Well done. You have posed most of the important questions regarding the authorship question. I must take umbrage however at the final conclusion that Marlowe was the author of the plays and poems attributed to Shakspere of Stratford. While the Marlowe conspiracy theory seems plausible, it falls apart under scrutiny. Why would the Crown (or anyone else) have gone to so much trouble to keep him alive when it was simpler to have him killed or exiled far away and be done with it? It makes no sense to have put him in "witness protection" which is a concept only known in the past century. In previous eras unwanted individuals who were still valuable were shipped off to colonies far from home, yet the Marlovian conspiracy puts the playwright in Europe, which was easily accessible by a quick hop across the English Channel, where his enemies could get to him. The only people who survived such exile were people with Catholic leanings who could rely on the underground network of priests and nobles living in England to ship them to safe houses both in and out of England. Marlowe was a notorious atheist unless the contemporary records are wrong, so it would not have been possible for him to have been secreted away by Catholic sympathizers or recusant Catholics who feared for his life. Guarding such a public atheist from harm would have risked the lives of everyone who sheltered him. The entire Marlovian theory rests on the idea that somehow this atheist spy was still valuable for some unknown reason. There is nothing in the plays and poems to suggest that he was valuable other than to provide the Court and patrons of the theater with superb plays, which in those days were seen as lowly entertainment, especially when presented outside of Court. And if he had any information which could have compromised any noble or people in high posts, it would have still been easier and more efficient to have him murdered rather than leave him alive to potentially blackmail anyone of authority. The records show, however erratically, that this was what happened. The Marlowe theory rests on a paradox that someone wanted him alive but still needed him to appear dead. And there is no clear motive for anyone to have kept him alive whatsoever. Indeed, if he was kept alive, it would have been easier to keep him in some noble's estate as a hired servant under a false name, but I doubt that he would have accepted that since it appears from the record he had a huge ego. Despite several generations of scholars and researchers looking into this, nobody can offer a reason why he would have been living secretly in Europe without adding layers and layers of speculation over what could be answered clearly. From what I understand of the theory, it takes convoluted reasoning and close examination of the texts of the plays and speculation on the involvement of people like the Earl of Southampton (who was himself in trouble with Queen Elizabeth for his role in the Essex rebellion) to make the facts stick together. Spy networks back then were sophisticated, to be sure, but I seriously doubt that anyone would have wanted the troublesome, unprolific, and controversial Marlowe secretly alive for any reason. It doesn't make sense. Just my ideas on the subject.
It’s kind of cristal clear there’s a serious enigma about the authorship. Much more problematic to solve it, though. Marlowe ? Bacon ? De Vere ? These three hypothesis do offer some pretty upsetting coincidences. At the same time, none of them has delivered so far the ultimate evidence of was the one and only ‘Bard’. Therefore, at the moment 27:37 I quite like personally the idea of a collective writing + revision of each single work before publishing the Folios.
In order to make a serious case for the man from Stratford, one must answer more than two dozen significant questions regarding his authorship. Despite centuries of research, traditional academia has been unable to do so. Any reasonable person goes back to question the original premise.
Oh how much energy spent on this matter?! It drains me when I just think of some contradicting facts, not to mention the real evidence. Man, it's so messed up in the heads of people, yet so simple. Discard yourself of your core beliefs that are making you bias and you will see the great Truth so vividly. I wasn't able to sleep until I did that. Now, that I know..it's much easier to spend energy enjoying the masterful works. Peace and love to all ya out there, still thinking. Make that shift.
OK! 78.- CMC , as you well know, chief adviser of Queen Elisabeth William Cecil, Master of the Court of Royal Wards, had full control of supervising the raising and education of His ward Henry Wriothesley , and thus of any patronage.....The connections between Cecil and Marlowe are robust....-it doesn't need Henry at all.....and that explains it all.....
So you would position that Shakespeare knew that Wriothesley was being set up with Cecil's grand-daughter, but that he didn't know who the girl's father was? You guys will do anything to not mention de Vere...
