This interview is very very skilful in dismissing the notion that someone other than William Shaksper (that is the way the corn dealer signed his name on documents) wrote the works published under the name William Shakespeare. He successfully lampoons those people who put for theories. He pretends that he doesn’t KNOW who the authors, including Mark Twain, were. He puts the criticism down to Romantic 19th century notion of idealised "Poet". H fails to tell us that in Shakespeare's time Stratford was a town of 5,000 people and the grammar school was really quite small. 1. There is no evidence that William Shaksper, corn-dealer, owner of rental property, money-lender and part owner of a London theatre, ever went to school at all. His parents and children were illiterate i.e. could not sign their name on their marriage register. 2. The only documents that he signed are legal or monetary, and include his will. He left NO LETTERS, no diary, no drafts of plays, no notes. 3. His will is three pages long, and includes no reference to his plays, or money gained from them. Books were rare and valued items, usually named in wills. But Shaksper of Stratford on Avon left no books, even though his will lists his household items in some detail.. 4. The date of death and location of memorial are known, but there was NO MENTION of his passing made in ANY OTHER record. i.e. it was ignored in London, by the theatre, by the court, and by literary persons who kept diaries. 5. A complete folio was not published until several years after the man from Stratford's death. The intro mentions "the Bard of Avon" but this could imply a person from several locations, other than Stratford. However, it was with THIS evidence that Stratford-upon-Avon made the claim that their litigious William Shaksper was indeed the famous poet and playwright. The claims were first made in about 1660. (In the intervening period, Oliver Cromwell had governed over a dour period when plays, music, and dancing were banned. 6. Stratford-upon-Avon attracts a huge tourist industry to England.There are also a very large number of scholars in whose interest it is to remain faithful to the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. 7. Although we have been successfully fobbed off in this interview with the notion that only a loony or a self-interested nut would think this way, there is rather a long list of distinguished people who believe that it is MOST UNLIKELY that William Shaksper of Stratford-upon-Avon could have written the plays. The reasons have to do mostly with the writer's knowledge of languages, the customs of other nationalities, the cities of Italy, English history, Ancient History, Classical literary sources, noble pursuits such as hunting, fencing, archery etc, tactical warfare, navigation, etc etc. This was a VERY well educated man, in a time of no internet, and NO PUBLIC LIBRARY. It is impossible to say where he got his education. 8. Stratford-upon-Avon supporters claim that all his cleverness was down to a brilliant literary imagination. But this is not true. When one reads the plays that are set in Italy, one is effectively transported to Padua, Verona and Venice. In Romeo and Juliet the words utterly convince of the fact that these are Italian families with Italian mores; they are definitely NOT British. It seems clear that the author was widely travelled. The man from Avon was NOT. 9. So who are these "mostly American" doubters whose names the expert had so conveniently forgotten? Sigmund Freud, Henry James, Walt Whitman, John Galway, Mark Twain, Bernard Shaw, John Gielgud, Derek Jacoby.... etc etc. 10. He also seemed to avoid Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe is the strongest case for having written these plays, , and becomes even stronger with the possibility that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was actually his patron, along with Oxford's uncle, Queen's spy-master, Lord Burghley
"Corn dealer" LoL You'd think ONE person would have remembered him as such yet everyone he knew remembered him as the poet. You have no clue what you're talking about. Will was born into a massive land holding that was stripped away (probably because his parents were Catholic) and he spent his adult life getting as much of that property back as he could. The property had to produce to sustain the expense - by 1600 he had massive amounts of produce from his property, which is to be expected. Is he supposed to have not cared and let the property fall away from the family again?
@@Mythologos , Noone has suggested for a moment that the man from Stratford ought not be concerned for his property and produce. In fact the existent documents indicate that land and produce were his primary concerns.
The misrepresentation of Delia Bacon’s life and argument is a sad case of ongoing sexism. This man has clearly never looked at her work or biography, but feels safe in repeating vicious lies about her. Sad for an otherwise, mostly, even handed presentation.
John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623. Ben Jonson's eulogy in the First Folio clearly praises Shakespeare as a great writer and refers to him as the “Sweet Swan of Avon.” This obviously designates Shakespeare as from Stratford upon Avon. Furthermore, Jonson states that "thy writings to be such, /As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much." Heminges and Condell also praise Shakespeare as a writer, stating that "he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him." These are "his works" and "his papers" that they are publishing. He is clearly presented as the writer of these works in the First Folio. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare of Stratford clearly connects him with the 1623 First Folio through Heminges and Condell and it is clear that Shakespeare is presented as the author of the plays.
In the end what does it even matter? Somebody wrote them, they still have the literary relevance. Somebody is "Shakespeare", who cares if we got the picture wrong?
