If his father was a very good glover, he might have attracted a clientele of nobles who needed special occasion gloves for their various sports and pursuits such as the falconry, hunting, polo and the like.
Lots of common people had close relationships with nobles, including children. And this is a time of the rise of the bourgeoisie. Goldsmiths were the first bankers. He could have been a very wealthy glover, more of a banker or a rentier than a glover, for all we know. If you can afford it, you can hire a quality tutor. It’s also not a complete impossibility that he was educated privately with wealthy noble children. Wealthy noble families often had slightly lower stationed children, even the children of servants and tenants, as schoolmates for their own children.
IIRC, Shakespeare's father got into trouble when he went into the wool trade without a license which ruined the family financially and socially. I think that Shakespeare was a young teenager at the time. This would have ended his education a bit prematurely. He struggled for a while before marrying his wife, Anne, who had a little money. It is my belief that Shakespeare had the talent, but he needed a wealthy patron like Edward DeVere, Earl of Oxford. Oxford could have provided information about court life, Italy, and the Greek and Roman classics. ~ Anastacia in Cleveland
@@AnastaciaInCleveland Yep, that's pretty much right, and your theory about him needing a wealthy patron is similar to my theory that although Shakespeare definitely wrote Shakespeare, he had a (please excuse the slip in indelicacy here, but I can't think of a better intensifer!) metric SHITTONNE of editorial help from his friends and contemporaries. And it's probably likely he had both.
Actually there is evidence that Shakespeare did write his own plays. Ben Jonson, a contemporary dramatist of Shakespeare's, was a close friend and great admirer of Shakespeare and his work. And wrote about his admiration. So, yes he did write his own plays. The problem with these people is just out and out snobbery. They cannot believe that anyone but the well to do with a university education could be the author of these plays. But this snobbery extended to more modern times. During the 60s one British music teacher said that that John Lennon and Paul McCartney could not have written their songs because their level of education was not high enough and therefore Brian Epstein their manager must have written the music because he went to a public school. This idea collapse in 1967 when Epstein died but Lennon and McCartney still wrote songs.
It is interesting that the anti-straffordian argument arose in the nineteenth century when class snobbery was at its height. Consider that Sir Walter Raleigh, Queen Elizabeth, Sir Philip Sidney, and the Earl of Rochester among other aristocrats were unashamed of having literary talent. Only in the nineteenth century did aristocrats become much too aristocratic to have intellect.
Agreed. I always find it amusing to point out that as the son of a glove maker... he included references to glove making or glove makers technical terms in every one of his plays.
@Cj wattsup This is true. My partners grandfather had a natural talent for playing music on the piano. He only every had to hear a piece once and was able to play it back perfectly.
The son of a glover eh? Who exactly could afford to have luxury items like gloves made for them back then? One of the main things needed for falconry? A good glove. William may not have been a noble but his father's job would have put him in contact with the upper class society.
Agreed. I had a similar thought while watching the video. Those who serve and outfit the rich know them quite well. My father only has a high school education but he is an extremely talented rock mason. He has long worked for clients that are among the richest in the world. Over time you learn something about how they operate.
What always amazed me about Shakespeare was not his lack of education, but the fact that he wrote so many lengthy masterpieces in such a short amount of time. So I always thought he had some kind of team working for him, like other great Renaissance artists. (Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo etc.)
@@Jeffhowardmeade besides ‘Romeo and Juliet’, ‘Taming of the Shrew’ is another example of this. His adaptations frequently improved upon past versions, or at least changed them.
Well, in most of his plays he used other literary texts as a source. For example; the original source for Romeo and Juliet is a narrative poem called The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke. There is a strong possibility that Brooke himself translated the poem from an Italian work. There are some differences between Shakespeare's and Brooke's works but the main storyline is the same. For Hamlet, there are more than one source but most important one is Amleth which is mentioned in Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus which translated as the "Deeds of the Danes" Macbeth and King Lear is inspired by Holinshed's Chronicles, but it differs storywise. Holinshed himself inspired by Historia Regum Britanniae (The History of the Kings of Britain) by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Othello is most likely an adaption of Un Capitano Moro (A Moorish Captain) by Cinthio. Antony and Cleopatra and Julius Caesar's plots are based on Plutarch's Lives. Maybe he didn't write the plots of most of his tragedies he made many changes in the plots. And many english scholars often argues that even if someone named William Shakespeare didn't exist, it would made no difference because the written work is what counts. Whatever it is, the only thing matters is someone wrote these masterpieces.
@garyallen8824 Well it's not only the quantity that puzzles me, but the quality as well. I haven't read any other poet from that time period to know if that was a common thing back them, but as an actor myself I HAVE read and acted in quite a lot of Shakespeare's plays and they're simply sublime!
We must remember, literacy was rare and phonetics were widely used by scribes. Finding a name spelt in multiple ways is extremely common. I have a copy of a marriage certificate from my family in the 1800's. Our surname is spelt 5 different ways on the single page. There were other ways to learn writing than a formal education in those days.
@@Frankie5Angels150 Australian. Until the explosion of US dominated instant internet, we were taught spelling as laid out in the Oxford Dictionary, and still argue with all our modern technology based on American English daily that it is colour, neighbour, realize, doughnut, en masse, and that grammar and punctuation are relevant to all aspects of written communications. It is not wise to correct a person who correctly uses the original version of the language yours has been created from. I am not obliged to modify mine, just because another country has chosen to modify it to their own and forget the beautiful combination of a dozen ancient languages it was derived from itself.
Yes, spelling and grammer were...flexible in those days. And stil is to an extent. ( Lite beer anyone?). But in Elizabethian London, literacy was NOT rare, on the contrary. Licensed printers did a roaring business. Self improvement books, DIY books, motivational books were very popular. And plays. It should be noted that during his lifetime, and for many, many years afterwards, no one questioned that Shakespear the actor was also Shakespear the playwright. Not his audience, nor his patrons, nor his fellow playwrights.
Who told you that "literacy was rare and phonetics were widely used by scribes", and why do you believe them? It can only possibly be supposition or guesswork, since nothing can be known - directly immediately personally experienced about the past, and it is in the nature of men(human beings that if A whom they suppose to be an authority says one thing and B says the same thing- none of what either A or B says being verifiable, men(human beings) will swear blind that it is so and could not possibly be otherwise, or they tend to accept without question or believe everything they are *told*, depending on their breeding and learning, and many of them cannot tell the difference between knowledge(direct immediate personal experience), and belief nor can differentiate between knowledge and information or have any idea that there is a difference. Some of the creatures even suppose that they can be given or*told* knowledge, as if they could experience for themselves what they are *told*.Seemingly they will *believe *because* they simply cannot verify or directly immediately personally, passive acceptance without question being better than nothing and of course they can be programmed or conditioned or as they themselves say, educated, passively to accept without question .
@@serinadelmar6012 You need to read the statistical analyses, and also read the works. I doubt you will be able to tell apart the author of the Henry VI cycle from the author of Edward II. Marlowe is very distinctive, and has a thunderous line that nobody except his roommate Kyd could copy, and even then, Kyd didn't do it nearly as well. He is obviously the author, even before the mathematical comparison of the style markers made it certain.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 read the works? it’s in doing just that and having a deep love for history, especially the rivalry between these playwrights, and indeed Shakespeare’s propensity to steal (all the best artists steal), that makes your point work for the defence.
@@serinadelmar6012 It is impossible to "steal" from Marlowe, and no artist who takes the voice of another is ever successful. This is just stupid people trying to blind you to the obvious authorship. You've been had, sucker.
I used keeps for hair loss and as a consequence suffered a severe allergic reaction. My whole face swelled so much that my left eye was completely shut, and I constantly itched on my scalp that I constantly scratched. I had to endure such a mishap for a couple of weeks though it seemed at the time as an eternity. If you do buy keeps I think it would be wise to try a small portion of your arm and test the product before using it on your head.
There remains the possibility, of course, that William Shakespeare did indeed have a brilliant mind, for plots, drama, and staging... but, because he was illiterate, had to employ the services of one or more "ghost writers," who wrote down Sir William's essays, sonnets and plays in a word-for-word fashion as the bard himself dictated them. And thus the ideas were indeed his; whoever placed those ideas on paper was irrelevant.
There's also the possibility it was a collaboration that he was the face of because he was more charismatic than his partner, some of his works do seem almost like they're partially written by a different person. Maybe the excitment and low humor can be attributed to Shakespeare, the finer details, rhythm and structure to another man (maybe Bacon), and the romance, emotion and tragedy to a woman (these elements seem to have qualities to how they're written that remind me of great female writers like Mary Shelly and Harper Lee). Some historians suspect he was bisexual, maybe the three were lovers.
He wasn’t illiterate. He wrote and read lines. Hard to be an actor and learn scripts if you can’t read. And he performed for many years. Indeed it was his career as a player that got him into writing.
What Shakespeare did you read? His best work is mediocre and most is hot garbage on the level of reality tv. Just because English teachers parrot that it's good, doesn't mean it actually is.
It is a curious case - I did a little bit of research into the Shakespeare authorship question a while back. He likely had almost inherent genius, and was reasonably well educated, despite humble beginnings. His father was moderately successful in business as a textile seller. His family weren't paupers. So he would have gone to a decent school. Shakespeare was referenced in surviving documents from the time he was alive as a successful actor and a playwright by both supporters and critics. Thats indisputable. Thoughty2 didn't really say that here.. Maybe Shakespeare had an assistant or advisor that helped with ideas here and there? Other than that he was a real historical figure and author of the works attributed to him.
“How could a man of such humble origins possibly become a playwright who coined 1700 new words?!” “Well, he wasn’t exactly noble born and kind of had to make it up as he went... and it shows in his need to fabricate words when he didn’t know the ones he needed?”
Also, he only needed to hear the gossip of nobles or more likely their servants. Do people like to gossip and vent about their bosses, especially if they think it will not come back to them?
@@idminister Also, these guys missed one big thing that writers do: ask people to check their ideas over to make sure they aren’t getting stuff wrong. Shakespeare could ask people, right?