OK! 75 .- Come on CMC! There is no proof that Davenant wrote the "Shakespeare eulogy" in 1618 (in his 11th year of Life"). The eulogy was First printed in "Madagascar" 1638, did you ever had some thoughts who Endimion (Porter) might have really been.....Endimion , a Shepherd (Poet) brought into an eternal sleep at his 30th year of life....Identical to Marlowe...think about the Title Lines....of Madagascar....
I do like the way stratfordian bobble-heads take the name Shakespeare when the grasping grainhorder only had the name used in that way something like once. He wasn't 'Shakespeare' or 'Shake-speare' he was shaksper or whatever and was never a writer, didn't travel, never owned a book probably illiterate
OK!:- 63.-Come on! CMC; ...or remain gullible (dupable?). - as you know, "Goods and chattels" are defined by Shakespeare in "Taming of the shrew" (III/2) as " .....my household stuff, my field, my barn, my horse, my ox, my ass, my anything....."
OK .- 47 i was putting a question, only....you seem to be the expert, giving your fundamental answers...the moist soil under Trinity Church is moist....Absolutley Great! Where do you know..?.And so on!
Diggs used a hyphen, but Johnson, five times wrote "Shakespeare" Does anybody really thing they were writing about different people? Diggs sometimes did call him "old baldiy". As can be seen, his name was spelled differently witrhn 4 words. Hemings and Condell were given 10% of the Earnings of the Globe for a reason. They were the managers. Took care of booking, were accountants, were responsible for picing up the earnings. VIPs in other words. They must have been good fiends of William Shakespeare. It seems that when he finished a scene, he gave it to them to be put into Fair Copy form. They knew not only him, they knew his handwriting. There is has come conjecture that they were helped by Johnson, but this has not been proven. Maybe they wrote a first draft and Johnson corrected it. That makes sense, as Johnson knew nothing about how the troupe worked. Sure Hemings and Condell were making a sales pitch. There was little hope that the Folio would make a profit. But their tender words about Shakespeare seem real, not the work of a fake. Wills are to leave belonging to the family, not to friends, and that is what Shakespeare did. He second family in London, he left to the most beloved, Burbage, Hemings and Condell. Little did he know that Hemings and Condell would be responsible for one half of his plays not being forgotten!!! We know plenty about the Will. Read a book on it.
Your ignorance is amazing. You should understanding the difference between the man shakspere for which we have abundant evidence and the "author" shake-speare for which we have none. There's nothing that links the two.
I have "read a book on it." Probably signed by a law clerk, as the man from Stratford, let's call him "Shakspere" which is the convention, was in all likelihood, illiterate! 4-6 authenticated signatures, all of which clearly reveal to graphologists that someone was tracing or copying a model signature, much as a 3rd grader does when learning cursive. Now YOU go read a book..."The Mysterious William Shakespeare," by Ogburn and try to objectively refute the research therein...also Hank Whittemore's "The Monument," or Rush's "Hidden in Plain Sight," and then we'll talk.
OK! Lets start ! 32,33,34. I Suppose , you are right, it wasn' Shakespeare from Stratford! i put a question only....But WHO was Jonsons famous man and author with no Identity? :....give me your best and plausible answer,...At least!Did you read the Play Coriolanus? Did you notice, that Caius Martius (Strange! Same initials like Christopher Marlowe) had to accept a new Name Coriolanus, which he didn't estimate at all! Move on!
Nein dieser BBC rundfunkbeitrag ist in jeder Hinsicht obsolet.- aber historisch interessant.Dank für den Hinweis.....Marlowe kommt nicht einmal vor....
I thought it was the Stratford man until Point 14 when the question about why his head is shaded a certain way in a book that came out decades after he died... at that stage I knew the game was up. I simply cannot answer the question. Even although the question is moronic and by question 14 I was down at that level... but still. You've made a believer out of me, fella, good work.
