The tavern theory of Shakespeare's learning crumbles from many weaknesses, but here's another problem: this idea of tavern "interviews" with sailors, actors, poets, even statesmen must involve an interviewer--Mr. Shakspere. With the many gentle or pesky questions that would have been needed to draw out his informants, surely one or more subjects would have left written records of this dogged interviewer, much as Boswell is now notorious for his conversational pursuit of Samuel Johnson.
I like the back-and-forth on the Mermaid Tavern of Universal Knowledge. All told, one of the best interviews in this series thus far--and I enjoy them all.
Bravo. Can’t wait for the next installment.! Yes, the heart of the matter is the elitism of academia. How dare you, a mere statesman, pretend to enter their territory, almighty literature! But from my experience in the field of psychology I suggest there’s an additional factor: identity. For full explication see works of any social psychologist writing on this subject. In brief, we all have a sense of identity. A perceived attack on it is repulsed with all the force of ego. More vehement attacks are met with virulent response (fight) or silence (flight). Fear not. All dinosaurs die.
Here's my recommendation for a Title for the volume about the 40 "middle" years: "IN MEDIAS RES" (since every major epic in literature tends to begin thusly, "in the midst of things" or "in the thick of it."
Stephanie Hopkins Hughes's new book, Educating Shakespeare, is now showing up on Amazon, a fact which I understand is also due in part to Jim Warren's efforts.
I have all of Jim Warren’s wonderful books, which have helped convince me beyond a doubt that Edward de Vere was the truer than True author of the works of Shakespeare. Jim’s hard work and most excellent research is greatly appreciated. Modern “scholarly” leftist liberalism only maintains the absurd orthodox theory under threat of loss of tenure, grants, and professional termination (fascist cultural cancellation)!! They ALL KNOW THE TRUTH as the evidence is overwhelming. Thanks for the great interviews.
Your reference to "leftist liberalism" is a little off-base, I think. Those who dismiss the SAQ are propping up a status quo -- the very definition of Conservatism. But do we need to make Oxfordianism, too, as polarized as the current wretched state-of-affairs in American politics? My acceptance of the Oxfordian theory I consider to be an outgrowth of my open-mindedness, which I consider to be a 'liberal' virtue. If your gravitation towards the Oxfordian concept is -- in your mind -- in furtherance of a 'conservative' outlook, I'll respect that, but I'd prefer not to hear that 'leftist liberalism' is somehow the bogeyman preventing general acceptance of the proposition that De Vere was 'Shakespeare'. I would agree that the extremes of the 'Far-Left' and the 'Alt-Right' are problematic, and I already see a general trend whereby those who seek to promulgate 'cancel-culture' are themselves being excoriated for having 'over-corrected' -- with the best of intentions, mind you -- and run their ship into an iceberg to avoid some other obstacle, so to speak. I would like to believe that people can be capable of reasonable discussion of the evidence, but we live in a time when plenty of unhinged people choose to believe in Trumpian lies about elections being stolen -- from HIM yet not from those other Republicans who happened to win on the same ballot . . . who believe the b.s. from evangelical TV preachers who claim that God told them Trump won the 2020 election, blah blah blah. How can one reason with batshit-craziness on that level? I tend to despair of the Oxfordian Theory ever getting to enjoy wide success in the arena of public opinion, given the nonsense so many people are willing to believe. After doing a RUclips search for videos about Antarctica, I was deluged with 'recommended' videos about the f***ing FLAT EARTH 'theory', for f***'s sake! In THIS day and age??? Yet, invariably, the idiots who promote the Flat Earth idea do so because they are -- first and foremost -- conservative Christians who believe their Bible is inerrant. It is my 'liberal'-minded preference for Reason that prompts me to reject such bonkers ways-of-thinking. Can we not, you (perhaps) on the Right and me on the Left, meet somewhere in the middle? We're both reasonable enough to see that the evidence for De Vere's authorship of the Canon is persuasive and logical, right?
Mr. Warren: You raised your hand, and accepted the Call! Then did the massive research to fulfill the Call! Hat's Off and Kudos to you!! Thanks, also, to the Host for this fine interview.
We know that the origin of the first folio begins with Sir Thomas North's early editions of the Canon and ends with the Fulke Greville group publishing the first folio. There is a tenuous link between Fulke Greville and Oxford so now all we need is a link between Sir Thomas North and Oxford if he was the middle man who midwifed these plays. Good luck.
Oh! It's for Fame (and of course Profit!). The Stratfordian defense will crumble to naught..Shake-Speare, himself, will pronounce their fate: only Truth will endure!
I'm always a little taken aback by all of you great researchers/writers and readers who seem to have no qualms about supporting Amazon... Anyway James, as a fascinated novice Oxfordian and a relative newcomer to the theory, i found your new edition to be excellent....and your info on Looney's correspondence/articles relating to the book and the sad story of the shutting out of this great man's work to be a personal revelation and I thank you for that.
The tavern theory of Shakespeare's learning crumbles from many weaknesses, but here's another problem: this idea of tavern "interviews" with sailors, actors, poets, even statesmen must involve an interviewer--Mr. Shakspere. With the many gentle or pesky questions that would have been needed to draw out his informants, surely one or more subjects would have left written records of this dogged interviewer, much as Boswell is now notorious for his conversational pursuit of Samuel Johnson.
