Thank you for the upload. This was very informative. Indeed, the best of our writers write from what they know, not merely what they "might have" heard over polite conversations...or drawn from hasty generalizations as some have and continue to do.
It's true. JK Rowling went to Wizard School. Arthur C Clarke spent most of his adult life in space. Hilary Mantel actually had to visit the sixteenth century to research Wolf Hall. Dante actually visited Hell in his search for authenticity for The Inferno. And Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy is so huge that he thinks an Italian servant might be called 'Francis' and a monk 'Laurence'. He doesn't seem to know there are canals in Venice. He also wrote about Ancient Rome. I'm assuming he'd never been there either, or he might have realised they didn't have chiming clocks. He's writing about people and relationships, not places and things. People with names like "Bardolph" and "Fluellen" - both of whom were friends of his father in good old Stratford upon Avon.
This man set 1/3 of his plays in Italy, with constant references to Italy, both in the names, cities, even words, taken from Italian dialects and books that back in the Shakespeare period were written only in Italian. Or Shakespeare from Stratford took ad advanced course in Italian, or there' something else going on.
There was a huge, thriving trade in books printed in London, in English. In any case, English grammar schools were taught entirely in Latin, which makes reading Italian a breeze.
Italy was SEXY! It put plutocrat bums on seats, and groundling boots in the pit. That's why John Webster used Italy as a setting. And Cyril Tourneur. And John Fletcher. And others. Because it made MONEY. Why were there so many western films in the fifties? Because all the directors used to be cowboys? Or because they were popular and made MONEY? Shakespeare was a jobbing writer working to tight deadlines, which is why much of his work is seriously flawed. And THAT'S how we know that it wasn't written by Lord Snottington of Snotley-on-the-snot. Also, I think you'll find it's rather less than a third, I make the total 8, out of a total of 37 - somewhere between a fifth and a quarter.
Or he could speak Latin, which wasn't so very far from Italian at that time. Or maybe he knew an Italian - for example (appropriately enough) John Florio, Southampton's secretary. Or there was a source book which is no longer extant. Or the theatre paid one of the many Italians living in the very cosmopolitan city of London to do a translation. Or he had been to Italy during the Lost Years as part of a rich knob's retinue. Occam's razor, Signore, don't try to explain by alien abduction an anomaly that can be accounted for in some more obvious and likely way. Italy was SEXY at the time. Lots of plays were set in Italy. What about John Webster? Was he actually Lord Knobby McNobnob? Both his most famous plays are set in Italy. So was the hugely successful 'Revenger's Tragedy'. Knobby Mcnobnob must have been a very busy little knob!
The truth, for me, is that Shakespeare represents at least the linguistic identity of England; and even if irrefutable evidence were found that Shakespeare was at least not English, it would never be admitted. Riots would break out. Exactly, as if they were to say that Dante was not Italian. Except that on Dante no one has ever doubted his Italian-ness; on Shakespeare, it would seem so, with abundant clues that would suggest that there was something Italian in Shakespeare. Obviously nothing proven. And this means that Shakespeare was a full-blooded Briton.
What an excellent lecture! Thank you. I'm convinced that Shakespeare authorship is unfinished business from the English Reformation. The truth is known to a select few. But, British Protestant culture demands two things: no Catholic monarch, and no Catholic Bard. Did Christopher Marlowe (after converting to Catholicism and faking his death) travel through Italy on his way to exile on the island of Malta? Probably. But, just like the Catholic Church of that time created the Galileo Affair in the realm of science, so too has English Protestant culture of recent time created the Shakespeare Affair in the realm of literature. But, what about truth? Truth be damned! Don't you dare doubt our Bard, Shakespeare, say the almighty Protestant "cardinals" of England. If you doubt we will put you under house arrest just like Galileo. Or, at the very least we will politely ignore you.
I wonder if Mr. Whittemore can explain how a man who wrote in a letter that he hated Italians and their country, while traveling in that country could possibly write so lovingly about Italy. This is what Edward De Vere did. He went to Italy and couldn't stand it but then later wrote 10 plays about Italy in which he praised it? Was De Vere addle minded that he conveniently forgot he hated the place and its people? Also, in Merchant of Venice, how is it possible for Shylock to have gone out for dinner when the Jewish quarter or ghetto of Venice was locked up at night? Also, how could revelers in disguise Lorrenzo and Gratiano go to the house of Jessica in the middle of the night, when again, the quarter was locked to anyone coming or going. They don't mention such a significant detail in the play such as bribing a guard or picking a lock. That's at least 4 people coming and going out of a quarter where they wouldn't have been able to. Strange that someone who knew the city well wouldn't have known about this VERY significant detail, not to mention that canals are never mentioned in Merchant of Venice??? Kinda the hallmark of the city but its never brought up?
