Utterly brilliant. I’ve recently become obsessed with the authorship dispute and this is by far my favorite distillation of the argument against the Stratfordian stance.
Thanks Keir, from a fellow Canadian. I got interested in the whole authorship debate from watching your You Tube performances...and I must admit, it has greatly changed my view of historical truth and accepted literary "conventional wisdom". Delving into the authorship question is also the most mind-expanding activity I can imagine...without dropping psychedelic substances!
Wow! Thank you. I appreciate very much your comment! There is a wonderful book coming out this year called "Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature", I'm sure you'll love it!
Here we are and Shakespeare is still entertaining us only now through his authorship question which by now should have been put to bed if not put to a second best bed. Great presentation, simply great.
I think it's reasonable to assume, that if Shakespeare had any involvement with the writing of the plays and sonnets that have been attributed to him, then it would have been a much less academic one. After all the evidence presented here by Kier Cutler, and other eminent thinkers and scholars over the years, it feels safe to attest, that the hands of more than one, have their fingerprints all over the evidence, that are the works of one William Shakespeare.
bloody brilliant (excuse my language) - Twelth Night, Malvolio's words at the end bring new meaning: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em'
I watched the Frontline episode on "The Shakespeare Question" when it originally aired in the late 80s when I was in High School and was intrigued by the subject matter. Thanks to the internet I've watched enough alternative theories on Shaksper to be convinced that the man from Stratford DID NOT write the works attributed to him. Your one man show is the cherry on that sundae! So entertaining yet full of irrefutable facts! Bravo!
Too put it more brutally and lengthily - most people who refuse to question, research and investigate and who still revere - not despise - those zealous and compliant defenders of the status quo known as the "mainstream media" will do everything in their power to oppose anything that threatens the status quo and the establishment narrative. Paul G
I would propose that De Vere was the predominant Shaker of the Spear but maybe got some back-up assistance from others - non of them from Stratford on Avon.
I am an Oxfordian, done a little bit of research after feeling iffy about Shakespeare in my youth. I may be wrong but, loved how you got it all across and loved your humour well done.
We need more of YOU out there speaking on this topic to the new ones coming up. I’ve been in Theatre (actor, director) for 40 yrs, and I’ve found that most actors grow quite unsatisfied after time, with what is known of Will from Stratford. You -and Mark Twain -have made so many great points, smartly and with humor. And in the meantime, De Vere - Da Bard! ♥️😃💬
The job and "satisfaction" of actors has nothing to do with the biography of an author whose works they are in the employment of depicting, especially as the work invites no obvious autobiographical reading. The excellence of the work is all we should be concerned with - the rest is the subject matter of conspiracy theorists.
WoW, that was excellent! Mark Twain would have loved it! Very thought-provoking and delightfully entertaining.Apparently only one Troglodyte has bothered to express displeasure. For several years I've been of the Marlovian camp, but I can see why some of the other most likely candidates are being considered. If nothing else, you're opening my mind to the possibility that there may have been more than one author of the Shakespeare works. Well done! See, kids, learning can be fun!
Sir I salute you and your work. I have enjoyed it on many occasions, and I thoroughly and wholeheartedly agree with you and stand with you on this matter - you sir are a reasonable and intelligent man of wit and taste as well as a man with a sound disposition towards acquiring the truth instead of accepting the blatant travesties we are so constantly being fed :) Hats off, Sir, I salute you again. All the best to you and all yours from Oslo, Norway
'Blatant travesties' suggest deliberate lying. I can't buy that, given the enormous amount of solid scholarship. That probably won't appeal to, I think. Much easier to lash out with an eneducated opinion.
How does it change the present at ALL weather or not Shakespeare actually wrote his plays?? Im not dissing you, I just have to write a really boring 3000 word essay on it and it feels like grinding my brain against a cheese grader. The world does NOT NEED this and we will all live exactly the same even if we find proof of him not being the author.
Absolutely agree. For the life of me I can't understand how any learned being could believe a man, born of a long line of illiterates, who begot illiterates and couldn't even spell his own name created the greatest literary works known to man. Especially when a man, who did write in iambic pentameter and used the Pseudonym Shakespeare on two poems long before this Shakespeare of Strafford upon Avon was ever out of diapers. A man mentioned in private, not so private now, letters of the highest ranking member of the Queens privy council. This mischievous ward, whom was a favorite of the queen yet also embarrassed the queen. This isn't to say University is required to be a great author. It isn't. However, it would have been required in order for Shakespeare to be Shakespeare. Almost every play, poem, sooner attributed to Shakespeare was a reworked previously authored story from some other place and some other time. For example: Romeo & Juliet was Tristan & Isuelt reworked. Written almost five hundred years before Shakespeare's birth. Where did he learn ancient Gaelic? An actor, a playwright wouldn't have had access to these works nor the ability to translate then if he did have access to them. Hence why the absence of books in the will matters so much. Where did he get there originals upon which to build the stories? How could he have translated them? Where did he get the ability and confidence to create new words, phrases, etc? A nonlearned being wouldn't have. It's just that simple.
@@Dawn24Michele And the fact that there are dozens of repeated allusions to DeVere's private life in the plays: odd things, like being rumored to be a twin and a changeling, killing a fellow teen in a duel, being stripped and kidnapped on a desert island by pirates, thinking your wife is cheating on you, so you spurn her for five years, then find out your wrong and go back to her...she dies soon after, and you are terribly guilty....Two of your three daughters stab you in your back when you try to divide your land among them......robbing a coach for sport on the exact road mentioned in the play....the list goes on.....
@@thoutube9522 Do you know more details about the alleged murder? I'd like to read what is known. I am not going to judge DeVere good or bad. I am just saying that the evidence that he wrote the plays (and that Shakspere did not) is pretty convincing. De Vere staged a play for the Queen's revels in the 1570s where he had explosives going on (imitating a war, I believe), and two local people died in a subsequent fire, if I remember correctly. There is the possibility that someone else wrote the plays, and based a lot of details on DeVere's life. Derek Jacobi thinks the plays might have been a collaboration between DeVere and Shakspere, while others think more writers may have been involved. IMHO, the case for DeVere as the primary, if not the sole author of at least the large majority of the plays, is pretty strong.
@@thoutube9522 But the author of the Shake-speare cannon did NOT "make everything up". He based many of his plots on ancient plays. He based characters on people of the time: the Queen and Lord Burghley, of whom he was a ward, among them. The author had to know these people intimately, and he had to have access to the books and plays that his plays are based on DeVere had the access. He helped translate the works as a teenager. He saw the plays in Italy. He mentions a political entity in Italy in one of the plays that existed for only 6 months...during hte time he was there....
'Flatfordian' meaning - an exceptionally well paid academic, who dose virtually no work, in an Oxbridge / Ivy league university, yet gatekeeps and protects the most feeble, weak premise ever made - that an illiterate, unschooled Brummie oaf, debt collector and son of a Glovemaker, made the finest literature that Mankind has ever conceived.
Diana Price's ground-breaking research indicates that the chance of the actor/businessman from Stratford being "Shakespeare" is about 106,000 To 1 AGAINST...! Case closed on the Stratford Myth. Now, who wrote these works? "The creative person should have no other biography than his works..." - B. Traven (pseudonymous, anonymous author whose identity is still uncertain)
This is a great performance ... i really think you should do a traveling show around the world... not just to illustrate the BS of the worship of Shakespeare idealism - but to totally spread the word of Shakespeare to a new crowd - lets admit it - we all admire the work - we just debate the author of the works... the debate spreads the wonder of his works...
The worship is definitely of a religious order - and where there is religion, there will be atheists. But Shakespeare should never have been elevated like this - nobody thought of it for two and a half centuries after he died. The conspiracy theory has all its roots in Victorian idolatry.
@@smnwbb Victorian idolatry? I think the debate is well beyond Victorian issues and centres on the simple facts of whether the 'Bard' was accomplished enough to pull off such a portfolio of work!
@@mondomacabromajor5731 Not simple at all. I think! Yes indeed; the argument, which first appeared mid-19th C, was always about the impossibility of The Man being an unlikely phenomenon. But arguments about his education (universal curriculum, numerous references to and uses of); the unlikelihood of his actually getting into a grammar school (because he would have to be able to read and wwite, which was in fact taught in the other free-school sytem from age five to seven, expressly to prepare boys for grammar school); the lack of contemporary literary acknowledgement (don't know where that one comes from, they are at least as numerous as for other writers); his social status as a commoner denying him detailed knowledge of court life (commoners were fascinated and well-informed about this at the time; and he was a shareholder with the King's Men and frequently presented at court); the supposed interpolations in his will (which waspromptly proven at Probate, with interpolations intact); his omission to mention any books (there are zero contemporary playwrights who mentioned books in their wills (and, of course, his bookseller was an old neighbour from Stratford); his detailed knowledge of European geography (in fact he got many things ridiculously wrong!); his knowledge of law and expert Latin ("little latin and less greek" - Ben Jonson); and finally stylometric analysis supporting a single writer, with occasional hired help in later plays - well, you can probably guess where I find myself on this. Overall I find the argument unnecessary, but quite interesting in the context of mistrust of authority views, commonly called 'conspiracy theories' although I think the term is deliberately used to offend. I admit I completely dismiss cryptography as a meaningful element. Thanks for the reply :)
@@smnwbb The simple facts are: there never was an Elizabethan playwright named "William Shakespeare". There was an Elizabethan actor by the name of William Shaxper or Shakspere born in Stratford-uponAvon, England. There are no records of him ever having spelt his name as “William Shakespeare”, as we know him today. When academics speak of the historical "William Shakespeare" they are referring to this actor. There is no evidence to show that the actor William Shaxper was the Genius writer. There are no original manuscripts of the plays or the poems, no letters and only six awkward signatures > all in dispute and over 80 other variations on the name. The lack of any letters written by William Shaxper is particularly significant, as being a Genius writer, it is likely he would have written a large number, like all the other writers of his time. Voltaire’s collected correspondence totals roughly 20,000 pieces. Shaxper’s, or Shake 'the' spear’s collected correspondence totals exactly 'zero' items. His parents, wife and children were all illiterate, which would make Shaxper the only Genius writer in history whose children were illiterate! There has been an attempt by Stratfordians to 'surmise' that William Shaxper attended a grammar school in Stratford. Shakespeare’s original grave marker showed him holding a bag of grain, the citizens of Stratford replaced the bag with a quill in 1747. The most interesting thing is that Shakespeare turns up right when Marlowe disappears... In Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre circles it was common for play writers to 'collaborate' on writing plays, since many plays are not believed to have been written by the Genius "William Shakespeare", clearly at least one other writer was using the pen name 'Shake-spear.' So the authorship debate, for me, is profound as no one knows for sure who wrote the works 'attributed' to Shakespeare... Thanks for the discussion.
@@mondomacabromajor5731 I think our pages are from different books. No offence, I hope, but I have nothing to offer that hasn't been offered many times; if substantial exclusionary evidence turns up, it will be very exciting, but until then I'm just not on board. All the best.
Brilliant KC thank you! I also thank Charlton Ogburn who first enlightened me! And added to the list to whom I am grateful is ‘Anonymous’ a superb film that further explodes the mythology! As for the trogs, Shapiro most culpable with his unending prevarications and rationalisations! Once more KC Thank you! Clyde Gatell.
Dainel Patterson wrote a popular road gazateer which was first published in 1796 and went through 15 editions before 1812, which made it a best-seller. Stratford was not mentioned as the birthplace of the bard until at least that 15th edition. Prior to that, it was just another small town on the road to other places and the only notable thing about it was a bridge. Dr. Cutler makes a similar point in the first minute of his show: Stratford was not even a blip on the radar for the man who wrote the plays and poems.