I like the back-and-forth on the Mermaid Tavern of Universal Knowledge. All told, one of the best interviews in this series thus far--and I enjoy them all.
James Warren is the most prolific Oxfordian alive today! We are all in his debt for his superb and tireless scholarship.
Bravo. Can’t wait for the next installment.! Yes, the heart of the matter is the elitism of academia. How dare you, a mere statesman, pretend to enter their territory, almighty literature! But from my experience in the field of psychology I suggest there’s an additional factor: identity. For full explication see works of any social psychologist writing on this subject. In brief, we all have a sense of identity. A perceived attack on it is repulsed with all the force of ego. More vehement attacks are met with virulent response (fight) or silence (flight). Fear not. All dinosaurs die.
Unfortunately, it's like this in all fields of academia.
I bought Shakespeare Revolutionized. A really valuable volume.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: James Warren is a one-man Oxfordian industry.
It is an extraordinary team effort by incredible researchers. I'm almost totally new to this.
Here's my recommendation for a Title for the volume about the 40 "middle" years: "IN MEDIAS RES" (since every major epic in literature tends to begin thusly, "in the midst of things" or "in the thick of it."
Fantastic work!
Stephanie Hopkins Hughes's new book, Educating Shakespeare, is now showing up on Amazon, a fact which I understand is also due in part to Jim Warren's efforts.
I have all of Jim Warren’s wonderful books, which have helped convince me beyond a doubt that Edward de Vere was the truer than True author of the works of Shakespeare. Jim’s hard work and most excellent research is greatly appreciated. Modern “scholarly” leftist liberalism only maintains the absurd orthodox theory under threat of loss of tenure, grants, and professional termination (fascist cultural cancellation)!! They ALL KNOW THE TRUTH as the evidence is overwhelming. Thanks for the great interviews.
Your reference to "leftist liberalism" is a little off-base, I think. Those who dismiss the SAQ are propping up a status quo -- the very definition of Conservatism.
But do we need to make Oxfordianism, too, as polarized as the current wretched state-of-affairs in American politics? My acceptance of the Oxfordian theory I consider to be an outgrowth of my open-mindedness, which I consider to be a 'liberal' virtue. If your gravitation towards the Oxfordian concept is -- in your mind -- in furtherance of a 'conservative' outlook, I'll respect that, but I'd prefer not to hear that 'leftist liberalism' is somehow the bogeyman preventing general acceptance of the proposition that De Vere was 'Shakespeare'.
I would agree that the extremes of the 'Far-Left' and the 'Alt-Right' are problematic, and I already see a general trend whereby those who seek to promulgate 'cancel-culture' are themselves being excoriated for having 'over-corrected' -- with the best of intentions, mind you -- and run their ship into an iceberg to avoid some other obstacle, so to speak.
I would like to believe that people can be capable of reasonable discussion of the evidence, but we live in a time when plenty of unhinged people choose to believe in Trumpian lies about elections being stolen -- from HIM yet not from those other Republicans who happened to win on the same ballot . . . who believe the b.s. from evangelical TV preachers who claim that God told them Trump won the 2020 election, blah blah blah. How can one reason with batshit-craziness on that level?
I tend to despair of the Oxfordian Theory ever getting to enjoy wide success in the arena of public opinion, given the nonsense so many people are willing to believe. After doing a RUclips search for videos about Antarctica, I was deluged with 'recommended' videos about the f***ing FLAT EARTH 'theory', for f***'s sake! In THIS day and age??? Yet, invariably, the idiots who promote the Flat Earth idea do so because they are -- first and foremost -- conservative Christians who believe their Bible is inerrant. It is my 'liberal'-minded preference for Reason that prompts me to reject such bonkers ways-of-thinking.
Can we not, you (perhaps) on the Right and me on the Left, meet somewhere in the middle? We're both reasonable enough to see that the evidence for De Vere's authorship of the Canon is persuasive and logical, right?
Love this: the truer than True author of the works of Shakespeare!
Mr. Warren: You raised your hand, and accepted the Call! Then did the massive research to fulfill the Call! Hat's Off and Kudos to you!! Thanks, also, to the Host for this fine interview.
We know that the origin of the first folio begins with Sir Thomas North's early editions of the Canon and ends with the Fulke Greville group publishing the first folio. There is a tenuous link between Fulke Greville and Oxford so now all we need is a link between Sir Thomas North and Oxford if he was the middle man who midwifed these plays. Good luck.
Oh! It's for Fame (and of course Profit!). The Stratfordian defense will crumble to naught..Shake-Speare, himself, will pronounce their fate: only Truth will endure!
Stunning interview. Praise and Bravo for Oxfordians. Another rare and beautiful feather in the Earl's cap.
Has anyone ever traced where the money went from the sale of the First Folio?
I'm always a little taken aback by all of you great researchers/writers and readers who seem to have no qualms about supporting Amazon...
Anyway James, as a fascinated novice Oxfordian and a relative newcomer to the theory, i found your new edition to be excellent....and your info on Looney's correspondence/articles relating to the book and the sad story of the shutting out of this great man's work to be a personal revelation and I thank you for that.
Excellent upload. Thank you ❤️