+Steve Bari If you're referring to de Vere's letter to Burghley from Venice that's not what he said. On 24 September, 1575, he wrote: "Your Lordship seems desirous to know how I like Italy, what is mine intention in travel, and when I mean to return. For my liking of Italy, my Lord, I am glad I have seen it, and I care not ever to see it any more unless it be to serve my prince or country. For mine intention to travel, I am desirous to see more of Germany, wherefore I shall desire your lordship, with my Lord of Leicester, to procure me the next summer to continue my licence, at the end of which I mean undoubtedly to return. I thought to have seen Spain, but by Italy I guess the worse."
likebox2 If the true author of the plays is living in/visiting a country, whether its De Vere or Marlowe, wouldn't they know who was running said country and accurately record that in the plays taking place in that country? The two plays that take place in Verona (Romeo and Juliet and Two Gentlemen of Verona) are meant to be either contemporary or near contemporary to when the plays were written so why does the author get the governor of this city majorly wrong in both plays IF he was living/visiting there? From 1405 up until the 1700s Verona was under the control of Venice, albeit it did get bounced around to Spain and France for a couple of years in the early 1500s however it was under Venetian control for the majority of this era. So much so that Venetian troops were garrisoned in the town. In time the plays were written or within 100 years, the city of Verona was never independent nor was it under the control of Milan. Even earlier, in the 1300s, the city was under control of a syndicate based in Padua. You'd think that a politically connected Earl or a writer of kings and princes would take note of this, however, that's not the case. In Two Gentlemen of Verona, Valentine is sent to "court of the emperor" which in the play is in the city of Milan. If this play was reflective of someone who lived in or visited Verona, the "emperor" would have been in Venice not Milan. In Romeo and Juliet, Verona has its own prince who apparently lives in town. The prince does not have to travel from anywhere to get to Verona. Venice had a Duke who was elected not a prince who inherited his title. No mention of Venice or a Duke is ever made in Romeo and Juliet. How exactly does this little fact of who is running the city they are supposedly visiting/living in escape an Earl or writer who wrote about emperors and kings? They can't even decided on which type of government it is: Independent city state or controlled territory. Perhaps because they never wrote these plays and it was a writer who was casually using the names of Italian towns for exotic flavoring and tossed in a made up governmental figures for plot convenience.
Steve Bari Read "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy" to find out who that "emperor" was. In addition, the details of the canal travel, the details of local locations, local speaking habits, are all accurate. The government is accurate too, but you can't see that because you are too shallow in your research. I have the "Shakespeare Guide", and I read it, but I don't remember the name of the emperor, but it's appropriate in time and location (astonishingly so), and it dates the play to a very specific year.
+likebox2 "He was Charles V, King of Spain (1516) and Holy Roman Emperor (1519). Besides Spain and central Europe, his dominions covered all the Spanish New World possessions, the Low Countries and the Kingdoms of Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. He had conquered or inherited control over strategic Mediterranean islands and parts of North Africa. And, too, some of the dukes of Italy were under oaths of fealty to him as their feudal overlord." Roe, Richard Paul (2011-11-08). The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Then and Now (p. 240). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Nashe wrote a novel called The Unfortunate Traveller. Much of it is set in Italy. There is no evidence that he ever left England. Here's a question for anyone who thinks Roe nailed it with his Italy research: Aside from the fact that there are sycamore trees all over europe, how do you know that there are sycamore trees in Verona? Right. A guy who has been there told you.
