This documentary is sublime, a great example of an interviewer letting the camera run and allowing the interviewee to say what they really mean - love the catty Oxbridge don! You can tell he's got a classical education because he pronounces 'homo' the old-fashioned way, i.e. with short vowels like 'homogeneous' (meaning 'same') rather than the modern pronunciation with long vowels like Homo erectus (meaning 'man'). And having Enoch Powell is a coup. They really don't make documentaries like they used to. Bravo, PBS!
That dude (Rowse) is hysterical, 35:22 him declaring that OTHERS exhibit "snobbery" = ironic 38:00 "in point of fact he was a roaring Ha-Moh" ...goes on to name the guys he championed as 'the clever grammar school boys' moments earlier
I agree with you!!!... Rowse is hysterically funny!!..21:49 he states that Powell does not qualify to have an opinion...then Rowse sticks his chin out in defiance!!!... As if his chin said "yeah I said it!!" Hysterically funny😂😂😂
I find a great parallel between Sir Stanley Wells, a penis puppet for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and Wilfrid Hyde-White as captain of the Magic Christian-both working for fraudulent enterprises.
This episode aired on the 18th of April 1989. At that time, you could use an expression like "raging hommo," and not have to deal with a mob. Doesn't seem all that long ago, to me...
A. L. Rouse does a wonderful job of demonstrating the symptoms of prideful, stubborn, surety. When asked to comment on what has been said regarding the authorship question he doesn't speak to Shakespeare's authorship instead he insults the people who question the authorship. Another hint that someone is speaking from their feelings and not from logic is when they get all squirmy and their lip starts quaking and they make inappropriate body language all the while getting more and more distressed.
"The verbal parallels between Oxford's Paradise poems and Shakespeare's works which Mr. Looney painstakingly amasses are, on the whole, mere commonplaces, often straight-out proverbs, that could be vastly increased in bulk by a person familiar with Elizabethan poetry. They prove nothing except that Shakespeare and Oxford, like all other Elizabethans, indulged in the use of fashionable commonplaces and figures." - 1927 review by H.E. Rollins, an actual expert.
What is there to debate? There is no contemporary documentary evidence for any other author in the Shakespeare canon barring John Fletcher, and since Shakespeare's name is listed alongside Fletcher's the latter's authorship does not preclude the former's. Nor is there any contemporary testimony establishing that any other so-called "authorship candidate" wrote Shakespeare's works instead of him. Close stylistic analysis and its computer-age descendant stylometrics has added some more names to the canon in the early and late plays, but they're all recognized playwrights in the early modern Bankside theatre community, not scribbling aristocratic amateurs like Edward de Vere. In fact, stylometry firmly excludes Edward de Vere from contributing to Shakespeare's body of work, as does close analysis of his writing style, which reveals a rustic East Anglian accent with different pronunciations (since people spelled things as they sounded to them in this era) and rhyme words than William Shakespeare. But, frankly, anyone with an ear for early modern literature can exclude Edward de Vere as having written Shakespeare. There's an Oxfordian who haunts RUclips named Steven Hershkowitz and he challenged people to tell who wrote what in a chimeric poem made up of Edward de Vere's verse (and one poem misattributed to de Vere) and William Shakespeare's. Using no other aesthetic standard than whether it was good or bad, I was able to distinguish 100% between de Vere's verse (bad) and Shakespeare's (good), and I even correctly identified the part of the poem that drew from a misattribution to de Vere, which was too good for him but too poor to be Shakespeare's work. Rather than admit that I had successfully answered his challenge, he deleted the entire thread. But I was predicting that response and archived his chimeric poem and my post in response. So, in the absence of any documentary, testimonial, or stylometric evidence for other "authorship candidates" as the "real Shakespeare", what remains to be debated? Merely a bunch of irrelevant claims and speculations that do nothing to forward the case for authorship even if they're taken as true for the sake of argument. Any advocate for an "alternative Shakespeare" will have to rebut the following prima facie case with specific evidence to the contrary or a demonstration that the logic somehow fails to support the conclusion, at a minimum. If they can't even do that, and none has yet, then the entire subject is a non-starter. oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html P. S., If you're interested I wrote a five-part point-by-point rebuttal of this documentary in the comments to the more widely-viewed version of this video uploaded by NorthropN156. They were left four months ago, and if you want to read them then sort by "Newest First" because otherwise one of the posts will not appear.
@@Nullifidian Why is it necessary to construct a case if there is nothing to debate? Because there is no documentary evidence. Edward de Vere as a hidden writer requires that a case be made, but Willie Shaks as Shakespeare demands that there should be literally thousands of documents that equal proof without the need to construct a case of mere evidence. Your entire line of reasoning is without merit. I believe you are referring to The Benezet Test, which was not created by any RUclipsr, real or ghostly. IT was created by a guy named Benezet, and he's been dead for a while. The rules are: without cheating determine which lines belong to Shakespeare and which to De Vere. If care or skill could conquer vain desire, Or reason's reins my strong affection stay, Then should my sights to quiet breast retire, And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray; Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast, Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed. My reason, the physician to my love, Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve Desire is death, which physic did except. Past cure I am, now reason is past care, And frantic mad with evermore unrest; Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong; My mazed mind in malice so is set As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long; Patience perforce is such a pinching pain As die I will, or suffer wrong again. For, if I should despair, I should grow mad, And in my madness might speak ill of thee; Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad, Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be. Love is a discord and a strange divorce Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power, As mad with reason, we admit that force Which wit or labour never may empower My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, At random from the truth vainly expressed: For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, Who art as black as hell, as dark as night. Why should my heart think that a several plot, Which my heart knows the wide world's common place? Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not, To put fair truth upon so foul a face Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart? Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint? Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart? Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint? Who first did print with colours pale thy face? Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest? Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace? Who made thee strive in virtue to be best? Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, The more I hear and see just cause of hate? O, though I love what others do abhor, With others tho shouldst not abhor my state. What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire, When only sighs must make his secret moan ? A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire, My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone. Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above, To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love.
For the record, tjaruspex deleted my comment where I responded to the Bénézet test, but left this one up, therefore I'm going to repost what I said in this post in the hope that he's mistakenly confident that he successfully suppressed my post and won't be looking at this one. @vetstadiumastroturf5756 "Because there is no documentary evidence...." So title pages, dedication pages, Stationers' Register entries, Revels Accounts entries, contemporary literary anthologies including William Shakespeare's works under his name, and written statements by Shakespeare's contemporaries that he was an author, including those who had known him personally and/or professionally do not constitute "documentary evidence"? This is the kind of topsy-turvy worldview that prevents Shakespeare authorship denialism from being taken seriously by Shakespeare experts. It's not because they're invested in "the man from Stratford", but because the first act of any denialist is to ignore the documentary evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. But if you had anything like this for Edward de Vere, you'd be thrusting it in my face daily and denouncing me if I pretended that it didn't exist. Shakespeare authorship denial not only runs on willfully ignoring evidence but also the rankest hypocrisy. As for your test, I'm glad to take it. To make it clear what I'm responding to, I'm going to quote each passage with my reasons for attribution to de Vere or Shakespeare. "If care or skill could conquer vain desire, "Or reason's reins my strong affection stay, "Then should my sights to quiet breast retire, "And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray; "Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast, "Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed." This is whiny, boring, overly alliterative, and doesn't keep the meter (the sixth line lands hard on the extra syllable-op-PRESSED-which throws off the entire meter, as contrasted with the occasional use of a "feminine" ending with an eleventh unstressed last syllable in Shakespeare), so I'm going to conclude it's by Edward de Vere. "My reason, the physician to my love, "Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, "Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve "Desire is death, which physic did except. "Past cure I am, now reason is past care, "And frantic mad with evermore unrest; Now this is entirely different in tone. While it is a complaint, it's not merely whinging. In fact, it was very badly strategized of Louis Bénézet to place these passages next to each other, because it really shows the difference in how de Vere and Shakespeare handle the same theme. Shakespeare handles it deftly and with humor and the use of imagery. I suppose "reason's reins" is a kind of image, but how much more satisfying is it that reason is portrayed as a doctor who got angry with his patient for not following his prescriptions and therefore left the recalcitrant patient to his fate. He then goes on to play with the proverbial expression "past cure is past care". Verdict: Shakespeare. ""Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret" "And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong; "My mazed mind in malice so is set "As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long; "Patience perforce is such a pinching pain "As die I will, or suffer wrong again." Again, this is just whinging with no imagery to leaven the complaint with the exception of the sort-of pun on "sing" and "fret". The problem, though, is that frets are an instrumental feature, not a vocal one. You can contrast this with Shakespeare's use of the same "fret" pun in _The Taming of the Shrew_ , where Katherine smashes a lute over her music tutor's head. There the analogy is exact. It's less exact in _Hamlet_ , but even in that case there's an instrumental motif, since Hamlet is trying to get Guildenstern to play the recorder. Plus the extreme alliteration is typical of de Vere. He's so incompetent that he can't find a way to maintain alliteration, which seems to be his poetic hammer with which he treats every line of verse as a nail, without using the word "daunt". Death doesn't end his "deadly dolours long"; it just momentarily intimidates them. Laughable. This bad poetry screams Edward de Vere. "For, if I should despair, I should grow mad, "And in my madness might speak ill of thee; "Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad, "Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be." This is Shakespeare. It's clear from the fact that he doesn't start off from an affectation of despair already, but rather treats of despair in the subjunctive mood. Also, "ill-wresting" is the kind of striking image that de Vere was simply incapable of. Instead of saying, "credulous" or "calumnious", he uses the analogy of an object being wrenched out of shape. One is reminded of the passage in Much Ado About Nothing : "Thou hast frighted the word out of his right sense, so forcible is thy wit." "Love is a discord and a strange divorce "Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power, "As mad with reason, we admit that force "Which wit or labour never may empower" This is the only passage so far to cause me the slightest hesitation. Not because I think Shakespeare might have written it-he is too good to make a rhyme like power/empower-but because I have the instinct that it is just too good for de Vere, even though it's inferior to Shakespeare. I suspect someone else's verse has been misattributed to de Vere. But since I suspect that, I'm going to go with de Vere (attributed) rather than Shakespeare. "My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, "At random from the truth vainly expressed: "For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, "Who art as black as hell, as dark as night." Now I have no question about this. This is the real voice of Shakespeare. Aside from the power of the language, there's again the use of real imagery to forward the poetic argument, not just wallow, and there's another person involved. Implicitly, this is true of de Vere's verse too, but he never seems to address the other party. Instead, de Vere is in love with himself in love and pities himself merely because he asserts his state is pitiable. This self-centeredness is pretty typical of the man who, when begged to economize by his father-in-law, said "Mine is made to serve me, and myself not mine." "Why should my heart think that a several plot, "Which my heart knows the wide world's common place? "Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not, "To put fair truth upon so foul a face" This is equally clearly Shakespearian, though I'm dealing with it separately because clearly it's not of a piece with the preceding passage. The fair/foul dichotomy is particularly typical. Just think of Macbeth for example: "Fair is foul, foul is fair: | Hover through the fog and filthy air." "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart? "Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint? "Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart? "Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint? "Who first did print with colours pale thy face? "Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest? "Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace? "Who made thee strive in virtue to be best?" This is de Vere again. It's tedious, it's whiny, and it doesn't go anywhere. It's literally just one damn thing after another with him. The thoughts don't join up. He confuses mere repetitiveness with a poetic style. "Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, The more I hear and see just cause of hate? O, though I love what others do abhor, With others tho[u] shouldst not abhor my state." Sneaky Bénézet throwing this passage in at the end of de Vere's series of rhetorical questions. However, there is more than enough to distinguish this as Shakespeare's. For one thing, the question moves on to the second line and isn't confined to the first and involves the kind of poetic contradiction that de Vere was incapable of: "love thee more"/"more I hear and see just cause of hate". And the third and fourth lines build creatively on the image established: even though I love what everyone else abhors, don't you abhor me with them. P. S., It should be "thou" not "tho" (though) on the last line. I've altered it so it makes sense. "What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire, "When only sighs must make his secret moan ? "A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire, "My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone. "Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above, "To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love." And more tedious de Vere whinging and alliteration (five s sounds in line three alone!). I laughed out loud at "hapless hap", which is just so inelegant an expression, and the rest of the line is just bizarre if you know the mythology. Because the rolling restless stone is Fortune's stone. But Fortune deals with everybody's luck-good or ill-whereas de Vere seems to think that Fortune is a goddess created for him alone, I guess? It's very difficult to parse this passage in any way that makes sense, except to assume that de Vere was applying the artistic standard of "sod it, it'll do". And the Phoebe/Endymion reference, rather than adding to the poetic quality, just seems like over-egging the pudding, but at least it keeps him off the alliteration. To be honest, if you-and Louis Bénézet-thought that this should have been difficult for me, then it simply verifies what I've long thought about most Shakespeare authorship deniers, which is that they have tin ears to which anything written in early modern English that goes ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM sounds Shakespearian. I wonder if you'll come back to tell me how I did, because I'm pretty confident I successfully identified them all. The first thing I'm going to look up as soon as I hit "Reply" is whether that questionable passage was genuinely misattributed to de Vere.
