Finding the True Shakespeare: An Historical Perspective - Tom Townsend
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Shakespeare’s plays and poems have enthralled innumerable people over the years. Yet most continue to ask who was this phenomenal author? English Literature professors continue to maintain their traditional conjectures supporting the Stratford Man as the true author. However, historians argue that history is always evolving and that we always need to be open to new ideas because more new historical data is discovered all the time.
Oxfordians specifically have discovered a substantial amount of new data clearly demonstrating that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is the real author behind the Shakespeare pseudonym. This introductory presentation reshapes the Shakespeare Authorship Question with new historical data aiming to show why de Vere was unable to use his name or take credit for writing his plays, poems, and sonnets.
Bio: For 35 years Tom Townsend has been researching Elizabethan history and the Shakespeare Authorship Question. He has presented at past SOF Conferences as well as for several general audiences in the Seattle area. He was previously Director of Consumer Insights for a large advertising agency. He holds a master’s degree from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
This talk was presented as part of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship 2023 Annual Conference, held November 9-12, 2023.
Learn more at shakespeareoxf...
Please consult the amazing E V I D E N C E presented by (recently deceased) Alexander Waugh
RIP
We can argue all this until the cows come home!! I read the plays. I do not care who wrote them and if he was heterosexual or homosexual. Historical information is fluid, and could change by the hour. Everyone has their own Shakespeare. That is the real equality.
Enjoy the works. You do not need to pay attention to the historical meaning and importance of authorship and genius.
There is another issue with the heraldry arms. The "Non Sanz Droict" motto appears nowhere else. Nowhere in his works and not even on the Shakespeare monument where you would expect it. The way Stratfordians try to explain this away borders the absurd.
Nothing Truer Than Truth
Not without mustard!
Elementary Watson, elementary. The person who had the words (vocabulary) wrote The First Folio. What is the date of the newest words to be coined into the English language and first used in the First Folio? The correct date is 1611 and the book is Queen Anne's New World of Words. More than 150 words in the First Folio were newly minted into the English language and cannot be shown to have been used previously by any of the preferred dandys including Stratford man. The man who coined several thousand new words into the English language with Queen Anne's New World of Words is the only person in England with a large enough vocabulary to have written the First Folio, John Florio. Unless you can explain how Oxford, who died in 1604, could have used words which did not exist in the English language until 1611. More better research, maybe?
The words? No. It is impossible to know when a word entered the language - only when it was first recorded in print. Florio collected words, but did he invent them?
The person who had the power to hide his name while he was alive AND after he had died was Shakespeare. There is only one candidate who held that power, and it wasn't Florio.
"It is dangerous and immoral to question Sir Stanley" is the point Wells really made.
This is one of the best summations of evidence against the Stratford man I have seen and for de Vere. I recommend it to anyone interested in the authorship of the best plays in western literature.
It does not occur to Stratfordians that perhaps the name on the title pages of quartos and the First Folio (and octavos) was a pseudonym. Or perhaps there were two men with the same name living at the same time, and one of them - from Stratford - was not the real writer.
Tom makes an interesting point about grain merchants fixing prices (4:47). In Edward VI's reign, Parliament issued an Act to make grain forestalling illegal. A forestaller hoarded grain until he could raise prices during a food shortage. This is exactly what Shakspere of Stratford did in 1598. So much for "the greatest writer in English". Note: Shakspere purchased New Place in 1597, before he was charged with grain hoarding. But it is quite possible he was forestalling grain before he was caught. To be fair, other citizens of the town were also charged with the offence and also ordered to relinquish their stores.
What writer would not educate their children so that they could not read their own writing (7:03)? He would have ensured that his name live on in family history as the great playwright and poet, yet there he did nothing to educate his children and left nothing for the education of any grandchildren in his will.
Tom makes a persuasive argument that the Stratfordian story is based on evidence that is not only scanty but irrelevant to the career of a writer. But proponents ignore any counterevidence out of hand without looking at it objectively. Any evidence that contradicts their myth is summarily dismissed. That is the problem orthodox/mainstream Shakespeareans scholars have given to academia: a completely closed mind to all pertinent historical facts, especially those which contradict their extremely weak authorship theory.