+Jeffhowardmeade There's a nice bit of research recently published on the Oxfraud website showing two things, one Roe's scholarship method and there are no Sycamores in Verona but a similar looking tree that was planted in the 1940s. Using an excerpt from Roe's book, Roe states he arrived in Verona and asks the cab driver to take him to the sycamores to which the cab driver obliges. Roe sees a bunch of trees matching what he expects to see and in Roe's mind case solved. That's some scholarship there, huh? If he bothered to investigate it further he'd find that the trees he looked at was planted in 1940s by the city government and is a tree that cleans off pollution from cars easily. No sycamores not now nor in the age of R and J. Adding to your list of authors who wrote about places they never visited: John Fletcher - The Island Princess takes place in the South Pacific, Tamer Tamed in Italy and he never left England Beaumont and Fletcher - A King and No King takes place in Spain Ben Jonson - The Alchemist set in Venice and he never visited.
one thing is set 1 play in Italy, another is set 1/3 of your plays in Italy, with constant references to Italy, both in the names, cities, even words, taken from Italian dialects and books that back in the Shakespeare period were written only in Italian.
@@rstritmatter If you mean the ENGLISH plays Shakespeare set in Italy, and made huge errors in writing, then yes. I have. I can't discuss them today, though, as the SBT has strict rules about working hours.
@@rafthejaf8789 Here's an extract from the chronology according the de Vere society: (deveresociety.co.uk/public/shakespeare/oxford-chronology/) 1567 - Edward de Vere kills William Cecil’s undercook while practising his fencing - he is acquitted and goes unpunished. It's generally accepted that this was murder. Why would he be practising fencing with an undercook? Obviously, he got off because he had incredibly powerful connections, but yes, it looks very much as if he was a murderer. However, I would concede that being a very unpleasant human being doesn't mean he couldn't write plays and poems. Ben Jonson also killed someone (but in fair fight). A champion jouster who happened to be the boss killing a low-grade servant is Premier League evil.
Something magical will happen to you when you realize Shakespeare was sharing his life with you.
Thank you for the upload. This was very informative. Indeed, the best of our writers write from what they know, not merely what they "might have" heard over polite conversations...or drawn from hasty generalizations as some have and continue to do.
It's true. JK Rowling went to Wizard School. Arthur C Clarke spent most of his adult life in space. Hilary Mantel actually had to visit the sixteenth century to research Wolf Hall. Dante actually visited Hell in his search for authenticity for The Inferno. And Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy is so huge that he thinks an Italian servant might be called 'Francis' and a monk 'Laurence'. He doesn't seem to know there are canals in Venice. He also wrote about Ancient Rome. I'm assuming he'd never been there either, or he might have realised they didn't have chiming clocks. He's writing about people and relationships, not places and things. People with names like "Bardolph" and "Fluellen" - both of whom were friends of his father in good old Stratford upon Avon.
This man set 1/3 of his plays in Italy, with constant references to Italy, both in the names, cities, even words, taken from Italian dialects and books that back in the Shakespeare period were written only in Italian. Or Shakespeare from Stratford took ad advanced course in Italian, or there' something else going on.
There was a huge, thriving trade in books printed in London, in English. In any case, English grammar schools were taught entirely in Latin, which makes reading Italian a breeze.
Italy was SEXY! It put plutocrat bums on seats, and groundling boots in the pit. That's why John Webster used Italy as a setting. And Cyril Tourneur. And John Fletcher. And others. Because it made MONEY. Why were there so many western films in the fifties? Because all the directors used to be cowboys? Or because they were popular and made MONEY? Shakespeare was a jobbing writer working to tight deadlines, which is why much of his work is seriously flawed. And THAT'S how we know that it wasn't written by Lord Snottington of Snotley-on-the-snot.
Also, I think you'll find it's rather less than a third, I make the total 8, out of a total of 37 - somewhere between a fifth and a quarter.
Or he could speak Latin, which wasn't so very far from Italian at that time. Or maybe he knew an Italian - for example (appropriately enough) John Florio, Southampton's secretary. Or there was a source book which is no longer extant. Or the theatre paid one of the many Italians living in the very cosmopolitan city of London to do a translation. Or he had been to Italy during the Lost Years as part of a rich knob's retinue.
Occam's razor, Signore, don't try to explain by alien abduction an anomaly that can be accounted for in some more obvious and likely way.
Italy was SEXY at the time. Lots of plays were set in Italy. What about John Webster? Was he actually Lord Knobby McNobnob? Both his most famous plays are set in Italy. So was the hugely successful 'Revenger's Tragedy'. Knobby Mcnobnob must have been a very busy little knob!
@@Jeffhowardmeade Do you speak from experience, are you just being paid to say that?