@@marshabailey1121Except for all the friends and contemporaries who said it was him, his ownership in the theater company which produced the plays, and the theaters in which they were performed, local Stratford details in the plays, and his getting nearly everything wrong about places he had never been. Except that and a few other things I've probably forgotten, no evidence at all.
@@calebcostigan2561 A nobleman who never attended university and who got nearly everything about Europe wrong? I suppose it's possible and that everyone was lying. But why?
Blind faith in the idea of "genius" is not a rebuttal to context and the reality of creation. Anyone who studies the humanities has discarded the faux notion of the "isolated genius" decades ago. It was already passe in the early 90s when the docu was made. Art is not created in a vacuum.
Shakespeare's stagrcraft was learned. His plots were all borrowed. The only genius he possessed was his facility with language. As with with any art, genius is an essential ingredient of great poetry.
Ben Jonson was the most classically literate of the Elizabethan dramatists. He was the (step)son of a bricklayer. Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to Henry VIII, was the son of a blacksmith. Upward mobility was not impossible in this era, and a man could get an education or educate himself.
This is a great whopper of a mystery. I swear I get convinced back and forth with every film and lecture that I watch about this. The smart money seems to be on Devere, but I've seen auguste scholars make a serious case for the Stratford man. "Tis a puzzlement.
@@rstritmatter Just like the creationists. When I debated the subject of the reality of evolution with them, they would claim that I only was taking that position because of the sweet, sweet payola I was receiving from the government. Alas, you don't even have an imaginary government conspiracy to work with. You have to believe that the rather modestly funded Shakespeare Birthplace Trust can float a bottomless slush fund to bribe every early modern scholar on the planet (as well as laymen like me) into accepting William Shakespeare's authorship.
Most intriguing documentary about Shakespeare I've ever seen; quite fascinating...I think he was the glovmaker's son, the clever schoolboy, not the fellow of royal lineage (though they'd obviously like to think so...)
Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.
So Shakespeare's will names three actors as heirs. Has anyone looked at their records to see if Shakespeare is mentioned ? As a true believer, I trust in Michael Wood's PBS series " in Search of Shaakespeare": rather than these prejudiced old goats. And what about Oscar Wilde's story "The Portrait of Mr. W. H. " with direct links to the sonnets and an actor in the Globe/Rose company ? Also look at "Shakespeare in Italy" as a reference point. I do not doubt The Bard of Avon.
Well, Shakespeare wouldn't be mentioned in the wills of John Heminges, Henry Condell, or Richard Burbage, since he predeceased them, but we do have plenty of documentary evidence that puts all four of them together. For example, there's the will of Augustine Phillips (d. 1605), which names Shakespeare, Heminges, Condell, and Burbage. There's also the list of principal actors in the First Folio, which includes all of their names. Their names are also included together in the cast lists of _Every Man in His Humour_ and _Sejanus His Fall_ in the 1616 folio _Works of Benjamin Jonson_ . We also have all of the royal warrants and patents that King James issued to recreate the Lord Chamberlain's Men as the King's Men, and the actors are named in these patents. William Shakespeare's name is just second after that of Lawrence Fletcher, who was King James' favorite actor and who followed James from Scotland. In addition, in 1604, all of the King's Men were given a grant of 4.5 yards of scarlet cloth so they could march in the (delayed by plague) coronation procession of King James in his livery, and the names of William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage all appear there. We have the lease of the Globe playhouse site that establishes that one moiety (one-half) was owned by Richard Burbage and Cuthbert Burbage, and that the other moiety was owned by William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope, and William Kempe. Kempe would soon after leave the company, which may be when Henry Condell was brought in as a joint owner, but at some point he became a joint owner of the Globe because he was named as a co-defendant with John Heminges by John Witter in a lawsuit over the part-ownership of that theatre in 1618. We have the documents in the deal to acquire the Blackfriars gatehouse (where the purchaser was identified as "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon in the County of Warwick, gentleman", so there's no ambiguity about his identity) that also named John Heminges as one of Shakespeare's two trustees. Shakespeare bequeathed the gatehouse property to Susanna Hall (his eldest daughter, wife of Dr. John Hall) in his will, and we also have a bargain and sale transferring the ownership of the property to her (through her trustees, John Green and Matthew Morryes). The text of this bargain and sale indicates that Shakespeare was trying to artificially construct an entailment, where the property went to Susanna, then to her male heirs, and failing any male heirs (and she only had one daughter, Elizabeth), then the property was to go to Elizabeth and any male heirs she might produce (she instead died childless). So there can be no question that William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage were all long-standing professional colleagues, which makes the testimony of Heminges and Condell in the First Folio that they were "without ambition either of self-profit or fame: only to keep the memory of so worthy a friend & fellow alive as was our Shakespeare by the humble offer of his plays..." compelling evidence for William Shakespeare's authorship.
I propose there is no point even arguing that anyone else wrote the works of William Shakespeare of Stratford. What is interesting is why there is movement to deny his existence when there is no objective evidence than anyone else wrote this wonderful, consistent, body of work. What is it that annoys the conspiracy theorists? Answers on a (small) postcard please.
Actually a more interesting question, to those who bother to look into the matter enough to have an informed opinion, is why so many otherwise intelligent persons persist in defending a belief that will one day be a laughing stock of any educated persons. You might start by dropping the defensive, wholly unwarranted ad hominem about "conspiracy theorists." Only then can your education begin. Please state an objection to some aspect of the evidence presented in the documentary.
@@rstritmatter Well, I'll state an objection: at 26:55 they create a hybrid quotation that doesn't exist in the original by skipping over 23 chapters of George Puttenham's _The Arte of English Poesie_ . This is called quote-mining and it is a blatantly dishonest tactic. Ironically, they themselves give away the game because, when they zoom in on the text in chapter 8, you can see it doesn't continue by naming any specific individuals. That is not a sign of honesty, however, but merely shows that the makers of this documentary are incompetent liars. And I'll further state a general objection: none of the so-called 'evidence' in this documentary truly logically implicates the authorship of William Shakespeare's plays and poems. It's either a falsehood (like the phony Puttenham quotation) or it doesn't matter even if it's true. In fact, even the phony Puttenham quotation wouldn't matter if it were true. Assuming there were contemporary testimony to establish that Edward de Vere had truly suppressed his own writings or published something without his own name on it, it would not follow that he *HAD* published his works under the name of William Shakespeare. If de Vere had suppressed his writings, then they would have been unpublished and thus would be irrelevant to Shakespeare's published writings. And if Edward de Vere had suffered his work to be published without his name on it, that could mean anonymity or pseudonymity. It would not necessarily mean that he was using the identity of William Shakespeare as a front. But that's how all authorship arguments go. In the absence of primary documentary evidence or clear contemporary testimony demonstrating their "alternative candidate's" authorship of the Shakespeare canon, they have to pick and glean things that sound suitably suggestive and operate purely through insinuation rather than by presenting facts - and if they have to misrepresent the very texts they're making insinuations about, it doesn't bother them. But insinuations, coincidences, and motivated literary interpretations are not an adequate substitute for facts, which is why anti-Shakespearians consistently fail to convince people who know early modern drama and history.
"No objective evidence" Did you even watch the video?? Since it's been made there has been discovered a mountain, no, mountain range of evidence. Pay attention before you post.
@@tjaruspex2116 Spoken like a true religious fanatic: no one who has encountered the Revealed Truth could possibly doubt anymore. This 'documentary' can't possibly be an exercise in clumsy propaganda because you agree with it, therefore it must be unassailable. I can't speak for Stebbo8292, but I _have_ watched this documentary in full - and have fully critiqued it elsewhere on RUclips. However, since there is a "mountain range of evidence", then perhaps you can just pick one or two of the most compelling pieces of objective evidence, whether from this documentary or elsewhere, and convince the skeptics like Stebbo and I. To save you wasted effort, however, I will tell you in advance the kinds of arguments that _do not_ constitute objective evidence: 1) Anything that depends on an assumption about the early modern period that is not demonstrable by primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony. Shakespeare authorship deniers tend to have very anachronistic notions about the early modern period, either treating it as no different to the bleakest depths of the so-called "Dark Ages" or as being basically equivalent to the present day with its readily accessible news, its notions of writing as autobiography, its celebrity authors, its systems of copyright, etc. Sometimes they make both assumptions at once. 2) Anything that turns on an assumption about what Shakespeare couldn't have known, read, or experienced that is not supported by primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony of Shakespeare's ignorance of or lack of access to the subject. Also, I will reject generic claims of 'knowledge' that are not based on _specific citations_ of textual evidence from the works themselves and a demonstration that such knowledge was _truly exceptional_ in the context of the other authors of Shakespeare's day. For example, it's senseless to ask where Shakespeare could have learned the Classical imagery in _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ when he had Helena exclaim, "The story shall be changed: | Apollo flies and Daphne holds the chase...," since the story of Apollo and Daphne was the kind of commonplace Classical allusion that could be plucked from any hedgerow. If you're going to point to the Italian settings in Shakespeare's plays and ask how he could have known about them, then I'm going to require specific evidence that Shakespeare _had never_ been to Italy nor could have learned such details while living in England. Otherwise, you will not have logically excluded Shakespeare as an author, and even if you do exclude William Shakespeare that is not a demonstration of Edward de Vere's authorship when the field of alternative "authorship candidates" (a term I hate, since these people didn't ask to be identified as Shakespeare, but I use it for want of a better) has broken 90. 3) Any argument that relies on insinuation for its force, rather than a proper demonstration of alternative authorship. "Why didn't Shakespeare name any books in his will?" is one such argument, since Shakespeare did not _have_ to name any books in his will and his theatrical colleagues who were playwrights did not (see _Playhouse Wills: 1558 - 1642_ by E. A. J. Honigmann and Susan Brock). Pointing out that the bequest of money for mourning rings to John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage is an interlineation is another. 4) Any argument that turns on what you won't accept of William Shakespeare. I don't care if you think Shakespeare was a greedy, penny-pinching scumbag who harassed his neighbors with lawsuits for the repayment of small sums, hoarded grain in a time of famine, and didn't teach his daughters how to read. None of these things have any bearing on whether he could have written the works (and I'm also saving you time, because _none_ of these _ad hominem_ character assassinations are demonstrably true). Saying that you would expect X from the author of the plays and Shakespeare allegedly did Y merely means that your expectations are misplaced. Reality is not obliged to conform to how you think it should be. 5) Any argument that requires reading minds. I'm thinking specifically of Alexander Waugh's "Every Man and His Dog Knew..." series, but the tendency is common to Shakespeare authorship deniers. They come up with spurious interpretations of what people 'really meant to say' if they could have expressed themselves openly, they invent 'codes' for which they supply their own analysis and never bother to demonstrate that such 'codes' were known and understood in the early modern era or were capable of being generated in an early modern print shop without a conspirator on hand to set the type, they stand the explicit statements of contemporaries on their heads or assume without adequate justification - or _any_ - that they were lying, etc. 6) Any game of Six Degrees of the Earl of Oxford. I know the history of the Earl of Oxford's life as well as you do, if not better. I know Philip Herbert, the Earl of Mongomery (and later 4th Earl of Pembroke) married Susan de Vere (after the Earl of Oxford's death). I know there were marriage negotiations arranged by William Cecil between Bridget de Vere and William Herbert, the 3rd Earl of Pembroke, and that they broke down early over the point of when the promised annuity was to begin. And I know that both the Herberts were dedicatees of the First Folio. I also know that Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, was pushed hard to marry Elizabeth de Vere, that ultimately William Cecil used his position as Master of Wards to sock Southampton with a £5,000 fine to release him, and that Southampton was the dedicatee of _Venus and Adonis_ and _The Rape of Lucrece_ . And yet I still don't accept Edward de Vere's authorship of the canon because these points are entirely irrelevant to establishing authorship. 7) Any argument that is based on mere literary interpretation. A contemporary literary interpretation cannot ripple back through time to change the authorship of the original works. Therefore I do not care that Oxfordians see _Hamlet_ as de Vere's autobiography or, as recently argued in the _Guardian_ by Margo Anderson and Derek Jacobi, that _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ was de Vere's private psychodrama, representing him in the tripartite role of wooer (Fenton), jealous man (Ford), and lecher (Falstaff). Nor did I find the claim that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly learned specific geographical details of a region a whole 25 miles away from London any more compelling. Cherry-picking details you think hit off Edward de Vere in the works is easy because the works are so large and varied that you can do it for practically anyone, provided you know the biographical details first. You can save these kinds of games for the annual Shakespeare-Oxford Fellowship conference. 8) And it shouldn't need to be said, but since this documentary does do it, I will also point out that I won't accept arguments based on _misrepresenting_ the documentary record. If you play games like this documentary did in quote-mining George Puttenham's _The Arte of English Poesie_ by omitting a full 23 chapters of intervening text, then I'm just going to conclude that your claim is incapable of being sustained honestly. In fact, you're probably better off ignoring Shakespeare entirely and just providing me with direct primary documentary evidence of Edward de Vere's authorship of the canon, clear contemporary testimony from people who would have some reason to know that Edward de Vere wrote the works (I don't have an Oxfordian Decoder Ring so anything supposedly more ambiguous will not do), or, failing these, you can present me with rigorous stylometric analysis showing that Edward de Vere wrote the works of William Shakespeare, though you will have to overcome _and_ explain the fact that previous stylometric analysis has excluded Edward de Vere as a potential author. Good luck in your efforts!