Many notable people came from unspectacular beginnings. Alan Turing's father was the son of a clergyman who worked in the Indian Civil Service. His mother was the daughter of the chief engineer of the Madras Railways. Their son became a mathematician, computer scientist, cryptanalysis, philosopher and theoretical biologist. I have come to the conclusion that when we are fortunate enough to have children, we get what we are given!
@@RR_theproahole Prett much they already have, Lincoln being mostly informally and self educated, growing up poor, would probably not have had any real pathway to that office in the modern era. Sadly
Shakespeare lost his 11 year old son Hamnet to the plague. His grief is expressed in this from his play King John. Do you really think someone other than Shakespeare wrote this?! I think naught! King John ·III iv 98 · Verse Constance Grief fills the room up of my absent child, Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me, Puts on his pretty looks, repeats his words, Remembers me of all his gracious parts, Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form; Then, have I reason to be fond of grief? Fare you well: had you such a loss as I, I could give better comfort than you do. I will not keep this form upon my head, When there is such disorder in my wit. O Lord! my boy, my Arthur, my fair son! My life, my joy, my food, my all the world! My widow-comfort, and my sorrows' cure!
@@gladiatorfitt5860 Yeah - Walter White! LOL....Funny thing is most people liked the anti-hero, the other characters in Breaking Bad did not have the pure motive of Walter - family. If people want to use meth that is their choice, you have to convince them not to choose that lifestyle, it is impossible to stop the supply.. It is just like people with an eating disorder - too fat or too skinny- you won't solve the problem by trying to restrict supply.
I thought that having a really “all over the place” handwriting was a sign of creativity, and is common in people that kinda think faster than they’re able to write? Please do correct me if I’m wrong
He wrote in secretary hand and that's what it looks like. 2 of his signatures are on his will directly before his death. A couple were filled into very small spaces on forms (little space). Nearly everyone (including the candidates for the 'real' Shakespeare) spelled their names in various ways at the time. It was normal.
I have always thought it odd that people today could argue, 'How could someone who lived way back in the 16th century have known so much about the 16th century? Our information is so much better today!'
Really ! We think we are so clever and "advanced." In some ways, I think that people in the past were much more on the ball and intelligent than many of us today. We've become soft and lazy.
Not to mention that they think that you can only be good at something when you’re educated.. Pure intrest (and intelligence) isn’t even taken into consideration.
@@attackerd8545 But no actual person taught me English, it’s through out life that I learned English. English isn’t my first language and it’s simply by watching movies, joining gaming communities from a young age that I’ve learned to speak English. It’s not like I had a teacher or a parent that teached me the language, it was my own interest in understanding others that got me to understand/being able to speak English along with the connections I’ve made- like the other person said. Besides you can learn it on your own unless you find tools like a translator or dictionary to be help from others. Many people learn new languages without any guidance from someone else but through accessible information. If you count that as help, then ofcourse not, because I probably wouldn’t have known English was a language in the first place.
Not that it matters or signifies very much but one does not" solve" questions; no amount of asking others can give you knowledge or direct immediate personal experience. The " like" in "with, 'like', five minutes of research", performing what function?
You need almost the whole world's interpretation of it, just like Shakespeare's, for your cry to be valid 👀 If not it would be just an unfair comparison
I find people with limited minds assume if they cannot do something then it cannot be done. Those who say a poor person could not have been good enough of a writer to be the bard in the 1500's may have a good understanding of how hard it would have been for him back then, and they may even be honest enough with themselves to know they couldnt do it but the suggestion that therefore he couldnt is just a limit of their own abilities not his.
Once I read that the idea of Shakespeare being a group of people and not one person comes from the belief that plays back then tended to be huge productions that took years to complete. So the idea of one man being behind all of them is kinda crazy.
They were not huge productions that took years to complete. The stages were bare. The players would perform multiple plays in a single week. Shakespeare's output was actually fairly low compared to some of his contemporaies.
Mark Twain once said, "One thing is certain, and that is his plays were either written by William Shakespeare or else someone calling himself William Shakespeare." That about sums it up!
I like some of Mark Twain's Writings etc.. I use to get this Delicious Dish named after him on Venice Beach Boardwalk Restaurant.. You can literally Read some of his Quotes there.. Pretty Cool..
Here’s my hypothesis: Perhaps William somehow befriended a nobleman who recognized his immense talent. The nobleman - feeling generous and detesting the thought of his boy Will’s natural talent going to waste - thus decided to help with his writings by providing the knowledge that a commoner of that time supposedly could not have had. This, of course, would require that the fact of such a friendship was utterly lost to history, leaving not even a sliver of evidence for future generations to discover. But maybe the nobleman had to keep the relationship secret so as to avoid the consequences of not doing so, whatever they might have been… This theory is a stretch for sure, but still plausible methinks.
It's true that geniuses from humble homes are often mentored by elders who see them as special. NO RECORD OF THAT for Stratford Will... Edward De Vere was living in the household of Sir Thomas Smith, famous educator who helped found Eton... Then he was tutored by the finest minds in the realm when he became a royal ward at Cecil House, depository of one of the world's greatest private libraries. His father, John DeVere had acting troupes, so the young Lord Bolbec grew up around actors. He went to Italy, the exact cities where the plays are staged. He went to Law School, he squandered his fortune on Literature and high living. He died in disgrace, as the sonnets clearly stated. It's all there, a string of around 100 "coincidences" that link him directly to the Shakespeare Canon, which his in-laws received the Dedication to the First Folio for. Playwriting was beneath members of the Peerage, hence the need for anonymous attribution......
There's just no need for the stretch. Shakespeare was from the middle class and went to school where he read books. His plays are based on other plays. He does NOT show an unusual knowledge of courts, geography etc and often gets them very wrong. His troupe of players were invited to court many times over many years when he was writing. He would have at the very least been an eyewitness to what went on there. He and his men were invited to walk in the procession at James I coronation. They became the king's men.
Or even without that stretch, he talked to people who worked in grand houses, he networked in the places where servants went to drink or relax. People forget that in that time a noble family of 5 or so were supported by 40+ servants, all of whom could be pumped for info.
@@grivebulbs7539 1.Jesus Christ 2.Mahatma Gandhi 3.Leonardo Da Vinci 4.Albert Einstein 5.Mohammed Nabi 6.Issac Newton 7.Nelson Mandela 8.Napolean 9.Abraham Licoln 10.Alexander the Great 10.Abraham Lincoln
@@alen539 The biggest issue that crops up when people try to make a list like this is separating influential from famous. In reality the most influential humans to ever live are people we do not know the names of. The person who first decided domesticating crops was a good idea probably has to top the list, along with the first to raise livestock, invent the wheel, develop sanskrit, distill alcohol, design a seafaring vessel, build the first standing structure, invent the spear, and develop the first municipal community. That's a lot less boring than Jesus and Abraham Lincoln, but realistically only flight and the internet has shaped human life in an even remotely comparable scale
The claim that his signature being terrible is a sign that he didn't write the plays is one that always gets me. Christopher Marlowe's signature and his handwriting (you can view both on his Wikipedia page) are not exactly the most elegant handwriting you're likely to ever see. How this also points to the fact that he was illiterate, is something I don't get. He was known to have been an actor with the Lord Chamberlain's Men, which would suggest he could at least read. It's funny that you mentioned Charlie Chaplin, because like Shakespeare, he didn't have much of a formal education. Yet he managed to become a screenwriter, and music composer, along with acting in and producing his films.
So because no records exist of his education, that means that he didn't have any? Yeah, no. Not all records make it to the modern day. If only... (Trying to do genealogy can be hell sometimes.) Who knows, he might have even known some people that might have inspired his works. Just because he wasn't a noble, that doesn't mean that he didn't personally know some. He could also have been a brilliant man. I really, really hate some of the criticisms of Shakespeare, since so many of them implies that "Oh, someone of the lower class could _never_ be that smart!" Goddamn snobs, a majority of them. Great video, by the way.
I agree. Frederick Douglass taught himself how to read while he was a slave, and went on to be an academic scholar. People can do mind blowing things with enough willpower.
@GREATBEAR MAMA Damn fires. A fire in Sweden destroyed a huge part of our national archive back in 1697. Hence why practically all genealogy research in Sweden stops around that time. The medieval parts of the archive was almost completely destroyed, which is so sad. I really, really hate fires. All those lost records...
The same argument strips him of almost all his historical influence. There are basically no records of the modern vocabulary of the time, meaning he may have simply written down the words used by a mostly illiterate populace.
I know a whole family of men, all bald in early 20s..sooooo..maybe lol. Then again, I hope you dont worry too much about it. There are plent of people who find baldness attractive. As a matter of fact, the men in the family I mentioned are all very handsome.
The reason for the Shakespeare denial crowd is that he was not a learned academic but only had about a 9th grade education. They can stand the idea that one of the greatest writers in the English language never went to college. Nor did Picasso graduate from art school. Higher education ruins creativity. How about Michael Faraday?
about MANSA MUSA 1 HE IS BLACK 2 HE IS MUSLIM 3 HE HAD THE MONEY THAT NO WHITE MAN OWN TODAY .... BILLIONAIRES? HE WAS MORE THAN THAT. IF HE WERE ALIVE TODAY. HE COULD BUY ALL THE BILLIONAIRES OF THE WORLD.
