Your lit teacher was correct to doubt the official story, but the idea that Bacon wrote the plays has long been discredited by comparative evidence. Bacon's prose style, imagery, and Bible allusions are all distinct from Shakespeare's.
Bacon was De Vere’s cousin and may have been involved with the folio’s preparation. It may explain why Bacon’s name appears in the text like a word search
Hard to believe these plays just hung around. More likely upon De Vere's death, his daughter took possession of the plays. Vere's daughter, granddaughter of Lord Burghley, married the Earl of Pembroke. There is where the were held until published, is my guess.
The problem is, no written record survives, in Oxford's handwriting of a single line of Shakespeare. No contemporary of Oxford stated he was an author of these plays. HE WAS DEAD before many of them were written. That's not a small problem Plays in this era had a shelf life measured in weeks or months, many hundreds were never revived or performed again.
Actually the plays were the property of the theatre company, and would have been kept by them to be revived from time to time. That's probably why the manuscripts survived. This was not an age when precious manuscripts were auctioned off for a million dollars to rich yanks.
@@sgrant39if the renowned master spy Lord Burghley was in on lie/cover-up, do you really think he would have allowed manuscripts in De Vere's hand to remain in existence? Or, if they do still exist, it's very possible that they are hidden away in a place where no one would ever find them...like an empty tomb beneath a false monument...perhaps. Of course his contemporaries didn't outright name him - some of the writings would be tantamount to treason, both for De Vere and for the failed to report it earlier of he waited to do so after De Vere's death. Many of them made very strong hints about it though and came just short of saying it outright. Why was De Vere given $1000 pounds a year by QE1, which was later renewed by KJ1? There is no sensible reason to have given him such a large endowment. From what I've read about De Vere, he seemed very selfish and clearly wanted to live a lavish lifestyle, free of any responsibility whatsoever. Perhaps he demanded the money as blackmail to keep him quiet after going bankrupt. He did something similar with Burghley when he ran out of money abroad and Burghley refused to sell De Vere's lands to send more money to him. 🤔 Or, perhaps it was fair compensation for his works that he would not be able to take credit for or benefit from financially.
I appreciate all the lies identified in the First Folio publication. I think however that this analysis should also consider the enourmous influence of John Florio on Shakespeare's works and language, of Florio knowing very well Johnson, Pembroke and the editors and much more. In the mistery of Shakespeare, John Florio plays a role and this should be very carefully studied and considerd. Thank you for your attention.
Shakespeare's vocabulary of 17,000 words, "which was at least twice that of his contemporaries," could be cited as strong evidence that the plays had multiple authors.
True...I don't think even avid Oxfordians (such as Alexander Waugh) dismiss the idea that others may have made additions to the works...perhaps even adding their own expertise. Waugh has suggested Francis Bacon...de Vere's cousin, after all...and an expert on many scholarly matters, including the law.)
This is a very strong circumstantial case. I think the changes in the texts between quartos and first Folio suggest multiple authors, lines changed on the fly, and other influences that over time sharpened the plays into the masterpieces that they are. Those who so fervently argue for Shakespeare as the author seem to have motives in mind, such as maintaining Stratford-on-Avon's incoming tourist dollars.
Moniment : Scottish : a person whose behaviour and actions provoke ridicule. From Latin monimentum, monumentum. See monument. Noun moniment (plural moniments) (obsolete) Something to preserve memory; a reminder; a monument. (obsolete, by extension) A mark, image, or superscription; a record. Latin : monimentum = reminder
@@Nullifidian the first time "in print" is not the same as first time "in use" - words can exist for extended periods before they make it into print, and this was more true in the past
Thank you so much Catherine, really good listen. I didn't know Avon was one of Alexander's. There's just so much of this which is 21st century knowledge. It's such a privilege watching this unfold. I hope the most brilliant of you can make further headway on why the Pembrokes buried him, and then did it again in 1740. I doubt that very much of what I have found on the sonnets title page will be of any wider use, I cannot get mathematicians or engineers to even look at what has been revealed. But I know, and for that I should be and am grateful. Only once you have broken through is anyone going to look at what I've found. Drayton and Jonson in the south transept need surveying btw. I feel certain they are both staring precisely at the centre of the altar and at exact angles, most probably 30/60/90 but could be 45° or even 36°. Alexander's assertion that Chaucer, Spenser and De Vere form a 30/60/90 needs to be accurately measured. They are obsessed with trinities so I would expect 2 more. They will be accurate to a fraction of an inch to the eyes of both. I intended on trying to measure this myself recently, but due to my poor health and that it would be worthless, it needs to be done by an independent surveyor, and that creeping around churches taking measurements without permission can get us a bad name, I decided not to.