I must disagree with Tom on one point (14:15) about the signatures. I believe that the scratchy signatures on the will and two indentures are likely that of the Stratford man who was copying from a model which is why they are so bad. The rest of them are most likely those of scribes who signed on his behalf. The one on the Delotte v Mountjoy deposition, for example, has two clerical abbreviations in the name which no self-respecting literate businessman would allow: it would be far too informal and suggest they were ashamed of their name. Only someone who was barely literate would have let this go since they would not know any better.
And why would he preface "by me" in front of his name (15:23) when he was known to be the testator of his own will? The only reason I can suggest is that the clerk added this for some reason probably related to making the man look literate.
I believe that the term "player" in the 16th century (16:40) meant anyone who was involved in the production of plays, from set decorators, prop men, costumers, and even paymasters. It did not necessarily mean an actor with a speaking part. You could add non-speaking extras into that mix as well. Yet, there was no way the herald who issued Shakspere's coat of arms could double-check whether what Shakspere said about himself was true in an era where such corroboration was hard to find. Nobody carried actor's equity union cards or other ID, so whatever the man told the herald might have been taken at face value and not checked.
His granddaughter told a cleric interested in this that he (Shaksper) wasn't a writer. And she would have known!
This is excellent. I'm currently preparing a podcast episode on the SAQ and you have been able to highlight what I think constitutes as a very levelled and careful perspective with a lot of very relevant material accessible for both newcomers to the subject and people who have already begun to ask their own questions about the solidity of the foundations of an impeachable Stratfordian narrative. I came to this discussion myself after reading the Sonnets and finding them completely opaque and meaningless when attributed to Stratford Shakespeare, and after learning that men of that age were not in the habit of constructing long narrative poems based in an alternate universe. I distrust my own liking of Edward de Vere as a bias, and I can admit that I would be much pleased to hear of irrefutable proof which could see the authorship rightfully restored to him, but regardless, it might not have been his work. That said, the notion that Stratford Shakespeare had anything significant to do with the writing of the Shakespeare works is a hopeless and desperate position, as far as my reading has shown me.
Edward De Vere.
I also like that line of enquiry
This was a great takedown of Stratfordism. It's interesting to see how the argument has developed since Tom Reigner's arguments on these 10 years ago.
The tidbit that Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate stood out to me when we started Introduction to Shakespeare. Later, my course mate expressed curiosity that Shakespeare's background contained more information about grain business than literary preoccupation. Yet, his Writings did not explore grain business. At this time, we had no idea that there was authorship dispute. Our Professors did not mention it.
Very recent research has turned up evidence of Shakespeare's grain dealings. He bought and hoarded grain when harvests looked bad then sold at inflated prices when shortages hit. Thats how a playwright could afford a nice house.
This was later in his life I think. But previoysly there is quite a bit of evidence that he didnt pay his taxes. Bit of a fly one our lad.
Superb presentation, many thanks!
According to Loomey, the 3rd Earl of Southampton paid Shaksper 1000 pound to be the front man and also Elizabeth Trenthen paid a dump man in her will. That's the reasons he could afford buying properties.
According to Looney. Lol. Looney lived hundreds of years after the death of Shakespeare and hadfar less access to historical records than we have today
Lol? 'Looney' is a corruption of ' Ó Luanaigh' (Irish language) meaning 'son/ grandson of Champion'...suiting the man perfectly
Another foreigner poking his nose into the national poet of the English people from a viewpoint of jealosy of this most famous Englishman
Has anyone offered a reasonable explanation regarding Venus and Adonis (Shakespeares first published work) being first published by Richard Field… a man from Stratford whose father was a tanner and in business with John Shakspear? Seems like a big problem for Oxfodrians no?
21:58 Mentions Richard Field's printing of Arte of English Poesie, of which first is that noble gentleman... Edward Earl of Oxford. Lots of people go off to big cities to see their name in lights, Richard Field seems to have been printing as far back when Shaxper was 25 and not yet arrived in London... "Shakespeare (Shax) is said to have moved to London by 1592 when he was 28 years of age"
These Lords who are designated as writing Shakespeare had too much to lose by the risk of writing; they were too busy living to have the eternal urge to make their mark in print, unless it accrued to property, title or status. Shakespeare's work often takes place in low taverns, with comic, bawdy gusto: surely beyond the reach of these aristocratic leisured men? A man who knew 'a little Latin and less Greek'( Johnson's words on Shakespeare), could, as the 'Swan of Avon', be the greatest writer who ever lived. Shakespeare's live was
almost dull, invisible, hence his ability to turn out these works of art, not get thrown into jail like his friend Ben Jonson.