There are many more issues than those raised here. The issue is not what a poet is, or was supposed to be. There are a number of issues that indicate that the guy from Stratford-upon-Avon is suspect as the author of the plays. Aside from having an apparently limited education, he was not a member of the nobility. Yet the plays indicate that the author had a deep understanding of matters of royal courts and the nobility. England in the 16th century, indeed all of Europe, was a deeply class-ridden society. Commoners simply did not have access to court and noble society, yet the plays are steeped in the customs, manners, and other matters related to the upper stata of European society. There is also exactly zero record of the guy from Stratford ever having been to the continent, let alone Italy, where a number of the plays are situated. This is a problem as these plays show some actual knowledge of the cities themselves. I.e., they are not just fanciful sites for the plays, but are places of which the author has knowledge. Shakespearean scholars attribute this to the so-called "lost years", when the playhouses in London were closed as a plague prevention matter. The supposition is that during these years the guy from Stratford lit out for the continent. The problem is that there is no documentation to support this claim. Not some ambiguous or fanciful documentation, but absolutely none. No hotel registry on the continent, for example, has anyone by that name on it. Whereas young English noblemen were already engaged in the so-called Grand Tour as a matter of course, which would have taken them to France, Germany, Italy, and other points on the continent. One play appears to be situated in the court of a French queen. Individual characters can be tied to actual historical personages in the play. It is hard to see how an English commoner would have had access to the court of a French queen. Whereas a visiting English nobleman (or woman) would be readily allowed entry as a matter of course. There is also the minor issue of how someone who seems to have left school at the age of eleven came up with a vocabulary that exceeds that of the King James Bible by a factor of about three. And there is more.
No, he did not. He wrote it like a sitcom. He knew nothing of it in detail, which has been documented by numerous scholars whose specialty is aristocratic and royal households. Even in his own lifetime his lack of knowledge about Italy was pointed out. Ditto all the other crap.
Although it is spelled "Looney" it is pronounced as in "lonely." English spelling can be misleading. David Hume pronounced his surname as in "home." So, Peter Lightheart, it is a cheap shot to prejudice the case by mispronouncing Thomas Looney's name. His seminal book is a free download on-line and merits study if you have not yet cracked it. archive.org/details/shakespeareident00looniala Written during WW I, Looney delayed publication until the British ship was righted, so it only appeared in 1920. Given the backward glance of over three centuries, his measured timing shows that he was not a sensationalist, notwithstanding that his conclusion is. Much of contemporary Oxfordianism stands on this research, although significant conjectures have been added. Today there is a chorus of voices with gravitas that take the topic seriously enough so that you can anticipate a debate worth your attention. Research into the English Renaissance certainly is abetted by the Shakespearean canon, but think of Shakespeare in terms of late feudal, as well. The Histories are vital in gaining a footing on the sequence of kings and their vassals, not for the blow by blow so much as their motivations and expectations in that distant culture. One reason de Vere's life interests me, whether he was the author or not, is that when his biography is plugged into Hamlet, many mysteries about the masterpiece evaporate. For anyone mounting that play, The Earl of Oxford is a touchstone. Your characterization of 19th century romantic poetry is valid, but that does not preclude a muse that gave birth to Romeo and Juliet. Shakespearean characters do have a strong romantic streak to be appreciated from the vantage of this later epoch, and it may be the depth of these plays in that dimension that sustained them over centuries.
When i hear his common english name mispronounced by people who claim to be scholars...i IMMEDIATELY tune them out...as well.as anyone who does.ad hominem and straw man attacks...and.truthfully I have yet to hear any strafordiana.NOT.begin all their with those tactics and end by never supplying any evidence for their beliefs except they use those attacks and are supposed experts. Have u ever.gone to the.Strafordian channels...all that there is are commercials to come.experience the "Shakespearian like" villiage. Its like.going.to.disney land.commericals
@@sislertx Stratford should turn their streets to dirt, let heifers roam freely, and leave the pungent smell to waft about the noses of the ticket buyers who are being sold their B.S.
Two guys educated in literature(?) talks in a patronizing way of those who have arguments contradicting their own. NO manuscripts, letters, sonnets etc. are present from Shakespeare's own hand. The few (6) signatures of his are clearly made by someone not able to write. Avoyding this makes these two gentlemen real narrow specialists. Read Aristoteles and what he says about logic/reason.
There are very few literary manuscripts from the era - no manuscripts for Sidney, Spenser or anyone else. The identity of the author is provided directly or indirectly by the many people he knew. The rest of the evidence speaks for itself.
There is LITERALLY no manuscript for ANY public play of the period which survives in the playwright's own hand. Literally none. An autograph manuscripts of Ben Jonson's 'Masque of Queens survives, but little else. LOOK at the signatures. All are from the four years before he dropped dead. Is it at all possible, do you think, that he was ILL in the last four years before he dropped dead? If you go to the Wikipedia page on 'Shakespeare's Handwriting', you can see THE CONTEXT in which they were written. Three on his deathbed, two squeezed onto tiny legal tags, and one in a courtroom, probably with someone else's quill. Marlowe left ONE signature, and it reads 'Marley'. If you go to the CELM catalogue, it lists writers and the documents which survive. Ben Jonson left six letters and many books. For all the other writers of the time, you find very few letters, a few poetic manuscripts, no books owned by them. Webster is a case in point. We don't know when he was born, or when he died. There is one disputed letter. That's it. He may have been to the Inns of Court but there's no way of knowing. There is absolutely NOTHING exceptional about the lack of letters and manuscripts left behind by Shakespeare.