I can not help myself; Sir, I do applaud your delivery etc. This is like myself as a teenager with a book of which I cannot put down; I cannot 👀 quit watching
Great performance, I came here after Petter Admundsen’s “Cracking the Shakespeare Code” and his book ofcourse, society might finally be woke enough for this truth
Thank you for the response. I get your point! However, are you familiar with Stylometric analysis? Originally developed in the early 1900s for this particular use case. In the original experiment Marlowe was said to agree with Shakespeare as well as Shakespeare agrees with himself. Stylometric Analysis has come along way. The NSA has developed some very sophisticated algorithms to detect authorship with a high degree of confidence. Do you know if anyone has attempted to apply these modern computer aided tools and databases to the Shakespeare authorship question?
+craig Shell Yes, I hear a lot about stylometrics. In theory stylometics could be useful, but in practice it isn't. There is too much confirmation bias. I have heard of studies in stylometics that have proven several different people wrote Shakespeare. One selects the data one needs to confirm one's prejudice. This is a general problem in Shakespeare studies, and truth be told, in all academic endeavours. No one knows which parts of the works of Shakespeare were written by which person, and almost everyone agrees that the works involved some level of collaboration. So one simply adjusts the sample until stylometrics provide the sought after answer. If the person doing the study wants the traditional story to be true, believe me they will always prove that the traditional story is true. And the same goes for alternate authors.
+Keir Cutler The linkage blindness of the "Stratfordian's" is incredible as Edward De Vere ticks all the boxes as the author and we don't have any confirmation bias IMO ,we have an orgiastic banquet of mountainous evidence .
I just finished your book “Shakespeare the Authorship Question: A Crackpot’s View”! It is an excellent and concise account. I was an English Literature minor in college and was never told the truth about the authorship question. Thank you for your bold stance on this issue. I have recently read many books on Edward De Vere by Loony, Ogborn, Anderson, Purdue, Whittemore, Waugaman.Malim, Pointon, Ellis, Chilean, and finally “Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?” Edited by Shanan and Waugh. I did sign the document by Shakespeare Authorship Coalition. I continue to be impressed by your one man show and have passed it on to my friends. Thank you again for an outstanding factually informative and funny performance!
Why not both authors after all this is a time when a person who writes anything of worth could end up tortured and then hung would not these authors who knew each other find a way such as an alias to publish their works ? Why could they not share this alias as a group effort used for mutual support ?
You should research Thomas Sackville as a candidate for Shakespeare: Knowledge of falconry Knowledge of Italian/Latin and Italy Knowledge of law Died in 1608 (better than 1604) Was a masterful poet before he “gave it up” Was influenced by Chaucer Used iambic pentameter There aren’t many of his surviving works, so data for stylistic analysis is skewed
Wonderful presentation, Dr. Cutler! It seems pretty clear to me that the works could not have been written by a single man. They are a composite. An over 29,000 word vocabulary is absolutely huge. Although people's vocabularies are difficult to estimate, probably no human being knows that many words or ever has. Heck, we only use about 800-900 words on a daily basis! I think the King James Bible has about 10,000 words, but, again, we only use a small fraction of that number daily. And, of course, the Bible had many authors, as everyone knows. Consider, too, that there were no English dictionaries worth mentioning from the time. Had there been, then maybe an author could have used that many words, but then there is the additional problem of the MASTERY of those words. One cannot very well just insert words any old place just to run up the numbers. They must be used correctly, skillfully, poetically, beautifully. It hardly seems possible that one man could have done all that. It is possible that MULTIPLE men could have done it.
@@tabletalk33 The evidence is in the 118406 lines that he (mostly) wrote. The only way to have done that, in the way that he did, is to have a huge vocabulary, to be extremely inventive in phrasing, to be able to quickly recall any and all linguistic detail. This is nothing to do with education or sheer knowledge, it is native talent.
@@tomszabo7350 Nonsense, and many, many studies have been undertaken to contradict what you offer. There are numerous excellent books which enumerate, chapter and verse, the problems with that kind of thinking, as well as its incompleteness. It's tunnel vision and the stubbornness and greed of university men with vested interests in the "Shakespeare Myth" which have caused this, ultimately. We are waaay past the point of debate on those things. The man you are describing would have to be something far more than a mere "genius." He would have to be superhuman. sorry, but I'm not buying it.
@@tabletalk33 BS. Then why is there such a dearth of contemporary verse and prose with the same quality, novelty and inventiveness??? Where are the other plays with the hundreds of new words and phrases that not only survived but are in such common usage in the modern day??? Did the committee that supposedly wrote Shakespeare simply decide the best works of the Elizabethan Renaissance would ALL be assigned to the Shakespeare pseudonym??? How did these people know what invented words and phrases would be in use 400 years later, and how did they manage to sprinkle/share them amongst the plays??? Talk about superhuman.
Bravo, sir! Most entertaining and more importantly...informative, a terrific performance. I hope more people watch this video and consider the facts, but as Mark Twain opined, it could take several hundred (more) years to convince our fine race - including every splendid intellect in it.
If one honestly looks at the facts, I believe it is clear we do not know who wrote the works and we do not know how many people were involved. The reason this matters is most educational institutions, rather than simply state it was 400 years ago and perhaps we will never know how these great works came into being, most students are taught there is no doubt whatsoever about who wrote Shakespeare. It was a man with little education and virtually none of the required knowledge who wandered into London and miraculously became the greatest writer of all time. He was a genius and a genius can do anything. This myth is pushed as fact and students are told never to question it. When educators push myth as fact, they cease to be educators. So, you are correct, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether Will or Dave wrote the works, it does matter if Will is pushed as the writer when the evidence does not back it up.
Shakespeare lived in London when he wrote the plays or co- wrote. He did make reference to the Forest or Arden, in his play - As You Like It'. .. Which Obviously Shakespeare would have known well. Therefore did make reference to his home county! .. The Southern tip of Arden was Stratford.. And the Northern tip extended as far as Digbeth, which is now Birmingham. ........ The Aden family came from Castle Bromwich. But why should he actually have to mention Stratford ??
Some argue that it is the Forest of Arden that once surrounded Shakespeare's hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon; others believe that the As You Like It because the play is set in France the setting is Ardennes, France.
Some of it is word-for-word from the book, some of the book is left out... but it's an adaptation and has some additional stuff as well. You should be able to find the book online. It's worth a read.
@@keircutler Thanks. It just seemed to me that the Stratford man seemed so unpleasant, but the actor supposedly was loved. But I've only just got interested in the subject and am watching some of the videos from the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship.
@@keircutlerMaybe, a 'Shake-speare collective'. Anyway, I love the plays and sonnets regardless of who wrote them, a single person or a group of authors.
Thank you for this. I knew most of the arguments. I can think of a life similar to the one lived by Shakespeare upon Avon. There was an American boy who came from modest circumstances, growing up in a backwater town where there were few books and a rudimentary school. He traveled extensively, learned from a broad number of acquaintances and coworkers, developed his writing skills under adverse circumstances, had various menial occupations and worked his way up in the literary trades to attain prominence with a magnificent early success in the form of a first-rate book. His name was Samuel Clemens. Are we to argue that Samuel Clemens could not have written Mark Twain therefore? Still, I believe the odds are 60-40 in favor of the Earl of Oxford being the true author of WS's works. (I prefer to assignment notional probabilities where I cannot see certainty.)
@Random Silicates Still, if we believe Mark Twain in Life on the Mississippi, he obtained his early exposure to Shakespeare's writings themselves through an alternately cursing and quoting master pilot of the River. My point is that much knowledge may be picked up through listening to and questioning those who know something of a subject -- all without the access to books and libraries. It may also be knowledge that when displayed is very faulty in its details. A precocious and interested youth is a sponge for soaking up all sorts of arcane knowledge. We know Shakespeare often demonstrates unexpected knowledge, but then betrays its shallowness in some details. For instance, apparently he believed that Verona is accessible from the sea. He knew of the Italian city and that one could arrive by water at its docks, but assumed it was on an ocean, not a broad river. BTW, Mark Twain did not believe the man of Stratford was the author of Shakespeare's works, and I am also inclined to conclude the same. What bothers me more about the man of Stratford being granted authorship are many facts that impress against him. For instance, after the Essex Rebellion when the Shakespeare's company was called before the government investigating body, the author himself did not make an appearance. A number of the leading members were present, but not Shakespeare, as I recall. Why not? Some report that AUgustine Phillips alone was present, but others report that Hemmings, Phillips and others were there.
I'm not sure that some of these arguments (I haven't made the effort to count them . . .) are as compelling as they might at first sight seem. For example: it might indeed be strange that no manuscripts of the plays of Shakespeare are extant. Are there manuscripts extant of plays by other contemporary authors (?) But if even if it is demonstrably strange in that way . . . how is the strangeness a specific argument against the Stratford man writing the plays (?) It would be no LESS strange if someone else wrote them . . .
Came here from Robert Frederick's The Hidden Life about Francis Bacon and his influence on the English Empire. Really interesting stuff and this play is hilarious.
Having just read "Is Shakespeare Dead?", I was a little put off at the beginning of this presentation because of the paraphrasing and straying from the original text. As it went on, however, I warmed to this adaptation. Well done - especially the inclusion of the additional candidates. It seems in Twain's time it was primarily Stratfordians vs Baconians. Personally, I'm leaning towards multi-authorship. DeVere (especially for the sonnets and for organizing the playwrights), and Bacon for all the legalese certainly seems most likely. Unquestionably NOT Stratford Shak - a likely pawn.
Thanks for sticking with the adaptation. Yes I did update the writing to include other candidates and add information that Twain did not have. Thanks for your comments.
Mark Twain's book, "Is Shakespeare Dead" is a great deconstruction of the myth that William Shakespeare was the author of the Plays and Sonnets. Mark Twain was a life long admirer of Sir Francis Bacon and as he states in his book, believes that Bacon was the Author.
@@luckybag6814 The difference is that we have actual writings in Twain's handwriting but none in the Stratford man. As he says in his book, Is Shakespeare Dead? that everyone back in Hannibal knew of Twain's literary business and yet nobody in Stratford associated him with being a writer. Actually Mark Twain mocked those who only believed in William Shakespeare as the author and defended it only with their sentimentality. Twain was passionate on The Shakespeare Authorship for over 50 years. The elitism and frustration behind The Shakespeare authorship question exists for those who have the most to lose. We just need more critical thinking that can make distinctions between a hoax and the facts and people's belief systems that they were raised on or inherited. Bacon's observations on The Four Idols are recommended to overcome cognitive dissonance. www.sirbacon.org/mgreatestbaconian.htm
+Martin Brown Thank you so much. Incidentally, you might be interested in knowing about the scholarly censorship of "Is Shakespeare Dead?" "The Mark Twain Project" describes itself as "an editorial and publishing program of the Bancroft Library working since 1967 to create a comprehensive critical edition of everything Mark Twain wrote." This self-proclaimed "Complete and Authoritative Edition" has at last released its 3-volume set of Twain's autobiography, and guess what? The Shakespeare essay has been omitted. Benjamin Griffin, Associate Editor from the University of California at Berkeley, used to work at the Folger Library and says of the Shakespeare authorship debate: "there is no authorship debate." He has omitted Twain's "Is Shakespeare Dead?" because (he claims) he could not figure out where exactly to place it within the text.