You're making an argument from incredulity - it's a logical fallacy. Not to mention, performing Richard II with the scene where the King gives away his crown, just before The Essex Rising, and the non-uppper class Stratford Man NOT being thrown in jail? Give me a break!
Loved your work on Falstaff's "no equity stirring" and the two legal courts from years ago now. Thanks again!
2:20 Have you read Lyly, Spenser, Marston, Webster, Dekker, Drayton, or any of the Henslowe names? etc etc
How did you arrive at this qualitative statement?
Ive always been suspicious of these claims. It smacked of the class consciousness of the English. I am less likely, as a working class woman, to consider a lord anyone of having the experiences of life's vicissitudes that the writer of these plays and sonnets expresses than that a man who knew, from the inside, what struggles most face.
Ok im being class conscious as well. But I have read with disbelief books by the likes of some educationalist called, I think, Bernstein, that people with a limited vocabulary cannot experience ( experience note!) deep emotions. What a shallow, sheltered life he must have lead.
Tell that to the illiterate parent holding a dead child. When I was at school in the 1960s I recall hearing that 'life is cheap in the East'. Insunuating that a Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian etc person did not grieve as much as the more superior, refined white European. As for Africans......
I will read the paper on this. I cant find the mental energy to listen to this man.
It seems like you’re putting up more videos lately, I’m glad.
16:40 violating Occam's Razor
16:42 violating Occam's Razor
18:40 also stigma of print
I only watched the first half of the critique. Lot of good points. But they unfortunately overlook some important facts. (1) First fact is the W. Shakespeare's mother was Mary Arden. The Ardens were a very strong family with strong females. They survived the Norman purges of Anglo Saxons to be one of the few families with roots going back before the Conquest. So, W. Shakespeare definitely had a strong mother and knew of strong female influences. (2) Second, the lecture presumes that the so-called author the Shakespeare works was a literary author... meaning that they had to write it all down somewhere. This is despite the fact that after centuries of searches, there is no trace of anything actually written down prior to the First Folio published well after W. Shakespeare's death. Not only is there nothing known to be written by W. Shakespeare, there is nothing written by ANYONE that shows a connection to the literature. The obvious conclusion for everyone except literary scholars is that the works were NOT WRITTEN as we think of this verb today. Instead, they were transmitted by rote memory, as would be common for actors in the time period, and only later, well after W. Shakespeare's death, did anyone decide to write them down. Searching for written sources in the hand of W. Shakespeare is likely to be fruitless. The use of rote memory avoids several problems in Elizabethan England: notably the secret police, censors, plagiarists, and the book burners that later showed up with the English Revolution. (3) Third, one very interesting connection of the Arden family in Stratford-on-Avon is their relationship to the migration to the New World, and particularly the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A significant migrant was Alexander Webb. If the family history of Alexander Webb is traced in relation to W. Shakespeare, it becomes apparent that their families were closely related. I think you could even justify calling Alexander Webb a 3/8 brother of W. Shakespeare. Alexander Webb is interesting in his own right, because he and his descendants played important roles in every War in America, starting with King Philip's War, and continuing through to the Korean and Vietnam Wars. One of his descendants was James Webb, a director of NASA, and the namesake for the James Webb Telescope now being used by astronomers.
Regarding your second point it's completely wrong. Ever heard of Hand D? Imagine a Stratfordian ignoring that? LOL!
He was related to some strong women? Well that clinches it!Yeah....No.
Graves has a strong argument: deveresociety.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NL_Template-52-pages-July2023-Article-Graves.pdf
And we've looked for Shaksper's evidence more than any other
There is no evidence for this nonsense. Personally, I believe that the works, attributed to William Shakespeare, were written by (no, not John Lennon, though he never officially denied writing them) - William Shakespeare. I refer you to James Shapiro's excellent book 'Contested Will', which, I'm sure, will fit nicely into your conspiracy theories, down in your comfortable rabbit hole.
Been reading Shapiro's The Year of Lear. What a joke of a book. Makes money but it's nothing more than choir music for the miracle believing Stratfordians who eat it up. So many instances of invention. But that's what these bios are, just money-making inventions, new gospels for the worshippers. When you say there is no evidence for this nonsense you are projecting.
Is there any evidence William Shaksper of Stratford actually claimed to write the plays? I suppose he never officially denied it.