This critic of the authorship question continues the infantile comments of others labeling the Oxford theory as "Looney." Then comes a snide reference to Delia Bacon. Stratfordians specialize in ad hominems. Those who question the authorship do so because of the evidence! The man from Stratford is claimed to have had a grammar school education for which there is no evidence. His family of parents, wife, children were all illiterate. Of the some 70 contemporary documents that exist concerning William Shakspere, there is not a shred that shows he wrote anything. He was a man of business who dealt in grain and/or wool and had part ownership in the Globe. He did some acting and he sued several people for pounds or shillings. His six signatures show a man who struggled to write his name. In his will, there's no mention of books, nor manuscripts of any kind - finished or unfinished. In contrast, the Shakespeare plays and poems show a deep knowledge of law, medicine, falconry (exclusively an aristocratic sport), philosophy, classical literature, art, music, horticulture, heraldry, military and naval terminology, life in the courts of kings and queens and several more subjects. Books are written about his knowledge. This indicates a prodigious education at university and tutored. An immersion in life at court and extensive travel. None of this can be found in the life of Shakspere. This kind of knowledge and travel fits the life of the Earl of Oxford - unknown until Thomas Looney, unsatisfied with Shakspere's biography, did years of research and came upon de Vere's early writings and his biography.
@@luckybag6814 John Shakespeare signed his name with an "X". It was not uncommon for "upstanding" citizens to be illiterate. It's estimated that about half the aldermen of Stratford signed with an X. Susannah didn't "find" the book. She took the man requesting the book into her husband's library so he could look for it himself. Susannah signed her own name with a squiggle. Her sister, Judith, signed with an X. Again, not unusual in itself. Women were generally less educated than men at the time. Regarding "grammar school education" of the time. There's absolutely no evidence that such education was exceptional in any way. The mission of the schools was to teach Latin an further the "King's" religion. Teaching religion was essential so that the English would learn their new, Anglican, religion and unlearn Catholicism. There's not a scrap of evidence that William was educated. Not a single letter, from "William Shaksper" or "William Shakespeare has ever been found. How is that possible? Didn't he write home? Didn't he write to other writer's, debtors, lenders? There should be letters spread all around England. There is one letter that has been found TO WS. It is a request by someone who wanted WS to lend him money. The letter was never sent. The first printings of Shakespeare's works stat the author is "William Shake-speare." Hyphenated. When all the strange facts surrounding the authorship question are added up, it's clear that "Shake-speare" is a pen name.
@@richardfurno8391 John Shakespeare signed with a drawing of a compass, which was a symbol of his glover's trade. His wife used a seal. Both of these were accepted alternatives to signatures and used by demonstrably literate people. Susanna wrote an elegant signature, and told Dr. Cooke that she had some books "...by one who professed physick". She knew what was in the books though the one we still have was written in Latin. Judith used the squiggle. Shakespeare's brother, Gilbert, also left a tidy signature. There are no attendance records from the Stratford grammar school prior to 1800, but John Shakespeare, as an alderman, was paying assessments for its maintenance. He was very wealthy and could have afforded private tutors, but he was probably smart enough to employ the services of the Oxford-educated schoolmaster he was already paying for. Ben Jonson said Shakespeare had "...small Latin and less Greek," which is precisely what was taught at Elizabethan grammar schools. Shakespeare's family line died out in 1670. His houses and theaters were all pulled or burned down by 1700, before anyone decided he was The Bard. Despite the fact that Jonson had better aristocratic connections, and outlived Shakespeare by 20 years, we have only two letters by him (both to government officers begging out of jail) and none to him. Where are all the letters he wrote? Where are all the letters written to him?
@@Dave.Mustaine.Is.Genius Every last contemporary of Shakespeare's who bothered to opine on the matter said so. I've yet to see a good argument that they were lying or mistaken.
First off, the idea of Shakespeare's play as coded punditry is nonsense. The plays are seen as commentary of politics and makers of the era by critics. Second, these two don't do anything other than note there are those who doubt Shakespeare wrote the plays. This is conversation that goes in circles and arrives nowhere .
I agree that Shakespeare wasn't "coded punditry". Everyone I know who has come to doubt Shaksper's authorship have arrived there through research and deep reading. This isn't a contest. Is it reasonable to doubt Shaksper's authorship? Starting from being a skeptic, I found fact after fact lining up against Shaksper as author - far too much to tell them all, he NEVER spelled his name "Shakespeare", and never put an "E" after "Shak". Authors of the time all spelled their names consistently. All the Shakspers was probably illiterate, even William's own daughters. All the considerable evidence that testify as to the kind of person William was, reveal a businessman - a lender, investor. He may have acted in a play, probably no more. His signatures are like that of a 8 year-old, and spelled in a variety of ways. Much more.