Instead of trying to concentrate on justifying Wm Shakespeare or not, why not better look at the more likely candidates who fit the bill better in time and place, talent etc since there is not the slightest evidence that points to Wm. Shakespeare as a writer, other than his name on some of the plays and poems, often placed on later editions and often spelt differently, and so indicative of later manipulation of the iconic Pallas Athene Shake Speare of knowledge to fit a particular person at a later date. Francis Bacon has recently come back into fashion as he does fit the bill and in my new novel The Royal Secret it becomes very clear why he would have needed to conceal his name, which de Vere and Marlowe and a host of others had no reason to do. This reasoning seems to be largely missed by most. see www.theroyalsecret.info
Hey, jaybee. Plugging your book on RUclips also? Modest? Don't tell people you wrote the book you are plugging? No matter who the alternative candidate is, you first have to prove that Shakespeare did not write the works, because he is the mainstream, orthodox, tradational, and most credible candidate. Ogburn knew this. Apparently you don't. Not only did he have his name on Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece, but also on the Sonnets, and half of the plays. Half were not put into printed form. He was an actor and shareholder in the only troupe that performed these plays for more than 20 years, The First Folio and the others that came after it. Any intelligent person would consider this as pretty clear evidence that he wrote the plays. But we are not dealing with intelligent people here.
Jay Bee DeVere had the MOST important reason to shield his identity!!!! He was protecting the LIFE of his bastard son Henry Wriothesly, who would have become Henry IX of England. Read "Hidden in Plain Sight" by Peter Rush, aboutbthe Prince Tudor Rose theory. MUCH more believable--and substantiated in the Sonnets--than Christopher Marlowe living beyond a faked death...also read Hank Whittemore 's "The Monument" which essentially proves that deVere was the Bard.
Because this is about Shakespeare, the text of this video should be in better English. Also, if there is only written text and pictures why make a video?
Thanks for your interest.- „meine Postma“...(das klingt Deutsch...du scheinst nicht an Inhalten sondern mehr an eigener Klugscheisserei interessiert.....schade....kann mit anonymen Feiglingen wenig anfangen....
@@bastianconrad2550 Het is Nederlands (Friesland) maar dat maakt verder niet uit. Je kunt me niet anoniem noemen aangezien ik geen pseudoniem gebruik :) De inhoud van het filmpje heb ik geprobeerd maar ik kwam er niet doorheen met die muzak en trage teksten in steenkoolengels.
@@bastianconrad2550 Ah, you cannot take constructive criticism without getting mad and personal eh? Pity, I was interested but it turns out the comments are more interesting. Sorry for making you mad, that was not my intention. I think I was too direct (we dutch tend to be too direct).
Thanks Ron (Mr.Oxfordian) For your interest . Unfortunately, your scrutinity doesn’t convince me ..-. Whom do you mean specifically wih the “Crown”. You should from the very beginning call the child by its name.. It was of course William Cecil, Lord Burghley. He was not the kind of man to let an ovverpowering genius (the only one!!) thoughtless killed, There are abundant mighty and numerous arguments for Marlowe (some 2000) that it makes no real sense to accept a single (! zero +1) poor argument that M was killed , or Cecil wanted him killed. reflect the chain of a few 100 arguments (link) , at least, and how you would refute them ...... ruclips.net/user/bastianconradmarlowecreatedshakespearevideos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid P.S: There could be infinitely be more to say about your argumentation but I am fully aware (also for me) , that after a certain age impregnations of beliefs are no longer easily erased. Such efforts to try to change someone’s belief are wasted time. .....it needs new generations....your image and knowledge of Marlowe ("troublesome", "unprolific", "controversial" WOW!!!) seems to be an impressive caricature of the reality. You do not seem to ever have read Dr Faustus, Edward II, Hero & Leander etc. etc....what a shame)
WHY all these riduculous, unanswerable question? That explain nothing. Yes, we need questions. They help us learn. But we need the RIGHT questions. These are irrelevant.
Caius Martius Coriolanus Yes, I had a political science teacher in college that used the Socratic method of teaching, and I use it today. But you have to ask the right questions. And that can be very difficult. Or maybe not.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Well done. You have posed most of the important questions regarding the authorship question.
I must take umbrage however at the final conclusion that Marlowe was the author of the plays and poems attributed to Shakspere of Stratford. While the Marlowe conspiracy theory seems plausible, it falls apart under scrutiny. Why would the Crown (or anyone else) have gone to so much trouble to keep him alive when it was simpler to have him killed or exiled far away and be done with it? It makes no sense to have put him in "witness protection" which is a concept only known in the past century. In previous eras unwanted individuals who were still valuable were shipped off to colonies far from home, yet the Marlovian conspiracy puts the playwright in Europe, which was easily accessible by a quick hop across the English Channel, where his enemies could get to him.