Does Ben Johnson refer in his introductory poem to Jalaludin Rumi's 'Look not upon my face but take what is in my hand'? Sufis claim that 'Shakespeare' is an anglicisation of Sheikh Pir. Suggesting that whoever the author was, she or he was conversant with the Sufi classics.
31:55 important to note this tribute to Vere, like so many which name him as a great poet, is deferential due to his title and social rank, punning on Vertue (Vere was then pronounced Vair, and so Vairtue). He’s a known playwright yet suddenly opts to become a ghost writer due to the embarrassment? Rather convenient we have no surviving plays in his name to compare. The poetry does not remind any close reader of Shakespeare’s verse.
Can you tell Shakespeare from Vere? Take the test. Which lines belong to Shakespeare and which to Vere? If care or skill could conquer vain desire, Or reason's reins my strong affection stay, Then should my sights to quiet breast retire, And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray; Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast, Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed. My reason, the physician to my love, Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve Desire is death, which physic did except. Past cure I am, now reason is past care, And frantic mad with evermore unrest; Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong; My mazed mind in malice so is set As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long; Patience perforce is such a pinching pain As die I will, or suffer wrong again. For, if I should despair, I should grow mad, And in my madness might speak ill of thee; Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad, Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be. Love is a discord and a strange divorce Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power, As mad with reason, we admit that force Which wit or labour never may empower My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, At random from the truth vainly expressed: For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, Who art as black as hell, as dark as night. Why should my heart think that a several plot, Which my heart knows the wide world's common place? Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not, To put fair truth upon so foul a face Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart? Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint? Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart? Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint? Who first did print with colours pale thy face? Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest? Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace? Who made thee strive in virtue to be best? Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, The more I hear and see just cause of hate? O, though I love what others do abhor, With others thou shouldst not abhor my state. What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire, When only sighs must make his secret moan ? A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire, My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone. Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above, To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 touche'....and the constellation of biographical points that match what we know of de Vere's movements, in and out of the court of QE2, and in his direct acquaintance with her changing nature. Instead of 'suddenly' deciding to write under a pseudonym, couldn't he have dabbled in this practice, even since childhood? since he would have been aware of the feelings in the court about 'professional writers'.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 "If care or skill could conquer vain desire, "Or reason's reins my strong affection stay, "Then should my sights to quiet breast retire, "And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray; "Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast, "Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed." This is whiny, larded with alliteration, and doesn't keep the meter, so I'm going to conclude this is all de Vere. "My reason, the physician to my love, "Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, "Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve "Desire is death, which physic did except. "Past cure I am, now reason is past care, "And frantic mad with evermore unrest; "Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret "And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong;" Now, this builds creatively on the initial image of reason as the physician to love and shows some sense of humor in its punning (sing / fret) and skill in building old adages ("past cure is past care"), none of which are characteristic of de Vere, so my verdict is Shakespeare. "My mazed mind in malice so is set "As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long; "Patience perforce is such a pinching pain "As die I will, or suffer wrong again." I literally laughed out loud when I read this because the alliteration was so inelegant, and it led the author into the absurdity of the second line (of this quote, not the whole chimeric poem, of course) where Death doesn't even end his "deadly dolours long" but only momentarily intimidates them. It's clear that we have the typical de Vere incompetence again. "For, if I should despair, I should grow mad, "And in my madness might speak ill of thee; "Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad, "Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be." Now, this once again builds on the the initial thought, in contrast with de Vere whose ideas almost always end with the line, and "ill-wresting" is an arresting image for what other writers might be content to describe as "wicked" or "calumnious". The analogy is to a word being wrenched out of its proper sense, as Beatrice does to Benedick when she says "Foul words are but foul wind and foul wind is but foul breath". So clearly this is Shakespeare again. "Love is a discord and a strange divorce Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power, As mad with reason, we admit that force Which wit or labour never may empower" This is too good for de Vere, but it's too bad for Shakespeare, who likely wouldn't have used that "power/empower" rhyme if he could have found any other way of avoiding it. If forced to pick between the two, I'd rather offload it onto de Vere than admit it as Shakespearian, but I suspect that the work of a better poet (but still inferior to Shakespeare) has been misidentified as de Vere's. "My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, At random from the truth vainly expressed: For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, Who art as black as hell, as dark as night." Now this is the real Shakespeare. "Why should my heart think that a several plot, "Which my heart knows the wide world's common place? "Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not, "To put fair truth upon so foul a face" More Shakespeare. The fair/foul dichotomy is particularly Shakespearian (think _Macbeth_ , among other examples). "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart? "Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint? "Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart? "Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint? "Who first did print with colours pale thy face? "Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest? "Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace? "Who made thee strive in virtue to be best?" More of de Vere's tedious whinging, the same plodding meter, and the same dearth of imagery and inspiration. "Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, "The more I hear and see just cause of hate? "O, though I love what others do abhor, "With others thou shouldst not abhor my state." Shakespeare. Unlike de Vere, he's not simply whinging but building on his abased state towards the end of an argument: that his love shouldn't reject him the way the world does for loving her. "What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire, "When only sighs must make his secret moan ? "A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire, "My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone. "Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above, "To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love. Phoebe/Endymion is an unaccustomed reference in Shakespeare, even though Shakespeare certainly knew John Lyly's play on the subject, and we have the typical de Vere plodding and ridiculous amounts of alliteration ("hapless hap" is a particularly inelegant formulation that raises at best only a wry smile and not pity). So once again, it's de Vere. How'd I do? If you genuinely thought that the Shakespearian portions were indistinguishable from de Vere's, then it just goes to show the truth that I've long thought: Oxfordians can't detect any difference in early modern poetry as long as it goes ti-tum, ti-tum, ti-tum, ti-tum, ti-tum.
