I've encountered the authorship question numerous times before and dismissed the Oxfordian theory due to a lack of compelling evidence, but you present it in a much more convincing and systematic way.
Fascinating that De Vere’s life has so many parallels to Shakespeare’s plays. And the author’s knowledge of Italian and French, as well as Latin and Greek is difficult to explain for the Stratford man.
Since Stratford had a grammar school which was conducted almost entirely in Latin, but also taught French and the fundamentals of Greek (not that there is any reason Shakespeare would have needed Greek), I don't see how it would have been a problem.
@@richardwaugaman1505 You think it -- probable -- that the son of an alderman and one time mayor and justice of the peace, who was paying extra assessments in order to hold those posts, did not send his sons to the free grammar school? If not him, then who did? Oh, yeah. There was that tanner's boy. HE went, but the mayor's son did not. Who do you think it was hired the Oxford-educated schoolmasters who staffed the King Edward School?
@@Jeffhowardmeade according to the Shakespeare BIrthplace Trust ("John Shakespeare: Who Was William Shakespeare's Father?"), John Shaksper ran into money problems from the 1570s to the 1590s. In 1572 he lost a court case on his illegal wool speculation, which had been lucrative, and soon he was no longer attending council meetings. In 1578 he was allowed some tax exemptions for poor relief, and in 1592 he quit going to church due his debts. William Shaksper was born in 1564, so eight years old when the money troubles started. There remains no evidence that William ever attended the school, and his seeming inability to sign his own name makes this seem unlikely. What does seem likely is that William took after his father as a speculative investor. We know that he speculated in grain. It's consistent with his and his father's character that he might have also speculated in play manuscripts written by others.
@@random_silicatesAt what point did the school stop being free? Throughout the 1570s, John Shakespeare was still buying and leasing property, including an adjoining house to his home on Henley Street. He was far from destitute, even if having money WERE a requirement to send his sons to the Edward VI School. A poor tanner around the corner managed to send his son to the school. That son, Richard Field, went to London and apprenticed to a polyglot printer. He went on to print everything Shakespeare wrote specifically for publication. If attendance records for a school are a minimum requirement to admit that one was a poet, then Ben Jonson was not a poet, either, as none of the records of the Westminster School he supposedly attended survive. And your inability to read Elizabethan handwriting is your fault, not Shakespeare's. No paleographer ever said Shakespeare's handwriting showed a lack of education.
I have studied extensively the matter and this is one of the best summaries of the evidence showing why William of Stratford could not be the author and that the real author of the Shakespeare canon was Edward de Vere. Highly recommended to the truth seeker among us ordinary people.
An absolutely excellent overview of the Oxford case. It's a case that offers evidence implying far more than 'reasonable doubt.' For transparency, I am already a convert of forty years standing. I note that Americans quite-rightly view themselves as heirs to Shakespeare's works. They also provide some of the finest commentary. One gripe, if I may - this excellent presentation is overly larded with long ads. I know UA-cam is milking content for as much as it can squeeze out, but if the video author has any say in the matter, I counsel they should make as many ad reductions as are in their gift.
That is what has been claimed of anthropologist Jared Diamond. His breadth of knowledge has led some to joke that Jared Diamond is the collective pseudonym of the entire faculty of a leading university. Such people do exist in every era. Unsurprisingly, they are the ones we remember.
Dear Alex - in the early 1980's I taught French in the "working class" high school (there were two) in a relatively small town in Oregon. For three years, I debated the Honors English teacher of the high school on the subject you so eloquently discoursed here. Who wrote the plays of Shakespeare? The candidate I argued (and believed and still believe to this day) to be the true author, was Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford identifying many if not most of the known facts you brought forth. I leaned a little more heavily than you on the fact that Edward was Elizabeth's favorite (lover? perhaps?...we were debating in a high school lol) and could get away with so many leading figures being mocked or caricatured (most especially Lord Burghley) in the plays. I hasten to add that at the end of our debate the students got to vote on who "won the debate;" I always lost. The Honors English teacher was highly regarded by his students (and most assuredly by me too).
@soltron1324Oxford was a favorite in his youth. He was an impressive dancer and apparently pretty good at jousting. Then he ran away to France without permission, blew his fortune, accused his wife of infidelity, knocked up one of the Queen's ladies, publicly objected to her plan to marry a French prince, refused to dance when commanded by the Queen, and abandoned his post during the Armada. There's a story that he accidentally farted while bowing before the queen and was so embarrassed that he stayed away from court for seven years. It's probably just a fart joke.
Superb! Thank you. Some 10 or 12 years ago I read Mark Anderson's book: Shakespeare by Another Name. I never looked back. It's so nice to see a respected scholar, such as yourself, explain what Anderson had demonstrated to me about the vere, vere true author.
Excellent video. Thanks you for making it. I remember being so surprised by how compelling C Ogburn's book was/is, right from the start. It's a massive doorstop of a book but very readable and fascinating if youre uncovering this for the first time. Because I had not really any biography on Shakespeare I read Schoenbaum's 'Shakespeare's Lives', 'Will in the World' & Shakespeare Without Doubt' only solidified the Oxfordian position for me. Then back to Oxfordian books. There are not that many, but what there is, are very good. I began w/ Looney's 1920 book that started it all, and then 'Shakespeare By Another Name', 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom', 'Shakespeare Suppressed' & Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'.
Whenever anyone asks me why I am an Oxfordian, rather than having to listen to me ramble on for hours, or rather than having to read a doorstopper book, now all anyone has to do is to invest only one half hour of his or her life to get the answer. Thank you!
Great overview for Authorship 101 which prompted me to wonder, based on some of your recent research, if Shakespeare was a cover for multiple authors working with De Vere? If so, could the multiple author theory one day be included in a 101 overview? Keep up the great work!
One theory is that the plays published for the first time 19 years after Oxford's death may have been edited by others, such as Anthony Munday. They were probably the playscripts written for court performance, and transparent allusions to court politics had to be disguised.
thank you, Mr McNeil for this wonderful summation.... as a English Lit major who studied Shakespeare's life (the wrong one's) and canon at a prestigious university, it angers me (yes, I'm that passionate about this) that we can not unequivocally state that the 17th Earl of Oxford as the REAL Shakespeare... at the very least, state that Shaksper is NOT the Bard... it's blatantly obvious - why can't/won't we just accept this as fact already?.... teaching students anything less than this obvious truth smacks of intellectually laziness...
Because there's no universal condensus on who wrote the bards works. A professor I asked dismissed the claim outright, saying that no one else wrote them.
It is important to note that Edward De Vere, as the 17 Earl of Oxford, was in line for the throne. That is why he was immediately made a Ward of the State: to give him the best education England could muster. Placed him in Cecil House with probably the largest Library in the realm, and provided him with multiple private Tutors. He was also a Royal, and a child genius, in contrast to the ill-educated Shakspere from the small town of commoners (who also didn't have his children educated).
De Vere was nowhere in the succession. Even if it were based on his standing as an earl, his was the oldest noble creation in England. They would literally have to run out of earls before he would have been tapped.
After a long and exhausting day, I often treat myself to a good, healthy laugh, watching the videos on your channel. They are so ridiculous and detached from reality that they always have me in stitches. Thank you so much and please keep them coming.
I am not a stratfordian particularly. I M just convinced that Oxford definitely did not have the talent to write the works. Whoever did was a great deal more gifted as a writer than Oxford was
@@richarddenton7724 Anyone who wasn't "William Shakespeare" did not have the talent to be Shakespeare. Unless they actually were Shakespeare. If Oxford was Shakespeare then he clearly did have the talent.
Excellent, thank you. As to why this matters, I would add that it pierces the myth of genius, i.e. that education and privilege don't matter bc you are either born with this talent or not. Phooey.
DeVere did not have "formal legal training." This is an over reach. He received an honorary degree from Grays Inn because of William Cecil's influence. The man who wrote Shakespeare created and produced "The Comedy of Errors" in 1594 while attending Grays Inn where there is a statue of himself in the courtyard of Grays Inn and was profoundly knowledgeable of the law, practiced law as a lawyer, wrote about law that shows up in The Merchant of Venice and other plays, became a Judge, Attorney General and eventually the Lord Chancellor.
The SONNETS were published posthumously in 1609, with the writer of the Dedication Page -- probably John Dee -- 'signing' it "T. T." in contrast to 'Shakespeare' himself writing the dedications to Southampton for "VENVS AND ADONIS" and "LUCRECE." The 6-2-4 cipher decodes both as "THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER THE FORTH T" and "THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER-LIVING WELL-WISHING T" i.e. by Edward de Vere and by God -- the 'T' standing for the Tau Cross, i.e. for Christ, i.e. God the Son, and "THE FORTH T" meaning "the 4th 'T" = the Petrine Cross, the upside-down cross : when the text of the Dedication is put into a 19-grid, the rebus of an upside-down cross shows up with the word "VERE reading upwards in a column, and the letters "D" and "E" on either side of the "V" in "VERE" [from the word "ADVENTVRER"] -- proving that "DE VERE" is the 4th T being referred to in the decryption of the 6-2-4 cipher. The name "BACON" doesn't show up in any possible descrambling of the letters making up the Dedication's text -- the letter "C" being wholly absent. Oh, and Bacon wasn't ever a Royal Ward, so why would he have written a play -- "ALL'S WELL" -- with a plot that mirrors the circumstances of Oxford's life, especially one that makes him out to be rather a conceited jerk, despite Helena's adoration of him? It makes infinitely more sense that Oxford wrote it as a Mea Culpa, depicting the wife he'd wronged as a virtuous, faithful heroine, and himself "warts & all." Percival Golding wrote that the same 'Bed-Trick" was used on Oxford that is portrayed being used on Bertram in the play (as is also used in "MEASURE FOR MEASURE," and hearkens back to the story of Tamar and Judah in Genesis). I have no doubt that Bacon was aware of Oxford's 'secret identity' as 'Shakespeare', and he may have helped prepare the Folio for publication . . . but Bacon wasn't Shakespeare. Yes, he had the legal bona fides which scholars expert in the Law could see in Shakespeare's works, but Oxford's "honorary degree" wasn't awarded to him without merit. He was a child prodigy, as his tutors all go out of their way to attest. In order to fulfill his role as the Earl of Oxford, he HAD to have a working knowledge of the Law : his duties required it of him.
The real question is why people still believe that the guy from Stratford Upon Avon wrote the plays. The reason IMO is authority. People LOVE to be told what they should know. There are vested interests like the Stratford Upon Avon tourist board. There are also insufferable arrogant bar stewards who claim they are this or that in the academic world. And as for criticising Oxfordians as mostly Americans, so what? I'm English and I listen to people who are truth followers not people who might share the same flag as myself. As a working class boy who went to a grammar school I would love to believe the greatest writer in the history of the world was one of us. The truth is, De Vere had talent and importantly, the best education for a future wordsmith there was possible. Partisanship towards William of Stratford owes a lot to a dislike of privilege. I understand that. Indeed, if anything, the notion that a nobleman was the greatest writer in the English language raises important questions of how education can make such a big difference. It illustrates how much talent there potentially is, if only the right environment was provided for. I mention that Lorenzo Medici, of wealthy heritage is regarded as one of Italy’s finest poets. Given the opportunity and slim demographic De Vere represents, a thousand "Shakespeares" could be turned out every year, but who would do all the donkey work supporting those capable of such Maslowvian self-actualisation? And let’s appreciate De Vere’s teachers as well. As a chess player, I know that a world champion is not only himself and talent but his environment inclusive of teachers and sufficient wealth to travel and play. Oh, to have the foresight to be born to wealthy parents! *** A great presentation and a real pity a content provider has to put up so much arrogance and fallacious argument in the comments. The realisation of De Vere as Shakespeare will grow with every funeral of the current generation of teachers of English Literature…
Maybe it's because of all the evidence that says Shakespeare the poet and Shakespeare the gentleman and actor from Stratford were the same man. I don't need a PhD to tell me what I can see with my own eyes.