The only people who survived such exile were people with Catholic leanings who could rely on the underground network of priests and nobles living in England to ship them to safe houses both in and out of England. Marlowe was a notorious atheist unless the contemporary records are wrong, so it would not have been possible for him to have been secreted away by Catholic sympathizers or recusant Catholics who feared for his life. Guarding such a public atheist from harm would have risked the lives of everyone who sheltered him.
The entire Marlovian theory rests on the idea that somehow this atheist spy was still valuable for some unknown reason. There is nothing in the plays and poems to suggest that he was valuable other than to provide the Court and patrons of the theater with superb plays, which in those days were seen as lowly entertainment, especially when presented outside of Court. And if he had any information which could have compromised any noble or people in high posts, it would have still been easier and more efficient to have him murdered rather than leave him alive to potentially blackmail anyone of authority. The records show, however erratically, that this was what happened.
The Marlowe theory rests on a paradox that someone wanted him alive but still needed him to appear dead. And there is no clear motive for anyone to have kept him alive whatsoever. Indeed, if he was kept alive, it would have been easier to keep him in some noble's estate as a hired servant under a false name, but I doubt that he would have accepted that since it appears from the record he had a huge ego. Despite several generations of scholars and researchers looking into this, nobody can offer a reason why he would have been living secretly in Europe without adding layers and layers of speculation over what could be answered clearly.
From what I understand of the theory, it takes convoluted reasoning and close examination of the texts of the plays and speculation on the involvement of people like the Earl of Southampton (who was himself in trouble with Queen Elizabeth for his role in the Essex rebellion) to make the facts stick together. Spy networks back then were sophisticated, to be sure, but I seriously doubt that anyone would have wanted the troublesome, unprolific, and controversial Marlowe secretly alive for any reason. It doesn't make sense.
Just my ideas on the subject.
It’s kind of cristal clear there’s a serious enigma about the authorship. Much more problematic to solve it, though. Marlowe ? Bacon ? De Vere ? These three hypothesis do offer some pretty upsetting coincidences. At the same time, none of them has delivered so far the ultimate evidence of was the one and only ‘Bard’. Therefore, at the moment 27:37 I quite like personally the idea of a collective writing + revision of each single work before publishing the Folios.
In order to make a serious case for the man from Stratford, one must answer more than two dozen significant questions regarding his authorship. Despite centuries of research, traditional academia has been unable to do so. Any reasonable person goes back to question the original premise.
Oh how much energy spent on this matter?! It drains me when I just think of some contradicting facts, not to mention the real evidence. Man, it's so messed up in the heads of people, yet so simple. Discard yourself of your core beliefs that are making you bias and you will see the great Truth so vividly. I wasn't able to sleep until I did that. Now, that I know..it's much easier to spend energy enjoying the masterful works. Peace and love to all ya out there, still thinking. Make that shift.
Hi! What's the music used in the video? Thanks in advance.
Thanks. I suppose it could be boring... depends on the mood you're in. I think sounds pretty majestic.
Gustav Mahler Symph. nr 5 Adagio (twice) and nr.3(last movement)
OK! 78.- CMC , as you well know, chief adviser of Queen Elisabeth William Cecil, Master of the Court of Royal Wards, had full control of supervising the raising and education of His ward Henry Wriothesley , and thus of any patronage.....The connections between Cecil and Marlowe are robust....-it doesn't need Henry at all.....and that explains it all.....
Refusing to marry Edward de Vere's daughter. So Shakespeare was well aware of the connection between Vere and Wriothesley.
So you would position that Shakespeare knew that Wriothesley was being set up with Cecil's grand-daughter, but that he didn't know who the girl's father was? You guys will do anything to not mention de Vere...
Steven Hershkowitz
Shakespeare WAS the connection between DeVere and Wriothesly !
Peter Rush "Hidden in Plain Sight."