@@richardfurno8391 yes...and have u noticed all these supppsed.scholars only respond with adhominen qnd.strawman.attacks and then forget to provide any proof.except their "learned" opinion. AND LIKE THIS GUY HE CANT EVEN PRONOUNCE A.COMMON ENGLISH NAME CORRECTLY...NOR READ ANOTHERS OFTEN.WRITTEN TOLD AT EVER PUBLIC SPEAKING " I AM NOT RELATED TO FRANCIS BACON DECLARATION". Also back then WOMEN were always accused of being mentally ill if they did not strictly conform to mens wishes...i seriosly habe doubts when a supposed scholar would bring that subject up...he should be shredded and composted for what he just did...especially in this day and age.
Not.really...these.days.even scholars who.believe that the stratfordman narrative move his plays and poems on and off the lists based upon quasi science...aka beliefs but their beliefs do not have to have any more evidence than that its their hunch and one must remember they must publish or die and the academic PUBLISHERS WILL NOT PUBLISH any opinion but stradfordman articles
Nope. Every edition is different, they all exclude things, the Quartos are not printed and the "Apocrypha" is hard to find. The Pelican Shakespeare is the best on the market or the Norton.
How about the crazy hypothesis of Shakespeare being actually Italian and his original (sur)name being "Crollalanza" (litt. "shake-spear")? It's based on his deep knowledge of Italian History and urbanism... (it's mad, but intriguing nevertheless)
Wow. It's really hard to believe an intelligent person could still believe William Shaksper wrote William Shake-speare's plays. There is absolutely no evidence that Shaksper was the author. None at all. He never took credit for the work, nor received payment. He continued to write his name as Shakspur until his death, never Shake-speare. There are only a few documented facts concerning him, which could be written on a postcard. None of the known facts relate to him being a writer. The only examples of his writing were a few signatures, which were crabbed and difficult to read. He obviously had great difficulty signing his name. It is clear that he was not accustomed to holding a pen. When he died, there was no public recognition that a great poet had passed. In fact, his death was simply a non-event. There is really no question: he was not the acclaimed author. The only real question is: who did write Shake-speare's work?
If he was not the author .how did he get so much money . Also after his death the rest of the players put together his manuscripts Why would they do that . It's like arguing that Eisenstein did not come up with the his vast works because he didn't finish his degrees
@@michaelrowsell1160 Regardless of what might be "surmised", there is no record he ever received any payment for his writings. Or even took credit for them. And unlike all of the illustrious contemporary poets at the time, the Stratford Shaksper's death went completely unnoticed and uncelebrated. It just does not add up.
It's hard to believe that you have looked at any actual evidence or would know what to do with it. By every reasonable metric possible, Will comes out as the only candidate for author.
@@gbennett58 oh come on man, please just stop. Didn't ye just watch this video till the end? These claims are based on little nuance-ish, doubtful stuff, probably just to make chaotic argument and to get some money from people visiting different places at Stratford. Note that, not that everyone's and everything's every aspect should be on the records.... Yes, Europe did a great job of recording it's ow ndetails throughout the history but, this never means thaat there would not be any doubtful or empty spaces. How do ye know Sheakspare did not get payment fer his works? How do ye know that people weren't aware of a great poem passing by... C'mon man, these are B.S., don't buy into these unnecessary argumantetions. There are even rumour that Kant and Einstein were Muslims, and they pretend to be bringing up evidences fer that. Would ye believe that as well??????
@@Mythologos trve true, neglect these unnecessary debates, Shekaspeare is the author, period. These arelittle chaotic stuff only and there are vampires feeding out of chaos.
I have to correct you here. You have jumped to a conclusion for the wrong reasons. You have observed that a narrative has been borrowed and therefore presumed the author to be "fake". That is not the way it is. The author of Shakespeare's plays, whether it was Shaksper from Stratford upon Avon or someone entirely different, did not invent his own narratives. The plays adapt stories that have already been written and are sometimes history, sometimes legend and sometimes just entertaining fictions. The author was a brilliant playwright, not a brilliant inventor of brand new stories. This custom has continued. Romeo and Juliet was adapted into the musical West Side Story, and then adapted again as Romeo+Juliet.
The KJV is not the "first Bible", it's not even the first English Bible. Bacon had nothing to do with it. They're plays and poems, not ciphers, codes, acrostics, treasure maps or veiled aristocratic biography.
How does this channel not have more subscribers?
indeed
This interview is very very skilful in dismissing the notion that someone other than William Shaksper (that is the way the corn dealer signed his name on documents) wrote the works published under the name William Shakespeare.
He successfully lampoons those people who put for theories. He pretends that he doesn’t KNOW who the authors, including Mark Twain, were. He puts the criticism down to Romantic 19th century notion of idealised "Poet". H fails to tell us that in Shakespeare's time Stratford was a town of 5,000 people and the grammar school was really quite small.
1. There is no evidence that William Shaksper, corn-dealer, owner of rental property, money-lender and part owner of a London theatre, ever went to school at all. His parents and children were illiterate i.e. could not sign their name on their marriage register.
2. The only documents that he signed are legal or monetary, and include his will. He left NO LETTERS, no diary, no drafts of plays, no notes.