"The truth is, De Vere had talent...." He did? I would like to see some evidence for that proposition. I've read his acknowledged poems and the talent was _very_ far from being apparent. "...and importantly, the best education for a future wordsmith there was possible." Evidently, "the best education for a future wordsmith" is to be tutored privately until one is 13, when one's tutor will beg to be released from trying to cram further knowledge into one's head, after which one will solely have individual instruction in horse-riding, dancing, and fencing. Moreover, the curriculum of the "future wordsmith" when being tutored actively will consist of a modest education of two hours a day of Latin, two hours a day of French, an hour devoted to "cosmography" (map-making), and then half-hours devoted to dancing, writing/drawing (not even a full half-hour for writing), and "exercises with his pen" (penmanship). "Partisanship towards William of Stratford owes a lot to a dislike of privilege." It also owes a lot to the fact that all the relevant documentary evidence says that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and that every contemporary who bothered to speak on the subject said that William Shakespeare was an author, including multiple people who would have known the armigerous gentleman from Stratford-upon-Avon and the King's Men actor personally. People like Henry Condell, John Heminges, John Lowin, Leonard Digges, Ben Jonson, John Webster, etc., etc., etc. Until someone can come up with an equivalent amount of contemporary documentary and testimonial evidence showing that someone else wrote the works _instead_ of William Shakespeare, then you're just going to have to cope with having William Shakespeare accepted as the author of his works.
Thank you Sir for this brilliant overview! This puts the lay person in a position to make his own judgement, based on the circumstantial evidence. Greetings from Denmark, from a place only 5 miles from the grave of the real prince Amled
Over 1,100 views in less than 24 hours is astonishing! Strong evidence that people hunger for basic information on this timely topic. Congratulations, Alex!
My mother was an inveterate Oxfordian. She had a decades-long correspondence with Charlton Ogburn Jr. I have his signed books. I should read them. Until then, it is enlightening to learn more about a subject that so fascinated my mother.
I’m deep in my research about this but this is the best, most concise argument I’ve heard yet. I’d love to see a video on why so many scholars continue to promote Shaksper the man as the author.
Enjoy these presentations very much. I had forgotten, but I read Looney's book in high school, Austin Prep in Reading, MA. Very rigorous, excellent teachers, for which I am very grateful. We had to write a book report discussing whether we agreed with his propositions: 1) Shak-spear did not write the works 2) Oxford was the author. Our teacher was a Statfordian, faith more than fact. I was dumbstruck to learn the truth.
I was trying to find more about how the "tragedies" are actually comedies that we have severely misunderstood. But this information has been very interesting. I wish it had been brought up in my college shakespeare class. At least one class could have gone into the true author lol.
Superb presentation! It always bugged me how we know almost nothing about the man whose face we see every time the name "Shakespeare" is mentioned. The case for Edward de Vere is stronger than ever now thanks to all the evidence.
Hard to imagine an Earl who left no will. Especially a lawyer. Now wondering if it wound up among the King's possessions and may still be extant somewhere among the vast holdings of the Windsors.
He wasn't a lawyer. He was briefly enrolled at Gray Inn, but the Inns of Court were basically a social club for toffs. De Vere never took part in any legal case nor expressed any legal language in any of his surviving letters.
Dear old Robert Cecil surely took care of many inconvenient records. In his official court duties, Oxford took part in many, and all the most important legal cases, not as a lawyer but as one of the judging panel. (Essex Rebellion, Mary Queen of Scots, etc.)
Excellent and intriguing point! Imagine finding a dusty chest somewhere in the Windsor records tower full of the plays of Shakespeare written in DeVere's hand? Literary find of the ages.
Excellent circumstantial evidence that keeps adding up to make it very conceivable that Oxford was Shakespeare. On the other hand, is there any evidence that suggests Oxford wasn't Shakespeare? It would be interesting to compare evidence from each perspective.
Yes! Stylometry has show that in fact only Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Stylometric analysis of the known De Vere works show that he was in fact no Shakespeare at all.
On the contrary. There’s no evidence Anyone but Shakespear wrote Shakespeare. These are just what anyone would call “circumstantial evidence”. And quite a few of these assertions are wrong or very liberal interpretations of the truth.
While you have the book open, read 81 also and try to forget that dueling poets thing for once. I am forgotten and "your monument shall be my gentle verse... you stiill shall live (such virtue hath my pen) Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men." De Vere knew how good he was.
I just read this, ""One of the most common articles of Oxfordian faith is that there is great significance in the various spellings of Shakespeare's name. The spelling "Shakespeare," according to most Oxfordians, was used to refer to the author of the plays and poems, while the spelling "Shakspere" (or "Shaksper," in the version sometimes promoted by more militant Oxfordians such as Charlton Ogburn) was used to refer to the Stratford man. A milder version of this claim acknowledges that Elizabethan spelling was not absolute, but still says that the usual and preferred spelling of the Stratford man's name was "Shaksper(e)," as opposed to the poet "Shakespeare." These claims about spelling are usually accompanied by an assertion that the two names were pronounced differently: "Shakespeare" with a long 'a' in the first syllable, as we are accustomed to pronouncing it today, but "Shakspere" with a "flat" 'a,' so that the first syllable sounds like "shack." A separate but related claim involves hyphenation: the name was occasionally hyphenated in print as "Shake-speare," a fact which Oxfordians say points to it being a pseudonym. These claims are given more or less prominence in different presentations of the Oxfordian theory, but they are virtually always present in one form or another. Indeed, they are vital for the Oxfordian scenario, since they make it easier for Oxfordians to believe that the "William Shakespeare" praised as a poet was some mysterious figure with no apparent connection to the glover's son and actor "William Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon. As it turns out, though, all of the above claims are false. Specifically: "Shakespeare" was by far the most common spelling of the name in both literary and non-literary contexts, and there is no significant difference in spelling patterns when we take into account such factors as handwritten vs. printed and Stratford vs. London spellings; there is no evidence that the variant spellings reflected a consistent pronunciation difference, but there is considerable evidence that they were seen as more or less interchangeable; There is no evidence whatsoever that hyphenation in Elizabethan times was ever thought to indicate a pseudonym, and other proper names of real people were also sometimes hyphenated. }As for Shakepeare wearing a mask in the portrait, it's quite obviously the shadow under his jaw, and it's just about the most stupid thing I ever heard! These "Oxfordian" (knobish), theories are just that, theories.
Everything you wrote is exactly wrong. The London playwright's name was generally spelled as Shakespeare or Shake-speare. It is sometimes spelled with a short "a" but that usually includes a hyphen as in Shak-speare. The Stratford spelling was almost always with a short "a", sometimes as Shagspur and Shaxper. Obviously there was a difference in pronunciation. In 1917, Stratfordian Professors agreed to end the confusion regarding Shakespeare by eliminating the spelling of Shaksper and any other variation and changing them all to Shakespeare regardless of how they were actually spelled. As a result, Will's father John had his name changed to Shakespeare even though he never spelled his name that way. Not academically honest. There is a difference between a hyphenated name and a hyphenated pseudonym. A hyphenated name is multiple NAMES separated by a hyphen, as in Lady Angela Rose Montagu-Douglas-Scott.. A hyphenated pseudonym is two WORDS separated by a hyphen as in Martin Mar-prelate. When you see two words (like Shake and Spear) that aren't names but do tell a story, then there is a good chance that it is a pseudonym. Martin Mar-prelate wrote pamphlets that were critical of the church, as you would expect from the name. To Shake a Spear meant to take apolitical position. Shakespeare uses the metaphor himself in one of the Henry VI plays. To shake one's spear is also a naughty thing to do in public if you know what I'm saying, and the name would have scandalized puritans of the time. I don't know what you are looking at in the Droeshout portrait. There is either a shadow or stubble under his jaw, but beyond that there is a line that extends down from just behind the ear. It does not resemble any shadow, but does appear to be a mask, which would be appropriate for anyone who is the writer of plays because actors wore masks. It may not mean that Shake-speare was a pen name, but it is obviously there. The Oxfordian position may be a Theory, but so is the idea that some guy with maybe an elementary school education somehow spent 20 years as a very public actor and as the acknowledged greatest playwright in England's history, but in the process did not leave one scrap of paper with his writing on it, nor does anyone ever mention him as being a real person until years after his death. Perhaps you should explain why that is even more ridiculous than the theory that a member of the high nobility did not want his name attached to his work.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Then how come the protestant martyr John Oldcastle was often written Old-Castle was he a front name? When Anthony Munday called the Lord Mayor of London Thomas Campbell 'Thomas Camp-bell' was he calling the name a pseudonym? I could go on. As for the the for your contention that shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon was almost always written without the 'e' after the 'k' I agree with you that is the way William Shakespeare and his father signed their names. But it is usually written with E after K. Particuarly in legal documents. Why would busy law clerks keep on adding a useless e if they did not hear an ake sound?
@@joecurran2811 Camden wrote that Englishmen derived their names "...from that which they commonly carried, as Palmer, that is, Pilgrime, for that they carried Palme when they returned from Hierusalem, Long-sword, Broad-speare, Fortescu, that is, Strong-shield, and in some such respect, Breake-speare, Shake-Speare, Shotbolt, Wagstaffe." Were all of those people writing pamphlets?
Shakespeares father john changed the spelling of his name as a result of something in 1917, wow thats a ripe old age. John shakespeares draft coat of arms of which two copies survive of the same version have his name clearly written john shakepeare and john shakespere. In the london court case, william shakespeare of stratford upon avon gave evidence with his name written by a court clert. Thomas greene a minor published poet visited his 'cosen' shakespeare in stratford. There are only two occasions where the stratford poet is spelled shaksper. Once in a letter written about him and the other in a copy of shakspers sonnets bought by edward alleyn. That may be a forgery. If its real then it shows the interchsbgeability of the spelling. If a forgery then it shows that of all the many spelling of the stratford poets name shaksper occurs only once. Yet it is the one that the idiots use in the comments, well because they are idiots
My understanding is that the question is not who wrote Shakespeare but …whom! It was a group effort of some of Englands greatest minds to elevate the English language as had been being done in France by the Pleidians , a society of writers who expanded and edited all the Frankish dialects. The English group decided to do it thru common theatre , an Art below a soviergn , thus the secrecy. The hustler from Stratford upon Avon was a perfect foil…..plus he had funding and knew all the players. He was a producer!!
In his day, Shakespeare was considered low-brow. He used nouns as verbs and vice-versa. Ben Jonson said he "wanted art". Francis Beaumont said his poetry was "without scholarship". If you got such a collection of educated poets together to write the works of Shakespeare, what are the odds that none of them understood Aristotelian poetics? Shakespeare didn't.
Tremendous summary, my one concern is the epitaph on the funerary monument - why would Johnson go to such extreme for someone that nobody had a frame of reference for? According to this talk it was erected at the time of the first folio printing. Why? KP
John Weever, a poet and antiquarian, visited Stratford in about 1618, and copied down the inscription on the monument. The First Folio went into production in 1621.
That remark was based on the fact that the man from Stratford spelled his name Shakspere and Shakspeare, but the name on the plays was spelled Shakespeare, and sometimes hyphenated as Shake-speare. The same name (almost) but were they the same person? There doesn't exist even one single document on which the name Shakespeare, the town of Stratford, and the occupation of writing. Twain himself begrudgingly decided that it was probably Bacon, but he was not entirely comfortable with the fit. Had he lived just a decade longer he would have been introduced to a much better candidate.