+Jeffhowardmeade Absolute nonsense what you are writing! The first line of "Is Shakespeare Dead?" by Mark Twain is "Scattered here and there through the stacks of unpublished manuscript which constitute this formidable Autobiography and Diary of mine..." The Mark Twain Project claims it is to include ALL of Twain's writings, but has no plans to include "Is Shakespeare Dead?" Even the editor said he could have included "Is Shakespeare Dead?" in an appendix, but chose not to. "Is Shakespeare Dead?" describes Twain own experiences. Much of the book is his autobiographical experiences! For example... "About a year later my pilot-master, Bixby, transferred me from his own steamboat to the Pennsylvania, and placed me under the orders and instructions of George Ealer--dead now, these many, many years. I steered for him a good many months--as was the humble duty of the pilot-apprentice: stood a daylight watch and spun the wheel under the severe superintendence and correction of the master. He was a prime chess player and an idolater of Shakespeare. He would play chess with anybody; even with me, and it cost his official dignity something to do that. Also--quite uninvited--he would read Shakespeare to me; not just casually, but by the hour, when it was his watch, and I was steering. He read well, but not profitably for me, because he constantly injected commands into the text. That broke it all up, mixed it all up, tangled it all up--to that degree, in fact, that if we were in a risky and difficult piece of river an ignorant person couldn't have told, sometimes, which observations were Shakespeare's and which were Ealer's ..." Trying to find excuses a century after Twain's death to keep his autobiographical writings from the public is outrageous. Trying to pretend "Is Shakespeare Dead?" is not part of his autobiography when the first sentence states it is part of his "formidable Autobiography and Diary." Is censorship. The man is dead, he is to be taken at his word. Because you don't like the book, the book never happened! Twain was a sceptic about Shakespeare for decades! As were most intelligent writers of the time. This is simply a fact. Like it or not!
So, you've decided that Twain would not have been a disbeliever if he had read Schoenbaum. So why are Mark Rylance and Sir Derek Jacobi disbelievers? Are they less intelligent than Twain? This kind of wild speculation is ridiculous. Twain was a disbeliever, and he only had the extensive unexplained legal knowledge to deal with, he didn't know there were more medical references in Shakespeare than legal, many culled from ancient Greek texts. Twain hated fraud and the Stratford-upon-Avon tourist site is a fraud. Whether Shakespere wrote the works of not. You are also speculating on whethter UC Berkeley is suppressing the Authorship debate or not. And understandably you come down on UC's side. I am not speculating. I've read the editor's answers to written complaints about his censorship of Twain ideas. And they are unconvincing. There will be many further complaints lodged against UC.
We agree to disagree. Twain knew writers write what they know. Your pretending that Shakespeare's knowledge was easily accessible from a book or hanging out somewhere is ludicrous. You are dumbing down the works to fit your preconceived idea of the rustic genius. The book Shakespeare's Legal Language: A Dictionary, by Sokal and Sokal, fills over 400 pages of detailed discussion of Shakespeare's use of legal terms and concepts. Mark Twain was incredulous that Shakespeare could have learned the law on such a sophisticated level. Twain had read the following passage from C. K. Davis’s 1883 book, The Law In Shakespeare, and included it almost verbatim in his Is Shakespeare Dead? “Over and over again, where such knowledge is unexampled in writers unlearned in the law, Shakespeare appears in perfect possession of it. In the law of real property, its rules of tenure and descents, its entails, its fines and recoveries, and their vouchers and double vouchers; in the procedure of the courts, the methods of bringing suits and of arrests, the nature of actions, the rules of pleading, the law of escapes, and of contempt of court; in the principles of evidence, both technical and philosophical; in the distinction between the temporal and the spiritual tribunals; in the law of attainder and forfeiture; in the requisites of a valid marriage; in the presumption of legitimacy; in the learning of the law of prerogative; in the inalienable character of the crown,-- this mastership appears with surprising authority.”[ii] And that is just the law! Shakespeare’s remarkable medical knowledge has attracted the attention of physicians and medical historians who have cataloged more than 700 medical references covering medical conditions from obstetrics to forensics, with a particular emphasis on psychiatric diseases. In The Medical Knowledge of Shakespeare, Dr. John Charles Bucknill wrote, “… it would be difficult to point to any great author, not himself a physician in whose works the healing art is referred to more frequently and more respectfully than in those of Shakespeare.”[iii] Dr. Earl Showerman, who has thirty years of hospital emergency room experience, wrote recently, “What astonishes me about Shakespeare’s medical content is his unique clinical genius, and the extraordinary richness of his medical literary sources. Numerous texts, including rare books on natural history, anatomy, physiology, infectious disease, Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus, have been identified as potential sources. When could Shaksper have found the time, given his duties as a theater manager and actor, to become such a medical expert?”[iv] In Shakespeare’s Sea Terms Explained, Captain W. B. Whall found in the plays “an intimate professional knowledge of seamanship. Words and phrases of an extremely technical nature are scattered throughout them, and a mistake in their use is never made.” In his monumental thirteen-volume work, A History of the British Army, military historian John Fortescue wrote, “Shakespeare is as truly the painter of the English Army… in Shakespeare must the military student read the history of the Elizabethan soldier.”[v] It is impossible to know for sure how many new words Shakespeare added to the English language. The play Hamlet alone is believed to contain 170 words that had never before been heard.[vi] Shakespeare added “assassination,” “addiction,” “circumstantial,” “grovel,” and “rant,” to name just a few. New words were not invented out of thin air, but rather were adapted from a knowledge of Latin, Greek, French, Italian and Spanish. In subject after subject Shakespeare’s knowledge seems virtually limitless. There are simply too many domains of learning saturating the plays and poems: law, medicine, philosophy, classical literature, ancient and modern history, art, astronomy, astrology, horticulture, mathematics, music, games and sports, military and naval terminology, and English, French and Italian court life! And that is just a partial list. [i] B. J. Sokal and Mary Sokal, Shakespeare's Legal Language: A Dictionary, The Atholne Press, London, UK 2000. [ii] Cushman K. Davis, The Law In Shakespeare, Part One Introduction, Washington Law Book Co, Washington, DC, 1883, p. 4. [iii] John Charles Bucknil, M. D. The Medical Knowledge of Shakespeare Longman & Co. London, 1860, p.2. [iv] Earl Showerman, M.D. Email message to author. Feb. 17, 2013. [v] Michell, p 28-30. [vi] Alfred Hart, “Vocabularies of Shakespeare’s Plays,” Review of English Studies, 19, no. 74 (April 1943), p. 135.
What you just did was "dumbing down" Shakespeare. He had vast knowledge and somehow managed to not leave a single trace that he had this knowledge. Even in attendance of grammar school is speculation. He has some 800 references to Italy. He knew things about Italy that even scholars didn't. Hence the pretence that he got Italy all wrong. No not wrong, correct, But only recently proven correct. You can dumb down all you want. It doesn't work. There are 29,000 or so different words in Shakespeare. One of the largest vocabularies ever assembled. And he left no indication he had done any of it. You seem learned. I suggest you start learning about the stigma of print. Then ask yourself, do the works seem to come from a rustic genius who left nothing to show for his immense talent except the pretend Hand D? Or were the works from those who could not be seen to write for the theatre or have their names as authors?
Venus and Adonis (Shakespeare poem) was published in 1593 by Richard Field, who, like Shakespeare, was from Stratford and lived down the street from him.
@@keircutler It is a work of William Shakespeare printed by a contemporary who lived near him, Richard Field. It shows there were people in Stratford printing his works who knew him. It refutes the idea no one in Stratford knew William Shakespeare wrote his works. They are even publishing them.
@@TheIrishLoaf No it doesn't prove anything since there is no known connection between Field and Shakspere of Stratford. You are assuming that the man from Stratford wrote the works and therefore this proves Field and Shakspere knew each other. There is no known correspondence between them. It is all part of the mystery. Thanks for your comments, Dr. Keir
@@keircutler If you dismiss that Shakespeare knew the publisher Field, who lived down the road from him and published his works, then that same skepticism obliterates attempts to introduce anyone else as the author who lived even further away! You can't have it both ways.
@@TheIrishLoaf I don't dismiss anything. And I don't push alternative authors. I got involved in this decades ago when Shakespeare professors were still pushing the man from Stratford as the sole author with the possible exception of some of Pericles. That appeared ludicrous to me. And I have now been proven right!!! If the original position was, as it is now, that an unknown number of collaborators created Shakespeare and it is unknown what parts of the works were written by the man from Stratford, I would have never had a beef with the orthodoxy.
Thank you very much for this presentation Mr. Cutler, it was enlightening and very entertaining. It is highly unlikely that Marlowe died in Deptford. No Grave is found after him, and lord keeper Puckering couldn't tell the exact date which Marlowe "died" on, just a couple of days after it happened. Did Marlowe go to Italy? Two of Shakespeare's early plays relate to Marlowe in some way or another. The jew of malta became Merchant of Venice and Romeo and Juliet is more or less taken directly from Ovid's Pyramus and Thisbe from Metamorphoses. Marlowe took a great interest in Ovid's writings, and its a fact that he translated Amores from Greek into the first version ever published in english. Venus and Adonis and Hero and Leander are also both influenced by the Metamorphoses. But attributed to different playwrights.
A truly compelling presentation. Entertaining and certainly food for thought. Perhaps Oxford is the most prominent suspect as the author of the greatest literary works in history. I would like to see a Stratfordian present an opposite argument with the same passion and knowledge.
Didn't the pen name Shakespeare first turn up 13 days after the death of Marlowe? And now there is some documentary evidence that Marlowe died in Padua in 1627? This was a very funny , enjoyable performance. Thank you.
Also, ciphers used on the First Folio seem to imply Francis Bacon collaborated with Henry Neville on the plays, and other decrypted texts say Marlowe just allowed Bacon to use his name for the earlier plays..+ the manuscripts might be on Oak Island preserved in Mercury?..Obviously it's better than they're going up in flames in London or wherever , but hopefully they'll turn up in a more convenient place in England.
In the months following Francis Bacon’s death his trusted Rosicrucian Brother Dr William Rawley gathered together and quietly issued a commemorative work in his honour entitled Memoriae honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis de Verulamio, vice-comitis Sancti Albani sacrum. This rare and still virtually unknown work contains thirty-two Latin verses in praise of Bacon, which his orthodox editors and biographers have simply glossed over, ignored, or suppressed, that portray Bacon as a secret supreme poet and dramatist, the writer of comedies and tragedies, under the pseudonym of Shakespeare.ruclips.net/video/n3UL4MfyAZc/видео.html
This is just awesome.... I.enjoyed.every bit of it...loved it..almost convinced me to un believe what has been believed for centuries on and on..and of course it is not.easy to make ppl doubt what they have assumed to be indubitable
I think the authorship issue is interesting. But there is a central issue that no one ever discusses - the debate of authorship is, arguably, predicated on the assumption that Shakespeare was objectively a "great" writer, and generally a "greater" writer than his contemporaries. In other words, it is an argument that is fed by "bardolatry." When people question Shakespeare's authorship they are essentially asking "how could this guy with no apparent education or specialized knowledge and experience, be so good?" I often enjoy reading through Charles Lamb's "Specimens of English Dramatic Poets who Lived About the Time of Shakespear" [sic], and there were many accomplished playwrights who were contemporary with Shakespeare. It is really only when we make the value judgement (a value judgement that I think is unwarranted in the age of post-structuralism) that Shakespeare was phenomenally greater than his contemporaries, that the question of authorship even arises. Having said that, I enjoyed the video a great deal.
You make an interesting point. And there is no answer for it, since the worth of Shakespeare is subjective. That said, Shakespeare's works, aside from Bardolotry, do have an extraordinary dramatic power. There is no playwriting from Shakespeare's time remotely on the level of Hamlet or King Lear. The success of those plays and others, is not matched by anything else. Marlowe's plays generally fall flat and Jonson's can be amusing but aren't on the level of Twelfth Night or As You Like it. In fact, there are very few Elizabethan or Jacobean plays that enjoy frequent productions. I think you are exaggerating the effect of Bardolotry. The Shakespearean plays, many of them, continue to have great power and drama!