@@MrMartibobs Or maybe you are just grasping at straws because you're afraid to realize there's a problem.
Lovely man!
And a treasure!
🙏🏼🙏🏾🙏
The truth, for me, is that Shakespeare represents at least the linguistic identity of England; and even if irrefutable evidence were found that Shakespeare was at least not English, it would never be admitted. Riots would break out. Exactly, as if they were to say that Dante was not Italian. Except that on Dante no one has ever doubted his Italian-ness; on Shakespeare, it would seem so, with abundant clues that would suggest that there was something Italian in Shakespeare. Obviously nothing proven. And this means that Shakespeare was a full-blooded Briton.
Bravo!
What an excellent lecture! Thank you. I'm convinced that Shakespeare authorship is unfinished business from the English Reformation. The truth is known to a select few. But, British Protestant culture demands two things: no Catholic monarch, and no Catholic Bard. Did Christopher Marlowe (after converting to Catholicism and faking his death) travel through Italy on his way to exile on the island of Malta? Probably. But, just like the Catholic Church of that time created the Galileo Affair in the realm of science, so too has English Protestant culture of recent time created the Shakespeare Affair in the realm of literature. But, what about truth? Truth be damned! Don't you dare doubt our Bard, Shakespeare, say the almighty Protestant "cardinals" of England. If you doubt we will put you under house arrest just like Galileo. Or, at the very least we will politely ignore you.
I wonder if Mr. Whittemore can explain how a man who wrote in a letter that he hated Italians and their country, while traveling in that country could possibly write so lovingly about Italy. This is what Edward De Vere did. He went to Italy and couldn't stand it but then later wrote 10 plays about Italy in which he praised it? Was De Vere addle minded that he conveniently forgot he hated the place and its people?
Also, in Merchant of Venice, how is it possible for Shylock to have gone out for dinner when the Jewish quarter or ghetto of Venice was locked up at night? Also, how could revelers in disguise Lorrenzo and Gratiano go to the house of Jessica in the middle of the night, when again, the quarter was locked to anyone coming or going. They don't mention such a significant detail in the play such as bribing a guard or picking a lock. That's at least 4 people coming and going out of a quarter where they wouldn't have been able to.
Strange that someone who knew the city well wouldn't have known about this VERY significant detail, not to mention that canals are never mentioned in Merchant of Venice??? Kinda the hallmark of the city but its never brought up?
+Steve Bari That's because it wasn't deVere, it was Marlowe, who loved the country very much.
+Steve Bari If you're referring to de Vere's letter to Burghley from Venice that's not what he said. On 24 September, 1575, he wrote:
"Your Lordship seems desirous to know how I like Italy, what is mine intention in travel, and when I mean to return. For my liking of Italy, my Lord, I am glad I have seen it, and I care not ever to see it any more unless it be to serve my prince or country. For mine intention to travel, I am desirous to see more of Germany, wherefore I shall desire your lordship, with my Lord of Leicester, to procure me the next summer to continue my licence, at the end of which I mean undoubtedly to return. I thought to have seen Spain, but by Italy I guess the worse."
likebox2 If the true author of the plays is living in/visiting a country, whether its De Vere or Marlowe, wouldn't they know who was running said country and accurately record that in the plays taking place in that country?
The two plays that take place in Verona (Romeo and Juliet and Two Gentlemen of Verona) are meant to be either contemporary or near contemporary to when the plays were written so why does the author get the governor of this city majorly wrong in both plays IF he was living/visiting there?
From 1405 up until the 1700s Verona was under the control of Venice, albeit it did get bounced around to Spain and France for a couple of years in the early 1500s however it was under Venetian control for the majority of this era. So much so that Venetian troops were garrisoned in the town. In time the plays were written or within 100 years, the city of Verona was never independent nor was it under the control of Milan. Even earlier, in the 1300s, the city was under control of a syndicate based in Padua. You'd think that a politically connected Earl or a writer of kings and princes would take note of this, however, that's not the case.
In Two Gentlemen of Verona, Valentine is sent to "court of the emperor" which in the play is in the city of Milan. If this play was reflective of someone who lived in or visited Verona, the "emperor" would have been in Venice not Milan.