OK! 75 .- Come on CMC! There is no proof that Davenant wrote the "Shakespeare eulogy" in 1618 (in his 11th year of Life"). The eulogy was First printed in "Madagascar" 1638, did you ever had some thoughts who Endimion (Porter) might have really been.....Endimion , a Shepherd (Poet) brought into an eternal sleep at his 30th year of life....Identical to Marlowe...think about the Title Lines....of Madagascar....
Ok CMC,...lets drop the whole thing, I realize its not enough fun ( to both of us..).
I do like the way stratfordian bobble-heads take the name Shakespeare when the grasping grainhorder only had the name used in that way something like once. He wasn't 'Shakespeare' or 'Shake-speare' he was shaksper or whatever and was never a writer, didn't travel, never owned a book probably illiterate
And yet all his contemporaries thought he wrote the plays.
tell me: are you an Oxfordian, a Baconian, a Marlowian ? or something else?
OK!:- 63.-Come on! CMC; ...or remain gullible (dupable?). - as you know, "Goods and chattels" are defined by Shakespeare in "Taming of the shrew" (III/2) as " .....my household stuff, my field, my barn, my horse, my ox, my ass, my anything....."
OK .- 47 i was putting a question, only....you seem to be the expert, giving your fundamental answers...the moist soil under Trinity Church is moist....Absolutley Great! Where do you know..?.And so on!
Diggs used a hyphen, but Johnson, five times wrote "Shakespeare" Does anybody really thing they were writing about different people? Diggs sometimes did call him "old baldiy".
As can be seen, his name was spelled differently witrhn 4 words.
Hemings and Condell were given 10% of the Earnings of the Globe for a reason. They were the managers. Took care of booking, were accountants, were responsible for picing up the earnings. VIPs in other words. They must have been good fiends of William Shakespeare. It seems that when he finished a scene, he gave it to them to be put into Fair Copy form. They knew not only him, they knew his handwriting.
There is has come conjecture that they were helped by Johnson, but this has not been proven. Maybe they wrote a first draft and Johnson corrected it. That makes sense, as Johnson knew nothing about how the troupe worked.
Sure Hemings and Condell were making a sales pitch. There was little hope that the Folio would make a profit. But their tender words about Shakespeare seem real, not the work of a fake.
Wills are to leave belonging to the family, not to friends, and that is what Shakespeare did. He second family in London, he left to the most beloved, Burbage, Hemings and Condell. Little did he know that Hemings and Condell would be responsible for one half of his plays not being forgotten!!!
We know plenty about the Will. Read a book on it.
Your ignorance is amazing. You should understanding the difference between the man shakspere for which we have abundant evidence and the "author" shake-speare for which we have none. There's nothing that links the two.
I have "read a book on it." Probably signed by a law clerk, as the man from Stratford, let's call him "Shakspere" which is the convention, was in all likelihood, illiterate! 4-6 authenticated signatures, all of which clearly reveal to graphologists that someone was tracing or copying a model signature, much as a 3rd grader does when learning cursive. Now YOU go read a book..."The Mysterious William Shakespeare," by Ogburn and try to objectively refute the research therein...also Hank Whittemore's "The Monument," or Rush's "Hidden in Plain Sight," and then we'll talk.
OK! Lets start ! 32,33,34. I Suppose , you are right, it wasn' Shakespeare from Stratford! i put a question only....But WHO was Jonsons famous man and author with no Identity? :....give me your best and plausible answer,...At least!Did you read the Play Coriolanus? Did you notice, that Caius Martius (Strange! Same initials like Christopher Marlowe) had to accept a new Name Coriolanus, which he didn't estimate at all! Move on!
Nein dieser BBC rundfunkbeitrag ist in jeder Hinsicht obsolet.- aber historisch interessant.Dank für den Hinweis.....Marlowe kommt nicht einmal vor....
I thought it was the Stratford man until Point 14 when the question about why his head is shaded a certain way in a book that came out decades after he died... at that stage I knew the game was up. I simply cannot answer the question. Even although the question is moronic and by question 14 I was down at that level... but still. You've made a believer out of me, fella, good work.