Superb. What honest reader can turn away? @James Shapiro come out from the shadows, face to face and settle properly. To why it matters please add Elizabethan History is greatly clarified. Why have historians not corrected the record?? Correcting does not have to condone murder etc
Why have historians not corrected the record? Because it's just a bunch of speculation based on no evidence and goes against all the evidence that does exist.
These lectures are fascinating and this one is the best summary of the question. I wonder, though, who was responsible for perpetuating the myth of Shak-spear as author immediately after the death of him and Oxford. What was their motive?
1) Writing for an audience of commoners was seen as shockingly unsuitable for nobles. It would be like today's Prince William acknowledging that he spends all his time penning x-rated fan fiction. Elizabeth I approved of the plays, but would never allow such scandal. 2) Elizabeth, many of her most important courtiers, and most of Oxford's family were portrayed in the plays, often in embarrassing detail or unflattering light. (His brother-in-law Robert Cecil was E's omnipotent "fixer" at the end of her reign - and the inspiration for Richard III. The brother of the king of France was Bottom.) They wanted his luminous plays to be preserved, but wanted at all costs to keep the hoi polloi from catching on. 3) Southampton was the only leader of the Essex Rebellion who was not executed. The Sonnets suggest that Oxford may have traded long-term anonymity for Southampton's life. "My name be buried where my body is, And live no more to shame nor me nor you." 4) Without a front man, the popular search for the anonymous author's identity would have been ongoing, uncontainable, and eventually successful. 5) But the clues and double meanings in the First Folio show that the ruse was intended to be pierced eventually. Who knew it would take so long.
Shakespeare as a moneylender? I've never ever heard that before. But I decided I might just be wrong, so I did a Google search. Apparently, it is a common cryptic clue. And the other reference of course was to the play The Merchant of Venice. I believe there is reason to doubt his authorship. Nevertheless, whilst I have listened to people like Mark Ryalance, Elizabeth Winker and Alexander Wagh, I have never come across this from them. I may have missed it and I'm open to being wrong.
Well, more reading directs me to a number of people claiming this. So, maybe I'm wrong. But I suspect someone has said it (erroneously?) and gone with it. There is certainly a letter from 1698 (the only one recorded to be addressed to him) asking for help in raising money. "Shakespeare Documented" states: "This request indicates that Shakespeare was seen either as a potential moneylender, or, more likely, as a Stratford man sufficiently creditworthy in London to secure Quiney a loan." So, here it's indicated he MIGHT be seen as a potential moneylender; though with the likelyhood it was something else. Now, I don't know but if this letter, and this letter alone, is what is being used by those claiming he was a moneylender then it's poor evidence.
@@peterdowney1492There's also a lawsuit from 1604 in which Shakespeare is the plaintiff in a suit to recover payment for malt sold on credit to a local tavern keeper. Technically a loan, though not of money. Anti-Stratfordians often conflate Shakespeare with his father, John, who did lend money at usurious interest and traded illegally in wool.
Acquisition or possession of a coat of arms wasn’t exclusive to the higher social classes. All social ranks could bear arms. There were many armigerous labourers.
@@joecurran2811 Father was alderman and mayor (who actually received the grant, not his son). Mother was from gentry. Was a member of the leading theater company in England. Had published two bestselling poems. You should look up the term "laborer".
Surely(so to speak!) the most open-minded and logical conclusion - until proven otherwise - is that a male and female group or 'Shakespeare Salon' of playwrights wrote but NOT co-wrote the plays, then submitted them to the group for read-throughs, finessing, minor or not-so-minor changes and suggestions - just as movie screen-writers do. And as always noone points out that (would-be) female playwrights had one other major reason to hide behind a male pseudonym in Elizabethan England because women were not permitted to write plays and have them publicly performed under their own names or using any female name for that matter! So I'll continue to broad-mindedly believe - until proven otherwise - that the likes of Mary Sidney, Amelia Bassano, Marlowe and Edward de Vere all contributed their own individual but "willfully"(!!) very 'Shakespearean' plays to a Shakespeare Salon or collective - and a Mr. Will 'Spellcheck' Shak'spear from Stratford, real actors, closet actresses and others in the theatre business would also frequently attend the Shakespeare Salon's meet-ups. And much (very productive) fun would have been had by all. I can't wait for a now long-overdue movie sequel to "Anonymous" that reflects and both entertainingly and intelligently dramatises all of the above and much much more besides.. Paul G
A claim such as this is interesting, but requires evidence of communication between the principles. There is none. The theory has been considered and must be rejected for lack of evidence. A better explanation is that Edward De Vere had a dedicated staff of secretaries to take dictation, acquire materials, and bring his work to the publisher, and that De Vere a particular fascination for writing under pseudonyms, of which the number is over 100, including Mary Sidney, Robert Greene, Thomas Nashe, Arthur Golding, William Adlington and William Shakespeare.
I'd like to get a new license plate for my car with the following (more or less): ED17DV4T. If you can't decipher this, you're still NOT an Oxfordian. Cheers.
Two top female authorship candidates - watch these two excellent UA-cam'd presentations re: Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano by Dr. Robin Williams and John Hudson. Both Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano are obviously infinitely more likely to have written some or all of the plays than the semi-literate boorish wheeler-dealer and fortune-seeking chancer from Stratford !! And please remember that - unlike men - any women who did write plays had no choice but to hide behind a pseudonym if they wanted them to be performed in public theatres! 1) Video: Mary Sidney - Countess of Pembroke: ua-cam.com/video/AU5LZFhdLp8/v-deo.html 2) Video: Amelia Bassano - "The Dark Lady": ua-cam.com/video/tyn-3GNOd7w/v-deo.html Paul G
They're both infinitely more likely to have written the works despite nobody ever saying they did and their extant writing being nothing like Shakespeare's at all?
But it's Oxford's 1570 Geneva Bible that contains the many annotations that match the biblical allusions in Shakespeare. There's nothing like that in Marlowe's case.
@@richardwaugaman1505 There's a slightly better than random overlap between the works of Shakespeare and the various annotations in the De Vere Bible.
We don't know a lot about Shakespeare's life, but non Stratfordians need to do more than just give reasons why they think Shakespeare wasn't the author. They need to provide positive evidence for a different author. I've never seen any.
20:38 vultus tela vibrat = your face shakes spears, although vultus is very close to vultis "you all will" from volo, velle volui (volo/vis/vult // volumus VULTIS volunt). So close!
No, it does not = your face shakes spears. Oxfordians used to spill buckets of ink trying to justify why Harvey that choice when there was a specific Latin word for spear. These days they just ignore that it's bad Latin and run with it. Recently, after years of relying on Oxfordian BM Ward's translation, somebody went back to the original and discovered that Harvey wasn't ever referring to De Vere's face.
The first rule of writing is to write about things you know. All the bard's works feature the nobility, none about growing up in the country. Further, the dedication to the First Folio refers to the author as knowing "little Latin and less Greek". It is obvious the author has traveled widely, read extensively and mastered multiple languages.
Aside from the history plays, which Shakespeare took from history books, his characters were mostly middle-class people like himself. Even if what you said were true, Shakespeare was literally a servant to the Queen’s Lord Chamberlain and later to the King, himself. Ever heard of Two Gentlemen of Verona? The Winter’s Tale? A Midsummer Night’s Dream? As You Like It? Shakespeare created plenty of rustic characters living in the countryside. Small Latin and less Greek is precisely what one learned at an Elizabethan grammar school like the one in Stratford during Shakespeare’s youth. The author got nearly everything wrong beyond the shores of England. He clearly never traveled. What languages need he have mastered in order to write his works?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Two Gentleman of VERona features ARISTOCRATS in a city that Shaksper could know nothing about. The Winter's Tale features Nobility who flee the court. A Midsummer Night's Dream features Athenian Aristocrats. The commoners serve as delightful comic relief. As You Like It features Nobility who flee the court.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 It’s literally called Two GENTLEMEN of Verona. They’re not aristocrats. They’re members of the gentry, just as Shakespeare was. Shakespeare thought you could sail from Verona on the tide. There’s NOTHING in Two Gentlemen of Verona to suggest that Shakespeare knew anything about any of its settings. The Winter’s Tale is full of rustics. Perdita is raised by them. The main characters in A Midsummer Night’s Dream are members of the gentry and tradesmen. The most prominent aristocrats are fantasy creatures. As You Like It features more rustic characters than it does aristocrats. It’s like you haven’t bothered to read any of these plays or something.
The problem here is that while a case has been made for William Shakespeare of Stratford not being the author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare, the evidence pointing to William De Vere is much less convincing. It doesn't help that so much emphasis is placed on Oxford's 16 months in Europe when so many pro-Stratfordians have observed that the real Shakespeare's grasp of European geography, particularly that of Italy, more especially that of Venice, is shaky and what he gets right could have been picked up in a conversation in a pub. Is this a thin end of a wedge? I suspect the first de-bunking of the Beatles will quickly follow the death of Paul McCartney. Let's face it, him, John Lennon and George Harrison had no formal musical or poetical education and they have been the dominant musical influences of the last 60 years. Surely: they've been fronting King Charles III.
So you are a retired lawyer...I'm one of the most prolific directors of Shakespeare's works worldwide and studied under the founder of UK University drama, Prof Wickham. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Little green men from Mars did not build the pyramids either. When Prof Wickham was confronted with a rebellious graduate student who wanted to write his dissertation on this absurd theory he refused to mark it. All the evidence is there in the brilliant CONTESTED WILL by Prof Shapiro. Oxford was a terrible writer, by the by.
Why does it matter who wrote " Shakespeare?" Assigning the works to a real man, and aristocrat whose life weaves all through the courts of England and Europe brings a richness and pathos, ( knowing DeVere's story). The works come alive with history and the lives of the real people on which so many of the works were based. De Vere becomes Hamlet, his father the dead king his mother Gertrude who callously marries so soon after his father's death, on and on. Is who wrote Shakespeare important? Definitely.
"...brings a richness and pathos...." In other words, there is no richness and pathos in the works as they were written. You can only imagine "richness" and "pathos" by conjuring up a kind of combination of a BBC costume drama and _The Da Vinci Code_ . For those of us who don't have a defective appreciation of the works, there is no further interest that positing a false author like Edward de Vere adds.
Silly. There is much in Shakspere’s life that is in the plays. But it is true that God didn’t write the Bible. Oh… and by the way… nobody died for my sins. Yet. W. Shakespeare was a forgiving man. On his behalf, I forgive youse.
It's long been pretty obvious that various playwrights including women - often aristocratic, highly-educated and well-travelled - submitted their plays to London's theatre-owners. Many if not most of them sought anonymity(not money) and aimed to (politically) influence London's mixed-class theatre audiences for reasons that have been thoroughly researched and elucidated elsewhere - even in the Shakespeare authorship movie "Anonymous" starring Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave. However that movie/film and its director and actors conspicuously avoid even suggesting that a woman may have written some or all of William Shak'pear's(spelling!?) works. In fact the 2010 hit movie revival "St.Trinians - Fritton's Gold" starring Rupert Everett, Colin Firth and David Tennant is infinitely bolder in that respect. In the following two film clips the St.Trinians' girls discover the truth( "Shakespeare was a woman!") in the hidden vaults of London's Globe Theatre during a performance of Romeo and Juliet: 1)ua-cam.com/video/HToCKaVtoLg/v-deo.html 2)ua-cam.com/video/j47TpZIotCE/v-deo.htmlsi=vpEHdgMBmbQCYygQ Paul G
Who uses a HYPHEN in their Surname? Use of a hyphen in Shake-speare, and sometimes a double hyphen (Shake=Speare) for emphasis, clearly indicates not a real name, but a pseudonym. This is one of the strongest evidences of a HIDDEN IDENTITY.
