I am pleased to hear your discussion of Jonson's play (Every Man Out of His Humor) with the convincing evidence about Jonson's true opinion of William Shakspere.
Thoroughly convinced the Edward de Vere is and was the real William Shakespeare. I read your wonderful book that just re-confirms that idea. Thank you 🙏!
Very convincing stuff! I have been leaning towards Oxford ever since watching Alexander Waugh's videos, but this posting clarifies the matter even further. The only fly in the ointment for me is Macbeth, This is, unlike the other plays, clearly linked, by topical subject matter, to James I's reign, and was first performed, I believe, in 1606 by The King's Men. Was there an earlier version of "The Scottish Play" perhaps from near the end of Oxford's life (1603?) that took into account subject matter that would interest the new monarch, but, as Alexander Waugh has postulated, was "updated " by someone like Middleton to bring in strong allusions to the 1605 Gunpowder Plot? Even the Stratford Shakspear had retired by this point! Quite a puzzle!
There's actually nothing in Macbeth linking clearly to the Gunpowder Plot. The latter doesn't resemble anything that happens in the play. Some have pointed to the Catholic concept of "equivocation" (in response to interrogation by anti-Catholic English authorities of the day), but there were famous cases involving equivocation as far back as the 1580s. No scholar has ever identified any clear evidence of any reference in the works of Shakespeare (whether historical, scientific, or literary) dating to anything after 1604: not "Macbeth" nor "King Lear" nor any other work solely authored by "Shakespeare" (whoever that author really was). Of course, we know a few plays (like "Two Noble Kinsmen" and "Henry VIII") were "co-authored" (or posthumously edited, expanded, or re-written by the "co-author") well after 1604, so it would not be surprising to see some post-1604 references in a few plays. Many scholars used to claim "The Tempest" must date after 1604, because of alleged similarities (actually not that strong) to a letter dating to 1610 (which was, however, unpublished and so would not have been easily available to any author). But it turns out that 1610 letter itself plagiarized sources dating way before 1604. Stritmatter & Kositsky, in a 2013 book, convincingly showed there's no basis to think "The Tempest" postdated 1604. Other than "The Tempest" and a handful of co-authored plays, the standard Penguin (Pelican) 1969 edition of the works of Shakespeare provides date ranges for all plays extending back before 1604. The truth is, orthodox scholars are being knowingly dishonest when they assert flatly that certain plays date to after 1604. As they know perfectly well, we really have no idea exactly when the plays were originally written, and even as they make these dishonest statements to the general public, they actually continue to debate the dating issue vigorously among themselves in their scholarly publications. Similarly, in materials directed to the general public, orthodox Shakespeare "scholars" flatly state that Heminges and Condell edited the First Folio of 1623 and wrote the prefatory letters in it carrying their names. But in serious (and orthodox!) scholarly studies going back to the 1770s (!), they discuss the evidence and likelihood that Ben Jonson actually ghost-wrote much or all of the Folio prefatory material and was far more likely to have edited the Folio; Heminges and Condell were actors with no other known literary experience.
Thank you! James Warren's historical studies of the authorship question are really essential. He has done an amazing amount of research; I wish I had half his energy in researching and publishing so much fascinating material!
Mr. Wildenthal: Wonderful 'literary intrigue' in your presentation! Seneca and Ovid references are quite interesting. Also, the Terence/"front-man" analogy is remarkable food for thought!
So, why didn’t someone just write, so where, a will perhaps, a pamphlet, anything that will was devere? For oxfordians this was a well known secret ( Waugh’s series EVERYONE KNEW) yet no one was able to speak plainly. The answer is that they loved codes and cryptic writing. But this doesn’t make sense, so many people knowing a secret usually means the secret is blurted out. It’s always hidden and in complicated semiological ways. It’s frankly unbelievable, preposterous even, to think that devere was so revered that people refused to out him...next they might have been scared of him, that makes sense but the only people to be scared of in Elisabeth’s realm was her and her secret police. We’re they and she working to hide devere? And no one has given me, at least, a reason he would want to hide his light under a bushel FOR CENTURIES. It’s simply no human. Even then.