@@tjaruspex2116 I'm willing to be patient because we all have our personal lives to lead, but it's been a week since you claimed that there is "a mountain, no, mountain range of evidence". Don't you think you could pick a few rock-solid pieces of evidence off that mountain range and present them by now?
Not disputed at all. Its part of a document listing the actors in two companies its very long and shskespeare is one of msny being paid. There is nothing anywhere doubting its ahthenticity except youtube loons. Its not the only one either. Shakespeare was also paid as a player in red cloth in 1604, listed second after king james fav actor. Its not clear if he was paid in 1604 for acting or just hanging around the new king but he was paid and listed as an actor
@@johnsmith-eh3yc Being an investor or player in a theater company is not evidence of authorship, especially when the person in question cannot properly write their own name. The document referred to at 14:06 records a payment to Kempe, Shagspere and Burbage. What is disputed is not the authenticity but whether the payment is for acting or his financial participation in the theater troupe. In later years Heminge is paid for the troupe's performances so the context implies that this payment is not for acting but rather producing, transportation and performance.
@@apollocobain8363 straw man argument. I was not talking about the author but the lie that the payment to shakespeare was disputed. The shakespeare deniers operate on two levels, denying him as an author and denying him as an actor too. The more he is removed from the theatre the better. The player paid in red cloth was spelt william shakespeare as was the player who was paid. He was almost always referredto as william shakespeare as a kings man. Interestingly enough the one time the master of the revels refers to the author of a shakespeare play by name he is referred to as william shaxberd. Shakespeare documented shows all the spellings from london and stratford and london, whether stratford land owner, actor and sharer in the theatre , and the playwright, or as the sane say, william shakespeare. Dont read some foreigners book, look at the sources
@@apollocobain8363 the troble with you lot is your intellectual dishonesty. I have mentionedthat in reference to 14:06 no one disputes he was paid as an actor so your response is that it doesnt prove he was a writer when that wasnt what i said. It does prove that the narrator is a liar though. And why have you written his name paid as an actor as shagsper when the video literally shows a facsimile of the payment too "william shakespeare". Shows you asa liar too. Well im done with foreigners lying about my nations national poet so will keep calling them out
1. Shakspere Disqualified: Remove all conjecture about what he could have, would have, must have done in order to have been able to produce the poems/plays. Evidence is basically non-existent to show the Stratford man Shakspere was a writer. Evidence suggests, in fact, that he couldn’t sign his own name. What the Strafordians will need is written content that show (or even suggest) that he was a writer to even BEGIN to have a case for their “authorship theory.” (A convenience the Stratfordians adopt is to assert that their candidate is legitimate and any other suggested author is illegitimate, thus failing to acknowledge that they too are merely asserting an “authorship theory.” In other words, their position presumes the case to be settled fact when it’s far more dependent on speculation than evidence and more so than for other candidates.) 2. Who Did?: The stronger evidence lies for the De Vere case than Stratford man. But the research about him (and other candidates) should be allowed to be subjected to scholarship standards for research and evidence. 3. Shakespeare Cabal: Suppressing research that contradicts your “authorship theory” and using ad hominem attacks against those who challenge you is counter to true scholarship and suggests that “thou doth protest too much.” Let the better research win the day!
"The stronger evidence lies for the De Vere case than Stratford man." What is this "stronger evidence"? Are you going to present some or are you just going to tease us? And how do you know that the evidence has *NOT* been "subjected to scholarship standards for research and evidence" and found wanting?
@@Nullifidian 1. Evidence - See Diana Price’s Unorthodox Biography for a complete inventory of the lack of evidence that Stratford man was a writer. See Kevin Gilvary Many Lives of Shakespeare for the listing of bio fiction that is the Stratfordian myth making by academics. 2. de Vere - stronger case… well, he was acknowledged by peers as being a top tier play writer who couldn’t publish under his name. He has a traceable biography. 2-0 De Vere on the easy stuff 😂😂😂 Let’s see something non-posthumous that (a) identifies William Shakspere from Stratford on Avon as the author of the plays…(b) a legible signature that is consistently executed… simple challenge, right? Or, maybe not. 😢 3. Where are the academic reviews that disassemble DeVere as easily as Stratford man? You know of some? 4. That multiple candidates have a stronger demonstrable case to the canon than William Shakspere is evidence of how soft evidence is for him, not how poor the evidence is for others. Basic. Where’s the slam dunk record if Stratford man is so air tight a case? See Tom Wossman’s brief lecture on “teaching the authorship question” for a systematic take down.
@@craigtimmons6907 First off, I'd like to thank you for actually answering the question and sincerely attempting to provide evidence, which is something that many of your confrères don't bother to do. I'm also going to have to break this into two parts. (1 of 2) "1. Evidence - See Diana Price’s Unorthodox Biography for a complete inventory of the lack of evidence that Stratford man was a writer." I've already seen it. Diana Price carves ten categories out of what she believes to be the gaps in the record related to Shakespeare, and deliberately ignores and suppresses the evidence that nevertheless meets her arbitrary criteria, while uncritically accepting everything else from anyone else she can find which appears to hit off her categories. Unfortunately, her approach leads to some obvious questions. First off: who appointed Diana Price the arbiter of what counts as historical evidence? What logical relationship is there between having been an author and being able to jump through Price's arbitrarily erected hoops? Second: What about all of the evidence that fits her categories but is ignored by her entirely? What justification does she have for that? For example, Richard Quiney wrote Shakespeare a letter that is extant, which ought to count as a "record of correspondence". It's not about literature, therefore it doesn't count for her "especially" clause, but she put that clause there because she knew the extant letters of Ben Jonson, Gabriel Harvey, and Edmund Spenser aren't literary either. Jonson was begging to be let out of jail, Harvey was begging for a job, and Spenser was the secretary to two Lords of Ireland and every example of a letter in his handwriting is a consequence of his day job. Third: What about all of the evidence that Diana Price refuses to consider? Title pages/dedication pages, Stationers' Register entries, Revels Account entries, entries in contemporary literary anthologies, and testimony from all of his contemporaries who bothered to comment are not annihilated merely because she won't talk about them. Fourth: Even if all of these other objections can be dealt with, there's also the slight point that an alleged absence of evidence tells you *NOTHING* . It simply does not weigh in the balance. It has no evidentiary value of its own. "See Kevin Gilvary Many Lives of Shakespeare for the listing of bio fiction that is the Stratfordian myth making by academics." If you had a valid argument, you wouldn't have to tell me to see this or that person; you would be able to make the case on the primary documentary evidence. I don't care what Kevin Gilvary thinks of Shakespeare biographies because I don't base my conclusion that Shakespeare was an author on Shakespeare biographies. I base my conclusion on the fact that he's attested as the author on title pages/dedication pages beginning in 1593, that his name is in the Stationers' Register as the author of multiple works of the canon (including the document that created the idea of a Shakespeare canon: the First Folio), that his name appears in the Revels Accounts in association with the plays _The Comedy of Errors_ , _Measure for Measure_ , and _The Merchant of Venice_ , that his name is in contemporary anthologies as an author (e.g., _Englands Helicon_ ), and that every contemporary who bothered to say so affirmed he was an author, including multiple people with established connections to him (theatrical colleagues, playwriting colleagues, family friends, etc.). This part of the record is _abundantly_ documented, so pettifogging over biographers disagreeing about minor and irrelevant details, like what Shakespeare was up to during his so-called "lost years", is neither here nor there. Also, Gilvary has some gall to be talking about "fictional lives" as an Oxfordian when the Oxfordians have invented an entire fictional life for Edward de Vere in order to turn him from what he was, which is a profligate, egotist, and a mediocre court poet, into Shakespeare. They place him where he never was, assert meetings that never happened, and fictionalize his entire biography to find 'parallels' with Shakespeare's texts. That's why they hate Alan H. Nelson's _Monstrous Adversary_ worse than poison: it's the *ONLY* scholarly biography of Edward de Vere ever written and it punctures their fictionalized image of the earl. "2. de Vere - stronger case… well, he was acknowledged by peers as being a top tier play writer who couldn’t publish under his name." There is no reason to assume that _either_ of these things are true. Edward de Vere was never specifically identified as an author of plays nor was it ever established that he was someone who "couldn't publish under his name", and in fact he *DID* publish under his name. His very bad poem prefacing _Cardanus Comforte_ was published with his name on it. He deliberately exploited his patronage of the book to have this poem and a preface inserted, so if there was a ban on his publishing he didn't seem to be aware of it. Several other poems were published in the _Paradise of Dainty Devices_ with his initials. Also, the alleged 'quote' that Oxfordians use to 'establish' that Edward de Vere had to hide his identity is fabricated. They link together two parts of George Puttenham's _The Art of English Poesy_ that are separated by 23 full chapters. This is the quote as they present it: "I know very many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably and suppressed it agayne, or els sufred it to be publisht without their own names to it, of which number the first is that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford." Sounds decisive, right? Except that everything prior to the final comma comes from chapter 8 and the mention of Edward de Vere only comes in chapter 31. The *ACTUAL* ending to this passage in chapter 8 is "...as it were a discredit for a gentleman, to seeme learned, and to show himselfe amorous of any good Art." De Vere is not mentioned. And the list at chapter 31 continues with "...Thomas Lord of Bukhurst, when he was young, Henry Lord Paget, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir Walter Rawleigh, Master Edward Dyar, Maister Fulke Grevell, Gascon, Britton, Turberville and a great many other learned Gentlemen, whose names I do not omit for envie, but to avoyde tediousnesse, and who have deserved no little commendation." If the Oxfordian interpretation were true, then all of the people who followed Oxford must have also been using pseudonyms, but in fact many of them (Lord Buckhurst, a.k.a. Thomas Sackville, George Turberville, George Gascoigne, etc.) had been published for years or decades under their *OWN NAMES* . Therefore, the Oxfordian interpretation is clearly false. It's also false because even if the section from chapter 8 were taken to apply, for some reason, to Edward de Vere, it does not follow that having suffered to have the work published without his name on it means that he published it under a false name, let alone under the name "William Shakespeare", which wasn't in print *ANYWHERE* by the 1589 publication of _The Art of English Poesy_ . Also in chapter 31, Puttenham speaks of Edward de Vere in the capacity of dramatist: "That for Tragedie, the Lord of Buckhurst, and Maister Edward Ferrys for such doings as I have sene of theirs to deserve the hyest price: Th' Earle of Oxford and Maister Edwardes of her Majesties Chappell for Comedy and Enterlude." Note the way the sentence is constructed. This sentence could mean that Edward de Vere wrote *EITHER* comedies or interludes. And since Richard Edwardes was not known for having written *ANY* interludes, and indeed was only known for one comedy, _Damon and Pithias_ , it would seem to follow that Edward de Vere is being praised not as an author of full-length comedies but as an author of mere interludes, and perhaps no more than one. We know he took part in a shipwreck device - a small skit that was themed around the idea of a shipwreck from which Edward de Vere and other courtiers emerged to present Queen Elizabeth with gifts of jewels - so it's entirely consistent with what Puttenham has written that Edward de Vere's dramatic career consisted of this and no more. We certainly cannot assume that Puttenham knew of de Vere's secret career as Shakespeare, since Shakespeare was not known as an author when his book was published. You *STILL* have to show not only that Edward de Vere chose to write and publish dramas under a false name, but that William Shakespeare was that name. You aren't entitled to grab Shakespeare's works for yourself just because otherwise we'd be forced to conclude that Edward de Vere's dramatic output was lost. The _majority_ of plays written in this era are lost. You might as well say Michael Drayton was Shakespeare on the same basis - and you'd be better off because at least they both came from Warwickshire and spelled and rhymed words in a similar way, whereas de Vere spoke - and wrote, because people spelled things how they sounded to them - with a rustic Essex accent his whole life. Not to mention that Drayton outlived Shakespeare, whereas de Vere died almost a decade before the end of Shakespeare's active career as a playwright. "He has a traceable biography." So what? It doesn't make him a more likely writer just because he has a "traceable biography". This is to be like the drunk man who loses his keys in the dark alley behind the bar, but who insists on looking for them out front under a streetlamp because the light is better there. If anything it just tells against Edward de Vere that much more that we have a complete biography of the man and not a scrap of direct documentary evidence or contemporary testimony whereby it has been established that he wrote the works of Shakespeare. "2-0 De Vere on the easy stuff" The irrelevant stuff, you mean. "Let’s see something non-posthumous that (a) identifies William Shakspere from Stratford on Avon as the author of the plays…"