"Who uses a HYPHEN in their Surname?" Edward and Elizabeth Allde and Robert Waldegrave for starters. They were all printers from the early modern period who hyphenated their own names on the title pages of works they printed. See, for example, _The Second Part of the Honest Whore_ by Thomas Dekker that was "Printed by Elizabeth All-de for Nathaniel Butter". Also, regarding Shakespeare as a pseudonym because of a hyphen, in Ben Jonson's 1616 _Works_ Shakespeare's name appears in two cast lists. In _Every Man in his Humour_ he appears as "Will Shakespeare", but in the cast list for _Sejanus His Fall_ he appears as "Will. Shake-Speare". So are you telling us that for this performance specifically that a pseudonym somehow became embodied and pranced about a stage for two hours?
Why is there such resistance to DeVere as the author from Shakespeare scholars? Imagine spending your educational and professional life invested with study and teaching the life of the man from Stratford. Then you learn you life's work is bunk. I think most of us would cling to our paradigm regardless of the evidence rather than admit you professional life was wasted.
“Why is there such resistance…” Because there’s no evidence he wrote the works of Shakespeare and what he did write was tripe. Courses on Shakespeare almost never mention anything about Shakespeare the poet, but instead focus on the works. If you had ever taken one you would know this, and not assume that scholars are invested in his biography. What academia IS invested in is what can be proved with evidence, and so bizarre conspiracy theories get left out in the cold.
Ben Johnson, son of a bricklayer, who knew him personally refers to him as the sweet swan of Avon and Will has a go at Ben for using children in his plays in Hamlet. They were contemporaries who were familiar with each other and evidence is always more convincing than the theories of snobbish academics who simply cannot accept that the son of a glove-maker could possibly be our greatest playwright and poet. Pathetic!
One small note of mild interest that I would like to ask someone who is deeply into this rabbit hole. Why did King James continue the £1000 grant as he did to Walsinghome? It was a huge sum of money for someone so frivolous, especially as Oxford was a notorious spendthrift. Any one new to the Crown would have stopped it at once. A dour Scot, James the Sixth was just as tight fisted as Elizabeth. I can only conclude that he consented to this as he was in on the secret. The secret being that Devere controlled and ran a closet team of writers and poets, including Marlowe and Bacon, who's intent was to socially engineer and provide political propaganda. Just as a Government would fund a media channel and a intelligence network today - the two always work hand-in-hand.
James was actually a huge spender, just like De Vere. The answer lies in his Secretary of State and Lord Privy Seal, Robert Cecil. As head of the Privy Council, Robert was instrumental in getting De Vere's welfare check continued. While his motives for this can't be known for certain, he sent a letter to the guardian caring for his nieces to be on the look out for De Vere, who he worried might try to take custody of them in order to get at the money William Cecil had left them. Basically, I think he worried what De Vere might do if deprived of his sole source of income. De Vere also had ceremonial duties as the Lord Great Chamberlain. It would have looked bad were the guy handing the King his insignia of office on coronation day dressed as a pauper. Both James and Robert Cecil were invested in maintaining the status quo. I don't see how any of this would have happened had De Vere murdered Robert's father in effigy on stage and mocked Robert, who was a hunchback, with the character Richard III.
But like most authorship free-thinkers you don't even think to refer to any FEMALE candidates! So why not open your clearly only half-open eyes much wider: Two top female authorship candidates - watch these two excellent UA-cam'd presentations re: Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano by Dr. Robin Williams and John Hudson. Both Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano are obviously infinitely more likely to have written some or all of the plays than the semi-literate boorish wheeler-dealer and fortune-seeking chancer from Stratford !! 1) Video: Mary Sidney - Countess of Pembroke: ua-cam.com/video/AU5LZFhdLp8/v-deo.html 2) Video: Amelia Bassano - "The Dark Lady": ua-cam.com/video/tyn-3GNOd7w/v-deo.html Paul G
it was a police state and Catholics couldn't leave paper trails.lest they be dragged to the tower. If you don't know Catholic theology your only speculating
Literary "talent" and "imagination" does not provide the facts necessary to write the Shake-Speare Cannon. Edward De Vere, as the 17 Earl of Oxford, was in line for the throne. That is why he was immediately made a Ward of the State (at age 12) upon the death of his father: to give him the best education England could muster. Placed him in Cecil House with probably the largest Library in the realm, and provided him with multiple private Tutors. He was also a Royal, and a child genius, in contrast to the ill-educated Shakspere from the small town of commoners (who also didn't have his children educated). One Comment (above) provides this PROOF and EVIDENCE for Oxford as the true identity of "Shake-Speare": I remember being so surprised by how compelling Charles Ogburn's book was/is, right from the start. It's a massive doorstop of a book but very readable and fascinating if youre uncovering this for the first time. Because I had not really any biography on Shakespeare I read Schoenbaum's 'Shakespeare's Lives', 'Will in the World' & Shakespeare Without Doubt' only solidified the Oxfordian position for me. Then back to Oxfordian books. There are not that many, but what there is, are very good. I began w/ Looney's 1920 book that started it all, and then 'Shakespeare By Another Name', 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom', 'Shakespeare Suppressed' & Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'.
Dismissing something you haven't studied is soooo easy. Ignorance is bliss. We do not say he couldn't--just that there is a lot of evidence that he didn't.
I'm 30 seconds into this (and won't listen further at the moment) - it surprises me not in the least that people who suppose that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare live in America, where they don't believe in moon landings yet believe in yetis - and believe that their one and only true god would bother to write a book for human beings (which would be like a human dedicating a masterpiece to an infinitesimally invisible microbe). If you cannot recite several poems of Shakespeare by heart then you have no interest in the man at all - you're merely a monger of conspiracy theory. If you knew the work at all, you'd know the man from Stratford wrote it. The most unassailable account is surely Ben Jonson's , who knew his work and the man personally. Nobody doubts that Jonson wrote the work of Jonson (who was more classically educated, and was the son of a brick layer). In any case, the work is what counts, not the person who wrote it. Are we going to "cancel" the paintings of Caravaggio because he was a murderer?
It doesn't surprise me in the least that the British people can't deal with being duped yet again by the foreigners who have ruled their country since William the Conqueror. Ben Jonson was a murderer too. The "account" he makes of Shakespeare is in a poem. Poems shouldn't be taken as literal, because they are poems.
Derek Jacobi and John Gielgud also felt that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare. They're not American, they don't believe in yetis, and I recall they studied Shakespeare a bit more than you and I. Try again.
Excellent. I strayed into this but in infuriates me that anyone should doubt that a great artist is a great artist because he was not a noble who went to Oxbridge. MOST great artists have relatively humble origins, very few are Earls.
It is curious to note the resistance to the idea that Shakespeare was John Florio. In First fruits there are over 25 phrases that reappear in Shakespeare's plays, another 15 come directly from Michel de Montaigne's Essays (which Florio translated to English), various views of the world that echo the philosophy of Giordano Bruno (Florio's friend). Florio was well acquainted with the plays that underlie many of Shakespeare's works (Italian and French plays) and-great coincidence-all the cities in which some of Shakespeare's plays are set, and in particular Messina, of which he gives us a couple of details from someone who knows the city not from reading its name on a map. Florio was a scholar, knowing Latin and a little Greek, having been in contact with some Greekists. Certainly he knew the Parallel Lives of Plutarch, Suetonius and Ovid. He was hated in London by many people for being an Italian and being culturally very active. Florio's grandmother was a Crollalanza (Shake Speare in Italian) and could have been a perfect pseudonym. Florio or no Florio, it will never come to a real investigation, until the academic power and authority, find the humility to say: let's really put everyone together to study, all the possibilities. I know that for a Brit the idea that Shakespeare was Italian is an almost unbearable shock (like telling a Catholic that Jesus was Chinese), but as the ancients used to say: Plato amicus sed... magis amica veritas. Let's see in the future the evolution of research.
I agree that the evidence that Shakespeare’s works could not have been written without John Florio is compelling. That does not prove that Florio was the sole author (although he may have been responsible for the First Folio. It does however suggest that Florio’s work should be explored more thoroughly.
I've encountered the authorship question numerous times before and dismissed the Oxfordian theory due to a lack of compelling evidence, but you present it in a much more convincing and systematic way.
Fascinating that De Vere’s life has so many parallels to Shakespeare’s plays. And the author’s knowledge of Italian and French, as well as Latin and Greek is difficult to explain for the Stratford man.
Since Stratford had a grammar school which was conducted almost entirely in Latin, but also taught French and the fundamentals of Greek (not that there is any reason Shakespeare would have needed Greek), I don't see how it would have been a problem.
@@Jeffhowardmeade In all probability, Shakspere did not attend the grammar school and was semi-literate.
@@richardwaugaman1505 You think it -- probable -- that the son of an alderman and one time mayor and justice of the peace, who was paying extra assessments in order to hold those posts, did not send his sons to the free grammar school? If not him, then who did? Oh, yeah. There was that tanner's boy. HE went, but the mayor's son did not.
Who do you think it was hired the Oxford-educated schoolmasters who staffed the King Edward School?
@@Jeffhowardmeade according to the Shakespeare BIrthplace Trust ("John Shakespeare: Who Was William Shakespeare's Father?"), John Shaksper ran into money problems from the 1570s to the 1590s. In 1572 he lost a court case on his illegal wool speculation, which had been lucrative, and soon he was no longer attending council meetings. In 1578 he was allowed some tax exemptions for poor relief, and in 1592 he quit going to church due his debts. William Shaksper was born in 1564, so eight years old when the money troubles started. There remains no evidence that William ever attended the school, and his seeming inability to sign his own name makes this seem unlikely. What does seem likely is that William took after his father as a speculative investor. We know that he speculated in grain. It's consistent with his and his father's character that he might have also speculated in play manuscripts written by others.
@@random_silicatesAt what point did the school stop being free? Throughout the 1570s, John Shakespeare was still buying and leasing property, including an adjoining house to his home on Henley Street. He was far from destitute, even if having money WERE a requirement to send his sons to the Edward VI School. A poor tanner around the corner managed to send his son to the school. That son, Richard Field, went to London and apprenticed to a polyglot printer. He went on to print everything Shakespeare wrote specifically for publication.
If attendance records for a school are a minimum requirement to admit that one was a poet, then Ben Jonson was not a poet, either, as none of the records of the Westminster School he supposedly attended survive.
And your inability to read Elizabethan handwriting is your fault, not Shakespeare's. No paleographer ever said Shakespeare's handwriting showed a lack of education.
I have studied extensively the matter and this is one of the best summaries of the evidence showing why William of Stratford could not be the author and that the real author of the Shakespeare canon was Edward de Vere. Highly recommended to the truth seeker among us ordinary people.
I've read many books on the authorship controversy and am very impressed about the presentation of these arguments. This is a great video!
An absolutely excellent overview of the Oxford case. It's a case that offers evidence implying far more than 'reasonable doubt.' For transparency, I am already a convert of forty years standing.
I note that Americans quite-rightly view themselves as heirs to Shakespeare's works. They also provide some of the finest commentary.
One gripe, if I may - this excellent presentation is overly larded with long ads. I know UA-cam is milking content for as much as it can squeeze out, but if the video author has any say in the matter, I counsel they should make as many ad reductions as are in their gift.
Love it that Alex presents his case as a professional lawyer would.