3. His will is three pages long, and includes no reference to his plays, or money gained from them. Books were rare and valued items, usually named in wills. But Shaksper of Stratford on Avon left no books, even though his will lists his household items in some detail..
4. The date of death and location of memorial are known, but there was NO MENTION of his passing made in ANY OTHER record. i.e. it was ignored in London, by the theatre, by the court, and by literary persons who kept diaries.
5. A complete folio was not published until several years after the man from Stratford's death. The intro mentions "the Bard of Avon" but this could imply a person from several locations, other than Stratford. However, it was with THIS evidence that Stratford-upon-Avon made the claim that their litigious William Shaksper was indeed the famous poet and playwright. The claims were first made in about 1660. (In the intervening period, Oliver Cromwell had governed over a dour period when plays, music, and dancing were banned.
6. Stratford-upon-Avon attracts a huge tourist industry to England.There are also a very large number of scholars in whose interest it is to remain faithful to the man from Stratford-upon-Avon.
7. Although we have been successfully fobbed off in this interview with the notion that only a loony or a self-interested nut would think this way, there is rather a long list of distinguished people who believe that it is MOST UNLIKELY that William Shaksper of Stratford-upon-Avon could have written the plays. The reasons have to do mostly with the writer's knowledge of languages, the customs of other nationalities, the cities of Italy, English history, Ancient History, Classical literary sources, noble pursuits such as hunting, fencing, archery etc, tactical warfare, navigation, etc etc. This was a VERY well educated man, in a time of no internet, and NO PUBLIC LIBRARY. It is impossible to say where he got his education.
8. Stratford-upon-Avon supporters claim that all his cleverness was down to a brilliant literary imagination. But this is not true. When one reads the plays that are set in Italy, one is effectively transported to Padua, Verona and Venice. In Romeo and Juliet the words utterly convince of the fact that these are Italian families with Italian mores; they are definitely NOT British. It seems clear that the author was widely travelled. The man from Avon was NOT.
9. So who are these "mostly American" doubters whose names the expert had so conveniently forgotten?
Sigmund Freud, Henry James, Walt Whitman, John Galway, Mark Twain, Bernard Shaw, John Gielgud, Derek Jacoby.... etc etc.
10. He also seemed to avoid Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe is the strongest case for having written these plays, , and becomes even stronger with the possibility that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was actually his patron, along with Oxford's uncle, Queen's spy-master, Lord Burghley
"Corn dealer" LoL You'd think ONE person would have remembered him as such yet everyone he knew remembered him as the poet. You have no clue what you're talking about. Will was born into a massive land holding that was stripped away (probably because his parents were Catholic) and he spent his adult life getting as much of that property back as he could. The property had to produce to sustain the expense - by 1600 he had massive amounts of produce from his property, which is to be expected. Is he supposed to have not cared and let the property fall away from the family again?
@@Mythologos ,
Noone has suggested for a moment that the man from Stratford ought not be concerned for his property and produce. In fact the existent documents indicate that land and produce were his primary concerns.
@@Mythologos
I must also say that if Shaksper of Stratford upon Avon composed the lines on his own gravestone, then he was no poet.
Just two guys having a cosy chat about the subject in hand while continually distancing themselves from anything anyone else has ever said about it.
The misrepresentation of Delia Bacon’s life and argument is a sad case of ongoing sexism. This man has clearly never looked at her work or biography, but feels safe in repeating vicious lies about her.
Sad for an otherwise, mostly, even handed presentation.
John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623. Ben Jonson's eulogy in the First Folio clearly praises Shakespeare as a great writer and refers to him as the “Sweet Swan of Avon.” This obviously designates Shakespeare as from Stratford upon Avon. Furthermore, Jonson states that "thy writings to be such, /As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much." Heminges and Condell also praise Shakespeare as a writer, stating that "he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him." These are "his works" and "his papers" that they are publishing. He is clearly presented as the writer of these works in the First Folio. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare of Stratford clearly connects him with the 1623 First Folio through Heminges and Condell and it is clear that Shakespeare is presented as the author of the plays.
In the end what does it even matter? Somebody wrote them, they still have the literary relevance. Somebody is "Shakespeare", who cares if we got the picture wrong?
Sure it matters. Will Shakespeare wrote the stuff and deserves the credit.
People are curious.
@guitarslim56 in the great words of William Shakespeare "dont go chasing waterfalls".