TheAbc45678 If humans are still around the Internet will be. Unless some sort of cataclysmic magnetic phenomenon occurs there is no reasons people in power would allow the Internet to dissapear
Leonardo da Vinci had no formal education beyond apprenticeship was not born into nobility yet was one of the most learned creative geniuses in history
Yes. Leonardo was a creative genius. He learned literacy from his adorong grandfather who kept journals. Leonardo's journals are famous. His uncle Francesco encouraged his scientific learnng. His father realised his talent for drawong and moved his business from Vinci to Florence to further Leonatdo"s education at the finest workshop in the wealthy city of Flirence. The dkills Leonardo was taught included drawing from Life. I.e looking closely at the human form. at animals, plants and objects, and putting them down in clesr lines with the correct proportions He also learnt mathematical perspective drawing, particularly of interiors. Leonardo learnt the chemistry of paints, some ofcwhich were very poisonous. He lesrnt how to make figures and plaques in clay, fire them and volour them. He learnt casting in bronze. He learnt to make wooden chests and all sorts of ephemera for theatrical productions. He had access to a collection of tools, including hoists, pulleys and all sorts of equipment invented and used to create the largest dome of its kind in the world. AND he was very very observant and a habitual recorder of what he saw. Leonardo, and his skills can be accounted for by two things, his training, and his personal powers of observation. We know pretty well what he learnt, because others learnt it as well, and became master painters. We ALSO know exactly what he OBSERVED because he recorded these things in detail. How did he know about light? He LOOKED experiment, made drawings and recorded findings. This same formula applies to anatomy, geology. botany. Flight geometry, etc In other words. Leonardo WAS indeed a genius, but we can account for evrry aspect of his learning. And he was not PRIMARILY a writer. Shakespeare was a writer, who did not keep a journal, did not write home to wife or children, whose education does Not match his scholarship. Did not leave notes or records of interests or studies, did not visit the places he wrote about, did not mix in the circles he describes. Whose vast body of writingvdoes NOT have parallels with the life he led, and even when he wrote love poems, scholars CANNOT match his sonnets to any kniwn event or attachment.... leaving even Stratfordians to think that they are just poems that hsve a theme and create a nsrrative. Personally, i cannot believe that the sonnets are NOT biogrsphical ..... but they are plainly not the biography of William Shsksper from Strstford upon Avon.
Who told you that"Leonardo da Vinci had no formal education beyond apprenticeship," and why do you believe them? Just naturally credulous? No-one could possiblty *know* that "Leonardo da Vinci had no formal education beyond apprenticeship," because it is impossible to directly immediately personally expereience (as directly immediately peronally as pain)*Anything* about the past, that be no just axiomatic but so blleding obvious that a small child could tell you it. That mixture of gossip and hearsay that men(human beings/dreaming machines) call hisrory is a matter of the*exact_opposite of knowledge or direct immediate personal experience (as directly immediately personally as pain) *Belief*. Ford was spot on history is not only bunk it is-for-all-practical-purposes, little more than belief about what may or may not have happened before Now, which it is aximatic, cannot be known- directly immediate personally experienced (as directly immediately personally as pain) Neither you nor anyone can directly immediately personally experience*anything-at-all*about Leonardo da Vinci; that is surely axiomatic.
As an actor, who's done many Shakespeare plays, I find this fascinating. I prefer bacon only in the morning... Shakespeare, however... I prefer perpetually.
You just described James Patterson's writing career. 😁 Literally, that's how he's got where he is - he writes an outline for a novel and then gives it to one of his army of writers to write the actual novel for him, which he then edits and polishes before publishing it under his name.
Shakespeare's plays were not only about story they were also about the use of language and his words and his writing style... If this is remotely true, Shakespeare would lose most of his creditability as a play writer
I’m a musician and I know plenty of people who do not read music, have had no formal training and have no musical relatives, who have taught themselves to play multiple instruments and write very good songs. I even have a friend who was writing fantasy novels as a young teenager. So, native talent happens and there are many artists, musicians, writers and poets, who have come to prominence despite their birth circumstances.
Using the idea that because Shakespeare was born to a glover, therefore throwing doubt on his ability to have written his plays, must then also throw doubt on Jesus who, after being born to a carpenter apparently, could not have possibly shaped the world as we know it.
May I have your attention please? May I have your attention please? Will the real Shakespear please stand up? I repeat Will the real Shakespear please stand up? We're gonna have a problem here...
Another excellent video! Many years ago I was studying for my English Lit A-Levels, and read Shakespeare extensively. As background for my essay exams, I also read a lot of Marlowe, whom we all know was Shakespeare's contemporary. The controversy surrounding Shakespeare's authorship was at its height then, and I was intrigued. On reading Marlowe's plays (Tamburlaine, Jew of Malta and Dr. Faustus in particular), I became absolutely convinced that Marlowe was not capable of writing any of the plays attributed to Shakespeare - they were far inferior, more simplistic, and much more poorly written. Whoever the person who wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare was without a shadow of a doubt head and shoulders above his contemporaries, and above anyone who came before. Of course, the controversy does still rage.
I genuinely think some of the plays are pretty awful. 'Two Gentlemen of Verona' for instance, is pretty mediocre, except for a couple of wonderful speeches. (eg what light is light if Sylvia be not here). Lots of terrible puns, indifferent plot, and duff psychology (a man forgives the attempted rape of his beloved because the rapist is his best mate). Titus is just laughable in places.
As to "Dr. Faustus", crude jokes in the fourth act are most probably not Marlowe's, but of some anonymous collaborator(might be Thomas Dekker, as we know for sure he worked on one version of this play). Also mind you, that even the A-text is a memorial reconstruction and how close it is to what Marlowe and his co-worker wrote is unknown.
Never heard of middle class people writing about high class society before. ;) Willy were probably really good at gathering information from people, interviewing and reading to get info. Writing a crazy story around it like all writers ever done.
What you have written here e seems to make sense, in the 21st century.. But not in the 16th. Shakespeare did not make up his own stories. They are from books that the author had read, some in English, some in Latin, some in Greek, Italian and French. We know what his sources were. Many of those books could only be found in the library of a very rich noble. Some of them were very rare, very expensive, and public libraries did not exist. We know that Shakespeare did not have a library of books of his own, because they are not mentioned in his will. They would have been so valuable, that they would definitely have been mentioned.
Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism - personifying in unparalleled ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic cast, its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) - only one of the ‘wolfish earls’ so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendent and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works - works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded history.” WALT WHITMAN
PROBABLY, MOST LIKELY.... digest this, if you will, by Walt Whitman “Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism - personifying in unparalleled ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic cast, its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) - only one of the ‘wolfish earls’ so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendent and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works - works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded history.” It was the 17th Earl of Oxford, Whitman was spot on.
I recommend Ben Jonson's 'Conversations with William Drummond of Hawthornden'. That's the book that convinced me Shakespeare the documented, historical man was Shakespeare the writer. Jonson was a rival playwright, almost certainly knew him, and had a big mouth. Yet, in this work - generated 3 years after Shakespeare's death, when Jonson was old and had nothing to lose - he says nothing to question Shakespeare's authorship and just makes bitchy comments about his 'lack of art'. Aside from noting the irony of another famous auto-didact slagging off Shakespeare's perceived lack of education..I thought: if there was a conspiracy, Jonson would have known; if Jonson had known, he'd have gleefully spilled the beans.
@@teekay3747 or his mother (who knew how to read) taught him and then cos his father was Lord Mayor and entitled to send his son for free to the grammar school... did send him to the grammar school and there he would have gained an education. Including a little Latin. And Greek. :)
@@mzflighter6905 because we muslims don’t like to give him a face as we don’t know it. Unlike Christians, we don’t have any art of Muhammad in any form other than the Quran and hadis
My favorite part about “Shakespeare isn’t real” is the fundamental argument that he didn’t have a formal education. This classist assumption that a formal education is required to be knowledgeable is not only problematic but the entire argument is really idiotic because there was a very significant fire in Stratford-Upon-Avon that burned up most records from the years Shakespeare would have been at the local school. We still know about this in modern day so it was definitely public knowledge in the centuries following. So happy you mentioned that no records from the grammar school survived, I’ve watched other videos on this subject and that’s not even mentioned
This is kind of like how very few of us have been on trial, in a police interrogation, or in prison, yet based on us consuming movies, TV shows, novels, and hearing first-hand stories from other people, I'll bet every one of us could write a story in which these events are portrayed semi-plausibly to people 400 years in the future, especially if we can fill in the blanks by asking locals who may have first-hand knowledge, and especially if you are a famous play-write who meets all kinds of interesting people.
It refers to the poop deck on a ship - the raised deck at the stern that gave the captain and officers a view forward. From the French, and ultimately the Latin, for "stern".
17th Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. The bulk of his plays were released after his death. You've ignored huge amounts of evidence that's been revealed in recent years.
That’d be open to criticism as Shakespeare, while not writing contemporary works, does factor anachronisms into his scripts. His narratives would have included veiled nods to the sitting monarchs or issues of the day. So if the Earl of Oxford dies ahead of time, his scripts won’t have that immediacy when they’re staged. Or else another writer would have to make edits.
As a person who doesn't have much knowledge in that topic, you made me believe that Shakespeare never existed and then made me believe that he exists again....
I don't think we will ever know whether or not Shakespere was the REAL author. What we do know for sure, however, is that his works have certainly outlived him and are still read and admired today. They can stand alone with or without veracity of his authorship.
On the basis that how you know _anything_ about the past is by examining the records left and the things people said at the time, we do know for certain that Shakespeare was the real author. Literally _every_ piece of documentary evidence that identifies an author of the canon identifies Shakespeare as an author and _every_ contemporary who said anything about the subject affirmed that William Shakespeare was an author. Many of these people knew him personally and/or professionally (John Heminges, Henry Condell, Ben Jonson, Leonard Digges, John Webster, etc.) or were clearly informed about his background and/or literary output (Francis Meres, William Camden, Edmund Howes, etc.). Shakespeare was identified as an author by name, by profession (actor), by home town (Stratford), and by his status as a second-generation gentleman, which entitled him to the honorific of "Master Shakespeare" (abbreviated "Mr." or "M."). Whenever we see a reference to Shakespeare's gentlemanly status, we can be sure it's the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon because he was the _only_ William Shakespeare entitled to style himself as a gentleman by virtue of the grant of arms. The only way Shakespeare authorship deniers can get their arguments off the ground is by ignoring the vast body of documentary and testimonial evidence at the outset. But then, by doing so, they make it impossible to settle any question about the past since they've started out by ignoring the only means that can be used to do so.
With comparing the signatures to the script, it could have been the case where he got someone else to write down what he spoke and then signed the scripts at the end. (Not everyone could write back then.) But it would still be his work.
I often wonder how many people from history were real or if their stories are real. They say history is written by the victor so its impossible to know whats real from the past. Richard the lionheart for example has a legacy of being popular and well known but really he was absent most of the time and was ok at best.
History is written by the survivors and rewritten many times after translated into different languages and some ancient libraries were destroyed, Many dictators had books and newspapers destroyed because did not fit their agenda.
@Mike Perkins haha bro no one should care that much to give that rant. Obviously I don't believe he walked on water but I am not able to say a person fitting his description rhat inspired the religion never existed.