Isn't there a value-judgement or two here ... of post-structuralism, of assumptions, of objectivity, of bardolatry, of Shakespeare's contemporary playwrights, of what's warranted and unwarranted but especially of value-judgements themselves? It looks like there's no getting away from the wretched things even when that's just the thing you want to do.
@@MrMartibobs This speech, as you say, is ambiguous. Was Ben referring to Shakspere or De Vere? There is a veritable mountain of new research supporting the Oxford theory. I suggest you actually look at the evidence. Start THE MAN WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE by Anderson, then try SHAKESPEARE BY ANOTHER NAME, By Charles Beauclerc. I doubt you will. My experience is that people who dismiss any new idea with the phrase "Conspiracy Theorist" don't really have an open mind to anything, and have difficulty trusting their own analyses of evidence, or may not even have the ability to analyze evidence. they resort to a second hand phrase to sum up their opinion. But maybe you will prove me wrong: Here are some interesting tidbits: Many of the repeated themes in the plays are autobiographical events in DeVere's life: He killed a young man in a duel when he was a teen, and was threatened with banishment for it (Like Romeo) He was kidnapped by pirates and stripped on an island, but was let go because he was a member of the English Court (The Tempest) When Prince Hal robs a coach for sport in Henry IV Part One, he names the place he did it. DeVere was arrested for doing the same thing in the same place. DeVere had three daughters who divided his land, like Lear, and two fo them turned against him. DeVere thought his wife was cheating on him and wouldn't sleep with her for five years...she died soon after their reconcilliation, when he found he had been wrong.....similar to Othello and several other plays. DeVere was rumored to have been a twin and a changeling, as occurs in several plys to main characters. DeVere had access to all the books the plays are based on,a nd helped translate them, being the ward of Lord Burghley, of the House of Cecil the banker behind the English throne. De Vere travelled to all the places in Italy mentioned in the Italian plays, and saw the plys there that his plys are based on. Shakspere never left England as fa as is known DeVere was fluent in French, could read and write Latin, had studied law, soldiering, was an expert in jousting and falcolnry, was an insider at Court. Shakspere did none of these things, but whoever wrote the plays must have been familiar with all of them. DeVere was praised as being the best poet of his time for "comedy and tragedy". De Vere had catholic leanings, as the author showed in several passages, notably Hamlet's musings on the nature of ghosts and the next life. Anyway, I'm just scratching the surface. Every other great writer writes about his own life and has many autobiographical allusions. DeVere did the same.
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
The reason I think it was Bacon, is because of the great esteem Bacon is held in in esoteric circles. Which is a mystery in its own right, given Bacon was a renowned philosopher - but nothing that great, Descartes was way more important, Which begs the question why Bacon was so venerated by Rosicrusians, Martinists, the Founding Fathers and the like? However, if the Rosicrusians and Freemasons know Bacon is also Shakespeare, then that makes sense of the god-like veneration. Why they saw him as the herald of the New Age of Aquarius and the like, The combination of important philosopher and greatest writer in history - would blow you away. That would be worthy of Bacon's occult deification. Today's equivalent, would be Francis Fukuyama knocking out the plays of David Mamet in his spare time, Well that still wouldn't come close - but you know what I mean.
@@smnwbb The veneration of Bacon pre-dates Delia Bacon by centuries. Just find it odd why he's venerated as a god-like genius in esoteric circles. It's like they know something about Bacon that we don't.
I enjoyed this. My horse job includes old criminal investigations. I wound up here researching a MO Supreme Court case I am involved in which took me to Mark Twain Mark which placed me here. I see that academics fight like cat and lawyers lawyers too! After spending an hour on the case I will say that seeing the Burbage name on the purported will gives rise to speculation of circumstantial authenticity and then again collusion. It does stand out that the part of the will that would link back to his colleagues and the theater is particularly crammed with writing. I am sure you fine acedemics have taken all that into account in between swats.
Whoever...whatever...however it goes...I am not with standing UP ...a devoute of that that is that within Will Shakespeare...the Bard of my studies and my coaching/ teaching careers ...come what may...into the breech!!!
A good presentation. To be fair it would be interesting to see a pro-Staffordian present his or her case in the same tongue in cheek manner, as a contrast. I expect the many metaphorical references to the theatre, used in the plays, (All the world's a stage etc) would be used to argue that the author needed theatrical connections, which their man and Marlowe had. Knowledge of places abroad would be dismissed as irrelevant. The audience would be told the scene was in Verona, Venice or wherever, then be carried away by the story, not accurate geographical description. Though inaccurate geographical description, such as giving Bavaria a coast line in, "The Winter's Tale," could be used to argue that places were more from how the author imagined them than direct personal knowledge. The wide social variety of people, who went to the theatre would have been a mine of information and knowledge for an imaginative author whose plays feature a wide social variety of people. It is a pity the video avoided that possibility. Non of that would prove the Straffordian case, but the arguments put forward for other claimants, like geographical knowledge and social status would be weakened. One theme that runs through the plays is that of dissembling, which the villains do and disguise, which the heroes do. Such might not tell us who the author was, but say a lot about the feelings of the man in and behind the plays - the inner man, not the outer man the world saw.
Keir Cutler. I am not sure how giving Bavaria (sorry Bohemia) a coastline is not an error. Be that as it may, the intimate details of Italy could have been gleamed from well heeled theatre goers that had been there. Films today often use library picture to depict the setting, just as announcing a place performed the same function then. As said the story not the setting was the important thing. The plays often fuse surrealistically the England at the period with a foreign setting, "A Midsummer Nights Dream," is an obvious example. There are also references to the stews, or the south bank setting of the globe, in the plays, such as when the prostitute called the galled goose of Westminster is mentioned in "Troilus and Cressida" (The area was under the Bishop of Westminster, who got a share in the prostitute's earnings.) It begs the question as to where the plays were written. If abroad, then why the English references? Richard Carew in his 1605 essay, "The Excellency of the English tongue" clearly refers to Shakespeare as a writer and a person when he compares Marlowe and him to Catullus. Why would he do that if no one knew him as a writer?
All of these questions have been addressed. Referring to seemingly incorrect coastlines in "The Winter's Tale" has been an error pushed for centuries about Shakespeare's geography. In reality, in Shakespeare's time, the King of Bohemia did rule a small finger of ocean coastline. In addition, at that time the King of Bohemia was also the ruler of Croatia and Hungary. These kinds of fake errors have been dealt with. For example, another frequent attack is that the geographic error of a "sailmaker in Bergamo, Italy" mentioned in "The Merchant of Venice." Bergamo is hundreds of miles from the coast, clearly, Shakespeare didn't know geography. Sails would be made on the coast, not made inland and transported to the coast. Wrong again! Bergamo was the textile center of Italy at the time, and all sails were made there. If you are actually interested in the other side of this, read Richard Roe"s "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy." Roe spent 20 years tracking down Italian references in Shakspeare. His work has changed views. Whoever wrote Shakespeare had an intimate knowledge of the country, and not one gained by a few choice conversations. And the name Shakespeare, or as Carew spells it, "“Shakespheare” was celebrated as a writer. But who was Shakespeare? The current consensus seems to be a conglomeration of writers. Not one man. And possible the man from Stratford was not a writer at all, but a front for the plays. Or a "play broker."
Thanks for your interesting replies. I am not a Stratfordian and obviously have not read everything on the issue. That said, I do feel that it is only fair to deal fairly with any arguments from whatever side rather than use the scorn, dismissal, or avoidance techniques that some, on all sides, revert to. Accusations of snobbery, being a favourite Stratfordian one. It is important to keep an open mind on the subject or their is the danger of seeing only what you want to see. I leaned towards Marlowe. He very likely traveled in Italy but the influence of the Stews, on the writer's material, cannot be ignored. Perhaps Marlowe returned. Your point about a conglomeration of writers is interesting, it reminded me of the talk of Bacon heading one. His alleged Rosicrucian leadership also makes him man of mystery. An argument against conglomeration is that one mind, someone with a bee in his bonnet against dissembling and a lover of puns, seems to dominate. Not that the author, in life, would have kept up the high ideals advocated in his plays. Dickens presented the reformed Scrooge, and other characters like the Cherrybells, as ideals of humane kindness and in his heart of hearts he may have wanted people to be like that, but he had his darker side also. The everyday and the inner person do differ. One thing for sure the author was or the authors were human.
Utterly brilliant. I’ve recently become obsessed with the authorship dispute and this is by far my favorite distillation of the argument against the Stratfordian stance.
Thanks Keir, from a fellow Canadian. I got interested in the whole authorship debate from watching your You Tube performances...and I must admit, it has greatly changed my view of historical truth and accepted literary "conventional wisdom". Delving into the authorship question is also the most mind-expanding activity I can imagine...without dropping psychedelic substances!
Wow! Thank you. I appreciate very much your comment! There is a wonderful book coming out this year called "Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature", I'm sure you'll love it!
🇨🇦
What is the meaning of the Canadian flag. 41:29 😅
Mark Twain's book is witty, ironic, very effective. Loved this hilarious, clever performance.
Here we are and Shakespeare is still entertaining us only now through his authorship question which by now should have been put to bed if not put to a second best bed. Great presentation, simply great.
Thank you!
I think it's reasonable to assume, that if Shakespeare had any involvement with the writing of the plays and sonnets that have been attributed to him, then it would have been a much less academic one. After all the evidence presented here by Kier Cutler, and other eminent thinkers and scholars over the years, it feels safe to attest, that the hands of more than one, have their fingerprints all over the evidence, that are the works of one William Shakespeare.
The writing has been analyzed thoroughly, it is by a single person though there are both obvious and subtle contributions/collaborations.
bloody brilliant (excuse my language) - Twelth Night, Malvolio's words at the end bring new meaning: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em'
Thank you so much!!
I watched the Frontline episode on "The Shakespeare Question" when it originally aired in the late 80s when I was in High School and was intrigued by the subject matter. Thanks to the internet I've watched enough alternative theories on Shaksper to be convinced that the man from Stratford DID NOT write the works attributed to him. Your one man show is the cherry on that sundae! So entertaining yet full of irrefutable facts! Bravo!
But you haven't studied anything else.
27 people hate facts that destroy their illusion.
Too put it more brutally and lengthily - most people who refuse to question, research and investigate and who still revere - not despise - those zealous and compliant defenders of the status quo known as the "mainstream media" will do everything in their power to oppose anything that threatens the status quo and the establishment narrative.
Paul G
Excellent.
Except of course, that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.
.
I would propose that De Vere was the predominant Shaker of the Spear but maybe got some back-up assistance from others - non of them from Stratford on Avon.
I am an Oxfordian, done a little bit of research after feeling iffy about Shakespeare in my youth. I may be wrong but, loved how you got it all across and loved your humour well done.
Thank you for your kind words!
We need more of YOU out there speaking on this topic to the new ones coming up. I’ve been in Theatre (actor, director) for 40 yrs, and I’ve found that most actors grow quite unsatisfied after time, with what is known of Will from Stratford. You -and Mark Twain -have made so many great points, smartly and with humor. And in the meantime, De Vere - Da Bard! ♥️😃💬
Thanks so much!!
The job and "satisfaction" of actors has nothing to do with the biography of an author whose works they are in the employment of depicting, especially as the work invites no obvious autobiographical reading. The excellence of the work is all we should be concerned with - the rest is the subject matter of conspiracy theorists.
An amazing feat of memory, and brilliantly acted.
Wonderful adaption and performance! For many this will be more than enough to be convinced.
One of the best expressions of Mark Twains 'surmises' on Shakespeare ever done ... Brilliant work ....