And just to clarify: I do recall one reference to Endymion in _The Merchant of Venice_ , but Shakespeare didn't throw in the word "Phoebe" as well, which would have been over-egging the pudding. Portia says "How the moon sleeps with Endymion | And would not be awak'd!", so it was the combination of the two terms that I was rejecting as Shakespearian.
So the monument was to john shakespeare. Interesting that when dugdale made his drawing he also copied the inscription which says all he has writ leaves living art. So john shakespeare was a writer but not his son. Another load of piffle from anglophobes
It increasingly seems to me that "Shakespeare" should be understood as a brand, like Disney. Appreciation doesn't require that we first believe a lone genius is singlehandedly responsible for the entire output.
Exactly. I usually say that "Shakespeare" is the person or persons, whatever their identity or identities may have been, that wrote the works of Shakespeare. In the end, that is all that _really_ matters to 99.9% of people. The only significance of Shakespeare to us is the works we are left with attributed to him. Jesus is another person whose existence is debated, but the only true significance of Jesus is the _belief_ in him, his acts, his words, and the events and meaning of his death. Whether the stories are specifically about a single historical person that lived at exactly the right time and that did and experienced those exact things that are written about him, is something else; and proving or disproving anything to do with the Bible stories is completely irrelevant to someone who believes in them.
What May be Your crucial Argument that Edward and not Christopher has been the „true“ (real) Skaespeare ?? ua-cam.com/video/1MkwdE7nZ-w/v-deo.htmlsi=vHHg3n4UXV0zFkaa
Not writing, but publishing! A gentleman could make music or write poetry (even drama) only as an amateur. Every hint, that he is making money with it, had to be avoided. Even if something of their poetry was printed, they usually invented some excuse formulas about stolen manuscripts etc. and assured the reader, that they had written them in their leisure time for their private friends, as "trifles".
So, after over a century of "controversy" we have discovered that the only person credited by name for writing the works of William Shakespeare during his lifetime was in fact the least likely person to have written them. We now have circumstantial, highly circumstantial, evidence that it was ... , well, it's a long list? Isn't it. Frankly, Romeo & Juliet, Lear, Richard II, Richard III, Henry V etc. and forever and ever could have been dictated to de Vere or any other those personalities identified by the anti-Stratfordians, by an illiterate swineherd. And who can prove otherwise?
Sounds good to me. . .the authorship being one Mr W Shakespeare was an act of faith anyway. But how can one bite against such industry. The only thing definite is shakespearien stuff was not written be an Australian as apart from being not an established colony then we don't generally write such endless trite without swear words. . .😊
I used to be a Stratfordian (didn't know any better) and when the wife and I toured there in the 80's, we walked on a hot summer's day from downtown to Anne Hathaway's cottage to pay our respects, but I've since been enlightened. Your arguments are VERY hard to refute. I've joined the Oxford tribe. Mark Twain had it correct. That wool-sack yokel did NOT write Hamlet, the Sonnets, or Macbeth. In fact, it seems he could barely sign his name?! The GREAT Fraud seems a better name.
Edward De Vere used the Shakespeare name as a pseudonym for his writing of the plays and sonnets. No writer of the time could get near De Vere's ability, Ben Johnson was in awe of DeVere's abilities and also looks at him from his grave in Poets corner where DeVere is buried with Shake-Spears name and statue over him. You need to inform the public of the correct history of this Great Playwright!
I don't believe the statement " writing plays and poems for the nobility was considered frivilous and declasse" has any intrinsic value in determining authorship.