(Part 2 of 2) Why "non-posthumous"? Do you think that people instantaneously forget every fact about a person on the instant of their death, even if they worked alongside that person for decades? Of course, I know why. Because you're following Diana Price, who *MISREPRESENTED* the work of real historians to establish a wholly imaginary distinction between contemporaneous and posthumous evidence. For example, take this passage from one of Price's authorities, H. B. George: "The sources whence we directly derive our information, whatever the quality of that information may be, are usually divided into those which are, and those which are not contemporary. …‘Historical evidence, like every kind of evidence [quoting Cornewall Lewis] is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. Unless those witnesses have personal and immediate perception of the facts which they report, unless they saw and heard what they undertake to relate as having happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all original witnesses must be contemporary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be a contemporary, though a contemporary is not necessarily a credible witness’" (from _Historical Evidence_ by H. B. George, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909). Therefore, it is not an issue of whether the printed text in which the evidence appears was printed before or after an arbitrary date, but whether the person or persons speaking knew the facts being related from firsthand experience. Therefore, the First Folio, with its statement from John Heminges and Henry Condell that “We have but collected them, and done an office to the dead... without ambition either of self-profit, or fame: only to keep the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive, as was our SHAKESPEARE, by the humble offer of his plays....” is a piece of contemporary evidence because the basis of John Heminges and Henry Condell's knowledge is their firsthand familiarity with William Shakespeare as a theatrical colleague. That he was a theatrical colleague can be demonstrated from the same book because the list of the principal actors has his name in it along with theirs. Their names also appear together in two cast lists in the 1616 folio _Works_ by Ben Jonson: _Every Man in his Humour_ and _Sejanus his Fall_ . They were remembered in his will with Richard Burbage and all four were remembered in the will of Augustine Phillips, an actor and business manager who died in 1605. John Heminges also acted as trustee for "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick, gentleman", as he was identified in the legal documents, in the purchase of the Blackfriars gatehouse in 1613. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon's will bequeaths the gatehouse property to his elder daughter Susanna Hall. And lo and behold, after Shakespeare's death John Heminges and his co-trustee John Jackson are on record transferring the property to Susanna Hall. Or I could point out that in a writ for surety in the case _Addenbrooke v. Shakespeare_ filed in the Borough of Stratford, Shakespeare is identified as "lately of the court of the lord James, now King of England" when the only William Shakespeare with that distinction was the King's Men actor and Groom Extraordinary of the Chamber, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. And I haven't even come on to the fact that Shakespeare's status as an armigerous gentleman, referenced in the documents about the sale of the Blackfriars gatehouse and elsewhere, meant that he was entitled to be addressed with the honorifics of Master (abbreviated "Mr." or "M."), so every time you see Shakespeare's name with the honorific you can know that it is *ONLY* William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon who is being referred to, because he was the only William Shakespeare with a coat of arms at the time, inherited through his father, who was granted a coat of arms in 1596 for his work in various civic "offices of honor" (magistrate, justice of the peace, and bailiff). This honorific is applied in certain Stationers' Register entries (e.g., the one from August 1600 where they note the entry of _Much Ado About Nothing_ and _2 Henry IV_ ) and the title pages of the first quarto of _King Lear_ (1608), the First Folio (1623 - and also in the commendatory verses), and the first quarto of _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ (1634), listed as being by "those memorable worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakespeare, gentlemen". "(b) a legible signature that is consistently executed… simple challenge, right?" Not necessarily, since it's not a given that you can read secretary hand. If you were unaware that signatures were commonly made in this era in secretary hand, a form of blackletter script that was superseded by Italic hand, the forerunner of our modern cursive, then you really shouldn't be addressing this subject, to be blunt. It's also not apparent why having pretty handwriting is a necessary condition for being a writer. F. Scott Fitzgerald had absolutely appalling handwriting and yet nobody questions his authorship of _The Great Gatsby_ , _Tender is the Night_ , and _The Beautiful and the Damned_ . The chicken-scratch that passes for handwriting on my copy of _Shalimar the Clown_ must lead to the conclusion that Salman Rushdie never wrote a word (and this was signed years before he was brutally stabbed). If there is anything "wrong" with Shakespeare's handwriting (though personally I find it perfectly legible as someone who *CAN* read secretary hand thanks to having first learned how to read books printed in Fraktur, the German blackletter font) there are thousands of possible reasons for that, including writing _entirely too much_ . The condition was called "scriveners' palsy" and it was effectively a kind of permanent writers cramp. Neurosyphilis and the mercury used to treat it could also produce the shakes, as could years of alcoholism. Or perhaps he suffered from some sort of degenerative neurological disorder that was unrelated to these conditions, like Parkinson's. Perhaps he had rheumatoid arthritis. Basically, unless you were there to see whether any of these confounding variables applied, no one's inferences about his handwriting mean anything. I grant that if you wanted a writer with a pretty signature, you couldn't do much better than Edward de Vere. However, it's just a shame about the contents. "3. Where are the academic reviews that disassemble DeVere as easily as Stratford man? You know of some?" Elliott, WEY and Vallenza, RJ. (2004) "Oxford by the numbers: What are the odds that the Earl of Oxford could have written William Shakespeare's poetry and plays?" _Tennessee Law Review_ *72* (1): 323 - 453. That is an actual academic review that "disassembles" de Vere. What I'm not aware of are any that do the same for Shakespeare. Like creationists, the Oxfordians have founded their own pseudo-scholarly magazines (like _The Oxfordian_ ), but they bear the same relation to real academic work in Shakespeare studies as the _Creation Ex Nihlio Technical Journal_ (or whatever it's called these days) bears to _Science_ , _Nature_ , _Cell_ , and _Trends in Ecology and Evolution_ . Most of the Oxfordian arguments are entirely irrelevant to authorship even if they're granted, as indeed yours have been. When it doesn't matter either way, then obviously the arguments cannot remove Shakespeare from his place even if they're true. "4. That multiple candidates have a stronger demonstrable case to the canon than William Shakspere is evidence of how soft evidence is for him, not how poor the evidence is for others. Basic." But they don't. Whose name is it on the title pages and dedication pages? William Shakespeare's (though he shares a co-authorship credit with John Fletcher). Whose name is it in the Stationers' Register? William Shakespeare's (albeit with one entry where he shares credit, again, with John Fletcher). Whose name is in the Master of the Revels accounts as the author of _The Comedy of Errors_ , _The Merchant of Venice_ , and _Measure for Measure_ ? William Shakespeare. Whose name is in contemporary literary anthologies like _Englands Helicon_ as an author of extracts from the canonical works? William Shakespeare. Whom did every contemporary identify as the author of the works, including multiple people who had personal and/or professional connections with the man (his theatrical colleagues John Heminges, Henry Condell, and John Lowin; his playwriting colleagues Ben Jonson, John Webster, and Thomas Heywood; the family friend and stepson of one of the two named overseers of William Shakespeare of Stratford's will, Leonard Digges; etc.)? William Shakespeare. Where is a single so-called "alternative authorship candidate" who has *ANY* primary documentary evidence supporting his or her authorship or who was said by any contemporary who knew them that they were the true author of Shakespeare's works? The evidence is not "stronger" for any "alternative authorship candidate"; the evidence is completely *NONEXISTENT* . And because it's nonexistent, the alternatives simply cancel each other out. They're clearly not being fielded on the basis of any sound evidence or reasoning, but because someone has chosen their "avatar", as it were, and insist against all of the evidence to the contrary - which they must choose to *IGNORE* as their starting point, which is why this discussion never goes anywhere and nothing is ever established, since they rule out the means by which the question might be settled because it isn't in their favor - that they have somehow identified the 'true author' even if they can't provide you any sufficient evidence.
And yet he wrote a 300 page Folio-size book full of documentary evidence that says who Shakespeare was. What evidence do you have that it was anyone else?
Of course @@Jeffhowardmeade Show it. All I have seen is a mass of cherry-picked circumstantial evidence on both sides. You have more than that? Then show it.
Waste of time. If someone can prove that my edition of the First Folio doesn’t really exist then this “mystery” might be worth considering. Otherwise, it’s noise.
What do you know about the First Folio? Evidently, not very much, which makes your comment noise. Did you watch the video? Care to comment on the fact that de Vere's son-in-law was one of the two patrons and dedicatees of the Folio. That would be one fact relevant to the shallowness of your dogma.
@@rstritmatter Do you have primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony to establish that either or both of the Herbert brothers were "patrons... of the Folio"? As for being de Vere's "son-in-law", Philip Herbert didn't marry Susan de Vere until Edward de Vere was dead, so Philip Herbert never had a father-in-law.
@@rstritmatter Are you having a stroke? Your comment is completely irrelevant to mine. I asked you what primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony you had to establish that the Herbert brothers were "patrons of the Folio", and I also questioned the idea that Philip Herbert was Edward de Vere's son-in-law given that de Vere was dead when Philip and Susan de Vere married, therefore he never had a father-in-law. Now you come out with "Yes, I know you haven't read it, because you don't read anything that doesn't prop up your delusions." (An example of psychological projection?) What is this "it" that I supposedly haven't read, and what relevance does it have your claim that the Herberts patronized the First Folio? Since the only book mentioned so far has been the First Folio itself, then I have to inform you that I *HAVE* read it - twice. The last time was last year to celebrate the 400th anniversary of its printing. To say nothing of the complete works volumes I've read that reprint the front matter from the First Folio in the book (e.g., _William Shakespeare: Complete Works_ edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen). And having read the First Folio both in its original text and in modern-spelling editions based on the FF as a primary source, I can say confidently that there is *NO* documentary evidence to suggest that the Herbert brothers were "patrons" of the First Folio. They are clearly the dedicatees, and had that been all you said I wouldn't have corrected you. But you said "two patrons and dedicatees of the Folio" as if they had an _additional_ role in the creation of the First Folio. But we know who funded the First Folio because the colophon tells us. It was "Printed at the Charges of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, I. Smithweeke, and W. Aspley, 1623." So what role does that leave for the Herberts as "patrons" and what evidence is there that they did, in fact, patronize the production of the First Folio? Since the First Folio itself tells us that the financiers of the project were this consortium of printers, you must have some *OTHER* evidence of the Herberts' "patronage", right?
This documentary is sublime, a great example of an interviewer letting the camera run and allowing the interviewee to say what they really mean - love the catty Oxbridge don! You can tell he's got a classical education because he pronounces 'homo' the old-fashioned way, i.e. with short vowels like 'homogeneous' (meaning 'same') rather than the modern pronunciation with long vowels like Homo erectus (meaning 'man'). And having Enoch Powell is a coup. They really don't make documentaries like they used to. Bravo, PBS!
That dude (Rowse) is hysterical, 35:22 him declaring that OTHERS exhibit "snobbery" = ironic 38:00 "in point of fact he was a roaring Ha-Moh" ...goes on to name the guys he championed as 'the clever grammar school boys' moments earlier
I agree with you!!!... Rowse is hysterically funny!!..21:49 he states that Powell does not qualify to have an opinion...then
Rowse sticks his chin out in defiance!!!... As if his chin said "yeah I said it!!" Hysterically funny😂😂😂
"The Shakespeare Trust" a hypnotic experience in *Mass Psychosis😅*
prove it.
I find a great parallel between Sir Stanley Wells, a penis puppet for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and Wilfrid Hyde-White as captain of the Magic Christian-both working for fraudulent enterprises.
I will never tire of watching this documentary. So, so good 👏👏👏👏
This episode aired on the 18th of April 1989. At that time, you could use an expression like "raging hommo," and not have to deal with a mob. Doesn't seem all that long ago, to me...