Instead of trying to concentrate on justifying Wm Shakespeare or not, why not better look at the more likely candidates who fit the bill better in time and place, talent etc since there is not the slightest evidence that points to Wm. Shakespeare as a writer, other than his name on some of the plays and poems, often placed on later editions and often spelt differently, and so indicative of later manipulation of the iconic Pallas Athene Shake Speare of knowledge to fit a particular person at a later date.
Francis Bacon has recently come back into fashion as he does fit the bill and in my new novel The Royal Secret it becomes very clear why he would have needed to conceal his name, which de Vere and Marlowe and a host of others had no reason to do. This reasoning seems to be largely missed by most. see www.theroyalsecret.info
Hey, jaybee. Plugging your book on RUclips also? Modest? Don't tell people you wrote the book you are plugging?
No matter who the alternative candidate is, you first have to prove that Shakespeare did not write the works, because he is the mainstream, orthodox, tradational, and most credible candidate. Ogburn knew this. Apparently you don't.
Not only did he have his name on Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece, but also on the Sonnets, and half of the plays. Half were not put into printed form. He was an actor and shareholder in the only troupe that performed these plays for more than 20 years, The First Folio and the others that came after it. Any intelligent person would consider this as pretty clear evidence that he wrote the plays.
But we are not dealing with intelligent people here.
Jay Bee
DeVere had the MOST important reason to shield his identity!!!!
He was protecting the LIFE of his bastard son Henry Wriothesly, who would have become Henry IX of England. Read "Hidden in Plain Sight" by Peter Rush, aboutbthe Prince Tudor Rose theory. MUCH more believable--and substantiated in the Sonnets--than Christopher Marlowe living beyond a faked death...also read Hank Whittemore 's "The Monument" which essentially proves that deVere was the Bard.
Because this is about Shakespeare, the text of this video should be in better English. Also, if there is only written text and pictures why make a video?
Thanks for your interest.- „meine Postma“...(das klingt Deutsch...du scheinst nicht an Inhalten sondern mehr an eigener Klugscheisserei interessiert.....schade....kann mit anonymen Feiglingen wenig anfangen....
@@bastianconrad2550 Het is Nederlands (Friesland) maar dat maakt verder niet uit. Je kunt me niet anoniem noemen aangezien ik geen pseudoniem gebruik :)
De inhoud van het filmpje heb ik geprobeerd maar ik kwam er niet doorheen met die muzak en trage teksten in steenkoolengels.
@@bastianconrad2550 Ah, you cannot take constructive criticism without getting mad and personal eh? Pity, I was interested but it turns out the comments are more interesting.
Sorry for making you mad, that was not my intention. I think I was too direct (we dutch tend to be too direct).
Thanks Ron (Mr.Oxfordian)
For your interest . Unfortunately, your scrutinity doesn’t convince me ..-.
Whom do you mean specifically wih the “Crown”. You should from the very beginning call the child by its name.. It was of course William Cecil, Lord Burghley. He was not the kind of man to let an ovverpowering genius (the only one!!) thoughtless killed,
There are abundant mighty and numerous arguments for Marlowe (some 2000) that it makes no real sense to accept a single (! zero +1) poor argument that M was killed , or Cecil wanted him killed. reflect the chain of a few 100 arguments (link) , at least, and how you would refute them ......
ruclips.net/user/bastianconradmarlowecreatedshakespearevideos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
P.S: There could be infinitely be more to say about your argumentation but I am fully aware (also for me) , that after a certain age impregnations of beliefs are no longer easily erased. Such efforts to try to change someone’s belief are wasted time. .....it needs new generations....your image and knowledge of Marlowe ("troublesome", "unprolific", "controversial" WOW!!!) seems to be an impressive caricature of the reality. You do not seem to ever have read Dr Faustus, Edward II, Hero & Leander etc. etc....what a shame)
WHY all these riduculous, unanswerable question? That explain nothing. Yes, we need questions. They help us learn. But we need the RIGHT questions. These are irrelevant.
Caius Martius Coriolanus Yes, I had a political science teacher in college that used the Socratic method of teaching, and I use it today.
But you have to ask the right questions. And that can be very difficult. Or maybe not.