@@ronwilliams4184 Only if the statement were true, but it isn't. Writing poetry was one of the recommended attributes of the ideal courtier in Baldessare Castiglione's _The Book of the Courtier_ , whose mid-1560s English translation set the fashion in Elizabeth's court. Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey, and Sir Thomas Wyatt were responsible for the flowering of the English sonnet back in the 1540s. Henry VIII wrote poetry. Elizabeth herself wrote poetry. And while it might have been déclassé to write for the common players, to write closet-dramas did not impinge on one's dignity, and it was a particularly popular pastime with aristocratic women. Mary Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke, translated _The Tragedie of Antonie_ (based on the French play by Robert Garnier), Elizabeth Cary, the Viscountess Falkland, wrote _The Tragedy of Mariam_ , and Lady Mary Wroth wrote the pastoral comedy _Love's Victory_ . And Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst and later created 1st Earl of Dorset, collaborated with Sir Thomas Norton on the first English-language blank verse play, _Gorboduc_ . That was written for performance, but not by the common players; it was an Inns of Court play. And if a nobleman wanted to hide his name, all he had to do was not have his name on the published text. Anonymity was routine in the early modern era, especially for plays even when they _weren't_ published by noblemen. We wouldn't know that _The Spanish Tragedy_ , one of the era's most popular plays, was written by Thomas Kyd but for a passing reference in Thomas Heywood's _An Apology for Actors_ . Lining up a front man to take the credit would have simply been greatly multiplying the difficulties, as would funneling the play through an acting company when closet-dramas existed as a viable literary alternative. You didn't have to worry about doubling, writing enough dialogue to cover a costume change, what the physical characteristics of the actors were, etc., etc., etc. The proposal that a nobleman wrote William Shakespeare's plays then let them be acted by the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men introduces or magnifies all kinds of difficulties for no apparent payoff.
From Waugh's lectures, he has put forth that De Vere died in 1604, but that several of Shakespeare's plays continued to be written and performed until 1613. Until now, I've not heard any theories about how that happened. Both sides offer a great deal of conjecture and theories that one must take on good faith or lean on reason and deduction. A learned man would have surely provided undeniable proof of their authorship. The most convincing evidence, which has come across my path is the hyphenated name as was common practice indicating that the name was a pen name and the fact that all six signatures of Shakespeare's were all but two from different hands. What I find distracting and disappointing from both sides is the condescension aimed at the opposing side and dismissals of valid points raised.
Best quote I’ve ever come across regarding this authorship controversy, is “It matters not WHO wrote the plays of Shakespeare; what matters is THAT they were written”. We have these masterpieces of literature which will remain(like the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Dostoevsky, the writings of Lincoln, the Greek myths, etc) eternally relevant, dwelling as they do in the realm of eternal truths and universal principles of the human condition. So the authorship controversy will only ever matter to scholars & grad students, but for the rest of us constitute only the equivalent of theologians of yore debating how many angels can stand on the head of a pin(Sound and fury signifying nothing, a tempest in a teapot, etc🤡)-….”But what’er I be, nor I, nor any man that but man is, with nothing shall be pleased, til he be eased, with being nothing”….🫣😂🎭🙏😎
That quote is by someone who was not winning the authorship question. The quote is literally a plea to abandon the question. If it didn't matter, then the quote would not have been made in the first place. The Works have vastly different meanings depending on who the author is, which is of vast importance.
When I was in high school, in 1972, our English Lit teacher taught us that Shakespeare was not the author, but rather Bacon was the likely author.
Your lit teacher was correct to doubt the official story, but the idea that Bacon wrote the plays has long been discredited by comparative evidence. Bacon's prose style, imagery, and Bible allusions are all distinct from Shakespeare's.
Bacon was there in the background but it was clearly De Vere.
Bacon was De Vere’s cousin and may have been involved with the folio’s preparation. It may explain why Bacon’s name appears in the text like a word search
@@picasso114 It doesn't. Unless you use the Baconian trick of "shifting" letters when necessary.
Shakespeare is mentioned in the KJV, Bacon was the editor in chief. That's how I see his role in The Shakespeare Society.
Hard to believe these plays just hung around. More likely upon De Vere's death, his daughter took possession of the plays. Vere's daughter, granddaughter of Lord Burghley, married the Earl of Pembroke. There is where the were held until published, is my guess.
Makes a lot of sense!
According to many researchers this appears to be a fact.
The problem is, no written record survives, in Oxford's handwriting of a single line of Shakespeare. No contemporary of Oxford stated he was an author of these plays. HE WAS DEAD before many of them were written. That's not a small problem Plays in this era had a shelf life measured in weeks or months, many hundreds were never revived or performed again.
Actually the plays were the property of the theatre company, and would have been kept by them to be revived from time to time. That's probably why the manuscripts survived. This was not an age when precious manuscripts were auctioned off for a million dollars to rich yanks.
@@sgrant39if the renowned master spy Lord Burghley was in on lie/cover-up, do you really think he would have allowed manuscripts in De Vere's hand to remain in existence?