There are many more issues than those raised here. The issue is not what a poet is, or was supposed to be. There are a number of issues that indicate that the guy from Stratford-upon-Avon is suspect as the author of the plays. Aside from having an apparently limited education, he was not a member of the nobility. Yet the plays indicate that the author had a deep understanding of matters of royal courts and the nobility. England in the 16th century, indeed all of Europe, was a deeply class-ridden society. Commoners simply did not have access to court and noble society, yet the plays are steeped in the customs, manners, and other matters related to the upper stata of European society. There is also exactly zero record of the guy from Stratford ever having been to the continent, let alone Italy, where a number of the plays are situated. This is a problem as these plays show some actual knowledge of the cities themselves. I.e., they are not just fanciful sites for the plays, but are places of which the author has knowledge. Shakespearean scholars attribute this to the so-called "lost years", when the playhouses in London were closed as a plague prevention matter. The supposition is that during these years the guy from Stratford lit out for the continent. The problem is that there is no documentation to support this claim. Not some ambiguous or fanciful documentation, but absolutely none. No hotel registry on the continent, for example, has anyone by that name on it. Whereas young English noblemen were already engaged in the so-called Grand Tour as a matter of course, which would have taken them to France, Germany, Italy, and other points on the continent. One play appears to be situated in the court of a French queen. Individual characters can be tied to actual historical personages in the play. It is hard to see how an English commoner would have had access to the court of a French queen. Whereas a visiting English nobleman (or woman) would be readily allowed entry as a matter of course. There is also the minor issue of how someone who seems to have left school at the age of eleven came up with a vocabulary that exceeds that of the King James Bible by a factor of about three. And there is more.
No, he did not. He wrote it like a sitcom. He knew nothing of it in detail, which has been documented by numerous scholars whose specialty is aristocratic and royal households. Even in his own lifetime his lack of knowledge about Italy was pointed out. Ditto all the other crap.
Although it is spelled "Looney" it is pronounced as in "lonely." English spelling can be misleading. David Hume pronounced his surname as in "home." So, Peter Lightheart, it is a cheap shot to prejudice the case by mispronouncing Thomas Looney's name. His seminal book is a free download on-line and merits study if you have not yet cracked it.
archive.org/details/shakespeareident00looniala
Written during WW I, Looney delayed publication until the British ship was righted, so it only appeared in 1920. Given the backward glance of over three centuries, his measured timing shows that he was not a sensationalist, notwithstanding that his conclusion is. Much of contemporary Oxfordianism stands on this research, although significant conjectures have been added. Today there is a chorus of voices with gravitas that take the topic seriously enough so that you can anticipate a debate worth your attention.
Research into the English Renaissance certainly is abetted by the Shakespearean canon, but think of Shakespeare in terms of late feudal, as well. The Histories are vital in gaining a footing on the sequence of kings and their vassals, not for the blow by blow so much as their motivations and expectations in that distant culture.
One reason de Vere's life interests me, whether he was the author or not, is that when his biography is plugged into Hamlet, many mysteries about the masterpiece evaporate. For anyone mounting that play, The Earl of Oxford is a touchstone.
Your characterization of 19th century romantic poetry is valid, but that does not preclude a muse that gave birth to Romeo and Juliet. Shakespearean characters do have a strong romantic streak to be appreciated from the vantage of this later epoch, and it may be the depth of these plays in that dimension that sustained them over centuries.
When i hear his common english name mispronounced by people who claim to be scholars...i IMMEDIATELY tune them out...as well.as anyone who does.ad hominem and straw man attacks...and.truthfully I have yet to hear any strafordiana.NOT.begin all their with those tactics and end by never supplying any evidence for their beliefs except they use those attacks and are supposed experts.
Have u ever.gone to the.Strafordian channels...all that there is are commercials to come.experience the "Shakespearian like" villiage.
Its like.going.to.disney land.commericals
@@sislertx Stratford should turn their streets to dirt, let heifers roam freely, and leave the pungent smell to waft about the noses of the ticket buyers who are being sold their B.S.
Two guys educated in literature(?) talks in a patronizing way of those who have arguments contradicting their own. NO manuscripts, letters, sonnets etc. are present from Shakespeare's own hand. The few (6) signatures of his are clearly made by someone not able to write. Avoyding this makes these two gentlemen real narrow specialists. Read Aristoteles and what he says about logic/reason.
There are very few literary manuscripts from the era - no manuscripts for Sidney, Spenser or anyone else. The identity of the author is provided directly or indirectly by the many people he knew. The rest of the evidence speaks for itself.
There is LITERALLY no manuscript for ANY public play of the period which survives in the playwright's own hand. Literally none. An autograph manuscripts of Ben Jonson's 'Masque of Queens survives, but little else.
LOOK at the signatures. All are from the four years before he dropped dead. Is it at all possible, do you think, that he was ILL in the last four years before he dropped dead?
If you go to the Wikipedia page on 'Shakespeare's Handwriting', you can see THE CONTEXT in which they were written. Three on his deathbed, two squeezed onto tiny legal tags, and one in a courtroom, probably with someone else's quill. Marlowe left ONE signature, and it reads 'Marley'.
If you go to the CELM catalogue, it lists writers and the documents which survive. Ben Jonson left six letters and many books. For all the other writers of the time, you find very few letters, a few poetic manuscripts, no books owned by them. Webster is a case in point. We don't know when he was born, or when he died. There is one disputed letter. That's it. He may have been to the Inns of Court but there's no way of knowing.
There is absolutely NOTHING exceptional about the lack of letters and manuscripts left behind by Shakespeare.