WoW, that was excellent! Mark Twain would have loved it! Very thought-provoking and delightfully entertaining.Apparently only one Troglodyte has bothered to express displeasure. For several years I've been of the Marlovian camp, but I can see why some of the other most likely candidates are being considered. If nothing else, you're opening my mind to the possibility that there may have been more than one author of the Shakespeare works. Well done! See, kids, learning can be fun!
Thanks so much for your comments.
Joe Lake District
Sir I salute you and your work. I have enjoyed it on many occasions, and I thoroughly and wholeheartedly agree with you and stand with you on this matter - you sir are a reasonable and intelligent man of wit and taste as well as a man with a sound disposition towards acquiring the truth instead of accepting the blatant travesties we are so constantly being fed :)
Hats off, Sir, I salute you again. All the best to you and all yours from Oslo, Norway
'Blatant travesties' suggest deliberate lying. I can't buy that, given the enormous amount of solid scholarship. That probably won't appeal to, I think. Much easier to lash out with an eneducated opinion.
@@smnwbb its entirely justified. the properties in stratford are all bogus. the whole thing is a fraud on a monumental scale.
Absolutely excellent! Keir Cutler you are doing important work please keep it up the world needs this.
How does it change the present at ALL weather or not Shakespeare actually wrote his plays?? Im not dissing you, I just have to write a really boring 3000 word essay on it and it feels like grinding my brain against a cheese grader. The world does NOT NEED this and we will all live exactly the same even if we find proof of him not being the author.
Truly a masterpiece of bringing absolutes to the absolutely absurd. To learn, laugh, and provoke thought. Well done Sir !
Absolutely agree. For the life of me I can't understand how any learned being could believe a man, born of a long line of illiterates, who begot illiterates and couldn't even spell his own name created the greatest literary works known to man.
Especially when a man, who did write in iambic pentameter and used the Pseudonym Shakespeare on two poems long before this Shakespeare of Strafford upon Avon was ever out of diapers. A man mentioned in private, not so private now, letters of the highest ranking member of the Queens privy council. This mischievous ward, whom was a favorite of the queen yet also embarrassed the queen.
This isn't to say University is required to be a great author. It isn't. However, it would have been required in order for Shakespeare to be Shakespeare. Almost every play, poem, sooner attributed to Shakespeare was a reworked previously authored story from some other place and some other time. For example: Romeo & Juliet was Tristan & Isuelt reworked. Written almost five hundred years before Shakespeare's birth. Where did he learn ancient Gaelic? An actor, a playwright wouldn't have had access to these works nor the ability to translate then if he did have access to them. Hence why the absence of books in the will matters so much. Where did he get there originals upon which to build the stories? How could he have translated them? Where did he get the ability and confidence to create new words, phrases, etc? A nonlearned being wouldn't have. It's just that simple.
@@Dawn24Michele And the fact that there are dozens of repeated allusions to DeVere's private life in the plays: odd things, like being rumored to be a twin and a changeling, killing a fellow teen in a duel, being stripped and kidnapped on a desert island by pirates, thinking your wife is cheating on you, so you spurn her for five years, then find out your wrong and go back to her...she dies soon after, and you are terribly guilty....Two of your three daughters stab you in your back when you try to divide your land among them......robbing a coach for sport on the exact road mentioned in the play....the list goes on.....
@@thoutube9522 Do you know more details about the alleged murder? I'd like to read what is known. I am not going to judge DeVere good or bad. I am just saying that the evidence that he wrote the plays (and that Shakspere did not) is pretty convincing. De Vere staged a play for the Queen's revels in the 1570s where he had explosives going on (imitating a war, I believe), and two local people died in a subsequent fire, if I remember correctly. There is the possibility that someone else wrote the plays, and based a lot of details on DeVere's life. Derek Jacobi thinks the plays might have been a collaboration between DeVere and Shakspere, while others think more writers may have been involved. IMHO, the case for DeVere as the primary, if not the sole author of at least the large majority of the plays, is pretty strong.
@@thoutube9522 But the author of the Shake-speare cannon did NOT "make everything up". He based many of his plots on ancient plays. He based characters on people of the time: the Queen and Lord Burghley, of whom he was a ward, among them. The author had to know these people intimately, and he had to have access to the books and plays that his plays are based on DeVere had the access. He helped translate the works as a teenager. He saw the plays in Italy. He mentions a political entity in Italy in one of the plays that existed for only 6 months...during hte time he was there....
d rider
'Flatfordian' meaning - an exceptionally well paid academic, who dose virtually no work, in an Oxbridge / Ivy league university, yet gatekeeps and protects the most feeble, weak premise ever made - that an illiterate, unschooled Brummie oaf, debt collector and son of a Glovemaker, made the finest literature that Mankind has ever conceived.
A paradigm of cogent reasoning and incisive humor, the real author would be proud.
Lovely. Thank you!
Diana Price's ground-breaking research indicates that the chance of the actor/businessman from Stratford being "Shakespeare" is about 106,000 To 1 AGAINST...!
Case closed on the Stratford Myth.
Now, who wrote these works?
"The creative person should have no other biography than his works..." - B. Traven (pseudonymous, anonymous author whose identity is still uncertain)
Amazing performance ! very entertaining and informative too. Twain would have been proud if he was alive.
hats off to you sir !
This is a great performance ... i really think you should do a traveling show around the world... not just to illustrate the BS of the worship of Shakespeare idealism - but to totally spread the word of Shakespeare to a new crowd - lets admit it - we all admire the work - we just debate the author of the works... the debate spreads the wonder of his works...
The worship is definitely of a religious order - and where there is religion, there will be atheists. But Shakespeare should never have been elevated like this - nobody thought of it for two and a half centuries after he died. The conspiracy theory has all its roots in Victorian idolatry.
@@smnwbb Victorian idolatry? I think the debate is well beyond Victorian issues and centres on the simple facts of whether the 'Bard' was accomplished enough to pull off such a portfolio of work!
@@mondomacabromajor5731 Not simple at all. I think! Yes indeed; the argument, which first appeared mid-19th C, was always about the impossibility of The Man being an unlikely phenomenon. But arguments about his education (universal curriculum, numerous references to and uses of); the unlikelihood of his actually getting into a grammar school (because he would have to be able to read and wwite, which was in fact taught in the other free-school sytem from age five to seven, expressly to prepare boys for grammar school); the lack of contemporary literary acknowledgement (don't know where that one comes from, they are at least as numerous as for other writers); his social status as a commoner denying him detailed knowledge of court life (commoners were fascinated and well-informed about this at the time; and he was a shareholder with the King's Men and frequently presented at court); the supposed interpolations in his will (which waspromptly proven at Probate, with interpolations intact); his omission to mention any books (there are zero contemporary playwrights who mentioned books in their wills (and, of course, his bookseller was an old neighbour from Stratford); his detailed knowledge of European geography (in fact he got many things ridiculously wrong!); his knowledge of law and expert Latin ("little latin and less greek" - Ben Jonson); and finally stylometric analysis supporting a single writer, with occasional hired help in later plays - well, you can probably guess where I find myself on this. Overall I find the argument unnecessary, but quite interesting in the context of mistrust of authority views, commonly called 'conspiracy theories' although I think the term is deliberately used to offend. I admit I completely dismiss cryptography as a meaningful element. Thanks for the reply :)
@@smnwbb The simple facts are: there never was an Elizabethan playwright named "William Shakespeare". There was an Elizabethan actor by the name of William Shaxper or Shakspere born in Stratford-uponAvon, England. There are no records of him ever having spelt his name as “William Shakespeare”, as we know him today. When academics speak of the historical "William Shakespeare" they are referring to this actor. There is no evidence to show that the actor William Shaxper was the Genius writer. There are no original manuscripts of the plays or the poems, no letters and only six awkward signatures > all in dispute and over 80 other variations on the name. The lack of any letters written by William Shaxper is particularly significant, as being a Genius writer, it is likely he would have written a large number, like all the other writers of his time. Voltaire’s collected correspondence totals roughly 20,000 pieces. Shaxper’s, or Shake 'the' spear’s collected correspondence totals exactly 'zero' items. His parents, wife and children were all illiterate, which would make Shaxper the only Genius writer in history whose children were illiterate! There has been an attempt by Stratfordians to 'surmise' that William Shaxper attended a grammar school in Stratford. Shakespeare’s original grave marker showed him holding a bag of grain, the citizens of Stratford replaced the bag with a quill in 1747. The most interesting thing is that Shakespeare turns up right when Marlowe disappears... In Elizabethan/Jacobean theatre circles it was common for play writers to 'collaborate' on writing plays, since many plays are not believed to have been written by the Genius "William Shakespeare", clearly at least one other writer was using the pen name 'Shake-spear.' So the authorship debate, for me, is profound as no one knows for sure who wrote the works 'attributed' to Shakespeare... Thanks for the discussion.
@@mondomacabromajor5731 I think our pages are from different books. No offence, I hope, but I have nothing to offer that hasn't been offered many times; if substantial exclusionary evidence turns up, it will be very exciting, but until then I'm just not on board. All the best.
Brilliant KC thank you! I also thank Charlton Ogburn who first enlightened me! And added to the list to whom I am grateful is ‘Anonymous’ a superb film that further explodes the mythology! As for the trogs, Shapiro most culpable with his unending prevarications and rationalisations! Once more KC Thank you! Clyde Gatell.
Thank you!... Shapiro and Greenblatt.
Greetings from Ireland. Wow, what a truly incredible show. So well put together and presented so vividly
My mother's side is Irish. Thanks for your comment!
I'm from Ireland too and I'm very happy to join you in your words of well deserved praise for this outstanding performance....go h-ìontach ar fad!
@@dukadarodear2176 Thank you. I have Irish blood as well.
Dainel Patterson wrote a popular road gazateer which was first published in 1796 and went through 15 editions before 1812, which made it a best-seller. Stratford was not mentioned as the birthplace of the bard until at least that 15th edition. Prior to that, it was just another small town on the road to other places and the only notable thing about it was a bridge.
Dr. Cutler makes a similar point in the first minute of his show: Stratford was not even a blip on the radar for the man who wrote the plays and poems.
I can not help myself; Sir, I do applaud your delivery etc. This is like myself as a teenager with a book of which I cannot put down; I cannot 👀 quit watching
Like many things, another lie we have been told. Lets Reconsider everything history has told us.
..especially our recent nightmarishly Orwellian 21st century history that increasingly poisons the present.
Paul G
I admire your work
Very well done
Great performance, I came here after Petter Admundsen’s “Cracking the Shakespeare Code” and his book ofcourse, society might finally be woke enough for this truth
Amazing performance , Wonderfull done !!
Excellent presentation of a fantastic work.
A desire to become more like you Sir is the reason I went to college for the first time at age 53. I'm still going.
Great presentation. Well done. ⭐️
Thank you kindly!
wow, so good! Bravo, Maestro!
Great performance with highly informative details about what really is known as facts. 👏👏👏 Kudos!
Disneyworld needs to replace the Hall of Presidents speech by animatronic Abe Lincoln with animatronic Keir Cutler doing this speech.
I fully agree!
Compelling and thoroughly enjoyable. Vae victis.
Thanks so much!
Thank you for the response.
I get your point!
However, are you familiar with Stylometric analysis?
Originally developed in the early 1900s for this particular use case.
In the original experiment Marlowe was said to agree with Shakespeare as well as Shakespeare agrees with himself.
Stylometric Analysis has come along way.
The NSA has developed some very sophisticated algorithms to detect authorship with a high degree of confidence.
Do you know if anyone has attempted to apply these modern computer aided tools and databases to the Shakespeare authorship question?