Or, if they do still exist, it's very possible that they are hidden away in a place where no one would ever find them...like an empty tomb beneath a false monument...perhaps.
Of course his contemporaries didn't outright name him - some of the writings would be tantamount to treason, both for De Vere and for the failed to report it earlier of he waited to do so after De Vere's death.
Many of them made very strong hints about it though and came just short of saying it outright.
Why was De Vere given $1000 pounds a year by QE1, which was later renewed by KJ1? There is no sensible reason to have given him such a large endowment. From what I've read about De Vere, he seemed very selfish and clearly wanted to live a lavish lifestyle, free of any responsibility whatsoever.
Perhaps he demanded the money as blackmail to keep him quiet after going bankrupt. He did something similar with Burghley when he ran out of money abroad and Burghley refused to sell De Vere's lands to send more money to him. 🤔
Or, perhaps it was fair compensation for his works that he would not be able to take credit for or benefit from financially.
Would you kindly let me know where you obtained the portraits of the Earl of Montgomery at 38:45 of your video?
I appreciate all the lies identified in the First Folio publication. I think however that this analysis should also consider the enourmous influence of John Florio on Shakespeare's works and language, of Florio knowing very well Johnson, Pembroke and the editors and much more. In the mistery of Shakespeare, John Florio plays a role and this should be very carefully studied and considerd. Thank you for your attention.
Shakespeare's vocabulary of 17,000 words, "which was at least twice that of his contemporaries," could be cited as strong evidence that the plays had multiple authors.
Or that he was one writer with a big vocabulary.
Anyone who speaks more than one language has a vocabulary exceeding 17000 words.
Yes, there were many writers in the employ of the Earl of Oxford. Lyly, Churchyard, Kyd and many others.
True...I don't think even avid Oxfordians (such as Alexander Waugh) dismiss the idea that others may have made additions to the works...perhaps even adding their own expertise. Waugh has suggested Francis Bacon...de Vere's cousin, after all...and an expert on many scholarly matters, including the law.)
How's that? Then there is the fact that the estimates for Shakespeare's vocabulary run between 31,000 and 66,000 words.
This is a very strong circumstantial case. I think the changes in the texts between quartos and first Folio suggest multiple authors, lines changed on the fly, and other influences that over time sharpened the plays into the masterpieces that they are. Those who so fervently argue for Shakespeare as the author seem to have motives in mind, such as maintaining Stratford-on-Avon's incoming tourist dollars.
The Quartos are probably rough drafts. The bad ones even more so.
Moniment : Scottish : a person whose behaviour and actions provoke ridicule.
From Latin monimentum, monumentum. See monument. Noun
moniment (plural moniments)
(obsolete) Something to preserve memory; a reminder; a monument.
(obsolete, by extension) A mark, image, or superscription; a record.
Latin : monimentum = reminder
Is that specific Scottish meaning attested all the way back to the 17th century?
@@Nullifidian the first time "in print" is not the same as first time "in use" - words can exist for extended periods before they make it into print, and this was more true in the past
Thank you so much Catherine, really good listen. I didn't know Avon was one of Alexander's. There's just so much of this which is 21st century knowledge. It's such a privilege watching this unfold. I hope the most brilliant of you can make further headway on why the Pembrokes buried him, and then did it again in 1740.
I doubt that very much of what I have found on the sonnets title page will be of any wider use, I cannot get mathematicians or engineers to even look at what has been revealed. But I know, and for that I should be and am grateful. Only once you have broken through is anyone going to look at what I've found.
Drayton and Jonson in the south transept need surveying btw. I feel certain they are both staring precisely at the centre of the altar and at exact angles, most probably 30/60/90 but could be 45° or even 36°. Alexander's assertion that Chaucer, Spenser and De Vere form a 30/60/90 needs to be accurately measured. They are obsessed with trinities so I would expect 2 more. They will be accurate to a fraction of an inch to the eyes of both.
I intended on trying to measure this myself recently, but due to my poor health and that it would be worthless, it needs to be done by an independent surveyor, and that creeping around churches taking measurements without permission can get us a bad name, I decided not to.
Does Ben Johnson refer in his introductory poem to Jalaludin Rumi's 'Look not upon my face but take what is in my hand'? Sufis claim that 'Shakespeare' is an anglicisation of Sheikh Pir. Suggesting that whoever the author was, she or he was conversant with the Sufi classics.
Thankyou Katherine, love all your videos and talks. To me it makes perfect sense
She said that people went to Stratford just 2 years after the Folio?
31:55 important to note this tribute to Vere, like so many which name him as a great poet, is deferential due to his title and social rank, punning on Vertue (Vere was then pronounced Vair, and so Vairtue). He’s a known playwright yet suddenly opts to become a ghost writer due to the embarrassment? Rather convenient we have no surviving plays in his name to compare. The poetry does not remind any close reader of Shakespeare’s verse.