A. L. Rouse does a wonderful job of demonstrating the symptoms of prideful, stubborn, surety. When asked to comment on what has been said regarding the authorship question he doesn't speak to Shakespeare's authorship instead he insults the people who question the authorship. Another hint that someone is speaking from their feelings and not from logic is when they get all squirmy and their lip starts quaking and they make inappropriate body language all the while getting more and more distressed.
My god, he sounded like a buffoon when emotionally chiding mr. Powell. It was cringeworthy.
"The verbal parallels between Oxford's Paradise poems and Shakespeare's works which Mr. Looney painstakingly amasses are, on the whole, mere commonplaces, often straight-out proverbs, that could be vastly increased in bulk by a person familiar with Elizabethan poetry. They prove nothing except that Shakespeare and Oxford, like all other Elizabethans, indulged in the use of fashionable commonplaces and figures." - 1927 review by H.E. Rollins, an actual expert.
I love how fast Stratfordians resort to insults instead of actually debating the subject.
If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If neither, attack your opponent.
What is there to debate? There is no contemporary documentary evidence for any other author in the Shakespeare canon barring John Fletcher, and since Shakespeare's name is listed alongside Fletcher's the latter's authorship does not preclude the former's. Nor is there any contemporary testimony establishing that any other so-called "authorship candidate" wrote Shakespeare's works instead of him.
Close stylistic analysis and its computer-age descendant stylometrics has added some more names to the canon in the early and late plays, but they're all recognized playwrights in the early modern Bankside theatre community, not scribbling aristocratic amateurs like Edward de Vere. In fact, stylometry firmly excludes Edward de Vere from contributing to Shakespeare's body of work, as does close analysis of his writing style, which reveals a rustic East Anglian accent with different pronunciations (since people spelled things as they sounded to them in this era) and rhyme words than William Shakespeare.
But, frankly, anyone with an ear for early modern literature can exclude Edward de Vere as having written Shakespeare. There's an Oxfordian who haunts RUclips named Steven Hershkowitz and he challenged people to tell who wrote what in a chimeric poem made up of Edward de Vere's verse (and one poem misattributed to de Vere) and William Shakespeare's. Using no other aesthetic standard than whether it was good or bad, I was able to distinguish 100% between de Vere's verse (bad) and Shakespeare's (good), and I even correctly identified the part of the poem that drew from a misattribution to de Vere, which was too good for him but too poor to be Shakespeare's work. Rather than admit that I had successfully answered his challenge, he deleted the entire thread. But I was predicting that response and archived his chimeric poem and my post in response.
So, in the absence of any documentary, testimonial, or stylometric evidence for other "authorship candidates" as the "real Shakespeare", what remains to be debated? Merely a bunch of irrelevant claims and speculations that do nothing to forward the case for authorship even if they're taken as true for the sake of argument. Any advocate for an "alternative Shakespeare" will have to rebut the following prima facie case with specific evidence to the contrary or a demonstration that the logic somehow fails to support the conclusion, at a minimum. If they can't even do that, and none has yet, then the entire subject is a non-starter.
oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html
P. S., If you're interested I wrote a five-part point-by-point rebuttal of this documentary in the comments to the more widely-viewed version of this video uploaded by NorthropN156. They were left four months ago, and if you want to read them then sort by "Newest First" because otherwise one of the posts will not appear.
@@Nullifidian Why is it necessary to construct a case if there is nothing to debate? Because there is no documentary evidence. Edward de Vere as a hidden writer requires that a case be made, but Willie Shaks as Shakespeare demands that there should be literally thousands of documents that equal proof without the need to construct a case of mere evidence. Your entire line of reasoning is without merit.
I believe you are referring to The Benezet Test, which was not created by any RUclipsr, real or ghostly. IT was created by a guy named Benezet, and he's been dead for a while.
The rules are: without cheating determine which lines belong to Shakespeare and which to De Vere.
If care or skill could conquer vain desire,
Or reason's reins my strong affection stay,
Then should my sights to quiet breast retire,
And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray;
Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast,
Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed.
My reason, the physician to my love,
Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve
Desire is death, which physic did except.
Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
And frantic mad with evermore unrest;
Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret
And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong;
My mazed mind in malice so is set
As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long;
Patience perforce is such a pinching pain
As die I will, or suffer wrong again.
For, if I should despair, I should grow mad,
And in my madness might speak ill of thee;
Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad,
Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be.
Love is a discord and a strange divorce
Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power,
As mad with reason, we admit that force
Which wit or labour never may empower
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,
At random from the truth vainly expressed:
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night.
Why should my heart think that a several plot,
Which my heart knows the wide world's common place?
Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not,
To put fair truth upon so foul a face
Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart?
Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
Who first did print with colours pale thy face?
Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace?
Who made thee strive in virtue to be best?
Who taught thee how to make me love thee more,
The more I hear and see just cause of hate?
O, though I love what others do abhor,
With others tho shouldst not abhor my state.
What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire,
When only sighs must make his secret moan ?
A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire,
My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone.
Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above,
To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love.
For the record, tjaruspex deleted my comment where I responded to the Bénézet test, but left this one up, therefore I'm going to repost what I said in this post in the hope that he's mistakenly confident that he successfully suppressed my post and won't be looking at this one.
@vetstadiumastroturf5756 "Because there is no documentary evidence...."
So title pages, dedication pages, Stationers' Register entries, Revels Accounts entries, contemporary literary anthologies including William Shakespeare's works under his name, and written statements by Shakespeare's contemporaries that he was an author, including those who had known him personally and/or professionally do not constitute "documentary evidence"?
This is the kind of topsy-turvy worldview that prevents Shakespeare authorship denialism from being taken seriously by Shakespeare experts. It's not because they're invested in "the man from Stratford", but because the first act of any denialist is to ignore the documentary evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. But if you had anything like this for Edward de Vere, you'd be thrusting it in my face daily and denouncing me if I pretended that it didn't exist. Shakespeare authorship denial not only runs on willfully ignoring evidence but also the rankest hypocrisy.
As for your test, I'm glad to take it. To make it clear what I'm responding to, I'm going to quote each passage with my reasons for attribution to de Vere or Shakespeare.
"If care or skill could conquer vain desire,
"Or reason's reins my strong affection stay,
"Then should my sights to quiet breast retire,
"And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray;
"Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast,
"Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed."
This is whiny, boring, overly alliterative, and doesn't keep the meter (the sixth line lands hard on the extra syllable-op-PRESSED-which throws off the entire meter, as contrasted with the occasional use of a "feminine" ending with an eleventh unstressed last syllable in Shakespeare), so I'm going to conclude it's by Edward de Vere.
"My reason, the physician to my love,
"Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
"Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve
"Desire is death, which physic did except.
"Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
"And frantic mad with evermore unrest;
Now this is entirely different in tone. While it is a complaint, it's not merely whinging. In fact, it was very badly strategized of Louis Bénézet to place these passages next to each other, because it really shows the difference in how de Vere and Shakespeare handle the same theme. Shakespeare handles it deftly and with humor and the use of imagery. I suppose "reason's reins" is a kind of image, but how much more satisfying is it that reason is portrayed as a doctor who got angry with his patient for not following his prescriptions and therefore left the recalcitrant patient to his fate. He then goes on to play with the proverbial expression "past cure is past care". Verdict: Shakespeare.
""Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret"
"And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong;
"My mazed mind in malice so is set
"As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long;
"Patience perforce is such a pinching pain
"As die I will, or suffer wrong again."
Again, this is just whinging with no imagery to leaven the complaint with the exception of the sort-of pun on "sing" and "fret". The problem, though, is that frets are an instrumental feature, not a vocal one. You can contrast this with Shakespeare's use of the same "fret" pun in _The Taming of the Shrew_ , where Katherine smashes a lute over her music tutor's head. There the analogy is exact. It's less exact in _Hamlet_ , but even in that case there's an instrumental motif, since Hamlet is trying to get Guildenstern to play the recorder.
Plus the extreme alliteration is typical of de Vere. He's so incompetent that he can't find a way to maintain alliteration, which seems to be his poetic hammer with which he treats every line of verse as a nail, without using the word "daunt". Death doesn't end his "deadly dolours long"; it just momentarily intimidates them. Laughable. This bad poetry screams Edward de Vere.
"For, if I should despair, I should grow mad,
"And in my madness might speak ill of thee;
"Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad,
"Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be."
This is Shakespeare. It's clear from the fact that he doesn't start off from an affectation of despair already, but rather treats of despair in the subjunctive mood. Also, "ill-wresting" is the kind of striking image that de Vere was simply incapable of. Instead of saying, "credulous" or "calumnious", he uses the analogy of an object being wrenched out of shape. One is reminded of the passage in Much Ado About Nothing : "Thou hast frighted the word out of his right sense, so forcible is thy wit."
"Love is a discord and a strange divorce
"Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power,
"As mad with reason, we admit that force
"Which wit or labour never may empower"
This is the only passage so far to cause me the slightest hesitation. Not because I think Shakespeare might have written it-he is too good to make a rhyme like power/empower-but because I have the instinct that it is just too good for de Vere, even though it's inferior to Shakespeare. I suspect someone else's verse has been misattributed to de Vere. But since I suspect that, I'm going to go with de Vere (attributed) rather than Shakespeare.
"My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,
"At random from the truth vainly expressed:
"For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
"Who art as black as hell, as dark as night."
Now I have no question about this. This is the real voice of Shakespeare. Aside from the power of the language, there's again the use of real imagery to forward the poetic argument, not just wallow, and there's another person involved. Implicitly, this is true of de Vere's verse too, but he never seems to address the other party. Instead, de Vere is in love with himself in love and pities himself merely because he asserts his state is pitiable. This self-centeredness is pretty typical of the man who, when begged to economize by his father-in-law, said "Mine is made to serve me, and myself not mine."
"Why should my heart think that a several plot,
"Which my heart knows the wide world's common place?
"Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not,
"To put fair truth upon so foul a face"
This is equally clearly Shakespearian, though I'm dealing with it separately because clearly it's not of a piece with the preceding passage. The fair/foul dichotomy is particularly typical. Just think of Macbeth for example: "Fair is foul, foul is fair: | Hover through the fog and filthy air."
"Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart?
"Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint?
"Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart?
"Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint?
"Who first did print with colours pale thy face?
"Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest?
"Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace?
"Who made thee strive in virtue to be best?"
This is de Vere again. It's tedious, it's whiny, and it doesn't go anywhere. It's literally just one damn thing after another with him. The thoughts don't join up. He confuses mere repetitiveness with a poetic style.
"Who taught thee how to make me love thee more,
The more I hear and see just cause of hate?
O, though I love what others do abhor,
With others tho[u] shouldst not abhor my state."
Sneaky Bénézet throwing this passage in at the end of de Vere's series of rhetorical questions. However, there is more than enough to distinguish this as Shakespeare's. For one thing, the question moves on to the second line and isn't confined to the first and involves the kind of poetic contradiction that de Vere was incapable of: "love thee more"/"more I hear and see just cause of hate". And the third and fourth lines build creatively on the image established: even though I love what everyone else abhors, don't you abhor me with them.
P. S., It should be "thou" not "tho" (though) on the last line. I've altered it so it makes sense.
"What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire,
"When only sighs must make his secret moan ?
"A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire,
"My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone.
"Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above,
"To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love."
And more tedious de Vere whinging and alliteration (five s sounds in line three alone!). I laughed out loud at "hapless hap", which is just so inelegant an expression, and the rest of the line is just bizarre if you know the mythology. Because the rolling restless stone is Fortune's stone. But Fortune deals with everybody's luck-good or ill-whereas de Vere seems to think that Fortune is a goddess created for him alone, I guess? It's very difficult to parse this passage in any way that makes sense, except to assume that de Vere was applying the artistic standard of "sod it, it'll do". And the Phoebe/Endymion reference, rather than adding to the poetic quality, just seems like over-egging the pudding, but at least it keeps him off the alliteration.
To be honest, if you-and Louis Bénézet-thought that this should have been difficult for me, then it simply verifies what I've long thought about most Shakespeare authorship deniers, which is that they have tin ears to which anything written in early modern English that goes ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM sounds Shakespearian.
I wonder if you'll come back to tell me how I did, because I'm pretty confident I successfully identified them all. The first thing I'm going to look up as soon as I hit "Reply" is whether that questionable passage was genuinely misattributed to de Vere.
Quite telling, isn't it?
I've been an Oxfordian since around the time I first saw it.
It's impossible to take the Stratford drivel seriously after watching this.
@@steveharris8248 I couldn't agree more. The Stratfordian myth is made out of whole cloth. Completely made up without a shred of evidence to back it.
@@marshabailey1121Except for all the friends and contemporaries who said it was him, his ownership in the theater company which produced the plays, and the theaters in which they were performed, local Stratford details in the plays, and his getting nearly everything wrong about places he had never been. Except that and a few other things I've probably forgotten, no evidence at all.