+craig Shell Yes, I hear a lot about stylometrics. In theory stylometics could be useful, but in practice it isn't. There is too much confirmation bias. I have heard of studies in stylometics that have proven several different people wrote Shakespeare. One selects the data one needs to confirm one's prejudice. This is a general problem in Shakespeare studies, and truth be told, in all academic endeavours.
No one knows which parts of the works of Shakespeare were written by which person, and almost everyone agrees that the works involved some level of collaboration. So one simply adjusts the sample until stylometrics provide the sought after answer. If the person doing the study wants the traditional story to be true, believe me they will always prove that the traditional story is true. And the same goes for alternate authors.
+Keir Cutler The linkage blindness of the "Stratfordian's" is incredible as Edward De Vere ticks all the boxes as the author and we don't have any confirmation bias IMO ,we have an orgiastic banquet of mountainous evidence .
I just finished your book “Shakespeare the Authorship Question: A Crackpot’s View”! It is an excellent and concise account. I was an English Literature minor in college and was never told the truth about the authorship question. Thank you for your bold stance on this issue. I have recently read many books on Edward De Vere by Loony, Ogborn, Anderson, Purdue, Whittemore, Waugaman.Malim, Pointon, Ellis, Chilean, and finally “Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?” Edited by Shanan and Waugh. I did sign the document by Shakespeare Authorship Coalition. I continue to be impressed by your one man show and have passed it on to my friends. Thank you again for an outstanding factually informative and funny performance!
Wow, thank you so much for your very kind words!!! And for reading my book!
Excellent and entertaining - what I have seen - I would go with Edward de Vere (Oxfordian) rather than Frances Bacon - his life reflects Hamlet
Thank you so much. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who wrote the works. That is my only goal.
Why not both authors after all this is a time when a person who writes anything of worth could end up tortured and then hung would not these authors who knew each other find a way such as an alias to publish their works ? Why could they not share this alias as a group effort used for mutual support ?
You should research Thomas Sackville as a candidate for Shakespeare:
Knowledge of falconry
Knowledge of Italian/Latin and Italy
Knowledge of law
Died in 1608 (better than 1604)
Was a masterful poet before he “gave it up”
Was influenced by Chaucer
Used iambic pentameter
There aren’t many of his surviving works, so data for stylistic analysis is skewed
Wonderful presentation, Dr. Cutler! It seems pretty clear to me that the works could not have been written by a single man. They are a composite. An over 29,000 word vocabulary is absolutely huge. Although people's vocabularies are difficult to estimate, probably no human being knows that many words or ever has. Heck, we only use about 800-900 words on a daily basis!
I think the King James Bible has about 10,000 words, but, again, we only use a small fraction of that number daily. And, of course, the Bible had many authors, as everyone knows. Consider, too, that there were no English dictionaries worth mentioning from the time. Had there been, then maybe an author could have used that many words, but then there is the additional problem of the MASTERY of those words. One cannot very well just insert words any old place just to run up the numbers. They must be used correctly, skillfully, poetically, beautifully. It hardly seems possible that one man could have done all that. It is possible that MULTIPLE men could have done it.
Or, you know, Shakespeare was a genius who remembered every word he ever heard ...
@@tomszabo7350 No, that's just too easy to say, even if the primary writer was a genius. The evidence doesn't support that in any way.
@@tabletalk33 The evidence is in the 118406 lines that he (mostly) wrote. The only way to have done that, in the way that he did, is to have a huge vocabulary, to be extremely inventive in phrasing, to be able to quickly recall any and all linguistic detail. This is nothing to do with education or sheer knowledge, it is native talent.
@@tomszabo7350 Nonsense, and many, many studies have been undertaken to contradict what you offer. There are numerous excellent books which enumerate, chapter and verse, the problems with that kind of thinking, as well as its incompleteness. It's tunnel vision and the stubbornness and greed of university men with vested interests in the "Shakespeare Myth" which have caused this, ultimately. We are waaay past the point of debate on those things. The man you are describing would have to be something far more than a mere "genius." He would have to be superhuman. sorry, but I'm not buying it.
@@tabletalk33 BS. Then why is there such a dearth of contemporary verse and prose with the same quality, novelty and inventiveness??? Where are the other plays with the hundreds of new words and phrases that not only survived but are in such common usage in the modern day??? Did the committee that supposedly wrote Shakespeare simply decide the best works of the Elizabethan Renaissance would ALL be assigned to the Shakespeare pseudonym??? How did these people know what invented words and phrases would be in use 400 years later, and how did they manage to sprinkle/share them amongst the plays??? Talk about superhuman.
Bravo, sir! Most entertaining and more importantly...informative, a terrific performance. I hope more people watch this video and consider the facts, but as Mark Twain opined, it could take several hundred (more) years to convince our fine race - including every splendid intellect in it.
we dont have several decades left, let alone several hundred. populations such as ours, built on finite resources, follow certain trajectories
Would it matter if it was written by Will in Stratford or Dave in Devon?
If one honestly looks at the facts, I believe it is clear we do not know who wrote the works and we do not know how many people were involved. The reason this matters is most educational institutions, rather than simply state it was 400 years ago and perhaps we will never know how these great works came into being, most students are taught there is no doubt whatsoever about who wrote Shakespeare. It was a man with little education and virtually none of the required knowledge who wandered into London and miraculously became the greatest writer of all time. He was a genius and a genius can do anything. This myth is pushed as fact and students are told never to question it.
When educators push myth as fact, they cease to be educators. So, you are correct, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether Will or Dave wrote the works, it does matter if Will is pushed as the writer when the evidence does not back it up.
Shakespeare lived in London when he wrote the plays or co- wrote. He did make reference to the Forest or Arden, in his play - As You Like It'. .. Which Obviously Shakespeare would have known well. Therefore did make reference to his home county! .. The Southern tip of Arden was Stratford.. And the Northern tip extended as far as Digbeth, which is now Birmingham. ........ The Aden family came from Castle Bromwich. But why should he actually have to mention Stratford ??
Some argue that it is the Forest of Arden that once surrounded Shakespeare's hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon; others believe that the As You Like It because the play is set in France the setting is Ardennes, France.
Is this performance pretty close to the original Mark Twain?
Some of it is word-for-word from the book, some of the book is left out... but it's an adaptation and has some additional stuff as well. You should be able to find the book online. It's worth a read.
Could the Shaksper of Stratford, Shakespeare the actor and "Shake-speare" the author of the plays and poems be three different people?
Shaksper the actor and the man from Stratford are the same person. We don't know who wrote the works of Shakespeare.
@@keircutler Thanks. It just seemed to me that the Stratford man seemed so unpleasant, but the actor supposedly was loved. But I've only just got interested in the subject and am watching some of the videos from the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship.
@@keircutlerMaybe, a 'Shake-speare collective'. Anyway, I love the plays and sonnets regardless of who wrote them, a single person or a group of authors.
This is magnificent. Still relevant seven years hence.
Thank you for this. I knew most of the arguments. I can think of a life similar to the one lived by Shakespeare upon Avon. There was an American boy who came from modest circumstances, growing up in a backwater town where there were few books and a rudimentary school. He traveled extensively, learned from a broad number of acquaintances and coworkers, developed his writing skills under adverse circumstances, had various menial occupations and worked his way up in the literary trades to attain prominence with a magnificent early success in the form of a first-rate book. His name was Samuel Clemens. Are we to argue that Samuel Clemens could not have written Mark Twain therefore? Still, I believe the odds are 60-40 in favor of the Earl of Oxford being the true author of WS's works. (I prefer to assignment notional probabilities where I cannot see certainty.)
@Random Silicates Still, if we believe Mark Twain in Life on the Mississippi, he obtained his early exposure to Shakespeare's writings themselves through an alternately cursing and quoting master pilot of the River. My point is that much knowledge may be picked up through listening to and questioning those who know something of a subject -- all without the access to books and libraries. It may also be knowledge that when displayed is very faulty in its details. A precocious and interested youth is a sponge for soaking up all sorts of arcane knowledge. We know Shakespeare often demonstrates unexpected knowledge, but then betrays its shallowness in some details. For instance, apparently he believed that Verona is accessible from the sea. He knew of the Italian city and that one could arrive by water at its docks, but assumed it was on an ocean, not a broad river. BTW, Mark Twain did not believe the man of Stratford was the author of Shakespeare's works, and I am also inclined to conclude the same. What bothers me more about the man of Stratford being granted authorship are many facts that impress against him. For instance, after the Essex Rebellion when the Shakespeare's company was called before the government investigating body, the author himself did not make an appearance. A number of the leading members were present, but not Shakespeare, as I recall. Why not? Some report that AUgustine Phillips alone was present, but others report that Hemmings, Phillips and others were there.
Sonnet 76: "Every word doth almost tell my name." ------Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
I'm not sure that some of these arguments (I haven't made the effort to count them . . .) are as compelling as they might at first sight seem. For example: it might indeed be strange that no manuscripts of the plays of Shakespeare are extant. Are there manuscripts extant of plays by other contemporary authors (?) But if even if it is demonstrably strange in that way . . . how is the strangeness a specific argument against the Stratford man writing the plays (?) It would be no LESS strange if someone else wrote them . . .
@@thoutube9522 I'm convinced there's a real mystery here. But we still need some new evidence to sort it out specifically . . .
@@thoutube9522 The works attributed to Shakespeare are not like those of "most playwrights" . . .
Read Diana Price
@@keircutler Yes . . . level-headed, no nonsense exploration of one side of the Shakespeare authorship question.
At both sides and decide.
This man wields a razor sharp knife.
Came here from Robert Frederick's The Hidden Life about Francis Bacon and his influence on the English Empire. Really interesting stuff and this play is hilarious.
I like to think of Edward de Vere trying to decide between Shake-Speare and Buff-Jerkin .
Having just read "Is Shakespeare Dead?", I was a little put off at the beginning of this presentation because of the paraphrasing and straying from the original text. As it went on, however, I warmed to this adaptation. Well done - especially the inclusion of the additional candidates. It seems in Twain's time it was primarily Stratfordians vs Baconians. Personally, I'm leaning towards multi-authorship. DeVere (especially for the sonnets and for organizing the playwrights), and Bacon for all the legalese certainly seems most likely. Unquestionably NOT Stratford Shak - a likely pawn.
Thanks for sticking with the adaptation. Yes I did update the writing to include other candidates and add information that Twain did not have. Thanks for your comments.
Mark Twain's book, "Is Shakespeare Dead" is a great deconstruction of the myth that William Shakespeare was the author of the Plays and Sonnets. Mark Twain was a life long admirer of Sir Francis Bacon and as he states in his book, believes that Bacon was the Author.
@@luckybag6814 The difference is that we have actual writings in Twain's handwriting but none in the Stratford man. As he says in his book, Is Shakespeare Dead? that everyone back in Hannibal knew of Twain's literary business and yet nobody in Stratford associated him with being a writer. Actually Mark Twain mocked those who only believed in William Shakespeare as the author and defended it only with their sentimentality. Twain was passionate on The Shakespeare Authorship for over 50 years. The elitism and frustration behind The Shakespeare authorship question exists for those who have the most to lose. We just need more critical thinking that can make distinctions between a hoax and the facts and people's belief systems that they were raised on or inherited. Bacon's observations on The Four Idols are recommended to overcome cognitive dissonance. www.sirbacon.org/mgreatestbaconian.htm
Incredibly well done. Factual and logical, everything that is lacking in the Stratford story. Many thanks.
Bravo and well done sir Cutler!
This is rather brilliant
+Martin Brown Thank you so much.
Incidentally, you might be interested in knowing about the scholarly censorship of "Is Shakespeare Dead?"