Can you tell Shakespeare from Vere? Take the test.
Which lines belong to Shakespeare and which to Vere?
If care or skill could conquer vain desire,
Or reason's reins my strong affection stay,
Then should my sights to quiet breast retire,
And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray;
Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast,
Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed.
My reason, the physician to my love,
Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve
Desire is death, which physic did except.
Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
And frantic mad with evermore unrest;
Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret
And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong;
My mazed mind in malice so is set
As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long;
Patience perforce is such a pinching pain
As die I will, or suffer wrong again.
For, if I should despair, I should grow mad,
And in my madness might speak ill of thee;
Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad,
Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be.
Love is a discord and a strange divorce
Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power,
As mad with reason, we admit that force
Which wit or labour never may empower
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,
At random from the truth vainly expressed:
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night.
Why should my heart think that a several plot,
Which my heart knows the wide world's common place?
Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not,
To put fair truth upon so foul a face
Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart?
Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
Who first did print with colours pale thy face?
Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace?
Who made thee strive in virtue to be best?
Who taught thee how to make me love thee more,
The more I hear and see just cause of hate?
O, though I love what others do abhor,
With others thou shouldst not abhor my state.
What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire,
When only sighs must make his secret moan ?
A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire,
My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone.
Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above,
To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 touche'....and the constellation of biographical points that match what we know of de Vere's movements, in and out of the court of QE2, and in his direct acquaintance with her changing nature. Instead of 'suddenly' deciding to write under a pseudonym, couldn't he have dabbled in this practice, even since childhood? since he would have been aware of the feelings in the court about 'professional writers'.
@@stevenhershkowitz2265
"If care or skill could conquer vain desire,
"Or reason's reins my strong affection stay,
"Then should my sights to quiet breast retire,
"And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray;
"Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast,
"Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed."
This is whiny, larded with alliteration, and doesn't keep the meter, so I'm going to conclude this is all de Vere.
"My reason, the physician to my love,
"Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
"Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve
"Desire is death, which physic did except.
"Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
"And frantic mad with evermore unrest;
"Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret
"And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong;"
Now, this builds creatively on the initial image of reason as the physician to love and shows some sense of humor in its punning (sing / fret) and skill in building old adages ("past cure is past care"), none of which are characteristic of de Vere, so my verdict is Shakespeare.
"My mazed mind in malice so is set
"As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long;
"Patience perforce is such a pinching pain
"As die I will, or suffer wrong again."
I literally laughed out loud when I read this because the alliteration was so inelegant, and it led the author into the absurdity of the second line (of this quote, not the whole chimeric poem, of course) where Death doesn't even end his "deadly dolours long" but only momentarily intimidates them. It's clear that we have the typical de Vere incompetence again.
"For, if I should despair, I should grow mad,
"And in my madness might speak ill of thee;
"Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad,
"Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be."
Now, this once again builds on the the initial thought, in contrast with de Vere whose ideas almost always end with the line, and "ill-wresting" is an arresting image for what other writers might be content to describe as "wicked" or "calumnious". The analogy is to a word being wrenched out of its proper sense, as Beatrice does to Benedick when she says "Foul words are but foul wind and foul wind is but foul breath". So clearly this is Shakespeare again.
"Love is a discord and a strange divorce
Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power,
As mad with reason, we admit that force
Which wit or labour never may empower"
This is too good for de Vere, but it's too bad for Shakespeare, who likely wouldn't have used that "power/empower" rhyme if he could have found any other way of avoiding it. If forced to pick between the two, I'd rather offload it onto de Vere than admit it as Shakespearian, but I suspect that the work of a better poet (but still inferior to Shakespeare) has been misidentified as de Vere's.
"My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,
At random from the truth vainly expressed:
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night."
Now this is the real Shakespeare.
"Why should my heart think that a several plot,
"Which my heart knows the wide world's common place?
"Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not,
"To put fair truth upon so foul a face"
More Shakespeare. The fair/foul dichotomy is particularly Shakespearian (think _Macbeth_ , among other examples).
"Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
"Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
"Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart?
"Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
"Who first did print with colours pale thy face?
"Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
"Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace?
"Who made thee strive in virtue to be best?"
More of de Vere's tedious whinging, the same plodding meter, and the same dearth of imagery and inspiration.
"Who taught thee how to make me love thee more,
"The more I hear and see just cause of hate?
"O, though I love what others do abhor,
"With others thou shouldst not abhor my state."
Shakespeare. Unlike de Vere, he's not simply whinging but building on his abased state towards the end of an argument: that his love shouldn't reject him the way the world does for loving her.
"What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire,
"When only sighs must make his secret moan ?
"A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire,
"My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone.
"Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above,
"To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love.
Phoebe/Endymion is an unaccustomed reference in Shakespeare, even though Shakespeare certainly knew John Lyly's play on the subject, and we have the typical de Vere plodding and ridiculous amounts of alliteration ("hapless hap" is a particularly inelegant formulation that raises at best only a wry smile and not pity). So once again, it's de Vere.
How'd I do?
If you genuinely thought that the Shakespearian portions were indistinguishable from de Vere's, then it just goes to show the truth that I've long thought: Oxfordians can't detect any difference in early modern poetry as long as it goes ti-tum, ti-tum, ti-tum, ti-tum, ti-tum.
And just to clarify: I do recall one reference to Endymion in _The Merchant of Venice_ , but Shakespeare didn't throw in the word "Phoebe" as well, which would have been over-egging the pudding. Portia says "How the moon sleeps with Endymion | And would not be awak'd!", so it was the combination of the two terms that I was rejecting as Shakespearian.
Well done. I hope your point is taken. Alas, some insist upon remaining ignorant, for their pride. @@stevenhershkowitz2265
Nicely done. We are going to hear a lot of nonsense next year so it is good to get the factual landmines in place now.
Sonnets reference Anne Hathaway and Will puns. Why is that?
Cleverness.
this was fascinating. Thank you.
So the monument was to john shakespeare. Interesting that when dugdale made his drawing he also copied the inscription which says all he has writ leaves living art. So john shakespeare was a writer but not his son. Another load of piffle from anglophobes
Word should have slowly gotten around that the plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by another author, coincidentally with the same name.
Yeah, William Shakespeare was a very common name at the time. There were hundreds of playwrites with that name living in London at the time.
It increasingly seems to me that "Shakespeare" should be understood as a brand, like Disney. Appreciation doesn't require that we first believe a lone genius is singlehandedly responsible for the entire output.
Exactly. I usually say that "Shakespeare" is the person or persons, whatever their identity or identities may have been, that wrote the works of Shakespeare. In the end, that is all that _really_ matters to 99.9% of people. The only significance of Shakespeare to us is the works we are left with attributed to him.
Jesus is another person whose existence is debated, but the only true significance of Jesus is the _belief_ in him, his acts, his words, and the events and meaning of his death. Whether the stories are specifically about a single historical person that lived at exactly the right time and that did and experienced those exact things that are written about him, is something else; and proving or disproving anything to do with the Bible stories is completely irrelevant to someone who believes in them.
I agrer it makes me lean towards a group project with De Vere at the head of it
What May be Your crucial Argument that Edward and not Christopher has been the „true“ (real) Skaespeare ??
ua-cam.com/video/1MkwdE7nZ-w/v-deo.htmlsi=vHHg3n4UXV0zFkaa
I am going to memorize this. Thank you!
What is the “some evidence” you reference?
did you watch the video?
13:30 writing plays and poems was considered declassé? Really? Maybe that was true of plays... but poems? Surely not!
Not writing, but publishing! A gentleman could make music or write poetry (even drama) only as an amateur. Every hint, that he is making money with it, had to be avoided. Even if something of their poetry was printed, they usually invented some excuse formulas about stolen manuscripts etc. and assured the reader, that they had written them in their leisure time for their private friends, as "trifles".
It wasnt true of writing but it was true of literautre.
isn't that a sheet of parchment and not a ruff under his head ?
Her book _Shakespeare Supressed_ is really something. I can tell I'll be reading it more than once.
So, after over a century of "controversy" we have discovered that the only person credited by name for writing the works of William Shakespeare during his lifetime was in fact the least likely person to have written them.
We now have circumstantial, highly circumstantial, evidence that it was ... , well, it's a long list? Isn't it. Frankly, Romeo & Juliet, Lear, Richard II, Richard III, Henry V etc. and forever and ever could have been dictated to de Vere or any other those personalities identified by the anti-Stratfordians, by an illiterate swineherd. And who can prove otherwise?
Will Shakspere was not credited with the Works of Shakespeare until 1623 at the earliest - AFTER his death.
Sounds good to me. . .the authorship being one Mr W Shakespeare was an act of faith anyway. But how can one bite against such industry. The only thing definite is shakespearien stuff was not written be an Australian as apart from being not an established colony then we don't generally write such endless trite without swear words. . .😊
Everything we ever learned is wrong.
Everything? No not everything lol. Just that The man from Stratford wrote this stuff. It was The 17th Earl of Oxford.
I used to be a Stratfordian (didn't know any better) and when the wife and I toured there in the 80's, we walked on a hot summer's day from downtown to Anne Hathaway's cottage to pay our respects, but I've since been enlightened.