@@Jeffhowardmeadehe could have easily been a frontman for a Nobleman.
@@calebcostigan2561 A nobleman who never attended university and who got nearly everything about Europe wrong? I suppose it's possible and that everyone was lying.
But why?
Intetesting - thx
Loved this.. has elements not even included in Truer Than Truth or Anonymous!
Blind faith in the idea of "genius" is not a rebuttal to context and the reality of creation. Anyone who studies the humanities has discarded the faux notion of the "isolated genius" decades ago. It was already passe in the early 90s when the docu was made. Art is not created in a vacuum.
Well said!
Shakespeare's stagrcraft was learned. His plots were all borrowed. The only genius he possessed was his facility with language. As with with any art, genius is an essential ingredient of great poetry.
Ben Jonson was the most classically literate of the Elizabethan dramatists. He was the (step)son of a bricklayer. Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to Henry VIII, was the son of a blacksmith. Upward mobility was not impossible in this era, and a man could get an education or educate himself.
Was not Marlowe the son of a cobbler?
True, he could, but for Marlowe and Jonson there is amply evidence, but nothing for Shakspere absoutely nothing.
@@mississaugataekwondo8946 Except for the 20+ colleagues who said the poet was the actor and gentleman from Stratford. You forgot all of them.
This is a great whopper of a mystery. I swear I get convinced back and forth with every film and lecture that I watch about this. The smart money seems to be on Devere, but I've seen auguste scholars make a serious case for the Stratford man. "Tis a puzzlement.
Keep up the inquiry. You will find that sometimes "August scholars" have sold their minds to the highest bidder.
@@rstritmatter Just like the creationists. When I debated the subject of the reality of evolution with them, they would claim that I only was taking that position because of the sweet, sweet payola I was receiving from the government. Alas, you don't even have an imaginary government conspiracy to work with. You have to believe that the rather modestly funded Shakespeare Birthplace Trust can float a bottomless slush fund to bribe every early modern scholar on the planet (as well as laymen like me) into accepting William Shakespeare's authorship.
The man from Stratford-upon-Avon certainly did not write VV. Shake-Speare
Wow what a fabulous documentary.
Most intriguing documentary about Shakespeare I've ever seen; quite fascinating...I think he was the glovmaker's son, the clever schoolboy, not the fellow of royal lineage (though they'd obviously like to think so...)
Who's "they"? Have you read the plays? I can't tell.
Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.
Equivocation was a controversial doctrine by the 1560s if note earlier. Garnet's MS was written c. 1595. This is a bogus argument.
@@rstritmatter ruclips.net/video/T0C2X1Tj9ZI/видео.html&ab_channel=EndoftheTownProductions
So Shakespeare's will names three actors as heirs. Has anyone looked at their records to see if Shakespeare is mentioned ? As a true believer, I trust in Michael Wood's PBS series " in Search of Shaakespeare": rather than these prejudiced old goats. And what about Oscar Wilde's story "The Portrait of Mr. W. H. " with direct links to the sonnets and an actor in the Globe/Rose company ? Also look at "Shakespeare in Italy" as a reference point. I do not doubt The Bard of Avon.
If you trust Michael Wood on the subject of Shakespeare, then you have not bothered to seriously consider the evidence presented in the documentary
Well, Shakespeare wouldn't be mentioned in the wills of John Heminges, Henry Condell, or Richard Burbage, since he predeceased them, but we do have plenty of documentary evidence that puts all four of them together.
For example, there's the will of Augustine Phillips (d. 1605), which names Shakespeare, Heminges, Condell, and Burbage.
There's also the list of principal actors in the First Folio, which includes all of their names.
Their names are also included together in the cast lists of _Every Man in His Humour_ and _Sejanus His Fall_ in the 1616 folio _Works of Benjamin Jonson_ .
We also have all of the royal warrants and patents that King James issued to recreate the Lord Chamberlain's Men as the King's Men, and the actors are named in these patents. William Shakespeare's name is just second after that of Lawrence Fletcher, who was King James' favorite actor and who followed James from Scotland.
In addition, in 1604, all of the King's Men were given a grant of 4.5 yards of scarlet cloth so they could march in the (delayed by plague) coronation procession of King James in his livery, and the names of William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage all appear there.
We have the lease of the Globe playhouse site that establishes that one moiety (one-half) was owned by Richard Burbage and Cuthbert Burbage, and that the other moiety was owned by William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope, and William Kempe. Kempe would soon after leave the company, which may be when Henry Condell was brought in as a joint owner, but at some point he became a joint owner of the Globe because he was named as a co-defendant with John Heminges by John Witter in a lawsuit over the part-ownership of that theatre in 1618.
We have the documents in the deal to acquire the Blackfriars gatehouse (where the purchaser was identified as "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon in the County of Warwick, gentleman", so there's no ambiguity about his identity) that also named John Heminges as one of Shakespeare's two trustees. Shakespeare bequeathed the gatehouse property to Susanna Hall (his eldest daughter, wife of Dr. John Hall) in his will, and we also have a bargain and sale transferring the ownership of the property to her (through her trustees, John Green and Matthew Morryes). The text of this bargain and sale indicates that Shakespeare was trying to artificially construct an entailment, where the property went to Susanna, then to her male heirs, and failing any male heirs (and she only had one daughter, Elizabeth), then the property was to go to Elizabeth and any male heirs she might produce (she instead died childless).
So there can be no question that William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage were all long-standing professional colleagues, which makes the testimony of Heminges and Condell in the First Folio that they were "without ambition either of self-profit or fame: only to keep the memory of so worthy a friend & fellow alive as was our Shakespeare by the humble offer of his plays..." compelling evidence for William Shakespeare's authorship.
How do we know you’re not Shakespeare 42:42 🥲🥲🥲
I propose there is no point even arguing that anyone else wrote the works of William Shakespeare of Stratford. What is interesting is why there is movement to deny his existence when there is no objective evidence than anyone else wrote this wonderful, consistent, body of work. What is it that annoys the conspiracy theorists? Answers on a (small) postcard please.
Actually a more interesting question, to those who bother to look into the matter enough to have an informed opinion, is why so many otherwise intelligent persons persist in defending a belief that will one day be a laughing stock of any educated persons. You might start by dropping the defensive, wholly unwarranted ad hominem about "conspiracy theorists." Only then can your education begin.
Please state an objection to some aspect of the evidence presented in the documentary.
@@rstritmatter Well, I'll state an objection: at 26:55 they create a hybrid quotation that doesn't exist in the original by skipping over 23 chapters of George Puttenham's _The Arte of English Poesie_ . This is called quote-mining and it is a blatantly dishonest tactic. Ironically, they themselves give away the game because, when they zoom in on the text in chapter 8, you can see it doesn't continue by naming any specific individuals. That is not a sign of honesty, however, but merely shows that the makers of this documentary are incompetent liars.
And I'll further state a general objection: none of the so-called 'evidence' in this documentary truly logically implicates the authorship of William Shakespeare's plays and poems. It's either a falsehood (like the phony Puttenham quotation) or it doesn't matter even if it's true. In fact, even the phony Puttenham quotation wouldn't matter if it were true. Assuming there were contemporary testimony to establish that Edward de Vere had truly suppressed his own writings or published something without his own name on it, it would not follow that he *HAD* published his works under the name of William Shakespeare. If de Vere had suppressed his writings, then they would have been unpublished and thus would be irrelevant to Shakespeare's published writings. And if Edward de Vere had suffered his work to be published without his name on it, that could mean anonymity or pseudonymity. It would not necessarily mean that he was using the identity of William Shakespeare as a front.
But that's how all authorship arguments go. In the absence of primary documentary evidence or clear contemporary testimony demonstrating their "alternative candidate's" authorship of the Shakespeare canon, they have to pick and glean things that sound suitably suggestive and operate purely through insinuation rather than by presenting facts - and if they have to misrepresent the very texts they're making insinuations about, it doesn't bother them. But insinuations, coincidences, and motivated literary interpretations are not an adequate substitute for facts, which is why anti-Shakespearians consistently fail to convince people who know early modern drama and history.
"No objective evidence" Did you even watch the video?? Since it's been made there has been discovered a mountain, no, mountain range of evidence. Pay attention before you post.
@@tjaruspex2116 Spoken like a true religious fanatic: no one who has encountered the Revealed Truth could possibly doubt anymore. This 'documentary' can't possibly be an exercise in clumsy propaganda because you agree with it, therefore it must be unassailable.
I can't speak for Stebbo8292, but I _have_ watched this documentary in full - and have fully critiqued it elsewhere on RUclips.
However, since there is a "mountain range of evidence", then perhaps you can just pick one or two of the most compelling pieces of objective evidence, whether from this documentary or elsewhere, and convince the skeptics like Stebbo and I. To save you wasted effort, however, I will tell you in advance the kinds of arguments that _do not_ constitute objective evidence:
1) Anything that depends on an assumption about the early modern period that is not demonstrable by primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony. Shakespeare authorship deniers tend to have very anachronistic notions about the early modern period, either treating it as no different to the bleakest depths of the so-called "Dark Ages" or as being basically equivalent to the present day with its readily accessible news, its notions of writing as autobiography, its celebrity authors, its systems of copyright, etc. Sometimes they make both assumptions at once.
2) Anything that turns on an assumption about what Shakespeare couldn't have known, read, or experienced that is not supported by primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony of Shakespeare's ignorance of or lack of access to the subject. Also, I will reject generic claims of 'knowledge' that are not based on _specific citations_ of textual evidence from the works themselves and a demonstration that such knowledge was _truly exceptional_ in the context of the other authors of Shakespeare's day. For example, it's senseless to ask where Shakespeare could have learned the Classical imagery in _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ when he had Helena exclaim, "The story shall be changed: | Apollo flies and Daphne holds the chase...," since the story of Apollo and Daphne was the kind of commonplace Classical allusion that could be plucked from any hedgerow. If you're going to point to the Italian settings in Shakespeare's plays and ask how he could have known about them, then I'm going to require specific evidence that Shakespeare _had never_ been to Italy nor could have learned such details while living in England. Otherwise, you will not have logically excluded Shakespeare as an author, and even if you do exclude William Shakespeare that is not a demonstration of Edward de Vere's authorship when the field of alternative "authorship candidates" (a term I hate, since these people didn't ask to be identified as Shakespeare, but I use it for want of a better) has broken 90.
3) Any argument that relies on insinuation for its force, rather than a proper demonstration of alternative authorship. "Why didn't Shakespeare name any books in his will?" is one such argument, since Shakespeare did not _have_ to name any books in his will and his theatrical colleagues who were playwrights did not (see _Playhouse Wills: 1558 - 1642_ by E. A. J. Honigmann and Susan Brock). Pointing out that the bequest of money for mourning rings to John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage is an interlineation is another.
4) Any argument that turns on what you won't accept of William Shakespeare. I don't care if you think Shakespeare was a greedy, penny-pinching scumbag who harassed his neighbors with lawsuits for the repayment of small sums, hoarded grain in a time of famine, and didn't teach his daughters how to read. None of these things have any bearing on whether he could have written the works (and I'm also saving you time, because _none_ of these _ad hominem_ character assassinations are demonstrably true). Saying that you would expect X from the author of the plays and Shakespeare allegedly did Y merely means that your expectations are misplaced. Reality is not obliged to conform to how you think it should be.
5) Any argument that requires reading minds. I'm thinking specifically of Alexander Waugh's "Every Man and His Dog Knew..." series, but the tendency is common to Shakespeare authorship deniers. They come up with spurious interpretations of what people 'really meant to say' if they could have expressed themselves openly, they invent 'codes' for which they supply their own analysis and never bother to demonstrate that such 'codes' were known and understood in the early modern era or were capable of being generated in an early modern print shop without a conspirator on hand to set the type, they stand the explicit statements of contemporaries on their heads or assume without adequate justification - or _any_ - that they were lying, etc.
6) Any game of Six Degrees of the Earl of Oxford. I know the history of the Earl of Oxford's life as well as you do, if not better. I know Philip Herbert, the Earl of Mongomery (and later 4th Earl of Pembroke) married Susan de Vere (after the Earl of Oxford's death). I know there were marriage negotiations arranged by William Cecil between Bridget de Vere and William Herbert, the 3rd Earl of Pembroke, and that they broke down early over the point of when the promised annuity was to begin. And I know that both the Herberts were dedicatees of the First Folio. I also know that Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, was pushed hard to marry Elizabeth de Vere, that ultimately William Cecil used his position as Master of Wards to sock Southampton with a £5,000 fine to release him, and that Southampton was the dedicatee of _Venus and Adonis_ and _The Rape of Lucrece_ . And yet I still don't accept Edward de Vere's authorship of the canon because these points are entirely irrelevant to establishing authorship.