"The Mark Twain Project" describes itself as "an editorial and publishing program of the Bancroft Library working since 1967 to create a comprehensive critical edition of everything Mark Twain wrote." This self-proclaimed "Complete and Authoritative Edition" has at last released its 3-volume set of Twain's autobiography, and guess what? The Shakespeare essay has been omitted. Benjamin Griffin, Associate Editor from the University of California at Berkeley, used to work at the Folger Library and says of the Shakespeare authorship debate: "there is no authorship debate." He has omitted Twain's "Is Shakespeare Dead?" because (he claims) he could not figure out where exactly to place it within the text.
+Jeffhowardmeade
Absolute nonsense what you are writing! The first line of "Is Shakespeare Dead?" by Mark Twain is "Scattered here and there through the stacks of unpublished manuscript which constitute this formidable Autobiography and Diary of mine..." The Mark Twain Project claims it is to include ALL of Twain's writings, but has no plans to include "Is Shakespeare Dead?" Even the editor said he could have included "Is Shakespeare Dead?" in an appendix, but chose not to.
"Is Shakespeare Dead?" describes Twain own experiences. Much of the book is his autobiographical experiences! For example...
"About a year later my pilot-master, Bixby, transferred me from his own steamboat to the Pennsylvania, and placed me under the orders and instructions of George Ealer--dead now, these many, many years. I steered for him a good many months--as was the humble duty of the pilot-apprentice: stood a daylight watch and spun the wheel under the severe superintendence and correction of the master. He was a prime chess player and an idolater of Shakespeare. He would play chess with anybody; even with me, and it cost his official dignity something to do that. Also--quite uninvited--he would read Shakespeare to me; not just casually, but by the hour, when it was his watch, and I was steering. He read well, but not profitably for me, because he constantly injected commands into the text. That broke it all up, mixed it all up, tangled it all up--to that degree, in fact, that if we were in a risky and difficult piece of river an ignorant person couldn't have told, sometimes, which observations were Shakespeare's and which were Ealer's ..."
Trying to find excuses a century after Twain's death to keep his autobiographical writings from the public is outrageous. Trying to pretend "Is Shakespeare Dead?" is not part of his autobiography when the first sentence states it is part of his "formidable Autobiography and Diary." Is censorship. The man is dead, he is to be taken at his word.
Because you don't like the book, the book never happened! Twain was a sceptic about Shakespeare for decades! As were most intelligent writers of the time. This is simply a fact. Like it or not!
So, you've decided that Twain would not have been a disbeliever if he had read Schoenbaum. So why are Mark Rylance and Sir Derek Jacobi disbelievers? Are they less intelligent than Twain? This kind of wild speculation is ridiculous.
Twain was a disbeliever, and he only had the extensive unexplained legal knowledge to deal with, he didn't know there were more medical references in Shakespeare than legal, many culled from ancient Greek texts.
Twain hated fraud and the Stratford-upon-Avon tourist site is a fraud. Whether Shakespere wrote the works of not.
You are also speculating on whethter UC Berkeley is suppressing the Authorship debate or not. And understandably you come down on UC's side. I am not speculating. I've read the editor's answers to written complaints about his censorship of Twain ideas. And they are unconvincing. There will be many further complaints lodged against UC.
We agree to disagree. Twain knew writers write what they know. Your pretending that Shakespeare's knowledge was easily accessible from a book or hanging out somewhere is ludicrous. You are dumbing down the works to fit your preconceived idea of the rustic genius.
The book Shakespeare's Legal Language: A Dictionary, by Sokal and Sokal, fills over 400 pages of detailed discussion of Shakespeare's use of legal terms and concepts. Mark Twain was incredulous that Shakespeare could have learned the law on such a sophisticated level. Twain had read the following passage from C. K. Davis’s 1883 book, The Law In Shakespeare, and included it almost verbatim in his Is Shakespeare Dead? “Over and over again, where such knowledge is unexampled in writers unlearned in the law, Shakespeare appears in perfect possession of it. In the law of real property, its rules of tenure and descents, its entails, its fines and recoveries, and their vouchers and double vouchers; in the procedure of the courts, the methods of bringing suits and of arrests, the nature of actions, the rules of pleading, the law of escapes, and of contempt of court; in the principles of evidence, both technical and philosophical; in the distinction between the temporal and the spiritual tribunals; in the law of attainder and forfeiture; in the requisites of a valid marriage; in the presumption of legitimacy; in the learning of the law of prerogative; in the inalienable character of the crown,-- this mastership appears with surprising authority.”[ii] And that is just the law!
Shakespeare’s remarkable medical knowledge has attracted the attention of physicians and medical historians who have cataloged more than 700 medical references covering medical conditions from obstetrics to forensics, with a particular emphasis on psychiatric diseases. In The Medical Knowledge of Shakespeare, Dr. John Charles Bucknill wrote, “… it would be difficult to point to any great author, not himself a physician in whose works the healing art is referred to more frequently and more respectfully than in those of Shakespeare.”[iii] Dr. Earl Showerman, who has thirty years of hospital emergency room experience, wrote recently, “What astonishes me about Shakespeare’s medical content is his unique clinical genius, and the extraordinary richness of his medical literary sources. Numerous texts, including rare books on natural history, anatomy, physiology, infectious disease, Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus, have been identified as potential sources. When could Shaksper have found the time, given his duties as a theater manager and actor, to become such a medical expert?”[iv]
In Shakespeare’s Sea Terms Explained, Captain W. B. Whall found in the plays “an intimate professional knowledge of seamanship. Words and phrases of an extremely technical nature are scattered throughout them, and a mistake in their use is never made.” In his monumental thirteen-volume work,
A History of the British Army, military historian John Fortescue wrote, “Shakespeare is as truly the painter of the English Army… in Shakespeare must the military student read the history of the Elizabethan soldier.”[v]
It is impossible to know for sure how many new words Shakespeare added to the English language. The play Hamlet alone is believed to contain 170 words that had never before been heard.[vi] Shakespeare added “assassination,” “addiction,” “circumstantial,” “grovel,” and “rant,” to name just a few. New words were not invented out of thin air, but rather were adapted from a knowledge of Latin, Greek, French, Italian and Spanish.
In subject after subject Shakespeare’s knowledge seems virtually limitless.
There are simply too many domains of learning saturating the plays and poems: law, medicine, philosophy, classical literature, ancient and modern history, art, astronomy, astrology, horticulture, mathematics, music, games and sports, military and naval terminology, and English, French and Italian court life! And that is just a partial list.
[i] B. J. Sokal and Mary Sokal, Shakespeare's Legal Language: A Dictionary, The Atholne Press, London, UK 2000.
[ii] Cushman K. Davis, The Law In Shakespeare, Part One Introduction, Washington Law Book Co, Washington, DC, 1883, p. 4.
[iii] John Charles Bucknil, M. D. The Medical Knowledge of Shakespeare Longman & Co. London, 1860, p.2.
[iv] Earl Showerman, M.D. Email message to author. Feb. 17, 2013.
[v] Michell, p 28-30.
[vi] Alfred Hart, “Vocabularies of Shakespeare’s Plays,” Review of English Studies, 19, no. 74 (April 1943), p. 135.
What you just did was "dumbing down" Shakespeare. He had vast knowledge and somehow managed to not leave a single trace that he had this knowledge. Even in attendance of grammar school is speculation. He has some 800 references to Italy. He knew things about Italy that even scholars didn't. Hence the pretence that he got Italy all wrong. No not wrong, correct, But only recently proven correct. You can dumb down all you want. It doesn't work. There are 29,000 or so different words in Shakespeare. One of the largest vocabularies ever assembled. And he left no indication he had done any of it.
You seem learned. I suggest you start learning about the stigma of print. Then ask yourself, do the works seem to come from a rustic genius who left nothing to show for his immense talent except the pretend Hand D? Or were the works from those who could not be seen to write for the theatre or have their names as authors?
Venus and Adonis (Shakespeare poem) was published in 1593 by Richard Field, who, like Shakespeare, was from Stratford and lived down the street from him.
Yes. That might explain how Shakspere was chosen to front whoever was writing the works of Shakespeare.
@@keircutler It is a work of William Shakespeare printed by a contemporary who lived near him, Richard Field. It shows there were people in Stratford printing his works who knew him. It refutes the idea no one in Stratford knew William Shakespeare wrote his works. They are even publishing them.
@@TheIrishLoaf No it doesn't prove anything since there is no known connection between Field and Shakspere of Stratford. You are assuming that the man from Stratford wrote the works and therefore this proves Field and Shakspere knew each other. There is no known correspondence between them. It is all part of the mystery. Thanks for your comments, Dr. Keir
@@keircutler If you dismiss that Shakespeare knew the publisher Field, who lived down the road from him and published his works, then that same skepticism obliterates attempts to introduce anyone else as the author who lived even further away! You can't have it both ways.
@@TheIrishLoaf I don't dismiss anything. And I don't push alternative authors. I got involved in this decades ago when Shakespeare professors were still pushing the man from Stratford as the sole author with the possible exception of some of Pericles. That appeared ludicrous to me. And I have now been proven right!!! If the original position was, as it is now, that an unknown number of collaborators created Shakespeare and it is unknown what parts of the works were written by the man from Stratford, I would have never had a beef with the orthodoxy.
Thank you very much for this presentation Mr. Cutler, it was enlightening and very entertaining. It is highly unlikely that Marlowe died in Deptford. No Grave is found after him, and lord keeper Puckering couldn't tell the exact date which Marlowe "died" on, just a couple of days after it happened.
Did Marlowe go to Italy?
Two of Shakespeare's early plays relate to Marlowe in some way or another. The jew of malta became Merchant of Venice and Romeo and Juliet is more or less taken directly from Ovid's Pyramus and Thisbe from Metamorphoses. Marlowe took a great interest in Ovid's writings, and its a fact that he translated Amores from Greek into the first version ever published in english. Venus and Adonis and Hero and Leander are also both influenced by the Metamorphoses. But attributed to different playwrights.
Bravo! Vero nihil verius!
Awesome. Love all your videos and am thoroughly convinced by your factual arguments. Thank you!
You've made my day! Thank you!
Shakespeare's Lost Purple Bloodline: Ronald Bates. Great read.
Thoroughly entertaining
A truly compelling presentation. Entertaining and certainly food for thought. Perhaps Oxford is the most prominent suspect as the author of the greatest literary works in history. I would like to see a Stratfordian present an opposite argument with the same passion and knowledge.
I tend to believe that it was John Dee and a collective group of people from all walks of educated life and academia that wrote Shakespeare
Loved it. TYVM.
You're very welcome. Thanks for telling me!
“If Bacon wrote Shakespeare, who wrote Bacon?” George Kittredge
I stand with Mark Twain.
A compelling work of wit, wisdom, erudition and delicious satire. I salute your brilliant performance :)
Wow! Merci beaucoup!
"...a lie agreed upon." -N.B.
Didn't the pen name Shakespeare first turn up 13 days after the death of Marlowe? And now there is some documentary evidence that Marlowe died in Padua in 1627?
This was a very funny , enjoyable performance. Thank you.
Also, ciphers used on the First Folio seem to imply Francis Bacon collaborated with Henry Neville on the plays, and other decrypted texts say Marlowe just allowed Bacon to use his name for the earlier plays..+ the manuscripts might be on Oak Island preserved in Mercury?..Obviously it's better than they're going up in flames in London or wherever , but hopefully they'll turn up in a more convenient place in England.
Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke
In the months following Francis Bacon’s death his trusted Rosicrucian Brother Dr William Rawley gathered together and quietly issued a commemorative work in his honour entitled Memoriae honoratissimi Domini Francisci, Baronis de Verulamio, vice-comitis Sancti Albani sacrum. This rare and still virtually unknown work contains thirty-two Latin verses in praise of Bacon, which his orthodox editors and biographers have simply glossed over, ignored, or suppressed, that portray Bacon as a secret supreme poet and dramatist, the writer of comedies and tragedies, under the pseudonym of Shakespeare.ruclips.net/video/n3UL4MfyAZc/видео.html
Faith is blind and poorly made
when serving on ones knees
Bereft of truth and wisdom
Until you meat the grave
fantastic!