Your arguments are VERY hard to refute. I've joined the Oxford tribe. Mark Twain had it correct. That wool-sack yokel did NOT write Hamlet, the Sonnets, or Macbeth. In fact, it seems he could barely sign his name?! The GREAT Fraud seems a better name.
“All he hath writ”… Hm.
If all he wrote was an X… then it was to say that he wrote a little joke.
Bad case of circular reasoning. There's no evidence that he signed with an x, and six signatures to suggest he didn't.
A red herring if 'ever' there was one . . .
You speak 'the truth'.
herring eggs are "roe"
rho is greek for the number 17
Edward De Vere used the Shakespeare name as a pseudonym for his writing of the plays and sonnets. No writer of the time could get near De Vere's ability, Ben Johnson was in awe of DeVere's abilities and also looks at him from his grave in Poets corner where DeVere is buried with Shake-Spears name and statue over him. You need to inform the public of the correct history of this Great Playwright!
I don't believe the statement " writing plays and poems for the nobility was considered frivilous and declasse" has any intrinsic value in determining authorship.
But it does have value in explaining why a nobleman might hide his name, if he was the writer.
@@ronwilliams4184 Only if the statement were true, but it isn't. Writing poetry was one of the recommended attributes of the ideal courtier in Baldessare Castiglione's _The Book of the Courtier_ , whose mid-1560s English translation set the fashion in Elizabeth's court. Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey, and Sir Thomas Wyatt were responsible for the flowering of the English sonnet back in the 1540s. Henry VIII wrote poetry. Elizabeth herself wrote poetry. And while it might have been déclassé to write for the common players, to write closet-dramas did not impinge on one's dignity, and it was a particularly popular pastime with aristocratic women. Mary Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke, translated _The Tragedie of Antonie_ (based on the French play by Robert Garnier), Elizabeth Cary, the Viscountess Falkland, wrote _The Tragedy of Mariam_ , and Lady Mary Wroth wrote the pastoral comedy _Love's Victory_ . And Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst and later created 1st Earl of Dorset, collaborated with Sir Thomas Norton on the first English-language blank verse play, _Gorboduc_ . That was written for performance, but not by the common players; it was an Inns of Court play.
And if a nobleman wanted to hide his name, all he had to do was not have his name on the published text. Anonymity was routine in the early modern era, especially for plays even when they _weren't_ published by noblemen. We wouldn't know that _The Spanish Tragedy_ , one of the era's most popular plays, was written by Thomas Kyd but for a passing reference in Thomas Heywood's _An Apology for Actors_ . Lining up a front man to take the credit would have simply been greatly multiplying the difficulties, as would funneling the play through an acting company when closet-dramas existed as a viable literary alternative. You didn't have to worry about doubling, writing enough dialogue to cover a costume change, what the physical characteristics of the actors were, etc., etc., etc. The proposal that a nobleman wrote William Shakespeare's plays then let them be acted by the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men introduces or magnifies all kinds of difficulties for no apparent payoff.
@@NullifidianThe first Shakespeare plays were published anonymously. The primary source is the anonymity you argue for.
...as if you were there...Hah!
I'm sorry but none of these points are really that convincing.
From Waugh's lectures, he has put forth that De Vere died in 1604, but that several of Shakespeare's plays continued to be written and performed until 1613. Until now, I've not heard any theories about how that happened. Both sides offer a great deal of conjecture and theories that one must take on good faith or lean on reason and deduction. A learned man would have surely provided undeniable proof of their authorship.
The most convincing evidence, which has come across my path is the hyphenated name as was common practice indicating that the name was a pen name and the fact that all six signatures of Shakespeare's were all but two from different hands.
What I find distracting and disappointing from both sides is the condescension aimed at the opposing side and dismissals of valid points raised.
De Vere faked his death. Even his tomb has gone missing.
The reference to Virgil as Maro suggests a pseudonym.
Best quote I’ve ever come across regarding this authorship controversy, is “It matters not WHO wrote the plays of Shakespeare; what matters is THAT they were written”. We have these masterpieces of literature which will remain(like the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Dostoevsky, the writings of Lincoln, the Greek myths, etc) eternally relevant, dwelling as they do in the realm of eternal truths and universal principles of the human condition. So the authorship controversy will only ever matter to scholars & grad students, but for the rest of us constitute only the equivalent of theologians of yore debating how many angels can stand on the head of a pin(Sound and fury signifying nothing, a tempest in a teapot, etc🤡)-….”But what’er I be, nor I, nor any man that but man is, with nothing shall be pleased, til he be eased, with being nothing”….🫣😂🎭🙏😎
That quote is by someone who was not winning the authorship question. The quote is literally a plea to abandon the question. If it didn't matter, then the quote would not have been made in the first place. The Works have vastly different meanings depending on who the author is, which is of vast importance.
Yeah well, that's just like, your opinion, man.