7) Any argument that is based on mere literary interpretation. A contemporary literary interpretation cannot ripple back through time to change the authorship of the original works. Therefore I do not care that Oxfordians see _Hamlet_ as de Vere's autobiography or, as recently argued in the _Guardian_ by Margo Anderson and Derek Jacobi, that _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ was de Vere's private psychodrama, representing him in the tripartite role of wooer (Fenton), jealous man (Ford), and lecher (Falstaff). Nor did I find the claim that Shakespeare couldn't have possibly learned specific geographical details of a region a whole 25 miles away from London any more compelling. Cherry-picking details you think hit off Edward de Vere in the works is easy because the works are so large and varied that you can do it for practically anyone, provided you know the biographical details first. You can save these kinds of games for the annual Shakespeare-Oxford Fellowship conference.
8) And it shouldn't need to be said, but since this documentary does do it, I will also point out that I won't accept arguments based on _misrepresenting_ the documentary record. If you play games like this documentary did in quote-mining George Puttenham's _The Arte of English Poesie_ by omitting a full 23 chapters of intervening text, then I'm just going to conclude that your claim is incapable of being sustained honestly.
In fact, you're probably better off ignoring Shakespeare entirely and just providing me with direct primary documentary evidence of Edward de Vere's authorship of the canon, clear contemporary testimony from people who would have some reason to know that Edward de Vere wrote the works (I don't have an Oxfordian Decoder Ring so anything supposedly more ambiguous will not do), or, failing these, you can present me with rigorous stylometric analysis showing that Edward de Vere wrote the works of William Shakespeare, though you will have to overcome _and_ explain the fact that previous stylometric analysis has excluded Edward de Vere as a potential author.
Good luck in your efforts!
@@tjaruspex2116 I'm willing to be patient because we all have our personal lives to lead, but it's been a week since you claimed that there is "a mountain, no, mountain range of evidence". Don't you think you could pick a few rock-solid pieces of evidence off that mountain range and present them by now?
14:06 this 1595 document of "actor" pay is disputed
Yes, but one does not need to question it to realize that the Stratford myth is self-serving nonsense.
Not disputed at all. Its part of a document listing the actors in two companies its very long and shskespeare is one of msny being paid. There is nothing anywhere doubting its ahthenticity except youtube loons. Its not the only one either. Shakespeare was also paid as a player in red cloth in 1604, listed second after king james fav actor. Its not clear if he was paid in 1604 for acting or just hanging around the new king but he was paid and listed as an actor
@@johnsmith-eh3yc Being an investor or player in a theater company is not evidence of authorship, especially when the person in question cannot properly write their own name.
The document referred to at 14:06 records a payment to Kempe, Shagspere and Burbage. What is disputed is not the authenticity but whether the payment is for acting or his financial participation in the theater troupe. In later years Heminge is paid for the troupe's performances so the context implies that this payment is not for acting but rather producing, transportation and performance.
@@apollocobain8363 straw man argument. I was not talking about the author but the lie that the payment to shakespeare was disputed. The shakespeare deniers operate on two levels, denying him as an author and denying him as an actor too. The more he is removed from the theatre the better. The player paid in red cloth was spelt william shakespeare as was the player who was paid. He was almost always referredto as william shakespeare as a kings man. Interestingly enough the one time the master of the revels refers to the author of a shakespeare play by name he is referred to as william shaxberd. Shakespeare documented shows all the spellings from london and stratford and london, whether stratford land owner, actor and sharer in the theatre , and the playwright, or as the sane say, william shakespeare. Dont read some foreigners book, look at the sources
@@apollocobain8363 the troble with you lot is your intellectual dishonesty. I have mentionedthat in reference to 14:06 no one disputes he was paid as an actor so your response is that it doesnt prove he was a writer when that wasnt what i said. It does prove that the narrator is a liar though. And why have you written his name paid as an actor as shagsper when the video literally shows a facsimile of the payment too "william shakespeare". Shows you asa liar too. Well im done with foreigners lying about my nations national poet so will keep calling them out
😅 I believe in William Shakespeare ❤❤❤ ✍️
So does everybody. Hardly the question.
@@tjaruspex2116 "To be, or not to be? Or, to be a bee 🐝 that is the sting 😎
Congratulations. I hope it makes you feel good.
@@tjaruspex2116 Right.
1. Shakspere Disqualified:
Remove all conjecture about what he could have, would have, must have done in order to have been able to produce the poems/plays. Evidence is basically non-existent to show the Stratford man Shakspere was a writer. Evidence suggests, in fact, that he couldn’t sign his own name. What the Strafordians will need is written content that show (or even suggest) that he was a writer to even BEGIN to have a case for their “authorship theory.” (A convenience the Stratfordians adopt is to assert that their candidate is legitimate and any other suggested author is illegitimate, thus failing to acknowledge that they too are merely asserting an “authorship theory.” In other words, their position presumes the case to be settled fact when it’s far more dependent on speculation than evidence and more so than for other candidates.)
2. Who Did?: The stronger evidence lies for the De Vere case than Stratford man. But the research about him (and other candidates) should be allowed to be subjected to scholarship standards for research and evidence.
3. Shakespeare Cabal: Suppressing research that contradicts your “authorship theory” and using ad hominem attacks against those who challenge you is counter to true scholarship and suggests that “thou doth protest too much.”
Let the better research win the day!
Bravo!! Well said!
"The stronger evidence lies for the De Vere case than Stratford man."
What is this "stronger evidence"? Are you going to present some or are you just going to tease us?
And how do you know that the evidence has *NOT* been "subjected to scholarship standards for research and evidence" and found wanting?
@@Nullifidian
1. Evidence - See Diana Price’s Unorthodox Biography for a complete inventory of the lack of evidence that Stratford man was a writer. See Kevin Gilvary Many Lives of Shakespeare for the listing of bio fiction that is the Stratfordian myth making by academics.
2. de Vere - stronger case… well, he was acknowledged by peers as being a top tier play writer who couldn’t publish under his name. He has a traceable biography.
2-0 De Vere on the easy stuff
😂😂😂
Let’s see something non-posthumous that (a) identifies William Shakspere from Stratford on Avon as the author of the plays…(b) a legible signature that is consistently executed… simple challenge, right?
Or, maybe not.
😢
3. Where are the academic reviews that disassemble DeVere as easily as Stratford man? You know of some?
4. That multiple candidates have a stronger demonstrable case to the canon than William Shakspere is evidence of how soft evidence is for him, not how poor the evidence is for others. Basic.
Where’s the slam dunk record if Stratford man is so air tight a case?
See Tom Wossman’s brief lecture on “teaching the authorship question” for a systematic take down.
@@craigtimmons6907 First off, I'd like to thank you for actually answering the question and sincerely attempting to provide evidence, which is something that many of your confrères don't bother to do. I'm also going to have to break this into two parts.
(1 of 2)
"1. Evidence - See Diana Price’s Unorthodox Biography for a complete inventory of the lack of evidence that Stratford man was a writer."
I've already seen it. Diana Price carves ten categories out of what she believes to be the gaps in the record related to Shakespeare, and deliberately ignores and suppresses the evidence that nevertheless meets her arbitrary criteria, while uncritically accepting everything else from anyone else she can find which appears to hit off her categories. Unfortunately, her approach leads to some obvious questions.
First off: who appointed Diana Price the arbiter of what counts as historical evidence? What logical relationship is there between having been an author and being able to jump through Price's arbitrarily erected hoops?
Second: What about all of the evidence that fits her categories but is ignored by her entirely? What justification does she have for that? For example, Richard Quiney wrote Shakespeare a letter that is extant, which ought to count as a "record of correspondence". It's not about literature, therefore it doesn't count for her "especially" clause, but she put that clause there because she knew the extant letters of Ben Jonson, Gabriel Harvey, and Edmund Spenser aren't literary either. Jonson was begging to be let out of jail, Harvey was begging for a job, and Spenser was the secretary to two Lords of Ireland and every example of a letter in his handwriting is a consequence of his day job.
Third: What about all of the evidence that Diana Price refuses to consider? Title pages/dedication pages, Stationers' Register entries, Revels Account entries, entries in contemporary literary anthologies, and testimony from all of his contemporaries who bothered to comment are not annihilated merely because she won't talk about them.
Fourth: Even if all of these other objections can be dealt with, there's also the slight point that an alleged absence of evidence tells you *NOTHING* . It simply does not weigh in the balance. It has no evidentiary value of its own.
"See Kevin Gilvary Many Lives of Shakespeare for the listing of bio fiction that is the Stratfordian myth making by academics."
If you had a valid argument, you wouldn't have to tell me to see this or that person; you would be able to make the case on the primary documentary evidence. I don't care what Kevin Gilvary thinks of Shakespeare biographies because I don't base my conclusion that Shakespeare was an author on Shakespeare biographies. I base my conclusion on the fact that he's attested as the author on title pages/dedication pages beginning in 1593, that his name is in the Stationers' Register as the author of multiple works of the canon (including the document that created the idea of a Shakespeare canon: the First Folio), that his name appears in the Revels Accounts in association with the plays _The Comedy of Errors_ , _Measure for Measure_ , and _The Merchant of Venice_ , that his name is in contemporary anthologies as an author (e.g., _Englands Helicon_ ), and that every contemporary who bothered to say so affirmed he was an author, including multiple people with established connections to him (theatrical colleagues, playwriting colleagues, family friends, etc.). This part of the record is _abundantly_ documented, so pettifogging over biographers disagreeing about minor and irrelevant details, like what Shakespeare was up to during his so-called "lost years", is neither here nor there.
Also, Gilvary has some gall to be talking about "fictional lives" as an Oxfordian when the Oxfordians have invented an entire fictional life for Edward de Vere in order to turn him from what he was, which is a profligate, egotist, and a mediocre court poet, into Shakespeare. They place him where he never was, assert meetings that never happened, and fictionalize his entire biography to find 'parallels' with Shakespeare's texts. That's why they hate Alan H. Nelson's _Monstrous Adversary_ worse than poison: it's the *ONLY* scholarly biography of Edward de Vere ever written and it punctures their fictionalized image of the earl.
"2. de Vere - stronger case… well, he was acknowledged by peers as being a top tier play writer who couldn’t publish under his name."
There is no reason to assume that _either_ of these things are true. Edward de Vere was never specifically identified as an author of plays nor was it ever established that he was someone who "couldn't publish under his name", and in fact he *DID* publish under his name. His very bad poem prefacing _Cardanus Comforte_ was published with his name on it. He deliberately exploited his patronage of the book to have this poem and a preface inserted, so if there was a ban on his publishing he didn't seem to be aware of it. Several other poems were published in the _Paradise of Dainty Devices_ with his initials.
Also, the alleged 'quote' that Oxfordians use to 'establish' that Edward de Vere had to hide his identity is fabricated. They link together two parts of George Puttenham's _The Art of English Poesy_ that are separated by 23 full chapters. This is the quote as they present it: "I know very many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably and suppressed it agayne, or els sufred it to be publisht without their own names to it, of which number the first is that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford." Sounds decisive, right? Except that everything prior to the final comma comes from chapter 8 and the mention of Edward de Vere only comes in chapter 31. The *ACTUAL* ending to this passage in chapter 8 is "...as it were a discredit for a gentleman, to seeme learned, and to show himselfe amorous of any good Art." De Vere is not mentioned. And the list at chapter 31 continues with "...Thomas Lord of Bukhurst, when he was young, Henry Lord Paget, Sir Philip Sydney, Sir Walter Rawleigh, Master Edward Dyar, Maister Fulke Grevell, Gascon, Britton, Turberville and a great many other learned Gentlemen, whose names I do not omit for envie, but to avoyde tediousnesse, and who have deserved no little commendation." If the Oxfordian interpretation were true, then all of the people who followed Oxford must have also been using pseudonyms, but in fact many of them (Lord Buckhurst, a.k.a. Thomas Sackville, George Turberville, George Gascoigne, etc.) had been published for years or decades under their *OWN NAMES* . Therefore, the Oxfordian interpretation is clearly false. It's also false because even if the section from chapter 8 were taken to apply, for some reason, to Edward de Vere, it does not follow that having suffered to have the work published without his name on it means that he published it under a false name, let alone under the name "William Shakespeare", which wasn't in print *ANYWHERE* by the 1589 publication of _The Art of English Poesy_ .