This critic of the authorship question continues the infantile comments of others labeling the Oxford theory as "Looney." Then comes a snide reference to Delia Bacon. Stratfordians specialize in ad hominems. Those who question the authorship do so because of the evidence! The man from Stratford is claimed to have had a grammar school education for which there is no evidence. His family of parents, wife, children were all illiterate. Of the some 70 contemporary documents that exist concerning William Shakspere, there is not a shred that shows he wrote anything. He was a man of business who dealt in grain and/or wool and had part ownership in the Globe. He did some acting and he sued several people for pounds or shillings. His six signatures show a man who struggled to write his name. In his will, there's no mention of books, nor manuscripts of any kind - finished or unfinished. In contrast, the Shakespeare plays and poems show a deep knowledge of law, medicine, falconry (exclusively an aristocratic sport), philosophy, classical literature, art, music, horticulture, heraldry, military and naval terminology, life in the courts of kings and queens and several more subjects. Books are written about his knowledge. This indicates a prodigious education at university and tutored. An immersion in life at court and extensive travel. None of this can be found in the life of Shakspere. This kind of knowledge and travel fits the life of the Earl of Oxford - unknown until Thomas Looney, unsatisfied with Shakspere's biography, did years of research and came upon de Vere's early writings and his biography.
@@luckybag6814
John Shakespeare signed his name with an "X". It was not uncommon for "upstanding" citizens to be illiterate. It's estimated that about half the aldermen of Stratford signed with an X. Susannah didn't "find" the book. She took the man requesting the book into her husband's library so he could look for it himself. Susannah signed her own name with a squiggle. Her sister, Judith, signed with an X. Again, not unusual in itself. Women were generally less educated than men at the time. Regarding "grammar school education" of the time. There's absolutely no evidence that such education was exceptional in any way. The mission of the schools was to teach Latin an further the "King's" religion. Teaching religion was essential so that the English would learn their new, Anglican, religion and unlearn Catholicism. There's not a scrap of evidence that William was educated. Not a single letter, from "William Shaksper" or "William Shakespeare has ever been found. How is that possible? Didn't he write home? Didn't he write to other writer's, debtors, lenders? There should be letters spread all around England. There is one letter that has been found TO WS. It is a request by someone who wanted WS to lend him money. The letter was never sent. The first printings of Shakespeare's works stat the author is "William Shake-speare." Hyphenated. When all the strange facts surrounding the authorship question are added up, it's clear that "Shake-speare" is a pen name.
@@richardfurno8391 John Shakespeare signed with a drawing of a compass, which was a symbol of his glover's trade. His wife used a seal. Both of these were accepted alternatives to signatures and used by demonstrably literate people. Susanna wrote an elegant signature, and told Dr. Cooke that she had some books "...by one who professed physick". She knew what was in the books though the one we still have was written in Latin. Judith used the squiggle. Shakespeare's brother, Gilbert, also left a tidy signature.
There are no attendance records from the Stratford grammar school prior to 1800, but John Shakespeare, as an alderman, was paying assessments for its maintenance. He was very wealthy and could have afforded private tutors, but he was probably smart enough to employ the services of the Oxford-educated schoolmaster he was already paying for. Ben Jonson said Shakespeare had "...small Latin and less Greek," which is precisely what was taught at Elizabethan grammar schools.
Shakespeare's family line died out in 1670. His houses and theaters were all pulled or burned down by 1700, before anyone decided he was The Bard. Despite the fact that Jonson had better aristocratic connections, and outlived Shakespeare by 20 years, we have only two letters by him (both to government officers begging out of jail) and none to him. Where are all the letters he wrote? Where are all the letters written to him?
@@richardfurno8391 how can I do further reading on the debate?
@@jeffmeade8643 wow, so ye think that Sheakspeare wrote the plays???
@@Dave.Mustaine.Is.Genius Every last contemporary of Shakespeare's who bothered to opine on the matter said so. I've yet to see a good argument that they were lying or mistaken.
First off, the idea of Shakespeare's play as coded punditry is nonsense. The plays are seen as commentary of politics and makers of the era by critics. Second, these two don't do anything other than note there are those who doubt Shakespeare wrote the plays. This is conversation that goes in circles and arrives nowhere .
I agree that Shakespeare wasn't "coded punditry". Everyone I know who has come to doubt Shaksper's authorship have arrived there through research and deep reading. This isn't a contest. Is it reasonable to doubt Shaksper's authorship? Starting from being a skeptic, I found fact after fact lining up against Shaksper as author - far too much to tell them all, he NEVER spelled his name "Shakespeare", and never put an "E" after "Shak". Authors of the time all spelled their names consistently. All the Shakspers was probably illiterate, even William's own daughters. All the considerable evidence that testify as to the kind of person William was, reveal a businessman - a lender, investor. He may have acted in a play, probably no more. His signatures are like that of a 8 year-old, and spelled in a variety of ways. Much more.
@@richardfurno8391 Questioning that Shakespeare didn't write the plays ls fine but engaging in this kind of badinage is ridiculous.
@@richardfurno8391 yes...and have u noticed all these supppsed.scholars only respond with adhominen qnd.strawman.attacks and then forget to provide any proof.except their "learned" opinion. AND LIKE THIS GUY HE CANT EVEN PRONOUNCE A.COMMON ENGLISH NAME CORRECTLY...NOR READ ANOTHERS OFTEN.WRITTEN TOLD AT EVER PUBLIC SPEAKING " I AM NOT RELATED TO FRANCIS BACON DECLARATION".