Shakespeare’s plays are so great and so deep that it’s difficult to believe that one man produced all these works.
That is what has been claimed of anthropologist Jared Diamond. His breadth of knowledge has led some to joke that Jared Diamond is the collective pseudonym of the entire faculty of a leading university.
Such people do exist in every era. Unsurprisingly, they are the ones we remember.
Thank you so much, Alex! Eloquent, concise and complete, a joy to listen to and a flawless explication of the case.
Dear Alex - in the early 1980's I taught French in the "working class" high school (there were two) in a relatively small town in Oregon. For three years, I debated the Honors English teacher of the high school on the subject you so eloquently discoursed here. Who wrote the plays of Shakespeare? The candidate I argued (and believed and still believe to this day) to be the true author, was Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford identifying many if not most of the known facts you brought forth. I leaned a little more heavily than you on the fact that Edward was Elizabeth's favorite (lover? perhaps?...we were debating in a high school lol) and could get away with so many leading figures being mocked or caricatured (most especially Lord Burghley) in the plays. I hasten to add that at the end of our debate the students got to vote on who "won the debate;" I always lost. The Honors English teacher was highly regarded by his students (and most assuredly by me too).
@soltron1324Oxford was a favorite in his youth. He was an impressive dancer and apparently pretty good at jousting. Then he ran away to France without permission, blew his fortune, accused his wife of infidelity, knocked up one of the Queen's ladies, publicly objected to her plan to marry a French prince, refused to dance when commanded by the Queen, and abandoned his post during the Armada. There's a story that he accidentally farted while bowing before the queen and was so embarrassed that he stayed away from court for seven years. It's probably just a fart joke.
Superb! Thank you. Some 10 or 12 years ago I read Mark Anderson's book: Shakespeare by Another Name. I never looked back. It's so nice to see a respected scholar, such as yourself, explain what Anderson had demonstrated to me about the vere, vere true author.
Excellent video. Thanks you for making it. I remember being so surprised by how compelling C Ogburn's book was/is, right from the start. It's a massive doorstop of a book but very readable and fascinating if youre uncovering this for the first time. Because I had not really any biography on Shakespeare I read Schoenbaum's 'Shakespeare's Lives', 'Will in the World' & Shakespeare Without Doubt' only solidified the Oxfordian position for me. Then back to Oxfordian books. There are not that many, but what there is, are very good. I began w/ Looney's 1920 book that started it all, and then 'Shakespeare By Another Name', 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom', 'Shakespeare Suppressed' & Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'.
Whenever anyone asks me why I am an Oxfordian, rather than having to listen to me ramble on for hours, or rather than having to read a doorstopper book, now all anyone has to do is to invest only one half hour of his or her life to get the answer. Thank you!
Great overview for Authorship 101 which prompted me to wonder, based on some of your recent research, if Shakespeare was a cover for multiple authors working with De Vere? If so, could the multiple author theory one day be included in a 101 overview? Keep up the great work!
One theory is that the plays published for the first time 19 years after Oxford's death may have been edited by others, such as Anthony Munday. They were probably the playscripts written for court performance, and transparent allusions to court politics had to be disguised.
Always glad to see a new video! Ive watched every authorship video I can find on youtube.
thank you, Mr McNeil for this wonderful summation....
as a English Lit major who studied Shakespeare's life (the wrong one's) and canon at a prestigious university, it angers me (yes, I'm that passionate about this) that we can not unequivocally state that the 17th Earl of Oxford as the REAL Shakespeare... at the very least, state that Shaksper is NOT the Bard... it's blatantly obvious - why can't/won't we just accept this as fact already?.... teaching students anything less than this obvious truth smacks of intellectually laziness...
money and status.
@@andy-the-gardenerIt's become a religion sadly. Hard to fight back against its power, but we're getting there, slowly but surely.
Because there's no universal condensus on who wrote the bards works. A professor I asked dismissed the claim outright, saying that no one else wrote them.
It is important to note that Edward De Vere, as the 17 Earl of Oxford, was in line for the throne. That is why he was immediately made a Ward of the State: to give him the best education England could muster. Placed him in Cecil House with probably the largest Library in the realm, and provided him with multiple private Tutors. He was also a Royal, and a child genius, in contrast to the ill-educated Shakspere from the small town of commoners (who also didn't have his children educated).
De Vere was nowhere in the succession. Even if it were based on his standing as an earl, his was the oldest noble creation in England. They would literally have to run out of earls before he would have been tapped.
He thought he was going to be King. Whether that's true or nor, it's important that he believed that.
@@joecurran2811 If it's so important, why didn't he ever say so?
After a long and exhausting day, I often treat myself to a good, healthy laugh, watching the videos on your channel. They are so ridiculous and detached from reality that they always have me in stitches. Thank you so much and please keep them coming.
Excellent presentation! Thank you for the effort put in to creating this very well organized and researched argument for Oxford’s authorship.
Superb. The seething of Stratfraudians is music to my ears. Play on.
I am not a stratfordian particularly. I M just convinced that Oxford definitely did not have the talent to write the works. Whoever did was a great deal more gifted as a writer than Oxford was
@@richarddenton7724 Anyone who wasn't "William Shakespeare" did not have the talent to be Shakespeare. Unless they actually were Shakespeare. If Oxford was Shakespeare then he clearly did have the talent.
Excellent, thank you. As to why this matters, I would add that it pierces the myth of genius, i.e. that education and privilege don't matter bc you are either born with this talent or not. Phooey.
DeVere did not have "formal legal training." This is an over reach. He received an honorary degree from Grays Inn because of William Cecil's influence. The man who wrote Shakespeare created and produced "The Comedy of Errors" in 1594 while attending Grays Inn where there is a statue of himself in the courtyard of Grays Inn and was profoundly knowledgeable of the law, practiced law as a lawyer, wrote about law that shows up in The Merchant of Venice and other plays, became a Judge, Attorney General and eventually the Lord Chancellor.
The SONNETS were published posthumously in 1609, with the writer of the Dedication Page -- probably John Dee -- 'signing' it "T. T." in contrast to 'Shakespeare' himself writing the dedications to Southampton for "VENVS AND ADONIS" and "LUCRECE." The 6-2-4 cipher decodes both as "THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER THE FORTH T" and "THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER-LIVING WELL-WISHING T" i.e. by Edward de Vere and by God -- the 'T' standing for the Tau Cross, i.e. for Christ, i.e. God the Son, and "THE FORTH T" meaning "the 4th 'T" = the Petrine Cross, the upside-down cross : when the text of the Dedication is put into a 19-grid, the rebus of an upside-down cross shows up with the word "VERE reading upwards in a column, and the letters "D" and "E" on either side of the "V" in "VERE" [from the word "ADVENTVRER"] -- proving that "DE VERE" is the 4th T being referred to in the decryption of the 6-2-4 cipher. The name "BACON" doesn't show up in any possible descrambling of the letters making up the Dedication's text -- the letter "C" being wholly absent.
Oh, and Bacon wasn't ever a Royal Ward, so why would he have written a play -- "ALL'S WELL" -- with a plot that mirrors the circumstances of Oxford's life, especially one that makes him out to be rather a conceited jerk, despite Helena's adoration of him? It makes infinitely more sense that Oxford wrote it as a Mea Culpa, depicting the wife he'd wronged as a virtuous, faithful heroine, and himself "warts & all." Percival Golding wrote that the same 'Bed-Trick" was used on Oxford that is portrayed being used on Bertram in the play (as is also used in "MEASURE FOR MEASURE," and hearkens back to the story of Tamar and Judah in Genesis).
I have no doubt that Bacon was aware of Oxford's 'secret identity' as 'Shakespeare', and he may have helped prepare the Folio for publication . . . but Bacon wasn't Shakespeare. Yes, he had the legal bona fides which scholars expert in the Law could see in Shakespeare's works, but Oxford's "honorary degree" wasn't awarded to him without merit. He was a child prodigy, as his tutors all go out of their way to attest. In order to fulfill his role as the Earl of Oxford, he HAD to have a working knowledge of the Law : his duties required it of him.
The real question is why people still believe that the guy from Stratford Upon Avon wrote the plays. The reason IMO is authority. People LOVE to be told what they should know. There are vested interests like the Stratford Upon Avon tourist board. There are also insufferable arrogant bar stewards who claim they are this or that in the academic world. And as for criticising Oxfordians as mostly Americans, so what? I'm English and I listen to people who are truth followers not people who might share the same flag as myself.
As a working class boy who went to a grammar school I would love to believe the greatest writer in the history of the world was one of us. The truth is, De Vere had talent and importantly, the best education for a future wordsmith there was possible. Partisanship towards William of Stratford owes a lot to a dislike of privilege. I understand that. Indeed, if anything, the notion that a nobleman was the greatest writer in the English language raises important questions of how education can make such a big difference. It illustrates how much talent there potentially is, if only the right environment was provided for.
I mention that Lorenzo Medici, of wealthy heritage is regarded as one of Italy’s finest poets. Given the opportunity and slim demographic De Vere represents, a thousand "Shakespeares" could be turned out every year, but who would do all the donkey work supporting those capable of such Maslowvian self-actualisation? And let’s appreciate De Vere’s teachers as well. As a chess player, I know that a world champion is not only himself and talent but his environment inclusive of teachers and sufficient wealth to travel and play.
Oh, to have the foresight to be born to wealthy parents!
***
A great presentation and a real pity a content provider has to put up so much arrogance and fallacious argument in the comments. The realisation of De Vere as Shakespeare will grow with every funeral of the current generation of teachers of English Literature…
Maybe it's because of all the evidence that says Shakespeare the poet and Shakespeare the gentleman and actor from Stratford were the same man. I don't need a PhD to tell me what I can see with my own eyes.
"The truth is, De Vere had talent...."
He did? I would like to see some evidence for that proposition. I've read his acknowledged poems and the talent was _very_ far from being apparent.
"...and importantly, the best education for a future wordsmith there was possible."
Evidently, "the best education for a future wordsmith" is to be tutored privately until one is 13, when one's tutor will beg to be released from trying to cram further knowledge into one's head, after which one will solely have individual instruction in horse-riding, dancing, and fencing. Moreover, the curriculum of the "future wordsmith" when being tutored actively will consist of a modest education of two hours a day of Latin, two hours a day of French, an hour devoted to "cosmography" (map-making), and then half-hours devoted to dancing, writing/drawing (not even a full half-hour for writing), and "exercises with his pen" (penmanship).
"Partisanship towards William of Stratford owes a lot to a dislike of privilege."
It also owes a lot to the fact that all the relevant documentary evidence says that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and that every contemporary who bothered to speak on the subject said that William Shakespeare was an author, including multiple people who would have known the armigerous gentleman from Stratford-upon-Avon and the King's Men actor personally. People like Henry Condell, John Heminges, John Lowin, Leonard Digges, Ben Jonson, John Webster, etc., etc., etc. Until someone can come up with an equivalent amount of contemporary documentary and testimonial evidence showing that someone else wrote the works _instead_ of William Shakespeare, then you're just going to have to cope with having William Shakespeare accepted as the author of his works.
For Author: (Note, at the end of Diana Price's List, you say Shakespeare is bringing up the rear." You meant to say: Shakspere.)
No, he didn't. Price is wrong, but you misunderstood it if you thought she was referring to Shakespeare of Stratford.
Thank you Sir for this brilliant overview! This puts the lay person in a position to make his own judgement, based on the circumstantial evidence.
Greetings from Denmark, from a place only 5 miles from the grave of the real prince Amled
Thanks for this, Alex!
Over 1,100 views in less than 24 hours is astonishing! Strong evidence that people hunger for basic information on this timely topic. Congratulations, Alex!