🇧🇷 What makes this internet channel good, is the fact Arran goes beyond the " common knowledge "; he always go further with some " new" information about the topic he brings to us. 🇧🇷
I thought we were going to have a falling out. Your nicely concealed twist saved the day. It's quite clear Shakespeare was not a well traveled noble. No local colour no descriptions of places and the names are more randomly classical Latin or Greek than authentic Italian or Danish. Boy could he write characters though and some mighty fine poetry.
@@emptymannull That. Even in this video we have 3 people who had a pretty good reason to do so. I've also wondered if somehow, we got things a bit wrong. A theater company or something was called Shakespear. (for example) and that as a running gag was to make shit up as stories and plays named after it. These days we use Allen Smithee or Allen Smith , when a BadMovie is just that bad.
The other thing is that just about everything we know about what ever ShakeSpear is (or isn't) comes from pissed off cast members, reciting shit from memory, and god awful coppies of the plays- even by there standards. So in otherwords another reason ShakeSpear as a person is likely a load of shit is because anything we know comes from drunken word of mouth. At best.
I'm not sure how convincing this list is. Mozart, who mostly stuck to his contemporary conventions, ranked higher than Beethoven, who completely revolutionized western music.
How is it that I love every video you make even when it's on a subject I care little of such as William Shakespeare? You videos are always so insightful and well thought out that I can't help but enjoy the content. Thank you once again Mr. Thoughty2
Thoughty2 is just an excellent presenter with a dedicated research team. As for William Shakespeare??? Well I'm with you there. His play was interesting in the movie The Last Action Hero. In one scene, the young boy day dreams about his movie hero in class. In his day dream Hamlet ( played by Arnold Schwarzenegger ) says the famous line ...well sort of. "To be or not to be. Not to be." And then he blows up the castle! Funny stuff. That's my kind of Shakespeare. Yes, throw in some A-team elements in the entertainment ha ha.
I was watching a very interesting video, when suddenly I see a video I can't not watch immediately. DAMN YOU THOUGHTY2!!! Why must you make such great content!?!?
Love your videos, very well presented and paced (not like some presenters who rabbit on and on for 30 mins at 200 words per minute who are also opinionative and non-objective). Also you have definitely have done your research, you are unbiased and look at things from different points of view and also keep us entertained as well. Look forward to more. :)
Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !" Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam." Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!" Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..." Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!" Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky." Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction." Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think, who was the real Shakespeare? You can help to support the channel by checking out Keeps and get 50% off www.keeps.com/thoughty2
interesting
I think Shakespeare was Shakespeare. I think I'm onto something!
Hmm
you put 4th where you said 5th Abraham Lincoln my man ^^
Third time requesting for you to make a vid on how to make a child prodigy.
History Channel: He's an alien.
Ancient astronaut theorists say, yes
Im not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.
I believe that. It could have happened. Prove me wrong.
@@rancidpitts8243 prove yourself right first
@@vinylbuff1515 I have found my people
If his father was a very good glover, he might have attracted a clientele of nobles who needed special occasion gloves for their various sports and pursuits such as the falconry, hunting, polo and the like.
good thinking!! :}
Lots of common people had close relationships with nobles, including children. And this is a time of the rise of the bourgeoisie. Goldsmiths were the first bankers. He could have been a very wealthy glover, more of a banker or a rentier than a glover, for all we know. If you can afford it, you can hire a quality tutor. It’s also not a complete impossibility that he was educated privately with wealthy noble children. Wealthy noble families often had slightly lower stationed children, even the children of servants and tenants, as schoolmates for their own children.
His father was Mayor of Stratford at one time. So yes, Will did come from quite a family.
IIRC, Shakespeare's father got into trouble when he went into the wool trade without a license which ruined the family financially and socially. I think that Shakespeare was a young teenager at the time. This would have ended his education a bit prematurely. He struggled for a while before marrying his wife, Anne, who had a little money. It is my belief that Shakespeare had the talent, but he needed a wealthy patron like Edward DeVere, Earl of Oxford. Oxford could have provided information about court life, Italy, and the Greek and Roman classics. ~ Anastacia in Cleveland
@@AnastaciaInCleveland Yep, that's pretty much right, and your theory about him needing a wealthy patron is similar to my theory that although Shakespeare definitely wrote Shakespeare, he had a (please excuse the slip in indelicacy here, but I can't think of a better intensifer!) metric SHITTONNE of editorial help from his friends and contemporaries. And it's probably likely he had both.
Actually there is evidence that Shakespeare did write his own plays. Ben Jonson, a contemporary dramatist of Shakespeare's, was a close friend and great admirer of Shakespeare and his work. And wrote about his admiration. So, yes he did write his own plays.
The problem with these people is just out and out snobbery. They cannot believe that anyone but the well to do with a university education could be the author of these plays.
But this snobbery extended to more modern times. During the 60s one British music teacher said that that John Lennon and Paul McCartney could not have written their songs because their level of education was not high enough and therefore Brian Epstein their manager must have written the music because he went to a public school. This idea collapse in 1967 when Epstein died but Lennon and McCartney still wrote songs.
Yes but the real Paul McCartney died in 1966 maybe he was the true writer.
It is interesting that the anti-straffordian argument arose in the nineteenth century when class snobbery was at its height. Consider that Sir Walter Raleigh, Queen Elizabeth, Sir Philip Sidney, and the Earl of Rochester among other aristocrats were unashamed of having literary talent. Only in the nineteenth century did aristocrats become much too aristocratic to have intellect.
Agreed. I always find it amusing to point out that as the son of a glove maker... he included references to glove making or glove makers technical terms in every one of his plays.
@Cj wattsup This is true. My partners grandfather had a natural talent for playing music on the piano. He only every had to hear a piece once and was able to play it back perfectly.
There will always be ignorant pricks in this world.
Man has haters 400 year After his life, that's how good he was 💯💯💯
Goals
Hitler
Haters and lovers, no in-between. That's greatness !
You are wrong - simply WRONG!
bro you clearly did not watch the video
"the greatest writer"
"Swagger"
Something doesn't add up here.
the exaggerated swagger of an english playwriter
The true Shakespeare Emilia Lanier Check her out
Justin Bieber's ego
What do you mean. That is the exact reason.
@John Barber - Greatness often isn't realized or acknowledged until several centuries after the fact. I'd say in MOST cases, actually.
The son of a glover eh? Who exactly could afford to have luxury items like gloves made for them back then? One of the main things needed for falconry? A good glove. William may not have been a noble but his father's job would have put him in contact with the upper class society.
Agreed. I had a similar thought while watching the video. Those who serve and outfit the rich know them quite well. My father only has a high school education but he is an extremely talented rock mason. He has long worked for clients that are among the richest in the world. Over time you learn something about how they operate.
True. Very true.
Sound logic, because modern elites include their plumber and landscaper in their social activities
SilverStream Situationally, possibly. Have you ever had to take an in person meeting while getting fit for a suit or some other task?
@@jen30551 well, you must be the next Bard by that logic. Where can I read your complete works?
Anyone else notice that when he said “fifth Abraham Lincoln” he had “4. Abraham Lincoln” on screen instead though.
Literally i just said the same thing not too long ago lol.
But did you notice he changed his shirt half way through the video?
Yes.
Good observation
@@leonharness8892 but did you notice he had no
Moustache at 16:34
What always amazed me about Shakespeare was not his lack of education, but the fact that he wrote so many lengthy masterpieces in such a short amount of time. So I always thought he had some kind of team working for him, like other great Renaissance artists. (Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo etc.)
He had a head start in that he was actually adapting other writers' stories for the stage.
@@Jeffhowardmeade besides ‘Romeo and Juliet’, ‘Taming of the Shrew’ is another example of this. His adaptations frequently improved upon past versions, or at least changed them.
Well, in most of his plays he used other literary texts as a source. For example; the original source for Romeo and Juliet is a narrative poem called The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke. There is a strong possibility that Brooke himself translated the poem from an Italian work. There are some differences between Shakespeare's and Brooke's works but the main storyline is the same. For Hamlet, there are more than one source but most important one is Amleth which is mentioned in Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus which translated as the "Deeds of the Danes" Macbeth and King Lear is inspired by Holinshed's Chronicles, but it differs storywise. Holinshed himself inspired by Historia Regum Britanniae (The History of the Kings of Britain) by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Othello is most likely an adaption of Un Capitano Moro (A Moorish Captain) by Cinthio. Antony and Cleopatra and Julius Caesar's plots are based on Plutarch's Lives. Maybe he didn't write the plots of most of his tragedies he made many changes in the plots. And many english scholars often argues that even if someone named William Shakespeare didn't exist, it would made no difference because the written work is what counts. Whatever it is, the only thing matters is someone wrote these masterpieces.
yep! you got it mate, Bill Spear_person, was most likely a gang.
@garyallen8824 Well it's not only the quantity that puzzles me, but the quality as well. I haven't read any other poet from that time period to know if that was a common thing back them, but as an actor myself I HAVE read and acted in quite a lot of Shakespeare's plays and they're simply sublime!
To be Shakespeare, or not to be Shakespeare; that is the question.
Oh, shut up.
@@SpaceCattttt 🧂
More like, to exist or not to exist
@@lmaopew same as to be or not to be
oh SHUT UP!!!!!
To celebrate Shakespeare's birthday this year, McDonalds are launching a new burger...
...called the McBeth.
😐
MacBeth*
😆🤦♀️👍
Shush! don’t mention the Scottish Mac!
@@Atlas_Apollon12 McBeth because it’s McDonald’s and “Mc” has to go before everything
*Plot twist: William really wrote all of those but he has an alien friend that taught him everything*
.
😂😂😂
Paul????
The History Channel will surely come up with a 'documentary' that 'proves' this.
This could make sense if you switched alien for a noble who taught Shakespeare all the things he knew .
We must remember, literacy was rare and phonetics were widely used by scribes. Finding a name spelt in multiple ways is extremely common. I have a copy of a marriage certificate from my family in the 1800's. Our surname is spelt 5 different ways on the single page.
There were other ways to learn writing than a formal education in those days.
Cool
Spelled.