According to the Tudor Prince hypothesis Elizabeth and De Vere were both mother and son, AND LOVERS. Whilst I don't know whether this is true it makes the situation explicable, it was a deep, dark secret. At one point De Vere was signing his name Edward 7th, which would have got him executed if he'd not had Elizabeth's blessing, he was identifying himself as her heir, and she let him. This obviously changed. The people to be afraid of were, as you say, the Cecils... I would say that Robert Cecil, for reasons of state, buried de vere's - his brother in law - identity and legacy.
so 1) it's not possible to keep a good secret and 2) there is no reason why a person would want to hide their identity in the first place and even if there was, see #1 above.
"And no one has given me, at least, a reason he would want to hide his light under a bushel FOR CENTURIES. It’s simply no human. Even then." Wrong both counts. Please study some history. He had many reasons for concealing his identity, starting the scandal of an aristocrat's association with the theatre.
JeffreyAdams648 raises a very good question. As I comment in my book, what's interesting is that, however strongly people at the time tried to keep this a secret, they actually did NOT succeed in totally hushing it up. My book details a remarkable number of published references that seem to "let slip" what was really going on. Please keep in mind that at this time, there was no instant online publishing like we have today. A printed "pamphlet," for example, could not just "blurt out" something. All books and pamphlets during that time were subject to strict official scrutiny and pre-publication censorship. And penalties could be severe! Elizabethan-Jacobean England was a police state where torture, arbitrary arrest, and the death penalty were routine.
Just got your book in the mail today. Can’t wait to start reading
Thank you. Let me know what you think of it. Reviews on Amazon are always welcome!
When the Stratfordian era comes to a close this Easter, Diana Price and Bryan Wildenthal will become overnight literary sensations.
I am pleased to hear your discussion of Jonson's play (Every Man Out of His Humor) with the convincing evidence about Jonson's true opinion of William Shakspere.
Thank you!
11:07 For a second I confused Thomas Nashe with Thomas North.
Thoroughly convinced the Edward de Vere is and was the real William Shakespeare. I read your wonderful book that just re-confirms that idea. Thank you 🙏!
Thank you! I really appreciate your kind words.
Very convincing stuff! I have been leaning towards Oxford ever since watching Alexander Waugh's videos, but this posting clarifies the matter even further. The only fly in the ointment for me is Macbeth, This is, unlike the other plays, clearly linked, by topical subject matter, to James I's reign, and was first performed, I believe, in 1606 by The King's Men. Was there an earlier version of "The Scottish Play" perhaps from near the end of Oxford's life (1603?) that took into account subject matter that would interest the new monarch, but, as Alexander Waugh has postulated, was "updated " by someone like Middleton to bring in strong allusions to the 1605 Gunpowder Plot? Even the Stratford Shakspear had retired by this point! Quite a puzzle!