My mother was an inveterate Oxfordian. She had a decades-long correspondence with Charlton Ogburn Jr. I have his signed books. I should read them. Until then, it is enlightening to learn more about a subject that so fascinated my mother.
I’m deep in my research about this but this is the best, most concise argument I’ve heard yet. I’d love to see a video on why so many scholars continue to promote Shaksper the man as the author.
No video needed. This is a load of speculation, whereas the evidence for Shakespeare is extensively documented.
If interested, watch " Nothing is truer than truth", a common man overview of the question.
Enjoy these presentations very much. I had forgotten, but I read Looney's book in high school, Austin Prep in Reading, MA. Very rigorous, excellent teachers, for which I am very grateful. We had to write a book report discussing whether we agreed with his propositions: 1) Shak-spear did not write the works 2) Oxford was the author. Our teacher was a Statfordian, faith more than fact. I was dumbstruck to learn the truth.
An excellent synopsis of the evidence surrounding Shaksper and de Vere, thank you.
I was trying to find more about how the "tragedies" are actually comedies that we have severely misunderstood. But this information has been very interesting. I wish it had been brought up in my college shakespeare class. At least one class could have gone into the true author lol.
Nice summary. Oh, and to add one last little touch to the mystery, his supposed grave is empty!
How do you know? Been doing a little digging?
Could it be that will was really... You know... Cue choral music here. 😋
Excellent. Very interesting. Thank you.
Superb presentation! It always bugged me how we know almost nothing about the man whose face we see every time the name "Shakespeare" is mentioned. The case for Edward de Vere is stronger than ever now thanks to all the evidence.
What evidence? This is all speculation.
Hard to imagine an Earl who left no will. Especially a lawyer. Now wondering if it wound up among the King's possessions and may still be extant somewhere among the vast holdings of the Windsors.
He wasn't a lawyer. He was briefly enrolled at Gray Inn, but the Inns of Court were basically a social club for toffs. De Vere never took part in any legal case nor expressed any legal language in any of his surviving letters.
Dear old Robert Cecil surely took care of many inconvenient records.
In his official court duties, Oxford took part in many, and all the most important legal cases, not as a lawyer but as one of the judging panel. (Essex Rebellion, Mary Queen of Scots, etc.)
Excellent and intriguing point! Imagine finding a dusty chest somewhere in the Windsor records tower full of the plays of Shakespeare written in DeVere's hand? Literary find of the ages.
Alright, after watching this, I'm convinced. The Hamlet related evidence is particularly compelling.
Excellent circumstantial evidence that keeps adding up to make it very conceivable that Oxford was Shakespeare. On the other hand, is there any evidence that suggests Oxford wasn't Shakespeare? It would be interesting to compare evidence from each perspective.
Yes. His acknowledged poetry. Plus all of Shakespeare's contemporaries said it was him.
Yes! Stylometry has show that in fact only Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Stylometric analysis of the known De Vere works show that he was in fact no Shakespeare at all.
the generally accepted chronology of Shakespeare's plays show that 12 of them were written after Oxford died in 1604.
Excellent research and presentation. There’s absolutely no evidence that Skaksper wrote the works attributed to Shake-speare.
On the contrary. There’s no evidence Anyone but Shakespear wrote Shakespeare. These are just what anyone would call “circumstantial evidence”. And quite a few of these assertions are wrong or very liberal interpretations of the truth.
Excellent presentation.
as a layman i whole appreciate your work . thank you
Sonnet 76: “That EVERy word doth almost tell my name.”
-------Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
While you have the book open, read 81 also and try to forget that dueling poets thing for once. I am forgotten and "your monument shall be my gentle verse... you stiill shall live (such virtue hath my pen) Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men."
De Vere knew how good he was.
Go back and check what is actually written in the 1609 edition of The Sonnets.
I also LOVE the book SWEET SWAN OF AVON by Robin P. Williams on this. Phenomenal research! ❤🎉❤
concise and great tempo. excellent presentation!
You made a good case.
Brilliant.
Very interesting. I am persuaded that Edward de Vere was the author and I'm glad to know it. Thank you.
It makes a lot more sense to me that the author of the plays was wealthy due to the comedic cruelty directed at lower classes in his plays.
Care to provide an example?
I just read this, ""One of the most common articles of Oxfordian faith is that there is great significance in the various spellings of Shakespeare's name. The spelling "Shakespeare," according to most Oxfordians, was used to refer to the author of the plays and poems, while the spelling "Shakspere" (or "Shaksper," in the version sometimes promoted by more militant Oxfordians such as Charlton Ogburn) was used to refer to the Stratford man. A milder version of this claim acknowledges that Elizabethan spelling was not absolute, but still says that the usual and preferred spelling of the Stratford man's name was "Shaksper(e)," as opposed to the poet "Shakespeare." These claims about spelling are usually accompanied by an assertion that the two names were pronounced differently: "Shakespeare" with a long 'a' in the first syllable, as we are accustomed to pronouncing it today, but "Shakspere" with a "flat" 'a,' so that the first syllable sounds like "shack." A separate but related claim involves hyphenation: the name was occasionally hyphenated in print as "Shake-speare," a fact which Oxfordians say points to it being a pseudonym. These claims are given more or less prominence in different presentations of the Oxfordian theory, but they are virtually always present in one form or another. Indeed, they are vital for the Oxfordian scenario, since they make it easier for Oxfordians to believe that the "William Shakespeare" praised as a poet was some mysterious figure with no apparent connection to the glover's son and actor "William Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
As it turns out, though, all of the above claims are false. Specifically:
"Shakespeare" was by far the most common spelling of the name in both literary and non-literary contexts, and there is no significant difference in spelling patterns when we take into account such factors as handwritten vs. printed and Stratford vs. London spellings;
there is no evidence that the variant spellings reflected a consistent pronunciation difference, but there is considerable evidence that they were seen as more or less interchangeable;
There is no evidence whatsoever that hyphenation in Elizabethan times was ever thought to indicate a pseudonym, and other proper names of real people were also sometimes hyphenated.
}As for Shakepeare wearing a mask in the portrait, it's quite obviously the shadow under his jaw, and it's just about the most stupid thing I ever heard!
These "Oxfordian" (knobish), theories are just that, theories.
Everything you wrote is exactly wrong.
The London playwright's name was generally spelled as Shakespeare or Shake-speare. It is sometimes spelled with a short "a" but that usually includes a hyphen as in Shak-speare.
The Stratford spelling was almost always with a short "a", sometimes as Shagspur and Shaxper. Obviously there was a difference in pronunciation.
In 1917, Stratfordian Professors agreed to end the confusion regarding Shakespeare by eliminating the spelling of Shaksper and any other variation and changing them all to Shakespeare regardless of how they were actually spelled. As a result, Will's father John had his name changed to Shakespeare even though he never spelled his name that way. Not academically honest.
There is a difference between a hyphenated name and a hyphenated pseudonym. A hyphenated name is multiple NAMES separated by a hyphen, as in Lady Angela Rose Montagu-Douglas-Scott.. A hyphenated pseudonym is two WORDS separated by a hyphen as in Martin Mar-prelate. When you see two words (like Shake and Spear) that aren't names but do tell a story, then there is a good chance that it is a pseudonym. Martin Mar-prelate wrote pamphlets that were critical of the church, as you would expect from the name. To Shake a Spear meant to take apolitical position. Shakespeare uses the metaphor himself in one of the Henry VI plays. To shake one's spear is also a naughty thing to do in public if you know what I'm saying, and the name would have scandalized puritans of the time.
I don't know what you are looking at in the Droeshout portrait. There is either a shadow or stubble under his jaw, but beyond that there is a line that extends down from just behind the ear. It does not resemble any shadow, but does appear to be a mask, which would be appropriate for anyone who is the writer of plays because actors wore masks. It may not mean that Shake-speare was a pen name, but it is obviously there.
The Oxfordian position may be a Theory, but so is the idea that some guy with maybe an elementary school education somehow spent 20 years as a very public actor and as the acknowledged greatest playwright in England's history, but in the process did not leave one scrap of paper with his writing on it, nor does anyone ever mention him as being a real person until years after his death. Perhaps you should explain why that is even more ridiculous than the theory that a member of the high nobility did not want his name attached to his work.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Then how come the protestant martyr John Oldcastle was often written Old-Castle was he a front name? When Anthony Munday called the Lord Mayor of London Thomas Campbell 'Thomas Camp-bell' was he calling the name a pseudonym? I could go on.
As for the the for your contention that shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon was almost always written without the 'e' after the 'k' I agree with you that is the way William Shakespeare and his father signed their names. But it is usually written with E after K. Particuarly in legal documents. Why would busy law clerks keep on adding a useless e if they did not hear an ake sound?
@@commonberus1Were John Oldcastle and Thomas Campbell writing plays or pamphlets?
@@joecurran2811 Camden wrote that Englishmen derived their names "...from that which they commonly carried, as Palmer, that is, Pilgrime, for that they carried Palme when they returned from Hierusalem, Long-sword, Broad-speare, Fortescu, that is, Strong-shield, and in some such respect, Breake-speare, Shake-Speare, Shotbolt, Wagstaffe."
Were all of those people writing pamphlets?
Shakespeares father john changed the spelling of his name as a result of something in 1917, wow thats a ripe old age. John shakespeares draft coat of arms of which two copies survive of the same version have his name clearly written john shakepeare and john shakespere. In the london court case, william shakespeare of stratford upon avon gave evidence with his name written by a court clert. Thomas greene a minor published poet visited his 'cosen' shakespeare in stratford. There are only two occasions where the stratford poet is spelled shaksper. Once in a letter written about him and the other in a copy of shakspers sonnets bought by edward alleyn. That may be a forgery. If its real then it shows the interchsbgeability of the spelling. If a forgery then it shows that of all the many spelling of the stratford poets name shaksper occurs only once. Yet it is the one that the idiots use in the comments, well because they are idiots
My understanding is that the question is not who wrote Shakespeare but …whom! It was a group effort of some of Englands greatest minds to elevate the English language as had been being done in France by the Pleidians , a society of writers who expanded and edited all the Frankish dialects.
The English group decided to do it thru common theatre , an Art below a soviergn , thus the secrecy. The hustler from Stratford upon Avon was a perfect foil…..plus he had funding and knew all the players. He was a producer!!
In his day, Shakespeare was considered low-brow. He used nouns as verbs and vice-versa. Ben Jonson said he "wanted art". Francis Beaumont said his poetry was "without scholarship".
If you got such a collection of educated poets together to write the works of Shakespeare, what are the odds that none of them understood Aristotelian poetics?
Shakespeare didn't.
Except that whom is not the plural, but the objective, form of who.
You, sir, must have been a very good lawyer, because you have me convinced!
@AlexanderWaugh opened my eyes & brought me here #Oxfordian #DeVere #Shakespeare #scriptorium #QE1 #Bacon #Dee #Marlowe
I fully believe DeVere authored the works but Waugh goes off into too many conspiratorial tangents for me.
When we refer to Shakespeare we are talking about the plays, not the writer
It simply doesn't matter.
Tremendous summary, my one concern is the epitaph on the funerary monument - why would Johnson go to such extreme for someone that nobody had a frame of reference for? According to this talk it was erected at the time of the first folio printing.
Why?
KP
John Weever, a poet and antiquarian, visited Stratford in about 1618, and copied down the inscription on the monument. The First Folio went into production in 1621.
Never understood the 'two right eyes' comment about one of the WS portraits. He's looking slightly to his left. So what?
The engraver who made the image, Martin Droushout, wasn't a great artist. All of his engravings have that slightly weird trait.