@@Frankie5Angels150 Australian. Until the explosion of US dominated instant internet, we were taught spelling as laid out in the Oxford Dictionary, and still argue with all our modern technology based on American English daily that it is colour, neighbour, realize, doughnut, en masse, and that grammar and punctuation are relevant to all aspects of written communications.
It is not wise to correct a person who correctly uses the original version of the language yours has been created from.
I am not obliged to modify mine, just because another country has chosen to modify it to their own and forget the beautiful combination of a dozen ancient languages it was derived from itself.
Yes, spelling and grammer were...flexible in those days. And stil is to an extent. ( Lite beer anyone?). But in Elizabethian London, literacy was NOT rare, on the contrary. Licensed printers did a roaring business. Self improvement books, DIY books, motivational books were very popular. And plays.
It should be noted that during his lifetime, and for many, many years afterwards, no one questioned that Shakespear the actor was also Shakespear the playwright. Not his audience, nor his patrons, nor his fellow playwrights.
Who told you that "literacy was rare and phonetics were widely used by scribes", and why do you believe them? It can only possibly be supposition or guesswork, since nothing can be known - directly immediately personally experienced about the past, and it is in the nature of men(human beings that if A whom they suppose to be an authority says one thing and B says the same thing- none of what either A or B says being verifiable, men(human beings) will swear blind that it is so and could not possibly be otherwise, or they tend to accept without question or believe everything they are *told*, depending on their breeding and learning, and many of them cannot tell the difference between knowledge(direct immediate personal experience), and belief nor can differentiate between knowledge and information or have any idea that there is a difference. Some of the creatures even suppose that they can be given or*told* knowledge, as if they could experience for themselves what they are *told*.Seemingly they will *believe *because* they simply cannot verify or directly immediately personally, passive acceptance without question being better than nothing and of course they can be programmed or conditioned or as they themselves say, educated, passively to accept without question .
QI summarized it perfectly: they couldn't handle someone not posh writing this, so they came up with a silly conspiracy
It's not a silly conspiracy, Marlowe obviously wrote the works, Shakespeare and Marlowe's writing is indistinguishable.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 😂
@@serinadelmar6012 You need to read the statistical analyses, and also read the works. I doubt you will be able to tell apart the author of the Henry VI cycle from the author of Edward II. Marlowe is very distinctive, and has a thunderous line that nobody except his roommate Kyd could copy, and even then, Kyd didn't do it nearly as well. He is obviously the author, even before the mathematical comparison of the style markers made it certain.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 read the works? it’s in doing just that and having a deep love for history, especially the rivalry between these playwrights, and indeed Shakespeare’s propensity to steal (all the best artists steal), that makes your point work for the defence.
@@serinadelmar6012 It is impossible to "steal" from Marlowe, and no artist who takes the voice of another is ever successful. This is just stupid people trying to blind you to the obvious authorship. You've been had, sucker.
I used keeps for hair loss and as a consequence suffered a severe allergic reaction. My whole face swelled so much that my left eye was completely shut, and I constantly itched on my scalp that I constantly scratched. I had to endure such a mishap for a couple of weeks though it seemed at the time as an eternity. If you do buy keeps I think it would be wise to try a small portion of your arm and test the product before using it on your head.
I’m 1:28 minutes into video and struggling to understand how this comment comes into play down the line😅
@@philmccraken478 advertisement
Fuck that
@@philmccraken478 me too! 😩😂😆🤣
Just shave it. Join the ranks mate.
What if William Shakespeare is actually just a character he made up about himself
tf
That's trippy to think about lmao
It would make sense for it to be a nom de plume. Much of what was written was actually pretty controversial with the crown.
It sure is she is the real Shakespeare Emilia Lanier
@@popefrancis8960 It's true she is the real Shakespeare Emilia Lanier
Anne Boleyn sometimes spelt her surname Bullen. In Shakespeare’s day spelling wasn’t formalised.
0:28 and 5th Abraham Lincoln
I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who saw it. Details people! Saw it right away. I was like “that’s not right”.
I commented on that as well lol
@@conradsmith9441 Yep same. Had to rewind to make sure
What’s wrong with Abe?
@@Milltao3 the guy who made the video wrote 4. Abraham lincoln. Its supposed to be 5
There remains the possibility, of course, that William Shakespeare did indeed have a brilliant mind, for plots, drama, and staging... but, because he was illiterate, had to employ the services of one or more "ghost writers," who wrote down Sir William's essays, sonnets and plays in a word-for-word fashion as the bard himself dictated them. And thus the ideas were indeed his; whoever placed those ideas on paper was irrelevant.
This seems reasonable
Like Homer, who was blind.
There's also the possibility it was a collaboration that he was the face of because he was more charismatic than his partner, some of his works do seem almost like they're partially written by a different person. Maybe the excitment and low humor can be attributed to Shakespeare, the finer details, rhythm and structure to another man (maybe Bacon), and the romance, emotion and tragedy to a woman (these elements seem to have qualities to how they're written that remind me of great female writers like Mary Shelly and Harper Lee). Some historians suspect he was bisexual, maybe the three were lovers.
He wasn’t illiterate. He wrote and read lines. Hard to be an actor and learn scripts if you can’t read. And he performed for many years. Indeed it was his career as a player that got him into writing.
What Shakespeare did you read? His best work is mediocre and most is hot garbage on the level of reality tv. Just because English teachers parrot that it's good, doesn't mean it actually is.
0 mins: Did Shakespeare exist?
20 mins: Yeah he probably did, but who knows...
It is a curious case - I did a little bit of research into the Shakespeare authorship question a while back. He likely had almost inherent genius, and was reasonably well educated, despite humble beginnings. His father was moderately successful in business as a textile seller. His family weren't paupers. So he would have gone to a decent school. Shakespeare was referenced in surviving documents from the time he was alive as a successful actor and a playwright by both supporters and critics. Thats indisputable. Thoughty2 didn't really say that here.. Maybe Shakespeare had an assistant or advisor that helped with ideas here and there? Other than that he was a real historical figure and author of the works attributed to him.
When you say "research" you actually mean you "googled"
@@paulthrutner9114 google is a way to research stuff.
@@paulthrutner9114 as long as you use good and trusted sources, google research is real research, you just have to fact check
@@paulthrutner9114 where do you think Thoughty2 starts his research on topics??
@@AllTheRain an ouija board
What do you call a drunken poet with Parkinson's disease.
William shakes beer.
I'll see myself out now.
And after causing a drunken ruckus, the pub landlord said, "Get out! You're bard!"
Ahahahaha 😂
🤣 that's so brilliant
@@joshhodkinson9305 A rowdy William Shakespeare walks in to a pub.
The landlord says "Oi, you're Bard!"
Naah that’s pretty good 👍
“How could a man of such humble origins possibly become a playwright who coined 1700 new words?!”
“Well, he wasn’t exactly noble born and kind of had to make it up as he went... and it shows in his need to fabricate words when he didn’t know the ones he needed?”
Also, he only needed to hear the gossip of nobles or more likely their servants.
Do people like to gossip and vent about their bosses, especially if they think it will not come back to them?
Yeah, only people with money are capable of being creative, right?
@@idminister Also, these guys missed one big thing that writers do: ask people to check their ideas over to make sure they aren’t getting stuff wrong. Shakespeare could ask people, right?
@@GameHammerCG He could ask people. the fact that no one named Shakespeare asked anyone anything as far we know does give one reason to think...
@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Do you thoroughly document all your conversations?
Someone took shakespeare's plays and traveled to the past, handed them to shakespeare himself and voila
Thursday Next!
Bootstrap paradox
Doctor Who
Sounded like Blackadder to me
So how come Viola doesn't get any credit? :-D
Many notable people came from unspectacular beginnings. Alan Turing's father was the son of a clergyman who worked in the Indian Civil Service. His mother was the daughter of the chief engineer of the Madras Railways. Their son became a mathematician, computer scientist, cryptanalysis, philosopher and theoretical biologist. I have come to the conclusion that when we are fortunate enough to have children, we get what we are given!
Shakespeare always sounds better in the original Klingon
shhh you cant speak about this in public, its suppose to be a secret 🤭 🤫
To be or NOT to be...... BOOOOOM!!!!
QUPLA!!!
@@esecallum das ist der kræstian.
@@jw9099 ruclips.net/video/t4jjg4TIWs0/видео.html
Abraham Lincoln, whom you also referenced, had humble beginnings, and was self educated ... yet surprise surprise HE EXISTED!
Exactly!! But maybe after 200-300 years people will say that someone with as ordinary beginning as that of Lincoln can't be the US president.
@@RR_theproahole Prett much they already have, Lincoln being mostly informally and self educated, growing up poor, would probably not have had any real pathway to that office in the modern era. Sadly
True, but the accuracy of history is Nill, and they've already begun to rewrite him.
Lincoln was a bully.
Are you sure he existed or is that just what we've been told? Maybe nothing really exists and this is all just a dream. Hmmm
This channel goes from fact-checking one video to straight history channel at 4 am on the next.
Shakespeare lost his 11 year old son Hamnet to the plague. His grief is expressed in this from his
play King John. Do you really think someone other than Shakespeare wrote this?! I think naught!
King John ·III iv 98 · Verse
Constance
Grief fills the room up of my absent child,
Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me,
Puts on his pretty looks, repeats his words,
Remembers me of all his gracious parts,
Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form;
Then, have I reason to be fond of grief?
Fare you well: had you such a loss as I,
I could give better comfort than you do.
I will not keep this form upon my head,
When there is such disorder in my wit.
O Lord! my boy, my Arthur, my fair son!
My life, my joy, my food, my all the world!
My widow-comfort, and my sorrows' cure!
Spin off anime: he was gay.
Netflix adaption: plot twist, he has actually german.
Netflix adaptation: *black Shakespeare*
@@BigMan-kp6ug 😂😂😂Wanted to say this
@Daniel Richardson disney version says nothing before the Jacbeean era was cannon
@@BigMan-kp6ug Shakespeare is the new black
He wasn’t gay, but his sonnets do very strongly suggest he was bisexual
“Walt Whitman”
Shakespeare right now is giving a slight chuckle, lifting his hands up, and saying “you got me”
You're goddamned right.
@Alex Thistle it’s a breaking bad reference lol
@@gladiatorfitt5860 Yeah - Walter White! LOL....Funny thing is most people liked the anti-hero, the other characters in Breaking Bad did not have the pure motive of Walter - family.