In Romeo and Juliet, Verona has its own prince who apparently lives in town. The prince does not have to travel from anywhere to get to Verona. Venice had a Duke who was elected not a prince who inherited his title. No mention of Venice or a Duke is ever made in Romeo and Juliet.
How exactly does this little fact of who is running the city they are supposedly visiting/living in escape an Earl or writer who wrote about emperors and kings? They can't even decided on which type of government it is: Independent city state or controlled territory.
Perhaps because they never wrote these plays and it was a writer who was casually using the names of Italian towns for exotic flavoring and tossed in a made up governmental figures for plot convenience.
Steve Bari Read "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy" to find out who that "emperor" was. In addition, the details of the canal travel, the details of local locations, local speaking habits, are all accurate. The government is accurate too, but you can't see that because you are too shallow in your research. I have the "Shakespeare Guide", and I read it, but I don't remember the name of the emperor, but it's appropriate in time and location (astonishingly so), and it dates the play to a very specific year.
+likebox2
"He was Charles V, King of Spain (1516) and Holy Roman Emperor (1519). Besides Spain and central Europe, his dominions covered all the Spanish New World possessions, the Low Countries and the Kingdoms of Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia. He had conquered or inherited control over strategic Mediterranean islands and parts of North Africa. And, too, some of the dukes of Italy were under oaths of fealty to him as their feudal overlord."
Roe, Richard Paul (2011-11-08). The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Then and Now (p. 240). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
it's simple, shakespeare was the pen name of john florio
That is pretty simple. I guess if I asked for any evidence, it would become much more complicated.
You don't seem to have read very much on the subject. You don't even seem to have read John Florio very well.
Nashe wrote a novel called The Unfortunate Traveller. Much of it is set in Italy. There is no evidence that he ever left England.
Here's a question for anyone who thinks Roe nailed it with his Italy research: Aside from the fact that there are sycamore trees all over europe, how do you know that there are sycamore trees in Verona?
Right. A guy who has been there told you.
+Jeffhowardmeade There's a nice bit of research recently published on the Oxfraud website showing two things, one Roe's scholarship method and there are no Sycamores in Verona but a similar looking tree that was planted in the 1940s. Using an excerpt from Roe's book, Roe states he arrived in Verona and asks the cab driver to take him to the sycamores to which the cab driver obliges. Roe sees a bunch of trees matching what he expects to see and in Roe's mind case solved. That's some scholarship there, huh?
If he bothered to investigate it further he'd find that the trees he looked at was planted in 1940s by the city government and is a tree that cleans off pollution from cars easily. No sycamores not now nor in the age of R and J.
Adding to your list of authors who wrote about places they never visited:
John Fletcher - The Island Princess takes place in the South Pacific, Tamer Tamed in Italy and he never left England
Beaumont and Fletcher - A King and No King takes place in Spain
Ben Jonson - The Alchemist set in Venice and he never visited.
one thing is set 1 play in Italy, another is set 1/3 of your plays in Italy, with constant references to Italy, both in the names, cities, even words, taken from Italian dialects and books that back in the Shakespeare period were written only in Italian.
@@marask3668 Got any examples of words taken from Italian dialects? How about sources that Shakespeare would not have been able to read?
Have you even read the Italian plays, or are you just putting in a good days work for a paycheck?
@@rstritmatter If you mean the ENGLISH plays Shakespeare set in Italy, and made huge errors in writing, then yes. I have. I can't discuss them today, though, as the SBT has strict rules about working hours.
Making manure from minutiae!
Did you watch the video? I can't tell.
@@rstritmatter ...of course not!
It was Sir Francis Bacon, dummies
Yes, dummies believe that.
No, it was the flatulent murderous Earl of Oxford!
@@MrMartibobs why murderous?
@@rafthejaf8789 Here's an extract from the chronology according the de Vere society:
(deveresociety.co.uk/public/shakespeare/oxford-chronology/)
1567 - Edward de Vere kills William Cecil’s undercook while practising his fencing - he is acquitted and goes unpunished.
It's generally accepted that this was murder. Why would he be practising fencing with an undercook? Obviously, he got off because he had incredibly powerful connections, but yes, it looks very much as if he was a murderer. However, I would concede that being a very unpleasant human being doesn't mean he couldn't write plays and poems. Ben Jonson also killed someone (but in fair fight). A champion jouster who happened to be the boss killing a low-grade servant is Premier League evil.