Mark Twain answered this question a long time ago. "It was written by another guy with the same name"
That remark was based on the fact that the man from Stratford spelled his name Shakspere and Shakspeare, but the name on the plays was spelled Shakespeare, and sometimes hyphenated as Shake-speare. The same name (almost) but were they the same person? There doesn't exist even one single document on which the name Shakespeare, the town of Stratford, and the occupation of writing. Twain himself begrudgingly decided that it was probably Bacon, but he was not entirely comfortable with the fit. Had he lived just a decade longer he would have been introduced to a much better candidate.
That was wonderfully done, a tour de force. Thank you.
Superb. What honest reader can turn away? @James Shapiro come out from the shadows, face to face and settle properly. To why it matters please add Elizabethan History is greatly clarified. Why have historians not corrected the record?? Correcting does not have to condone murder etc
Why have historians not corrected the record? Because it's just a bunch of speculation based on no evidence and goes against all the evidence that does exist.
These lectures are fascinating and this one is the best summary of the question. I wonder, though, who was responsible for perpetuating the myth of Shak-spear as author immediately after the death of him and Oxford. What was their motive?
1) Writing for an audience of commoners was seen as shockingly unsuitable for nobles. It would be like today's Prince William acknowledging that he spends all his time penning x-rated fan fiction. Elizabeth I approved of the plays, but would never allow such scandal.
2) Elizabeth, many of her most important courtiers, and most of Oxford's family were portrayed in the plays, often in embarrassing detail or unflattering light. (His brother-in-law Robert Cecil was E's omnipotent "fixer" at the end of her reign - and the inspiration for Richard III. The brother of the king of France was Bottom.) They wanted his luminous plays to be preserved, but wanted at all costs to keep the hoi polloi from catching on.
3) Southampton was the only leader of the Essex Rebellion who was not executed. The Sonnets suggest that Oxford may have traded long-term anonymity for Southampton's life. "My name be buried where my body is, And live no more to shame nor me nor you."
4) Without a front man, the popular search for the anonymous author's identity would have been ongoing, uncontainable, and eventually successful.
5) But the clues and double meanings in the First Folio show that the ruse was intended to be pierced eventually. Who knew it would take so long.
@@EccentricaGallumbitsNot a single one of your explanations is backed by evidence. You're just guessing.
Shakespeare as a moneylender? I've never ever heard that before. But I decided I might just be wrong, so I did a Google search. Apparently, it is a common cryptic clue. And the other reference of course was to the play The Merchant of Venice.
I believe there is reason to doubt his authorship. Nevertheless, whilst I have listened to people like Mark Ryalance, Elizabeth Winker and Alexander Wagh, I have never come across this from them. I may have missed it and I'm open to being wrong.
Well, more reading directs me to a number of people claiming this. So, maybe I'm wrong. But I suspect someone has said it (erroneously?) and gone with it. There is certainly a letter from 1698 (the only one recorded to be addressed to him) asking for help in raising money. "Shakespeare Documented" states:
"This request indicates that Shakespeare was seen either as a potential moneylender, or, more likely, as a Stratford man sufficiently creditworthy in London to secure Quiney a loan."
So, here it's indicated he MIGHT be seen as a potential moneylender; though with the likelyhood it was something else.
Now, I don't know but if this letter, and this letter alone, is what is being used by those claiming he was a moneylender then it's poor evidence.
@@peterdowney1492There's also a lawsuit from 1604 in which Shakespeare is the plaintiff in a suit to recover payment for malt sold on credit to a local tavern keeper. Technically a loan, though not of money.
Anti-Stratfordians often conflate Shakespeare with his father, John, who did lend money at usurious interest and traded illegally in wool.
Acquisition or possession of a coat of arms wasn’t exclusive to the higher social classes. All social ranks could bear arms. There were many armigerous labourers.
Got an example?
@@JeffhowardmeadeWilliam Shaksper of Stratford. Job title: player (NOT writer)
@@joecurran2811
Father was alderman and mayor (who actually received the grant, not his son).
Mother was from gentry.
Was a member of the leading theater company in England.
Had published two bestselling poems.
You should look up the term "laborer".
Surely(so to speak!) the most open-minded and logical conclusion - until proven otherwise - is that a male and female group or 'Shakespeare Salon' of playwrights wrote but NOT co-wrote the plays, then submitted them to the group for read-throughs, finessing, minor or not-so-minor changes and suggestions - just as movie screen-writers do. And as always noone points out that (would-be) female playwrights had one other major reason to hide behind a male pseudonym in Elizabethan England because women were not permitted to write plays and have them publicly performed under their own names or using any female name for that matter!
So I'll continue to broad-mindedly believe - until proven otherwise - that the likes of Mary Sidney, Amelia Bassano, Marlowe and Edward de Vere all contributed their own individual but "willfully"(!!) very 'Shakespearean' plays to a Shakespeare Salon or collective - and a Mr. Will 'Spellcheck' Shak'spear from Stratford, real actors, closet actresses and others in the theatre business would also frequently attend the Shakespeare Salon's meet-ups. And much (very productive) fun would have been had by all.
I can't wait for a now long-overdue movie sequel to "Anonymous" that reflects and both entertainingly and intelligently dramatises all of the above and much much more besides..
Paul G
A claim such as this is interesting, but requires evidence of communication between the principles. There is none. The theory has been considered and must be rejected for lack of evidence. A better explanation is that Edward De Vere had a dedicated staff of secretaries to take dictation, acquire materials, and bring his work to the publisher, and that De Vere a particular fascination for writing under pseudonyms, of which the number is over 100, including Mary Sidney, Robert Greene, Thomas Nashe, Arthur Golding, William Adlington and William Shakespeare.
I didnt know many if the plays were reworked works of previous plays from medieval times and before even. Oral history.
Well done. Spot on.
I'd like to get a new license plate for my car with the following (more or less): ED17DV4T. If you can't decipher this, you're still NOT an Oxfordian. Cheers.
I'm a "D4T" too.
Two top female authorship candidates - watch these two excellent UA-cam'd presentations re: Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano by Dr. Robin Williams and John Hudson.
Both Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano are obviously infinitely more likely to have written some or all of the plays than the semi-literate boorish wheeler-dealer and fortune-seeking chancer from Stratford !!
And please remember that - unlike men - any women who did write plays had no choice but to hide behind a pseudonym if they wanted them to be performed in public theatres!
1) Video: Mary Sidney - Countess of Pembroke:
ua-cam.com/video/AU5LZFhdLp8/v-deo.html
2) Video: Amelia Bassano - "The Dark Lady":
ua-cam.com/video/tyn-3GNOd7w/v-deo.html
Paul G
They're both infinitely more likely to have written the works despite nobody ever saying they did and their extant writing being nothing like Shakespeare's at all?
También podría ser Cristofer Marlowe que no era aristócrata pero estaba relacionado con la nobleza y fingió su propia muerte.
But it's Oxford's 1570 Geneva Bible that contains the many annotations that match the biblical allusions in Shakespeare. There's nothing like that in Marlowe's case.
@@richardwaugaman1505 There's a slightly better than random overlap between the works of Shakespeare and the various annotations in the De Vere Bible.
Great Job!
I’ve always liked to claim that the plays were written by a different author of the same name.
This is an entirely new conspiracy theory for me! Awesome, and well presented.
it is I who wrote Shakespeare plays
We don't know a lot about Shakespeare's life, but non Stratfordians need to do more than just give reasons why they think Shakespeare wasn't the author. They need to provide positive evidence for a different author. I've never seen any.
20:38 vultus tela vibrat = your face shakes spears, although vultus is very close to vultis "you all will" from volo, velle volui (volo/vis/vult // volumus VULTIS volunt). So close!
No, it does not = your face shakes spears. Oxfordians used to spill buckets of ink trying to justify why Harvey that choice when there was a specific Latin word for spear. These days they just ignore that it's bad Latin and run with it.
Recently, after years of relying on Oxfordian BM Ward's translation, somebody went back to the original and discovered that Harvey wasn't ever referring to De Vere's face.
plot twist: this video was funded by the 17th Earl of Oxford
Obviously, Shakespeare did. Duh.
The chap who wrote Shakespeare, was the chap who we associate with Shakespeare, simple, now leave it.
Why being so secret?
The first rule of writing is to write about things you know. All the bard's works feature the nobility, none about growing up in the country. Further, the dedication to the First Folio refers to the author as knowing "little Latin and less Greek". It is obvious the author has traveled widely, read extensively and mastered multiple languages.
Aside from the history plays, which Shakespeare took from history books, his characters were mostly middle-class people like himself. Even if what you said were true, Shakespeare was literally a servant to the Queen’s Lord Chamberlain and later to the King, himself.
Ever heard of Two Gentlemen of Verona? The Winter’s Tale? A Midsummer Night’s Dream? As You Like It? Shakespeare created plenty of rustic characters living in the countryside.
Small Latin and less Greek is precisely what one learned at an Elizabethan grammar school like the one in Stratford during Shakespeare’s youth.
The author got nearly everything wrong beyond the shores of England. He clearly never traveled.
What languages need he have mastered in order to write his works?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Two Gentleman of VERona features ARISTOCRATS in a city that Shaksper could know nothing about.
The Winter's Tale features Nobility who flee the court.
A Midsummer Night's Dream features Athenian Aristocrats. The commoners serve as delightful comic relief.
As You Like It features Nobility who flee the court.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 It’s literally called Two GENTLEMEN of Verona. They’re not aristocrats. They’re members of the gentry, just as Shakespeare was. Shakespeare thought you could sail from Verona on the tide. There’s NOTHING in Two Gentlemen of Verona to suggest that Shakespeare knew anything about any of its settings.
The Winter’s Tale is full of rustics. Perdita is raised by them. The main characters in A Midsummer Night’s Dream are members of the gentry and tradesmen. The most prominent aristocrats are fantasy creatures.
As You Like It features more rustic characters than it does aristocrats.
It’s like you haven’t bothered to read any of these plays or something.
The problem here is that while a case has been made for William Shakespeare of Stratford not being the author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare, the evidence pointing to William De Vere is much less convincing.
It doesn't help that so much emphasis is placed on Oxford's 16 months in Europe when so many pro-Stratfordians have observed that the real Shakespeare's grasp of European geography, particularly that of Italy, more especially that of Venice, is shaky and what he gets right could have been picked up in a conversation in a pub.
Is this a thin end of a wedge? I suspect the first de-bunking of the Beatles will quickly follow the death of Paul McCartney. Let's face it, him, John Lennon and George Harrison had no formal musical or poetical education and they have been the dominant musical influences of the last 60 years.
Surely: they've been fronting King Charles III.
Good of you to acknowledge the Stratfordian doubts.
Seems to be an unlimited number of non British experts lecturing us on Shakespear.
As well as an unlimited number of non-Shakespeare experts.
So you are a retired lawyer...I'm one of the most prolific directors of Shakespeare's works worldwide and studied under the founder of UK University drama, Prof Wickham. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Little green men from Mars did not build the pyramids either. When Prof Wickham was confronted with a rebellious graduate student who wanted to write his dissertation on this absurd theory he refused to mark it. All the evidence is there in the brilliant CONTESTED WILL by Prof Shapiro. Oxford was a terrible writer, by the by.
So...Your dad is bigger than his dad...You make an excellent case...
@@simonsmith3030Yes an argument from authrority. Also, how ridiculously unprofessional from the Stratfordian professor.
Someone else!