If people want to use meth that is their choice, you have to convince them not to choose that lifestyle, it is impossible to stop the supply.. It is just like people with an eating disorder - too fat or too skinny- you won't solve the problem by trying to restrict supply.
@@stmounts what’s that got to do with anything 😂
Surprised Genghis kahn didn't make it considering how many kids he had
Exactly
glad i wasn't the only one to think that..
Because the researchers were white?
@@ErikPT i'm white i would've put him on the list lol but i see your point
Alexander the great, Julius/Augustus Ceasar?
Shakespeare knew Marlowe and referred to his murder in As You Like It. He ripped off quite a few lines from Marlowe.
I thought that having a really “all over the place” handwriting was a sign of creativity, and is common in people that kinda think faster than they’re able to write? Please do correct me if I’m wrong
that is what I like to say when I can't even read what I just wrote
The signatures were all quite different too though
He wrote in secretary hand and that's what it looks like. 2 of his signatures are on his will directly before his death. A couple were filled into very small spaces on forms (little space). Nearly everyone (including the candidates for the 'real' Shakespeare) spelled their names in various ways at the time. It was normal.
It's harder to forge by another's hand.
Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin all had beautiful handwriting.
I have always thought it odd that people today could argue, 'How could someone who lived way back in the 16th century have known so much about the 16th century? Our information is so much better today!'
Really ! We think we are so clever and "advanced." In some ways, I think that people in the past were much more on the ball and intelligent than many of us today. We've become soft and lazy.
Not to mention that they think that you can only be good at something when you’re educated.. Pure intrest (and intelligence) isn’t even taken into consideration.
@@sadist8902 or the ability to from connections, which leads to knowledge in fields outside your experience.
@@sadist8902 for certain things that is true though. Like if no one taught you to speak English, you could never learn it on your own.
@@attackerd8545 But no actual person taught me English, it’s through out life that I learned English. English isn’t my first language and it’s simply by watching movies, joining gaming communities from a young age that I’ve learned to speak English. It’s not like I had a teacher or a parent that teached me the language, it was my own interest in understanding others that got me to understand/being able to speak English along with the connections I’ve made- like the other person said.
Besides you can learn it on your own unless you find tools like a translator or dictionary to be help from others. Many people learn new languages without any guidance from someone else but through accessible information. If you count that as help, then ofcourse not, because I probably wouldn’t have known English was a language in the first place.
Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Macbeth) He apparently saw a vision of Reddit...
Every life was like that
Lol!
That list does fall off pretty hard at numbers 4 and 4..
no Rick Sanchez
0/10
Mike Barnes not wholesome 100 poggern't indeed
I love that every 'question' can be solved with, like, five minutes of research
That’s why the end of this video exists
Not that it matters or signifies very much but one does not" solve" questions; no amount of asking others can give you knowledge or direct immediate personal experience. The " like" in "with, 'like', five minutes of research", performing what function?
How come when Shakespeare makes up words he's "innovative" and a "genius" but when I do I'm "racist" and "ruining Pocahontas"
You'll just have to wait 150 years and see...
🤣🤣🤣
lol
You need almost the whole world's interpretation of it, just like Shakespeare's, for your cry to be valid 👀
If not it would be just an unfair comparison
I find people with limited minds assume if they cannot do something then it cannot be done. Those who say a poor person could not have been good enough of a writer to be the bard in the 1500's may have a good understanding of how hard it would have been for him back then, and they may even be honest enough with themselves to know they couldnt do it but the suggestion that therefore he couldnt is just a limit of their own abilities not his.
Exactly
Excellent comment 👍🏽
Very astute
A poor person couldn't be so skilled in writing to be a bard in the 1500s
inb4 hurr durr you ignorant limited mind
You are being moronic.
Perfectly put. ‘If one fool can do it, another fool can’ 😅
Once I read that the idea of Shakespeare being a group of people and not one person comes from the belief that plays back then tended to be huge productions that took years to complete. So the idea of one man being behind all of them is kinda crazy.
They were not huge productions that took years to complete. The stages were bare. The players would perform multiple plays in a single week. Shakespeare's output was actually fairly low compared to some of his contemporaies.
@@inapickle806 yep, it was a collaborative effort to make the plays but Shakespeare wrote them on his own
Interesting. Where did you get the idea of "huge productions that took years"? See this is what happens when people rewrite history. lol
@Dinobot Maximize I always heard that at first, pretty sure that’s the point
Mark Twain once said, "One thing is certain, and that is his plays were either written by William Shakespeare or else someone calling himself William Shakespeare." That about sums it up!
I like some of Mark Twain's Writings etc.. I use to get this Delicious Dish named after him on Venice Beach Boardwalk Restaurant.. You can literally Read some of his Quotes there.. Pretty Cool..
Here’s my hypothesis: Perhaps William somehow befriended a nobleman who recognized his immense talent. The nobleman - feeling generous and detesting the thought of his boy Will’s natural talent going to waste - thus decided to help with his writings by providing the knowledge that a commoner of that time supposedly could not have had. This, of course, would require that the fact of such a friendship was utterly lost to history, leaving not even a sliver of evidence for future generations to discover. But maybe the nobleman had to keep the relationship secret so as to avoid the consequences of not doing so, whatever they might have been… This theory is a stretch for sure, but still plausible methinks.
It's true that geniuses from humble homes are often mentored by elders who see them as special. NO RECORD OF THAT for Stratford Will... Edward De Vere was living in the household of Sir Thomas Smith, famous educator who helped found Eton... Then he was tutored by the finest minds in the realm when he became a royal ward at Cecil House, depository of one of the world's greatest private libraries. His father, John DeVere had acting troupes, so the young Lord Bolbec grew up around actors. He went to Italy, the exact cities where the plays are staged. He went to Law School, he squandered his fortune on Literature and high living. He died in disgrace, as the sonnets clearly stated. It's all there, a string of around 100 "coincidences" that link him directly to the Shakespeare Canon, which his in-laws received the Dedication to the First Folio for. Playwriting was beneath members of the Peerage, hence the need for anonymous attribution......
There's just no need for the stretch. Shakespeare was from the middle class and went to school where he read books. His plays are based on other plays. He does NOT show an unusual knowledge of courts, geography etc and often gets them very wrong. His troupe of players were invited to court many times over many years when he was writing. He would have at the very least been an eyewitness to what went on there. He and his men were invited to walk in the procession at James I coronation. They became the king's men.
Or even without that stretch, he talked to people who worked in grand houses, he networked in the places where servants went to drink or relax. People forget that in that time a noble family of 5 or so were supported by 40+ servants, all of whom could be pumped for info.
@@toshirodragon 100% speculation.
@@edwardboswell5675 No more so than the De Vere theory.
My signature looks like a 5yr old has written it, it doesnt mean anything lol.
It does if you rely on handwriting.
@@Miquelalalaa i write but my signature is wonky.
Mine is the same my youngest kid can write neater than me.
My signature changes almost every time I write it
I always let it fly when signing.
That list is more like "Who americans think are the most influential people of all time"
And who do you think the most influential people are?
@@grivebulbs7539
1.Jesus Christ
2.Mahatma Gandhi
3.Leonardo Da Vinci
4.Albert Einstein
5.Mohammed Nabi
6.Issac Newton
7.Nelson Mandela
8.Napolean
9.Abraham Licoln
10.Alexander the Great
10.Abraham Lincoln
@@alen539 I didn’t know you like Abraham Lincoln so much.
@@alen539 I do like your list.
@@alen539 The biggest issue that crops up when people try to make a list like this is separating influential from famous. In reality the most influential humans to ever live are people we do not know the names of. The person who first decided domesticating crops was a good idea probably has to top the list, along with the first to raise livestock, invent the wheel, develop sanskrit, distill alcohol, design a seafaring vessel, build the first standing structure, invent the spear, and develop the first municipal community. That's a lot less boring than Jesus and Abraham Lincoln, but realistically only flight and the internet has shaped human life in an even remotely comparable scale
The claim that his signature being terrible is a sign that he didn't write the plays is one that always gets me. Christopher Marlowe's signature and his handwriting (you can view both on his Wikipedia page) are not exactly the most elegant handwriting you're likely to ever see. How this also points to the fact that he was illiterate, is something I don't get. He was known to have been an actor with the Lord Chamberlain's Men, which would suggest he could at least read.
It's funny that you mentioned Charlie Chaplin, because like Shakespeare, he didn't have much of a formal education. Yet he managed to become a screenwriter, and music composer, along with acting in and producing his films.
Did Shakespeare really exist?
Short answer: Yes
Thnx
@Sadie Smiles He's been dead 404 years. Not sure there's much left to spoil 😆
Someone excited lol
No
Nope. Marlowe baby!
So because no records exist of his education, that means that he didn't have any? Yeah, no. Not all records make it to the modern day. If only... (Trying to do genealogy can be hell sometimes.)
Who knows, he might have even known some people that might have inspired his works. Just because he wasn't a noble, that doesn't mean that he didn't personally know some. He could also have been a brilliant man. I really, really hate some of the criticisms of Shakespeare, since so many of them implies that "Oh, someone of the lower class could _never_ be that smart!" Goddamn snobs, a majority of them.
Great video, by the way.
I agree. Frederick Douglass taught himself how to read while he was a slave, and went on to be an academic scholar. People can do mind blowing things with enough willpower.
@GREATBEAR MAMA
Damn fires. A fire in Sweden destroyed a huge part of our national archive back in 1697. Hence why practically all genealogy research in Sweden stops around that time. The medieval parts of the archive was almost completely destroyed, which is so sad. I really, really hate fires. All those lost records...
The same argument strips him of almost all his historical influence. There are basically no records of the modern vocabulary of the time, meaning he may have simply written down the words used by a mostly illiterate populace.
@@Elora445 Should have backed them up on a thumb drive.
If you watch the video you will notice that he said everything you just wrote.
Me a 17 year old: watching thoughty2 saying prevention is key.
Me: “Maybe I am losing hair”
My roommate, my bfs close friend is 24 and is balding on top. You just might be
I know a whole family of men, all bald in early 20s..sooooo..maybe lol. Then again, I hope you dont worry too much about it. There are plent of people who find baldness attractive. As a matter of fact, the men in the family I mentioned are all very handsome.
