. It would be a great subject for a PhD paper.
Shakespeare DIDN'T get questioned over a VERY controversial performance of Richard II staged before the Essex rebellion, though members of the company did, which could be a point for your side. On the other hand if the author was going to get into trouble, and the author was de Vere, then we could ask why HE wasn't arrested or questioned.
I'm not sure about the licensing system for books. But the fact that the Archbishop uses the word 'Unlicensed' suggests that it was POSSIBLE to get histories licensed. In this case, the most controversial topic might have been the accession of Elizabeth's grandfather, Henry VII. Presumably if you make Richard III into a monster, and Henry into a hero, you'd have no problems. Holinshed's version of the story does exactly this. (have to admit I haven't read it myself but that's what they say. )
Interestingly, Holinshed also describes Richard's body being violated and buried at Greyfriars church in Leicester, which turned out (as discovered quite recently) to be absolutely correct.
It is brilliant that you don't block unfavourable responses to your excellent videos. I would like to say how grateful I am for that. Many Oxfordians (including Hank Whittemore and Alexander Waugh) simply block anything they don't like. To give polite, reasoned responses to nutters like me is beyond the call of duty. Thank you so much.
@@thoutube9522 always appreciate good faith debate! cheers
You mean why did Francis Bacon write under a pseudonym...right?
History is not a matter of hows but of whys, from which the hows descend. To be more clear, why only Shakespeare is a pseudonym among great playwrights of the time and why Shakespeare was so valued across time that he progressively stood above those other playwrights to the point of becoming the very symbol of English literature and of world's theatre?
That's not what usually happens to rebels and outcasts, unless the cause they stand for is the cause of the new power replacing the old (in this case, the Victorian rule?). It's not a mere matter of literary quality.
The root of the matter is why did the only "false author" become so important and who made him so important? Whose interests were involved with that? Was there some special meaning in his work that his contemporaries's didn't posses, and which was/is relevant to those who hold the reins?
But there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind that anyone imagined for one moment there was any other author until the mid-1800s. Just as there is ZERO evidence of any kind to support this conspiracy theory. Shakespeare Truthers belong exactly in same category as Flat Earthers and Holocaust Deniers.
"Edward de Vere had spent many years serving as Queen Elizabeth's courtly poet and propagandist"
Edward de Vere did not spend one minute of his life as Queen Elizabeth's courtly poet and propagandist.
He was a courtier (though he got himself banned from court for misbehaving) and he wrote a few poems but compared to other poets of the day like Daniel, Sydney, Spenser, Drayton, Barnfield, Davies, Marston, Dekker, N ask, Peel and Dyer, he was a poet of limited range and mediocre talent. His work occupies a page and a half of the 900 pages of The Oxford Dictionary of 16c Verse. He was not paid out of a budget for the arts for anything he wrote. And the idea of him advising the Queen on suitors, directly or indirectly through his work, is beyond ridiculous.
And these are just a few of the little things you get wrong in this video. Read Shapiro and sharpen up your act.