Why does it matter who wrote " Shakespeare?" Assigning the works to a real man, and aristocrat whose life weaves all through the courts of England and Europe brings a richness and pathos, ( knowing DeVere's story). The works come alive with history and the lives of the real people on which so many of the works were based. De Vere becomes Hamlet, his father the dead king his mother Gertrude who callously marries so soon after his father's death, on and on. Is who wrote Shakespeare important? Definitely.
"...brings a richness and pathos...."
In other words, there is no richness and pathos in the works as they were written. You can only imagine "richness" and "pathos" by conjuring up a kind of combination of a BBC costume drama and _The Da Vinci Code_ . For those of us who don't have a defective appreciation of the works, there is no further interest that positing a false author like Edward de Vere adds.
Silly. There is much in Shakspere’s life that is in the plays. But it is true that God didn’t write the Bible. Oh… and by the way… nobody died for my sins. Yet. W. Shakespeare was a forgiving man.
On his behalf, I forgive youse.
I have no idea what you're saying but there is virtually nothing in Shakespeare's life in the plays.
It's long been pretty obvious that various playwrights including women - often aristocratic, highly-educated and well-travelled - submitted their plays to London's theatre-owners. Many if not most of them sought anonymity(not money) and aimed to (politically) influence London's mixed-class theatre audiences for reasons that have been thoroughly researched and elucidated elsewhere - even in the Shakespeare authorship movie "Anonymous" starring Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave.
However that movie/film and its director and actors conspicuously avoid even suggesting that a woman may have written some or all of William Shak'pear's(spelling!?) works.
In fact the 2010 hit movie revival "St.Trinians - Fritton's Gold" starring Rupert Everett, Colin Firth and David Tennant is infinitely bolder in that respect. In the following two film clips the St.Trinians' girls discover the truth( "Shakespeare was a woman!") in the hidden vaults of London's Globe Theatre during a performance of Romeo and Juliet:
1)ua-cam.com/video/HToCKaVtoLg/v-deo.html
2)ua-cam.com/video/j47TpZIotCE/v-deo.htmlsi=vpEHdgMBmbQCYygQ
Paul G
"Obvious" implies that there is evidence which anyone can see. Yet there is no such evidence.
Cris Marlowe was the author...
…of Doctor Faustus.
Who uses a HYPHEN in their Surname? Use of a hyphen in Shake-speare, and sometimes a double hyphen (Shake=Speare) for emphasis, clearly indicates not a real name, but a pseudonym. This is one of the strongest evidences of a HIDDEN IDENTITY.
Feel free to quote anyone before the late 19th Century who thought that was true. Certainly nobody in Shakespeare's time thought so.
"Who uses a HYPHEN in their Surname?"
Edward and Elizabeth Allde and Robert Waldegrave for starters. They were all printers from the early modern period who hyphenated their own names on the title pages of works they printed. See, for example, _The Second Part of the Honest Whore_ by Thomas Dekker that was "Printed by Elizabeth All-de for Nathaniel Butter".
Also, regarding Shakespeare as a pseudonym because of a hyphen, in Ben Jonson's 1616 _Works_ Shakespeare's name appears in two cast lists. In _Every Man in his Humour_ he appears as "Will Shakespeare", but in the cast list for _Sejanus His Fall_ he appears as "Will. Shake-Speare". So are you telling us that for this performance specifically that a pseudonym somehow became embodied and pranced about a stage for two hours?
Why is there such resistance to DeVere as the author from Shakespeare scholars? Imagine spending your educational and professional life invested with study and teaching the life of the man from Stratford. Then you learn you life's work is bunk. I think most of us would cling to our paradigm regardless of the evidence rather than admit you professional life was wasted.
“Why is there such resistance…” Because there’s no evidence he wrote the works of Shakespeare and what he did write was tripe. Courses on Shakespeare almost never mention anything about Shakespeare the poet, but instead focus on the works. If you had ever taken one you would know this, and not assume that scholars are invested in his biography. What academia IS invested in is what can be proved with evidence, and so bizarre conspiracy theories get left out in the cold.
Oh, obviously struck a nerve.
Why is it so hard for Shakespeare to be the author of his own work. There is no real evidence that the man did not write the plays.
We don't even have evidence he could write!
@@joecurran2811 Yes, we do. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.
You said it " the author of his own works". You reached a conclusion before the evidence was even presented.
All this can be explained if he had autism, or was dyslexic.
Ben Johnson, son of a bricklayer, who knew him personally refers to him as the sweet swan of Avon and Will has a go at Ben for using children in his plays in Hamlet. They were contemporaries who were familiar with each other and evidence is always more convincing than the theories of snobbish academics who simply cannot accept that the son of a glove-maker could possibly be our greatest playwright and poet. Pathetic!
One small note of mild interest that I would like to ask someone who is deeply into this rabbit hole. Why did King James continue the £1000 grant as he did to Walsinghome? It was a huge sum of money for someone so frivolous, especially as Oxford was a notorious spendthrift. Any one new to the Crown would have stopped it at once. A dour Scot, James the Sixth was just as tight fisted as Elizabeth. I can only conclude that he consented to this as he was in on the secret. The secret being that Devere controlled and ran a closet team of writers and poets, including Marlowe and Bacon, who's intent was to socially engineer and provide political propaganda. Just as a Government would fund a media channel and a intelligence network today - the two always work hand-in-hand.
James was actually a huge spender, just like De Vere. The answer lies in his Secretary of State and Lord Privy Seal, Robert Cecil. As head of the Privy Council, Robert was instrumental in getting De Vere's welfare check continued. While his motives for this can't be known for certain, he sent a letter to the guardian caring for his nieces to be on the look out for De Vere, who he worried might try to take custody of them in order to get at the money William Cecil had left them. Basically, I think he worried what De Vere might do if deprived of his sole source of income.
De Vere also had ceremonial duties as the Lord Great Chamberlain. It would have looked bad were the guy handing the King his insignia of office on coronation day dressed as a pauper. Both James and Robert Cecil were invested in maintaining the status quo.
I don't see how any of this would have happened had De Vere murdered Robert's father in effigy on stage and mocked Robert, who was a hunchback, with the character Richard III.
But like most authorship free-thinkers you don't even think to refer to any FEMALE candidates!
So why not open your clearly only half-open eyes much wider:
Two top female authorship candidates - watch these two excellent UA-cam'd presentations re: Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano by Dr. Robin Williams and John Hudson.
Both Mary Sidney and Amelia Bassano are obviously infinitely more likely to have written some or all of the plays than the semi-literate boorish wheeler-dealer and fortune-seeking chancer from Stratford !!
1) Video: Mary Sidney - Countess of Pembroke:
ua-cam.com/video/AU5LZFhdLp8/v-deo.html
2) Video: Amelia Bassano - "The Dark Lady":
ua-cam.com/video/tyn-3GNOd7w/v-deo.html
Paul G
it was a police state and Catholics couldn't leave paper trails.lest they be dragged to the tower. If you don't know Catholic theology your only speculating
This again? Had a teacher in high school back in the 1960s who was into Baconiana. Sometimes "scholarship" goes nowhere for generations.
Well, this isn't 'Baconia' is it?
You are ignoring/denying the genuine evidence, while creating entire mountains out of suggestions of mole hills on behalf of your candidate.
A boy from Stratford turned out to be talented.
That's kind of all you need to know.
Now let's get to 102
Literary "talent" and "imagination" does not provide the facts necessary to write the Shake-Speare Cannon. Edward De Vere, as the 17 Earl of Oxford, was in line for the throne. That is why he was immediately made a Ward of the State (at age 12) upon the death of his father: to give him the best education England could muster. Placed him in Cecil House with probably the largest Library in the realm, and provided him with multiple private Tutors. He was also a Royal, and a child genius, in contrast to the ill-educated Shakspere from the small town of commoners (who also didn't have his children educated).
One Comment (above) provides this PROOF and EVIDENCE for Oxford as the true identity of "Shake-Speare":
I remember being so surprised by how compelling Charles Ogburn's book was/is, right from the start. It's a massive doorstop of a book but very readable and fascinating if youre uncovering this for the first time. Because I had not really any biography on Shakespeare I read Schoenbaum's 'Shakespeare's Lives', 'Will in the World' & Shakespeare Without Doubt' only solidified the Oxfordian position for me. Then back to Oxfordian books. There are not that many, but what there is, are very good. I began w/ Looney's 1920 book that started it all, and then 'Shakespeare By Another Name', 'Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom', 'Shakespeare Suppressed' & Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography'.
Dismissing something you haven't studied is soooo easy. Ignorance is bliss. We do not say he couldn't--just that there is a lot of evidence that he didn't.
@@smaycock2 And that evidence would be...?
@Nullifidian Did you actually watch this video?
Given another thousand years of pontificating, it will always remain a mystery. So, spend some time doing something useful.
Very man centric. Emilia Bassano Lanier?
Quite right. If we're going to talk about people who weren't Shakespeare, then the women should be represented just as much as the men.
nerds
I'm 30 seconds into this (and won't listen further at the moment) - it surprises me not in the least that people who suppose that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare live in America, where they don't believe in moon landings yet believe in yetis - and believe that their one and only true god would bother to write a book for human beings (which would be like a human dedicating a masterpiece to an infinitesimally invisible microbe). If you cannot recite several poems of Shakespeare by heart then you have no interest in the man at all - you're merely a monger of conspiracy theory. If you knew the work at all, you'd know the man from Stratford wrote it. The most unassailable account is surely Ben Jonson's , who knew his work and the man personally. Nobody doubts that Jonson wrote the work of Jonson (who was more classically educated, and was the son of a brick layer). In any case, the work is what counts, not the person who wrote it. Are we going to "cancel" the paintings of Caravaggio because he was a murderer?
It doesn't surprise me in the least that the British people can't deal with being duped yet again by the foreigners who have ruled their country since William the Conqueror. Ben Jonson was a murderer too. The "account" he makes of Shakespeare is in a poem. Poems shouldn't be taken as literal, because they are poems.
Derek Jacobi and John Gielgud also felt that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare. They're not American, they don't believe in yetis, and I recall they studied Shakespeare a bit more than you and I. Try again.
I'm British and I believe that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays under the pseudonym William Shakespeare.
Excellent. I strayed into this but in infuriates me that anyone should doubt that a great artist is a great artist because he was not a noble who went to Oxbridge. MOST great artists have relatively humble origins, very few are Earls.
It is curious to note the resistance to the idea that Shakespeare was John Florio. In First fruits there are over 25 phrases that reappear in Shakespeare's plays, another 15 come directly from Michel de Montaigne's Essays (which Florio translated to English), various views of the world that echo the philosophy of Giordano Bruno (Florio's friend). Florio was well acquainted with the plays that underlie many of Shakespeare's works (Italian and French plays) and-great coincidence-all the cities in which some of Shakespeare's plays are set, and in particular Messina, of which he gives us a couple of details from someone who knows the city not from reading its name on a map. Florio was a scholar, knowing Latin and a little Greek, having been in contact with some Greekists. Certainly he knew the Parallel Lives of Plutarch, Suetonius and Ovid. He was hated in London by many people for being an Italian and being culturally very active. Florio's grandmother was a Crollalanza (Shake Speare in Italian) and could have been a perfect pseudonym. Florio or no Florio, it will never come to a real investigation, until the academic power and authority, find the humility to say: let's really put everyone together to study, all the possibilities. I know that for a Brit the idea that Shakespeare was Italian is an almost unbearable shock (like telling a Catholic that Jesus was Chinese), but as the ancients used to say: Plato amicus sed... magis amica veritas. Let's see in the future the evolution of research.
I agree that the evidence that Shakespeare’s works could not have been written without John Florio is compelling. That does not prove that Florio was the sole author (although he may have been responsible for the First Folio. It does however suggest that Florio’s work should be explored more thoroughly.