Also in chapter 31, Puttenham speaks of Edward de Vere in the capacity of dramatist: "That for Tragedie, the Lord of Buckhurst, and Maister Edward Ferrys for such doings as I have sene of theirs to deserve the hyest price: Th' Earle of Oxford and Maister Edwardes of her Majesties Chappell for Comedy and Enterlude." Note the way the sentence is constructed. This sentence could mean that Edward de Vere wrote *EITHER* comedies or interludes. And since Richard Edwardes was not known for having written *ANY* interludes, and indeed was only known for one comedy, _Damon and Pithias_ , it would seem to follow that Edward de Vere is being praised not as an author of full-length comedies but as an author of mere interludes, and perhaps no more than one. We know he took part in a shipwreck device - a small skit that was themed around the idea of a shipwreck from which Edward de Vere and other courtiers emerged to present Queen Elizabeth with gifts of jewels - so it's entirely consistent with what Puttenham has written that Edward de Vere's dramatic career consisted of this and no more. We certainly cannot assume that Puttenham knew of de Vere's secret career as Shakespeare, since Shakespeare was not known as an author when his book was published. You *STILL* have to show not only that Edward de Vere chose to write and publish dramas under a false name, but that William Shakespeare was that name. You aren't entitled to grab Shakespeare's works for yourself just because otherwise we'd be forced to conclude that Edward de Vere's dramatic output was lost. The _majority_ of plays written in this era are lost. You might as well say Michael Drayton was Shakespeare on the same basis - and you'd be better off because at least they both came from Warwickshire and spelled and rhymed words in a similar way, whereas de Vere spoke - and wrote, because people spelled things how they sounded to them - with a rustic Essex accent his whole life. Not to mention that Drayton outlived Shakespeare, whereas de Vere died almost a decade before the end of Shakespeare's active career as a playwright.
"He has a traceable biography."
So what? It doesn't make him a more likely writer just because he has a "traceable biography". This is to be like the drunk man who loses his keys in the dark alley behind the bar, but who insists on looking for them out front under a streetlamp because the light is better there. If anything it just tells against Edward de Vere that much more that we have a complete biography of the man and not a scrap of direct documentary evidence or contemporary testimony whereby it has been established that he wrote the works of Shakespeare.
"2-0 De Vere on the easy stuff"
The irrelevant stuff, you mean.
"Let’s see something non-posthumous that (a) identifies William Shakspere from Stratford on Avon as the author of the plays…"
(Part 2 of 2)
Why "non-posthumous"? Do you think that people instantaneously forget every fact about a person on the instant of their death, even if they worked alongside that person for decades?
Of course, I know why. Because you're following Diana Price, who *MISREPRESENTED* the work of real historians to establish a wholly imaginary distinction between contemporaneous and posthumous evidence. For example, take this passage from one of Price's authorities, H. B. George: "The sources whence we directly derive our information, whatever the quality of that information may be, are usually divided into those which are, and those which are not contemporary. …‘Historical evidence, like every kind of evidence [quoting Cornewall Lewis] is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. Unless those witnesses have personal and immediate perception of the facts which they report, unless they saw and heard what they undertake to relate as having happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all original witnesses must be contemporary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be a contemporary, though a contemporary is not necessarily a credible witness’" (from _Historical Evidence_ by H. B. George, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909).
Therefore, it is not an issue of whether the printed text in which the evidence appears was printed before or after an arbitrary date, but whether the person or persons speaking knew the facts being related from firsthand experience. Therefore, the First Folio, with its statement from John Heminges and Henry Condell that “We have but collected them, and done an office to the dead... without ambition either of self-profit, or fame: only to keep the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive, as was our SHAKESPEARE, by the humble offer of his plays....” is a piece of contemporary evidence because the basis of John Heminges and Henry Condell's knowledge is their firsthand familiarity with William Shakespeare as a theatrical colleague. That he was a theatrical colleague can be demonstrated from the same book because the list of the principal actors has his name in it along with theirs. Their names also appear together in two cast lists in the 1616 folio _Works_ by Ben Jonson: _Every Man in his Humour_ and _Sejanus his Fall_ . They were remembered in his will with Richard Burbage and all four were remembered in the will of Augustine Phillips, an actor and business manager who died in 1605. John Heminges also acted as trustee for "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick, gentleman", as he was identified in the legal documents, in the purchase of the Blackfriars gatehouse in 1613. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon's will bequeaths the gatehouse property to his elder daughter Susanna Hall. And lo and behold, after Shakespeare's death John Heminges and his co-trustee John Jackson are on record transferring the property to Susanna Hall. Or I could point out that in a writ for surety in the case _Addenbrooke v. Shakespeare_ filed in the Borough of Stratford, Shakespeare is identified as "lately of the court of the lord James, now King of England" when the only William Shakespeare with that distinction was the King's Men actor and Groom Extraordinary of the Chamber, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. And I haven't even come on to the fact that Shakespeare's status as an armigerous gentleman, referenced in the documents about the sale of the Blackfriars gatehouse and elsewhere, meant that he was entitled to be addressed with the honorifics of Master (abbreviated "Mr." or "M."), so every time you see Shakespeare's name with the honorific you can know that it is *ONLY* William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon who is being referred to, because he was the only William Shakespeare with a coat of arms at the time, inherited through his father, who was granted a coat of arms in 1596 for his work in various civic "offices of honor" (magistrate, justice of the peace, and bailiff). This honorific is applied in certain Stationers' Register entries (e.g., the one from August 1600 where they note the entry of _Much Ado About Nothing_ and _2 Henry IV_ ) and the title pages of the first quarto of _King Lear_ (1608), the First Folio (1623 - and also in the commendatory verses), and the first quarto of _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ (1634), listed as being by "those memorable worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakespeare, gentlemen".
"(b) a legible signature that is consistently executed… simple challenge, right?"
Not necessarily, since it's not a given that you can read secretary hand. If you were unaware that signatures were commonly made in this era in secretary hand, a form of blackletter script that was superseded by Italic hand, the forerunner of our modern cursive, then you really shouldn't be addressing this subject, to be blunt.
It's also not apparent why having pretty handwriting is a necessary condition for being a writer. F. Scott Fitzgerald had absolutely appalling handwriting and yet nobody questions his authorship of _The Great Gatsby_ , _Tender is the Night_ , and _The Beautiful and the Damned_ . The chicken-scratch that passes for handwriting on my copy of _Shalimar the Clown_ must lead to the conclusion that Salman Rushdie never wrote a word (and this was signed years before he was brutally stabbed). If there is anything "wrong" with Shakespeare's handwriting (though personally I find it perfectly legible as someone who *CAN* read secretary hand thanks to having first learned how to read books printed in Fraktur, the German blackletter font) there are thousands of possible reasons for that, including writing _entirely too much_ . The condition was called "scriveners' palsy" and it was effectively a kind of permanent writers cramp. Neurosyphilis and the mercury used to treat it could also produce the shakes, as could years of alcoholism. Or perhaps he suffered from some sort of degenerative neurological disorder that was unrelated to these conditions, like Parkinson's. Perhaps he had rheumatoid arthritis. Basically, unless you were there to see whether any of these confounding variables applied, no one's inferences about his handwriting mean anything.
I grant that if you wanted a writer with a pretty signature, you couldn't do much better than Edward de Vere. However, it's just a shame about the contents.
"3. Where are the academic reviews that disassemble DeVere as easily as Stratford man? You know of some?"
Elliott, WEY and Vallenza, RJ. (2004) "Oxford by the numbers: What are the odds that the Earl of Oxford could have written William Shakespeare's poetry and plays?" _Tennessee Law Review_ *72* (1): 323 - 453.
That is an actual academic review that "disassembles" de Vere. What I'm not aware of are any that do the same for Shakespeare. Like creationists, the Oxfordians have founded their own pseudo-scholarly magazines (like _The Oxfordian_ ), but they bear the same relation to real academic work in Shakespeare studies as the _Creation Ex Nihlio Technical Journal_ (or whatever it's called these days) bears to _Science_ , _Nature_ , _Cell_ , and _Trends in Ecology and Evolution_ . Most of the Oxfordian arguments are entirely irrelevant to authorship even if they're granted, as indeed yours have been. When it doesn't matter either way, then obviously the arguments cannot remove Shakespeare from his place even if they're true.
"4. That multiple candidates have a stronger demonstrable case to the canon than William Shakspere is evidence of how soft evidence is for him, not how poor the evidence is for others. Basic."
But they don't. Whose name is it on the title pages and dedication pages? William Shakespeare's (though he shares a co-authorship credit with John Fletcher). Whose name is it in the Stationers' Register? William Shakespeare's (albeit with one entry where he shares credit, again, with John Fletcher). Whose name is in the Master of the Revels accounts as the author of _The Comedy of Errors_ , _The Merchant of Venice_ , and _Measure for Measure_ ? William Shakespeare. Whose name is in contemporary literary anthologies like _Englands Helicon_ as an author of extracts from the canonical works? William Shakespeare. Whom did every contemporary identify as the author of the works, including multiple people who had personal and/or professional connections with the man (his theatrical colleagues John Heminges, Henry Condell, and John Lowin; his playwriting colleagues Ben Jonson, John Webster, and Thomas Heywood; the family friend and stepson of one of the two named overseers of William Shakespeare of Stratford's will, Leonard Digges; etc.)? William Shakespeare.
Where is a single so-called "alternative authorship candidate" who has *ANY* primary documentary evidence supporting his or her authorship or who was said by any contemporary who knew them that they were the true author of Shakespeare's works? The evidence is not "stronger" for any "alternative authorship candidate"; the evidence is completely *NONEXISTENT* . And because it's nonexistent, the alternatives simply cancel each other out. They're clearly not being fielded on the basis of any sound evidence or reasoning, but because someone has chosen their "avatar", as it were, and insist against all of the evidence to the contrary - which they must choose to *IGNORE* as their starting point, which is why this discussion never goes anywhere and nothing is ever established, since they rule out the means by which the question might be settled because it isn't in their favor - that they have somehow identified the 'true author' even if they can't provide you any sufficient evidence.
Schoenbaum is deluded
Most Stratfordians are
And yet he wrote a 300 page Folio-size book full of documentary evidence that says who Shakespeare was. What evidence do you have that it was anyone else?
@@Jeffhowardmeade There is no evidence that Shaksper could write his name let alone a play or poem.
@@marshabailey1121 If I show you evidence otherwise, will you promise never to make that claim again?
Of course @@Jeffhowardmeade Show it. All I have seen is a mass of cherry-picked circumstantial evidence on both sides. You have more than that? Then show it.
Waste of time. If someone can prove that my edition of the First Folio doesn’t really exist then this “mystery” might be worth considering. Otherwise, it’s noise.
What do you know about the First Folio? Evidently, not very much, which makes your comment noise.
Did you watch the video? Care to comment on the fact that de Vere's son-in-law was one of the two patrons and dedicatees of the Folio. That would be one fact relevant to the shallowness of your dogma.
@@rstritmatter Do you have primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony to establish that either or both of the Herbert brothers were "patrons... of the Folio"?
As for being de Vere's "son-in-law", Philip Herbert didn't marry Susan de Vere until Edward de Vere was dead, so Philip Herbert never had a father-in-law.
@@Nullifidian Yes. I know you haven't read it, because you don't read anything that doesn't prop up your delusions.
@@rstritmatter Are you having a stroke? Your comment is completely irrelevant to mine. I asked you what primary documentary evidence or contemporary testimony you had to establish that the Herbert brothers were "patrons of the Folio", and I also questioned the idea that Philip Herbert was Edward de Vere's son-in-law given that de Vere was dead when Philip and Susan de Vere married, therefore he never had a father-in-law. Now you come out with "Yes, I know you haven't read it, because you don't read anything that doesn't prop up your delusions." (An example of psychological projection?)
What is this "it" that I supposedly haven't read, and what relevance does it have your claim that the Herberts patronized the First Folio? Since the only book mentioned so far has been the First Folio itself, then I have to inform you that I *HAVE* read it - twice. The last time was last year to celebrate the 400th anniversary of its printing. To say nothing of the complete works volumes I've read that reprint the front matter from the First Folio in the book (e.g., _William Shakespeare: Complete Works_ edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen).
And having read the First Folio both in its original text and in modern-spelling editions based on the FF as a primary source, I can say confidently that there is *NO* documentary evidence to suggest that the Herbert brothers were "patrons" of the First Folio. They are clearly the dedicatees, and had that been all you said I wouldn't have corrected you. But you said "two patrons and dedicatees of the Folio" as if they had an _additional_ role in the creation of the First Folio. But we know who funded the First Folio because the colophon tells us. It was "Printed at the Charges of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, I. Smithweeke, and W. Aspley, 1623." So what role does that leave for the Herberts as "patrons" and what evidence is there that they did, in fact, patronize the production of the First Folio? Since the First Folio itself tells us that the financiers of the project were this consortium of printers, you must have some *OTHER* evidence of the Herberts' "patronage", right?