Also back then WOMEN were always accused of being mentally ill if they did not strictly conform to mens wishes...i seriosly habe doubts when a supposed scholar would bring that subject up...he should be shredded and composted for what he just did...especially in this day and age.
@@MultiSmartass1 shameful
@@richardfurno8391 and they say that Kant and Einstein were Muslims too, and they bring up evidences. Do ye believe that as well??
is there a complete works of shakespeare
Not.really...these.days.even scholars who.believe that the stratfordman narrative move his plays and poems on and off the lists based upon quasi science...aka beliefs but their beliefs do not have to have any more evidence than that its their hunch and one must remember they must publish or die and the academic PUBLISHERS WILL NOT PUBLISH any opinion but stradfordman articles
Nope. Every edition is different, they all exclude things, the Quartos are not printed and the "Apocrypha" is hard to find. The Pelican Shakespeare is the best on the market or the Norton.
Duh, yes.
How about the crazy hypothesis of Shakespeare being actually Italian and his original (sur)name being "Crollalanza" (litt. "shake-spear")? It's based on his deep knowledge of Italian History and urbanism... (it's mad, but intriguing nevertheless)
It was made as pun to showcase anyone who questions their .3 BILLION dollar industry is insane and must be DESTORYED using all leftists tools..
@@sislertx so can ye explain the punn more? Here, is Shekaspeare leftist as an Italian, or someone having a 3 billion dollars of wealth?
@@sislertx so?
Wow. It's really hard to believe an intelligent person could still believe William Shaksper wrote William Shake-speare's plays. There is absolutely no evidence that Shaksper was the author. None at all. He never took credit for the work, nor received payment. He continued to write his name as Shakspur until his death, never Shake-speare. There are only a few documented facts concerning him, which could be written on a postcard. None of the known facts relate to him being a writer. The only examples of his writing were a few signatures, which were crabbed and difficult to read. He obviously had great difficulty signing his name. It is clear that he was not accustomed to holding a pen. When he died, there was no public recognition that a great poet had passed. In fact, his death was simply a non-event. There is really no question: he was not the acclaimed author. The only real question is: who did write Shake-speare's work?
If he was not the author .how did he get so much money . Also after his death the rest of the players put together his manuscripts Why would they do that . It's like arguing that Eisenstein did not come up with the his vast works because he didn't finish his degrees
@@michaelrowsell1160 Regardless of what might be "surmised", there is no record he ever received any payment for his writings. Or even took credit for them. And unlike all of the illustrious contemporary poets at the time, the Stratford Shaksper's death went completely unnoticed and uncelebrated. It just does not add up.
It's hard to believe that you have looked at any actual evidence or would know what to do with it. By every reasonable metric possible, Will comes out as the only candidate for author.
@@gbennett58 oh come on man, please just stop. Didn't ye just watch this video till the end? These claims are based on little nuance-ish, doubtful stuff, probably just to make chaotic argument and to get some money from people visiting different places at Stratford. Note that, not that everyone's and everything's every aspect should be on the records.... Yes, Europe did a great job of recording it's ow ndetails throughout the history but, this never means thaat there would not be any doubtful or empty spaces. How do ye know Sheakspare did not get payment fer his works? How do ye know that people weren't aware of a great poem passing by... C'mon man, these are B.S., don't buy into these unnecessary argumantetions. There are even rumour that Kant and Einstein were Muslims, and they pretend to be bringing up evidences fer that. Would ye believe that as well??????
@@Mythologos trve true, neglect these unnecessary debates, Shekaspeare is the author, period. These arelittle chaotic stuff only and there are vampires feeding out of chaos.
when i first saw King Lear it was easy to make the conc;lusion he was a fake....
its a copy of a lost greek tragedy he just changed the names
I have to correct you here. You have jumped to a conclusion for the wrong reasons.
You have observed that a narrative has been borrowed and therefore presumed the author to be "fake".
That is not the way it is.
The author of Shakespeare's plays, whether it was Shaksper from Stratford upon Avon or someone entirely different, did not invent his own narratives.
The plays adapt stories that have already been written and are sometimes history, sometimes legend and sometimes just entertaining fictions.
The author was a brilliant playwright, not a brilliant inventor of brand new stories.
This custom has continued.
Romeo and Juliet was adapted into the musical West Side Story, and then adapted again as Romeo+Juliet.
There has been some compelling debate over Sir Francis Bacon and also whether it was his hand that compiled the first Bible.
The KJV is not the "first Bible", it's not even the first English Bible. Bacon had nothing to do with it. They're plays and poems, not ciphers, codes, acrostics, treasure maps or veiled aristocratic biography.
@@Mythologos my fault. I meant the KJV. It's all just fun speculation
@@Mythologos yohohohhoho so ye think Shekaspeare wrote those plays and poems?
Shakespeare is a pseudonym..
Yep. For William Shakespeare of Stratford Upon Avon.
Marginal view?
Extremely. Cope and seethe.