This is just awesome.... I.enjoyed.every bit of it...loved it..almost convinced me to un believe what has been believed for centuries on and on..and of course it is not.easy to make ppl doubt what they have assumed to be indubitable
Excellent performance!
I think the authorship issue is interesting. But there is a central issue that no one ever discusses - the debate of authorship is, arguably, predicated on the assumption that Shakespeare was objectively a "great" writer, and generally a "greater" writer than his contemporaries. In other words, it is an argument that is fed by "bardolatry." When people question Shakespeare's authorship they are essentially asking "how could this guy with no apparent education or specialized knowledge and experience, be so good?" I often enjoy reading through Charles Lamb's "Specimens of English Dramatic Poets who Lived About the Time of Shakespear" [sic], and there were many accomplished playwrights who were contemporary with Shakespeare. It is really only when we make the value judgement (a value judgement that I think is unwarranted in the age of post-structuralism) that Shakespeare was phenomenally greater than his contemporaries, that the question of authorship even arises. Having said that, I enjoyed the video a great deal.
You make an interesting point. And there is no answer for it, since the worth of Shakespeare is subjective. That said, Shakespeare's works, aside from Bardolotry, do have an extraordinary dramatic power. There is no playwriting from Shakespeare's time remotely on the level of Hamlet or King Lear. The success of those plays and others, is not matched by anything else. Marlowe's plays generally fall flat and Jonson's can be amusing but aren't on the level of Twelfth Night or As You Like it. In fact, there are very few Elizabethan or Jacobean plays that enjoy frequent productions. I think you are exaggerating the effect of Bardolotry. The Shakespearean plays, many of them, continue to have great power and drama!
Isn't there a value-judgement or two here ... of post-structuralism, of assumptions, of objectivity, of bardolatry, of Shakespeare's contemporary playwrights, of what's warranted and unwarranted but especially of value-judgements themselves? It looks like there's no getting away from the wretched things even when that's just the thing you want to do.
If the worth of Shakespeare is subjective, is it objectively subjective or subjectively so?@@keircutler
I thought he was going to smash the statue on the stage at the end there. Brilliant, throughout.
Neat idea! But a little too expensive for the budget. lol. Thanks for watching!
The man from Stratford was Shaxpere, not Shake-speare.
@@MrMartibobs This speech, as you say, is ambiguous. Was Ben referring to Shakspere or De Vere? There is a veritable mountain of new research supporting the Oxford theory. I suggest you actually look at the evidence. Start THE MAN WHO WAS SHAKESPEARE by Anderson, then try SHAKESPEARE BY ANOTHER NAME, By Charles Beauclerc.
I doubt you will. My experience is that people who dismiss any new idea with the phrase "Conspiracy Theorist" don't really have an open mind to anything, and have difficulty trusting their own analyses of evidence, or may not even have the ability to analyze evidence. they resort to a second hand phrase to sum up their opinion.
But maybe you will prove me wrong: Here are some interesting tidbits: Many of the repeated themes in the plays are autobiographical events in DeVere's life: He killed a young man in a duel when he was a teen, and was threatened with banishment for it (Like Romeo)
He was kidnapped by pirates and stripped on an island, but was let go because he was a member of the English Court (The Tempest)
When Prince Hal robs a coach for sport in Henry IV Part One, he names the place he did it. DeVere was arrested for doing the same thing in the same place.
DeVere had three daughters who divided his land, like Lear, and two fo them turned against him.
DeVere thought his wife was cheating on him and wouldn't sleep with her for five years...she died soon after their reconcilliation, when he found he had been wrong.....similar to Othello and several other plays.
DeVere was rumored to have been a twin and a changeling, as occurs in several plys to main characters.
DeVere had access to all the books the plays are based on,a nd helped translate them, being the ward of Lord Burghley, of the House of Cecil the banker behind the English throne.
De Vere travelled to all the places in Italy mentioned in the Italian plays, and saw the plys there that his plys are based on. Shakspere never left England as fa as is known
DeVere was fluent in French, could read and write Latin, had studied law, soldiering, was an expert in jousting and falcolnry, was an insider at Court. Shakspere did none of these things, but whoever wrote the plays must have been familiar with all of them.
DeVere was praised as being the best poet of his time for "comedy and tragedy".
De Vere had catholic leanings, as the author showed in several passages, notably Hamlet's musings on the nature of ghosts and the next life.
Anyway, I'm just scratching the surface. Every other great writer writes about his own life and has many autobiographical allusions. DeVere did the same.
There's been a lot of scholarship since 1909.
Wonderful!
Amazing performance.
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
Even excellent speakers and authors I enjoy very much don't manage to get "whence" right--but this fellow did! Fantastic.
The reason I think it was Bacon, is because of the great esteem Bacon is held in in esoteric circles.
Which is a mystery in its own right, given Bacon was a renowned philosopher - but nothing that great, Descartes was way more important,
Which begs the question why Bacon was so venerated by Rosicrusians, Martinists, the Founding Fathers and the like?
However, if the Rosicrusians and Freemasons know Bacon is also Shakespeare, then that makes sense of the god-like veneration. Why they saw him as the herald of the New Age of Aquarius and the like,
The combination of important philosopher and greatest writer in history - would blow you away. That would be worthy of Bacon's occult deification.
Today's equivalent, would be Francis Fukuyama knocking out the plays of David Mamet in his spare time, Well that still wouldn't come close - but you know what I mean.
Really? You've heard of Delia Bacon, I'm sure, a woman totally unqualified to form any theory about Shakespeare. And Wilmot - the forgery.
@@smnwbb The veneration of Bacon pre-dates Delia Bacon by centuries. Just find it odd why he's venerated as a god-like genius in esoteric circles.
It's like they know something about Bacon that we don't.
Brilliant stuff
I enjoyed this. My horse job includes old criminal investigations. I wound up here researching a MO Supreme Court case I am involved in which took me to Mark Twain Mark which placed me here.
I see that academics fight like cat and lawyers lawyers too!
After spending an hour on the case I will say that seeing the Burbage name on the purported will gives rise to speculation of circumstantial authenticity and then again collusion. It does stand out that the part of the will that would link back to his colleagues and the theater is particularly crammed with writing. I am sure you fine acedemics have taken all that into account in between swats.
Whoever...whatever...however it goes...I am not with standing UP ...a devoute of that that is that within Will Shakespeare...the Bard of my
studies and my coaching/ teaching careers ...come what may...into the breech!!!
Totally awesome dude!
I ❤️ love this!!!
why did we have to read huck finn this is so much better
Many scholars are ashamed that Twain didn't believe the traditional fairy tale of Shakespeare. "Is Shakespeare Dead?"is almost never studied.
A good presentation. To be fair it would be interesting to see a pro-Staffordian present his or her case in the same tongue in cheek manner, as a contrast. I expect the many metaphorical references to the theatre, used in the plays, (All the world's a stage etc) would be used to argue that the author needed theatrical connections, which their man and Marlowe had. Knowledge of places abroad would be dismissed as irrelevant. The audience would be told the scene was in Verona, Venice or wherever, then be carried away by the story, not accurate geographical description. Though inaccurate geographical description, such as giving Bavaria a coast line in, "The Winter's Tale," could be used to argue that places were more from how the author imagined them than direct personal knowledge.
The wide social variety of people, who went to the theatre would have been a mine of information and knowledge for an imaginative author whose plays feature a wide social variety of people. It is a pity the video avoided that possibility.
Non of that would prove the Straffordian case, but the arguments put forward for other claimants, like geographical knowledge and social status would be weakened.
One theme that runs through the plays is that of dissembling, which the villains do and disguise, which the heroes do. Such might not tell us who the author was, but say a lot about the feelings of the man in and behind the plays - the inner man, not the outer man the world saw.
Robert Armitage The geographical arguments are powerful. Shakespeare's supposed errors, were not errors at all. And he knew intimate details of Italy!
Keir Cutler. I am not sure how giving Bavaria (sorry Bohemia) a coastline is not an error. Be that as it may, the intimate details of Italy could have been gleamed from well heeled theatre goers that had been there. Films today often use library picture to depict the setting, just as announcing a place performed the same function then. As said the story not the setting was the important thing. The plays often fuse surrealistically the England at the period with a foreign setting, "A Midsummer Nights Dream," is an obvious example. There are also references to the stews, or the south bank setting of the globe, in the plays, such as when the prostitute called the galled goose of Westminster is mentioned in "Troilus and Cressida" (The area was under the Bishop of Westminster, who got a share in the prostitute's earnings.) It begs the question as to where the plays were written. If abroad, then why the English references?
Richard Carew in his 1605 essay, "The Excellency of the English tongue" clearly refers to Shakespeare as a writer and a person when he compares Marlowe and him to Catullus. Why would he do that if no one knew him as a writer?
All of these questions have been addressed. Referring to seemingly incorrect coastlines in "The Winter's Tale" has been an error pushed for centuries about Shakespeare's geography. In reality, in Shakespeare's time, the King of Bohemia did rule a small finger of ocean coastline. In addition, at that time the King of Bohemia was also the ruler of Croatia and Hungary. These kinds of fake errors have been dealt with. For example, another frequent attack is that the geographic error of a "sailmaker in Bergamo, Italy" mentioned in "The Merchant of Venice." Bergamo is hundreds of miles from the coast, clearly, Shakespeare didn't know geography. Sails would be made on the coast, not made inland and transported to the coast. Wrong again! Bergamo was the textile center of Italy at the time, and all sails were made there. If you are actually interested in the other side of this, read Richard Roe"s "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy." Roe spent 20 years tracking down Italian references in Shakspeare. His work has changed views. Whoever wrote Shakespeare had an intimate knowledge of the country, and not one gained by a few choice conversations. And the name Shakespeare, or as Carew spells it, "“Shakespheare” was celebrated as a writer. But who was Shakespeare? The current consensus seems to be a conglomeration of writers. Not one man. And possible the man from Stratford was not a writer at all, but a front for the plays. Or a "play broker."
Thanks for your interesting replies. I am not a Stratfordian and obviously have not read everything on the issue. That said, I do feel that it is only fair to deal fairly with any arguments from whatever side rather than use the scorn, dismissal, or avoidance techniques that some, on all sides, revert to. Accusations of snobbery, being a favourite Stratfordian one.
It is important to keep an open mind on the subject or their is the danger of seeing only what you want to see. I leaned towards Marlowe. He very likely traveled in Italy but the influence of the Stews, on the writer's material, cannot be ignored. Perhaps Marlowe returned.
Your point about a conglomeration of writers is interesting, it reminded me of the talk of Bacon heading one. His alleged Rosicrucian leadership also makes him man of mystery.
An argument against conglomeration is that one mind, someone with a bee in his bonnet against dissembling and a lover of puns, seems to dominate. Not that the author, in life, would have kept up the high ideals advocated in his plays. Dickens presented the reformed Scrooge, and other characters like the Cherrybells, as ideals of humane kindness and in his heart of hearts he may have wanted people to be like that, but he had his darker side also. The everyday and the inner person do differ.
One thing for sure the author was or the authors were human.
I heard Twain mutter, "They will eat this up in Canada."
The Shakespeare Trust..............is the original Disney World...........excellent video!
Does not address the question of WHY Shakespeare was targeted by some anonymous genius to bear the weight of fame !
Here you go. Explains what likely occurred. ruclips.net/video/kIR4iwLm2Q4/видео.html
Me thinks English academia doth protest too much!
Oh wait .. they don't!