There's actually nothing in Macbeth linking clearly to the Gunpowder Plot. The latter doesn't resemble anything that happens in the play. Some have pointed to the Catholic concept of "equivocation" (in response to interrogation by anti-Catholic English authorities of the day), but there were famous cases involving equivocation as far back as the 1580s. No scholar has ever identified any clear evidence of any reference in the works of Shakespeare (whether historical, scientific, or literary) dating to anything after 1604: not "Macbeth" nor "King Lear" nor any other work solely authored by "Shakespeare" (whoever that author really was). Of course, we know a few plays (like "Two Noble Kinsmen" and "Henry VIII") were "co-authored" (or posthumously edited, expanded, or re-written by the "co-author") well after 1604, so it would not be surprising to see some post-1604 references in a few plays. Many scholars used to claim "The Tempest" must date after 1604, because of alleged similarities (actually not that strong) to a letter dating to 1610 (which was, however, unpublished and so would not have been easily available to any author). But it turns out that 1610 letter itself plagiarized sources dating way before 1604. Stritmatter & Kositsky, in a 2013 book, convincingly showed there's no basis to think "The Tempest" postdated 1604. Other than "The Tempest" and a handful of co-authored plays, the standard Penguin (Pelican) 1969 edition of the works of Shakespeare provides date ranges for all plays extending back before 1604. The truth is, orthodox scholars are being knowingly dishonest when they assert flatly that certain plays date to after 1604. As they know perfectly well, we really have no idea exactly when the plays were originally written, and even as they make these dishonest statements to the general public, they actually continue to debate the dating issue vigorously among themselves in their scholarly publications. Similarly, in materials directed to the general public, orthodox Shakespeare "scholars" flatly state that Heminges and Condell edited the First Folio of 1623 and wrote the prefatory letters in it carrying their names. But in serious (and orthodox!) scholarly studies going back to the 1770s (!), they discuss the evidence and likelihood that Ben Jonson actually ghost-wrote much or all of the Folio prefatory material and was far more likely to have edited the Folio; Heminges and Condell were actors with no other known literary experience.
Great talk about the highlights of your insightful book. Looking forward to reading James Warren’s new book Shakespeare Revolutionized.
Thank you! James Warren's historical studies of the authorship question are really essential. He has done an amazing amount of research; I wish I had half his energy in researching and publishing so much fascinating material!
As for "our late English Ovid" the word "late" often meant "recent" in the sense of "lately" rather than deceased.
Mr. Wildenthal: Wonderful 'literary intrigue' in your presentation! Seneca and Ovid references are quite interesting. Also, the Terence/"front-man" analogy is remarkable food for thought!
Thank you so much!
So, why didn’t someone just write, so where, a will perhaps, a pamphlet, anything that will was devere? For oxfordians this was a well known secret ( Waugh’s series EVERYONE KNEW) yet no one was able to speak plainly. The answer is that they loved codes and cryptic writing. But this doesn’t make sense, so many people knowing a secret usually means the secret is blurted out. It’s always hidden and in complicated semiological ways. It’s frankly unbelievable, preposterous even, to think that devere was so revered that people refused to out him...next they might have been scared of him, that makes sense but the only people to be scared of in Elisabeth’s realm was her and her secret police. We’re they and she working to hide devere? And no one has given me, at least, a reason he would want to hide his light under a bushel FOR CENTURIES. It’s simply no human. Even then.
According to the Tudor Prince hypothesis Elizabeth and De Vere were both mother and son, AND LOVERS. Whilst I don't know whether this is true it makes the situation explicable, it was a deep, dark secret. At one point De Vere was signing his name Edward 7th, which would have got him executed if he'd not had Elizabeth's blessing, he was identifying himself as her heir, and she let him. This obviously changed. The people to be afraid of were, as you say, the Cecils... I would say that Robert Cecil, for reasons of state, buried de vere's - his brother in law - identity and legacy.
so 1) it's not possible to keep a good secret
and 2) there is no reason why a person would want to hide their identity in the first place
and even if there was, see #1 above.
"But this doesn’t make sense." It doesn't make sense in the 21st century, but it entirely made sense in the 17th century.
"And no one has given me, at least, a reason he would want to hide his light under a bushel FOR CENTURIES. It’s simply no human. Even then."
Wrong both counts. Please study some history. He had many reasons for concealing his identity, starting the scandal of an aristocrat's association with the theatre.
JeffreyAdams648 raises a very good question. As I comment in my book, what's interesting is that, however strongly people at the time tried to keep this a secret, they actually did NOT succeed in totally hushing it up. My book details a remarkable number of published references that seem to "let slip" what was really going on. Please keep in mind that at this time, there was no instant online publishing like we have today. A printed "pamphlet," for example, could not just "blurt out" something. All books and pamphlets during that time were subject to strict official scrutiny and pre-publication censorship. And penalties could be severe! Elizabethan-Jacobean England was a police state where torture, arbitrary arrest, and the death penalty were routine.
Excellent