I first started noticing at 18, and I'm straight up horse shoed at 33. Be vigilant
my buddy started going bald at 17. full blown bald by 22.
Are you 18years old now? If so you are very cute
The reason for the Shakespeare denial crowd is that he was not a learned academic but only had about a 9th grade education. They can stand the idea that one of the greatest writers in the English language never went to college. Nor did Picasso graduate from art school. Higher education ruins creativity. How about Michael Faraday?
Mans ain’t the greatest writer of all time! If he ain’t out here spitting bars like my guy dr. Seuss, he ain’t shit.
Yessssir
Eminem is scared of dr seuss
@@mightbebro 📸 4k
about MANSA MUSA 1 HE IS BLACK 2 HE IS MUSLIM 3 HE HAD THE MONEY THAT NO WHITE MAN OWN TODAY .... BILLIONAIRES? HE WAS MORE THAN THAT. IF HE WERE ALIVE TODAY. HE COULD BUY ALL THE BILLIONAIRES OF THE WORLD.
@@thelifeoftina941 what
The past tense of "William Shakespeare, "
Wouldiwas Shookspeared.
No, 'would' is the conditional/futute tense.
So it should be 'Hadiwas ...'
I’m dead 😂🤣
Get Wouldiwas Shookspeared
I'm not even sure if the Internet will still be around in 400 years.
Or 20...
TheAbc45678 If humans are still around the Internet will be. Unless some sort of cataclysmic magnetic phenomenon occurs there is no reasons people in power would allow the Internet to dissapear
@djrmarky We will be dead ;)
Sounds scary.
1:20 Most linguists think he didn’t actually invent any words, he was just the first one to write a lot of words down
I heard he went by “Thoughty1” at the time...
Leonardo da Vinci had no formal education beyond apprenticeship was not born into nobility yet was one of the most learned creative geniuses in history
Apprenticeship was a very rigorous form of education.
Yes. Leonardo was a creative genius.
He learned literacy from his adorong grandfather who kept journals. Leonardo's journals are famous.
His uncle Francesco encouraged his scientific learnng.
His father realised his talent for drawong and moved his business from Vinci to Florence to further Leonatdo"s education at the finest workshop in the wealthy city of Flirence.
The dkills Leonardo was taught included drawing from Life. I.e looking closely at the human form. at animals, plants and objects, and putting them down in clesr lines with the correct proportions
He also learnt mathematical perspective drawing, particularly of interiors.
Leonardo learnt the chemistry of paints, some ofcwhich were very poisonous.
He lesrnt how to make figures and plaques in clay, fire them and volour them.
He learnt casting in bronze.
He learnt to make wooden chests and all sorts of ephemera for theatrical productions.
He had access to a collection of tools, including hoists, pulleys and all sorts of equipment invented and used to create the largest dome of its kind in the world.
AND he was very very observant and a habitual recorder of what he saw.
Leonardo, and his skills can be accounted for by two things, his training, and his personal powers of observation.
We know pretty well what he learnt, because others learnt it as well, and became master painters.
We ALSO know exactly what he OBSERVED because he recorded these things in detail.
How did he know about light?
He LOOKED experiment, made drawings and recorded findings.
This same formula applies to anatomy, geology. botany. Flight geometry, etc
In other words. Leonardo WAS indeed a genius, but we can account for evrry aspect of his learning. And he was not PRIMARILY a writer.
Shakespeare was a writer, who did not keep a journal, did not write home to wife or children, whose education does Not match his scholarship. Did not leave notes or records of interests or studies, did not visit the places he wrote about, did not mix in the circles he describes. Whose vast body of writingvdoes NOT have parallels with the life he led, and even when he wrote love poems, scholars CANNOT match his sonnets to any kniwn event or attachment.... leaving even Stratfordians to think that they are just poems that hsve a theme and create a nsrrative.
Personally, i cannot believe that the sonnets are NOT biogrsphical ..... but they are plainly not the biography of William Shsksper from Strstford upon Avon.
I csnt see to type very well. Please excuse typos
The problem isn't that Shakespeare couldn't have acquired all of that knowledge and education - it's that we have zero records that he did.
Who told you that"Leonardo da Vinci had no formal education beyond apprenticeship," and why do you believe them? Just naturally credulous?
No-one could possiblty *know* that "Leonardo da Vinci had no formal education beyond apprenticeship," because it is impossible to directly immediately personally expereience (as directly immediately peronally as pain)*Anything* about the past, that be no just axiomatic but so blleding obvious that a small child could tell you it.
That mixture of gossip and hearsay that men(human beings/dreaming machines) call hisrory is a matter of the*exact_opposite of knowledge or direct immediate personal experience (as directly immediately personally as pain) *Belief*. Ford was spot on history is not only bunk it is-for-all-practical-purposes, little more than belief about what may or may not have happened before Now, which it is aximatic, cannot be known- directly immediate personally experienced (as directly immediately personally as pain)
Neither you nor anyone can directly immediately personally experience*anything-at-all*about Leonardo da Vinci; that is surely axiomatic.
As an actor, who's done many Shakespeare plays, I find this fascinating. I prefer bacon only in the morning... Shakespeare, however... I prefer perpetually.
Perpetuity
Perpetually in Shakespeare.
😆
Nobody spelled their name consistently in those days. Sir Walter Raleigh spelled his name differently from time to time.
In all fairness he could have told people stories and they wrote it down
Seems plausible to me too.
You just described James Patterson's writing career. 😁 Literally, that's how he's got where he is - he writes an outline for a novel and then gives it to one of his army of writers to write the actual novel for him, which he then edits and polishes before publishing it under his name.
@@Maerahn the correct term for it is extruded book product!
That's alot more believable than, "there's no way he'd be able to know about macaroni and cheese at this time. He's a time traveler."
Shakespeare's plays were not only about story they were also about the use of language and his words and his writing style... If this is remotely true, Shakespeare would lose most of his creditability as a play writer
I like how it shows Jesus putting on a sweater like he's a rapper about to perform at a concert.
@iif robe :p
I bet someone must've bin rapping for Jesus at some point
So I made this rap for the Christian Youth
Bards usually told their stories orally. Perhaps he created them orally? Perhaps he dictated his writings to someone who could transcribe them?
That's what I was thinking
@Nemesis So, one third of what the bible took
Why do people always have to bring sex into everything?
@Apple pie
I was being ironic.
Given I was the one bringing sex into everything.
He just had bad handwriting, doesn't mean he was illiterate or couldn't write.
There’s a good movie called “Anonymous” (nothing to do with hackers). About de Vere and Marlow being Shakespeare.
I’m a musician and I know plenty of people who do not read music, have had no formal training and have no musical relatives, who have taught themselves to play multiple instruments and write very good songs. I even have a friend who was writing fantasy novels as a young teenager. So, native talent happens and there are many artists, musicians, writers and poets, who have come to prominence despite their birth circumstances.
The fact that Mansa Musa & Genghis Khan weren’t on that list let’s me know everything I need to know about it.
yeah too few people know about the latter(or is it former? idk english is my 3rd language i meant mansa)
Genghis Khan makes a lot of sense but putting Mansa Musa in top 5 makes me know everything I need go know about your list.
I think they pulled names out of their ass for the top four.
I do not know them well so yeah they did not make it to top 5
@@free_boiling4502 you're saying go instead of to
Chancellor Gorkon:
You haven't heard Shakespeare until you've heard it in the original Klingon.
Using the idea that because Shakespeare was born to a glover, therefore throwing doubt on his ability to have written his plays, must then also throw doubt on Jesus who, after being born to a carpenter apparently, could not have possibly shaped the world as we know it.
May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real Shakespear please stand up?
I repeat
Will the real Shakespear please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here...
Best comment on this video 😂
He seems actually passionate about his sponsors.
Am I crazy or is this dude the most entertaining human alive right now?
Another excellent video! Many years ago I was studying for my English Lit A-Levels, and read Shakespeare extensively. As background for my essay exams, I also read a lot of Marlowe, whom we all know was Shakespeare's contemporary. The controversy surrounding Shakespeare's authorship was at its height then, and I was intrigued. On reading Marlowe's plays (Tamburlaine, Jew of Malta and Dr. Faustus in particular), I became absolutely convinced that Marlowe was not capable of writing any of the plays attributed to Shakespeare - they were far inferior, more simplistic, and much more poorly written. Whoever the person who wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare was without a shadow of a doubt head and shoulders above his contemporaries, and above anyone who came before. Of course, the controversy does still rage.
I genuinely think some of the plays are pretty awful.
'Two Gentlemen of Verona' for instance, is pretty mediocre, except for a couple of wonderful speeches. (eg what light is light if Sylvia be not here). Lots of terrible puns, indifferent plot, and duff psychology (a man forgives the attempted rape of his beloved because the rapist is his best mate). Titus is just laughable in places.
As to "Dr. Faustus", crude jokes in the fourth act are most probably not Marlowe's, but of some anonymous collaborator(might be Thomas Dekker, as we know for sure he worked on one version of this play). Also mind you, that even the A-text is a memorial reconstruction and how close it is to what Marlowe and his co-worker wrote is unknown.
Titus Andronicus is pretty bad as well. It took a while, about 10 years of writing for Shakespeare to get really good.@@bootube9972
Never heard of middle class people writing about high class society before. ;)
Willy were probably really good at gathering information from people, interviewing and reading to get info.
Writing a crazy story around it like all writers ever done.
What you have written here e seems to make sense, in the 21st century..
But not in the 16th.
Shakespeare did not make up his own stories. They are from books that the author had read, some in English, some in Latin, some in Greek, Italian and French. We know what his sources were.
Many of those books could only be found in the library of a very rich noble. Some of them were very rare, very expensive, and public libraries did not exist.
We know that Shakespeare did not have a library of books of his own, because they are not mentioned in his will. They would have been so valuable, that they would definitely have been mentioned.
Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism - personifying in unparalleled ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic cast, its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) - only one of the ‘wolfish earls’ so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendent and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works - works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded history.” WALT WHITMAN
PROBABLY, MOST LIKELY.... digest this, if you will, by Walt Whitman “Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism - personifying in unparalleled ways the medieval aristocracy, its towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic cast, its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) - only one of the ‘wolfish earls’ so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born descendent and knower, might seem to be the true author of those amazing works - works in some respects greater than anything else in recorded history.” It was the 17th Earl of Oxford, Whitman was spot on.
I mean middle class ppl writing abt high society is just Stan twt
@@MandyJMaddison it was not uncommon for someone to have an apprentice to ‘pass the torch’ on to, and is not unknown even today.
So their main argument is that commoner couldn't possibly be smart enough to write those?
Well, he most likely was.
Sounds like something a clmmoner would say.
*pompous laughter*
@@ThePdog3k I mean, Einstein and Tesla were essentially commoners
Not THAT commoner, a different commoner.
Not smart, knowledgable about things he simply couldn't experience
Also handwriting, will, and different ways of spelling the name on the works
@@guythat779 The problem is that the fellow William Shakespeare wasn't Christopher Marlowe. They were both commoners.
I recommend Ben Jonson's 'Conversations with William Drummond of Hawthornden'. That's the book that convinced me Shakespeare the documented, historical man was Shakespeare the writer. Jonson was a rival playwright, almost certainly knew him, and had a big mouth. Yet, in this work - generated 3 years after Shakespeare's death, when Jonson was old and had nothing to lose - he says nothing to question Shakespeare's authorship and just makes bitchy comments about his 'lack of art'. Aside from noting the irony of another famous auto-didact slagging off Shakespeare's perceived lack of education..I thought: if there was a conspiracy, Jonson would have known; if Jonson had known, he'd have gleefully spilled the beans.
The reminds of the move 'Amadeus', except with play writing.
Wow... Thank you... I've never thought Shakespeare was a fraud... Chances are... He knew some lords daughter who knew something and taugh him 😉
interesting detail and commanding trail of thought.
@@teekay3747 or his mother (who knew how to read) taught him and then cos his father was Lord Mayor and entitled to send his son for free to the grammar school... did send him to the grammar school and there he would have gained an education. Including a little Latin. And Greek. :)
@@tallyboyle9148 I'm guessing this is how it really happened?
RUclips in Year 3022: “Did Thoughty2 Really Exist?”
"Throwing enough shit at the wall, is not always enough to make something stick"
~Thoughty2 2020
0:28 “And fifth, Abraham Lincoln”
Yet the graphic shows a four
It must be a hidden cipher. Look for more in his other videos!
I love that Mohammed is represented by some arabic scribble
@@mzflighter6905 because we muslims don’t like to give him a face as we don’t know it. Unlike Christians, we don’t have any art of Muhammad in any form other than the Quran and hadis
“The patient is very eel”. 😂 Little gems that make it so entertaining.
My favorite part about “Shakespeare isn’t real” is the fundamental argument that he didn’t have a formal education. This classist assumption that a formal education is required to be knowledgeable is not only problematic but the entire argument is really idiotic because there was a very significant fire in Stratford-Upon-Avon that burned up most records from the years Shakespeare would have been at the local school. We still know about this in modern day so it was definitely public knowledge in the centuries following. So happy you mentioned that no records from the grammar school survived, I’ve watched other videos on this subject and that’s not even mentioned
This ones gonna be interesting. Big fan since 2016. Cheers for the content Arran.
Same here
when small minds meet great minds they doubt the possibility of their work.. jealousy.. a poor man being a lyrical genius..pff impossible..
42:"did shakesbeard actually exist?"
ANSWER:" YES HE WAS ... HE WAS A FAMOUS PIRATE!"
he's the one that tied McDonalds thickshake straws in to his beard... right?
Yes he did or yes he was was. That is the question.
Three Englishmen on the list: Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Jesus.
This is kind of like how very few of us have been on trial, in a police interrogation, or in prison, yet based on us consuming movies, TV shows, novels, and hearing first-hand stories from other people, I'll bet every one of us could write a story in which these events are portrayed semi-plausibly to people 400 years in the future, especially if we can fill in the blanks by asking locals who may have first-hand knowledge, and especially if you are a famous play-write who meets all kinds of interesting people.
Many of his plays are known to be collaborative works, (like 13 or so) I’m surprised this wasn’t mentioned.
That's not true. It's a speculative theory. Especially with his early works. Certianly Titus Andronicus has a lot in common Kit Marlows writing.
18:39 "The poop was beaten gold", wtf were people getting their inspiration from back then??
Midas
Poop deck
It refers to the poop deck on a ship - the raised deck at the stern that gave the captain and officers a view forward. From the French, and ultimately the Latin, for "stern".
17th Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. The bulk of his plays were released after his death. You've ignored huge amounts of evidence that's been revealed in recent years.
That’d be open to criticism as Shakespeare, while not writing contemporary works, does factor anachronisms into his scripts. His narratives would have included veiled nods to the sitting monarchs or issues of the day. So if the Earl of Oxford dies ahead of time, his scripts won’t have that immediacy when they’re staged. Or else another writer would have to make edits.
New theory: it was actually thoughty2 travelling back in time to write them
As a person who doesn't have much knowledge in that topic, you made me believe that Shakespeare never existed and then made me believe that he exists again....
I don't think we will ever know whether or not Shakespere was the REAL author. What we do know for sure, however, is that his works have certainly outlived him and are still read and admired today. They can stand alone with or without veracity of his authorship.
We do know. For certain. He was.
Then would it be better to remember the name Shakespeare as a faceless person
On the basis that how you know _anything_ about the past is by examining the records left and the things people said at the time, we do know for certain that Shakespeare was the real author. Literally _every_ piece of documentary evidence that identifies an author of the canon identifies Shakespeare as an author and _every_ contemporary who said anything about the subject affirmed that William Shakespeare was an author. Many of these people knew him personally and/or professionally (John Heminges, Henry Condell, Ben Jonson, Leonard Digges, John Webster, etc.) or were clearly informed about his background and/or literary output (Francis Meres, William Camden, Edmund Howes, etc.). Shakespeare was identified as an author by name, by profession (actor), by home town (Stratford), and by his status as a second-generation gentleman, which entitled him to the honorific of "Master Shakespeare" (abbreviated "Mr." or "M."). Whenever we see a reference to Shakespeare's gentlemanly status, we can be sure it's the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon because he was the _only_ William Shakespeare entitled to style himself as a gentleman by virtue of the grant of arms.
The only way Shakespeare authorship deniers can get their arguments off the ground is by ignoring the vast body of documentary and testimonial evidence at the outset. But then, by doing so, they make it impossible to settle any question about the past since they've started out by ignoring the only means that can be used to do so.
@@Nullifidian Well said.
With comparing the signatures to the script, it could have been the case where he got someone else to write down what he spoke and then signed the scripts at the end. (Not everyone could write back then.) But it would still be his work.
I often wonder how many people from history were real or if their stories are real. They say history is written by the victor so its impossible to know whats real from the past. Richard the lionheart for example has a legacy of being popular and well known but really he was absent most of the time and was ok at best.
History is written by the survivors and rewritten many times after translated into different languages and some ancient libraries were destroyed, Many dictators had books and newspapers destroyed because did not fit their agenda.
@Mike Perkins I cant prove he's real or not and neither can you and thats my point.
@Mike Perkins haha bro no one should care that much to give that rant. Obviously I don't believe he walked on water but I am not able to say a person fitting his description rhat inspired the religion never existed.
@Mike Perkins i think its spelt 'bible'... Can you read?
I think he may have been a talker. Learned from travelers. Plus when you need to write nice you can. If it's just for you then you can write sloppy.
🇧🇷 What makes this internet channel good, is the fact Arran goes beyond the " common knowledge "; he always go further with some " new" information about the topic he brings to us. 🇧🇷
I thought we were going to have a falling out. Your nicely concealed twist saved the day. It's quite clear Shakespeare was not a well traveled noble. No local colour no descriptions of places and the names are more randomly classical Latin or Greek than authentic Italian or Danish. Boy could he write characters though and some mighty fine poetry.
Perhaps Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Possibly for those who believed their work would not be published using their own name.
Omg how have i never thought of this
@@emptymannull That. Even in this video we have 3 people who had a pretty good reason to do so. I've also wondered if somehow, we got things a bit wrong. A theater company or something was called Shakespear. (for example) and that as a running gag was to make shit up as stories and plays named after it. These days we use Allen Smithee or Allen Smith , when a BadMovie is just that bad.
Back then ShakeSpear and it's 9billion variations makes sense as a Nume de Plum or Bullshit Name to write stuff making fun of everyone.
The other thing is that just about everything we know about what ever ShakeSpear is (or isn't) comes from pissed off cast members, reciting shit from memory, and god awful coppies of the plays- even by there standards. So in otherwords another reason ShakeSpear as a person is likely a load of shit is because anything we know comes from drunken word of mouth. At best.
Nice Nightmare Before Christmas reference! (“I peaked behind the cyclops’ eye! I did! But he wasn’t there...”)
I'm not sure how convincing this list is. Mozart, who mostly stuck to his contemporary conventions, ranked higher than Beethoven, who completely revolutionized western music.
How is it that I love every video you make even when it's on a subject I care little of such as William Shakespeare? You videos are always so insightful and well thought out that I can't help but enjoy the content. Thank you once again Mr. Thoughty2
Thoughty2 is just an excellent presenter with a dedicated research team. As for William Shakespeare??? Well I'm with you there. His play was interesting in the movie The Last Action Hero. In one scene, the young boy day dreams about his movie hero in class. In his day dream Hamlet ( played by Arnold Schwarzenegger ) says the famous line ...well sort of. "To be or not to be. Not to be." And then he blows up the castle! Funny stuff. That's my kind of Shakespeare. Yes, throw in some A-team elements in the entertainment ha ha.
I was watching a very interesting video, when suddenly I see a video I can't not watch immediately. DAMN YOU THOUGHTY2!!! Why must you make such great content!?!?
Love your videos, very well presented and paced (not like some presenters who rabbit on and on for 30 mins at 200 words per minute who are also opinionative and non-objective). Also you have definitely have done your research, you are unbiased and look at things from different points of view and also keep us entertained as well. Look forward to more. :)
Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !"
Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam."
Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!"
Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..."
Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!"
Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky."
Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction."
Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment?