The Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable is a forum for the study of the Shakespeare canon, the Elizabethan theater, and the socio-political life of the period, with an emphasis on an open-minded exploration of the Shakespeare authorship debate. Each year the Roundtable produces multiple speaker events on Zoom as well as a Newsletter. Please join us!
The 2011 movie anonymous is one of my favorite movies. I love this subject! Great video! Such a handful of possible other writers. I have my own channel where I talk about books
Just thinking about how much attention and possibly reputation some people achieve from peddaling the idea that Shakespeare didn't exist-copied other peoples works-was the name of a company. HA HA. some people just need to get a life or, maybe earn a reputation and living by actually producing something real.
Close but no cigar. John Florio had four dedications from Leicester's Men in his First Fruits published in 1578. John Florio is credited with bringing the Italian novel to English plays. No doubt he borrowed heavily from North. Later Robert Green would complain about an "upstart crow, pluming himself with the feathers of others", thought to be Shakespeare, makes perfect sense if John Florio is Shakespeare. In 1611 Queen Anne's New World of Words was published which introduced several thousand new words to the English language. Several hundred of these new words first appeared in the First Folio and nowhere else in any prior English publications. It would appear that the Great Magpie, John Florio, began a career of improving other peoples plays with Leicester's Men and continued to do so until he created a large enough English vocabulary with Queen Anne's New World of Words to write his Magnum Opus of revisionism, the First Folio. No one else in England had a large enough vocabulary to write a word salad like the First Folio in 1623. Obviously.
Just so well-researched. It would indeed be surprising if any work written in the late sixteenth century could possibly have been penned by anyone other than Edward de Vere, with the possible exception of the King James Bible, though even that was clearly based on an early draft by the Earl of Oxford.
Philip Sidney was yet another alias of the true bard from Nantwich, Cheshire and he (the bard) had a son called "John Miton". Watch my video, then go to my first video to get more background information on why I believe I am correct If you check Milton's s biography you will see that one of his wives, Elizabeth Minshull, was from Nantwich in Cheshire , and that his "best friend", Nathan Paget was also from Nantwich (son of Thomas Paget - theologian and his wife, Mary Goldsmith). I have written a book in which I explain that the bard himself was born in Nantwich, so Milton's associations would be perfectly natural if his father was born in the town! You have to disregard some of the dates of birth and dates of death death because the bard himself wrote many of the biographies with his own agenda and he resurrected his "dead" aliases, as their sons or nephews, sometimes with the same first name, sometimes not. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-H4KBj16zs-c.htmlsi=CNZfMTgA1IO7Iei2
I have some difficulties with this theory. During the webinar I posed the question: how would you reconcile Sidney's position on contemporary plays which railed against the mixing of high tragedy and low comedy and that they violated the Aristotlean unities with the content of the plays? "Shakespeare's" plays mix high tragedy and low comedy and do not follow those unities. It is counter to Sidney's position which occupies much of the content of his posthumous book An Apology for Poetry (1595) likely published by his sister Mary. Here is how Sidney puts it near the beginning of the book: “… all their Plays be neither right Tragedies nor right Comedies, mingling Kings and Clowns, not because the matter so carrieth it, but thrust in Clowns by head and shoulders, to play a part in majestical matters, with neither decency nor discretion, so as neither the admiration and commiseration, nor the right sportfulness, is by their mongrel Tragi-comedy obtained.” This does not fit the theory that Sidney was the playwright. His published poetry utterly unlike the sonnets, the long poems, or the contents of the plays. Compared to the writing of "Shakespeare" it seems juvenile or puerile in the words of Wednesday Addams as she described the play Gary wrote for the Camp Chippewa extravaganza. If you accept the Oxfordian theory, isn't it possible that de Vere was writing about himself in the third person (a rhetorical figure known as illeism) and that the word "fair" may have been a pun on is surname? That would clear up many enigmas about the identity of the "fair youth" who was de Vere addressing himself while he was either unmarried or estranged from his first wife Anne and unable to leave behind a male heir. At 35:06 Quattrocki Knight compares the Languet letter mentioning Sidney's ancestry as being 500 years old. By the time de Vere was active, his ancestry was also 500 years old. This also fits Sonnet 59. One last item: how did Languet manage to write sonnets which were so adaptable to elegant English and not leave a trace among his papers? Just a few items to think about.
So, unfortunately, I don't think Dr. Knight is suggesting Philip is penning too much or any of Shakespeare. So I don't think she has reconcile very many of the questions you posed, though Languet Englishing the sonnets is a good good question. I will say Brady and I do have to answer your questions. Hope to have a video on that soon but all of that can be easily resolved. Suffice to say you're not reading Sidney correctly. I have a stack of 40ish essays by Sidney scholars showing most people for most of history didn't and don't read Sidney correctly, so not really your fault. If you want to check out for yourself I recommend Levao, Hager, Honinger. But there's plenty more.
Also Ron, for your own sake, inform yourself on Sidney before you overstep. Ever heard of the Arcadia? It's defined as a tragi-comedy. Also "utterly unlike," seems an egregious generalization as far as the sonnets go. AS 1 has the same diction and themes as WS76, codes be darned. If you have some evidence of these generalizations i'm all ears. But as far as counter-argument goes, this won't be too difficult to overcome. Hope to have that video soon.
@@chancecolbert7249 Thanks for clarifying this for me. I look forward to the explanation of Sidney's work. Thanks also for the recommendations. My understanding of Sidney's work may be limited, but I have the feeling that perhaps nobody got Sidney right. Of all the Elizabethans, his output was mostly posthumous so we will never know when anything was written. One thing is certain; Walsingham and the queen used his death to make him a Protestant martyr. It took weeks for a funeral to be held which is unusual for notable people of the time, though while he was alive barely anyone seems to have paid him much attention.
@@chancecolbert7249 "I don't think Dr. Knight is suggesting Philip is penning too much or any of Shakespeare." Actually, I think she does think that Sidney was involved with the writing of the Shakespeare plays - there was a Q & A session that followed this presentation, which I hope the SAR will upload to youtube - she was asked about some of these questions - and her theory about the plays did seem to involve Philip Sidney.... I think her answer as to how Languet's writings were transformed into Shakespeare's Sonnets was that Sir John Harrington translated Languet's Latin writings to Sidney into English - she wasn't too detailed on that, but that seemed to be the direction she was heading I do think Ron's questions about how Sidney's ideas about drama presented in the Defense of Poesy are valid - no doubt that Sidney was interested in drama, and had definite opinions about literary theory concerning the theatre - I think the question that needs to be confronted head-on: does the conception of drama in Sidney's Defense of Poesy match with the vision of drama we see in the Shakespeare plays, or does Sidney have a different & opposing view of drama? That's the question I would like to see explored & addressed - not so much the question of if Sidney ever wrote theatrical entertainments or was interested in the theatre, that much is clear to anyone who wants to look into it - but I'm more interested in an examination of to what extent Sidney's conceptions of playwriting match what we see in the Shakespeare canon.
This presentation suggests that the Sonnets were written before Henry Wriothesley was born. IT's a non-starter for that reason. Important question that this presentation does not address: What was the relationship of Shakespeare to Henry Wriothesley? Shakespeare dedicates his entire to career to Wriothesley in the dedication to Lucrece: "What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours." Just 6 years later, this same Henry Wriothesley was convicted of Treason for trying to overthrow the crown (and obviously to replace the Queen with someone who had a claim to the thrown). His conviction was reduced to Misprision of Treason, and he was released after Elizabeth died, and restored to all his former glory. Any theory of Shakespeare must address the relationship between Shakespeare and Wriothesley. What claim did Wriothesley have on the throne? Was Shakespeare signalling support for that claim in 1593 by dedicating poems to him? Shakespeare dedicated works to 3 different men. All three were engaged to daughters of Edward de Vere, but two of the marriages did not happen.
You have to keep an open mind that not all the Sonnets were written by the person you think and exactly when you think as if this stuff is written in stone. The Wriothesley elements are a tale as old as time but it doesn't mean they are accurate. So it's not really a "non-starter" as you put it. The idea presented here is that Mary Sidney translated these letters in Latin and the poetic "missives" included in them at a later date than when they were written. You are free to hang on to your preferred story, but it's unlikely that you have the info or the credentials to refute new ideas that are well-presented.
@@ShakespeareAR I don't know what you mean by "old as time," but I do know that you are avoiding the question: What did Shakespeare know, and when did he know it? Why did Shakespeare dedicate his entire career to a person who would go on to be convicted of treason for trying to overthrow the crown? How does that fit in with your theory?
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Entire career! You're so right! Totally forgot that Sir Toby Belch is a loving portrait of Wriothesly. These kind of blanket generalizations belie a passion, which is admirable, noble even. Dare I say princely? Touché Vet!
No, assholes, it was Wriosthley and Bacon wrote the stuff, and you know it. And you can expect at least three incarnations with schizophrenia if you are one of the people paid to lie about it.
Incarnations with Schizophrenia, sounds like an early 90's deep cut grunge album. And yeah, it's us liars you should be siding with. Those gold brickers over at Oxford University and Shakespeare Birthplace Trust won't send a red cent. We're still waiting on the checks. They got us bent over a barrel. You wanna eat? You better lie. So we lie lie lie and still the checks don't come in. If you come across any of them, let em know there'll be hell to pay, we're hungry and pissed. Trying to start a union so that we can some decent representation. Rights!
You may be right. Or 1) your dating of the sonnets is wrong. 2) Sidney is not dead by 86 3) these sonnets have undergone serial composition since their original penning giving them the appearance of having been written later. Try and keep your mind open to this, you'll only be hearing more of it in the coming months and years. Rightly so too.
@@chancecolbert7249 LOL! GTHO with all these unfounded statements! Also, any comment about your buddy thinking that Sidney was both Shakespeare AND the Fair Youth?
How to say I didn't watch the presentation without saying I didn't watch the presentation. I don't understand the determination of some people to make a spectacle of their ignorance.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Doesn't work when you do it...I didn't make any factual claims. Those are all hypothetical suggestions, which could be found to be false or true with more investigation. Dr.Knight's presentation was lovely and informative. It made a heap of sense to me though she is ultimately not quite right. I have many many many more thoughts on it.
Just read a plausible argument that Sidney had an affair with Anne whilst De Vere was in Italy (1776), birthing a son (after her first girl child) which was the affair De Vere was informed of on his way home, and Cecil had the child killed after 2 days. It seemed quite enlightening, and backed up by sonnets Anne composed / translated, as her son with Edward died after 1 hour.
@@DrWrapperband Sidney was jealous of Edward de Vere enough so that he copied his poetry, but I struggle with the idea of him being the kind of person to have an affair with anyone at all, much less the wife of the dangerous Earl of Oxford. The child that was born in 1576 was Elizabeth De Vere. The son who lived for only a short time was a few years later. Anne Cecil did write a sonnet about her dead son.
Excellent point! Just like how the First Folio is dedicated to Wriothesly! Or those Dark Lady sonnets, which are definitely about Wriothesly in black face and drag. Or those plays like 12th Night, Measure for Measure, Macbeth, King Lear, Julius Caesar, all of which feature Wriothesly as the main character. GTHO here with silly unfounded statements. You'd have done well to say the early 90s poems and stopped there. But that's surely a far cry from everything.
@@chancecolbert7249 From the Dedication to Lucrece: "To the Right Honourable Henry Wriothesly, Earl of Southampton ... What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours..." It's pretty clear. Shakespeare dedicates his entire career to Henry Wriothesley. Nothing unfounded about it.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756Just want point out: One of the points Oxfordians make to spot DeVere is "forty winters," (which yes Winter is Ver in french) meaning Oxford is 40 and there are seventeen sonnets meaning Wriothesly is 17. Well that still fits here: Walsingham is 40 in 72 and Sidney is 17. Remember who Philip Sidney marries. Also you keep rehashing this hot fiery Ogburnian garbage without any real evidence. You got any proof that Sidney steals from Oxford????? And don't give me Kingdom Cottage Grave, that's a response, not theft. If anything you got it backwards. According to your own theory Oxford doesn't pen a sonnet sequence until 93. Sidney was the first ever in English to do that. If Oxford is WS then he steals the idea of a sonnet sequence from Sidney.
The TWO EYES in DA-SKIES are the SUN and MOON. The DARK EYE is the NIGHT EYE the ONE EYE on the MOON-EYE or MON-EYe. MON is ONE ... THUS A EYE on the MON EY is what??? Just that.. the ONE EYE on the MON EYe is simply A EYE written AI (Artificial Intelligence). As seen on the Movie MEN IN BLACK the haf to put the ARC-NET on the MOON to be the first INTERNET placed on the MOON that is forever called SATELLITE ONE *"SAT-A-LIGHT WON"*
Surely(so to speak!) the most open-minded and logical conclusion - until proven otherwise - is that a male and female group or 'Shakespeare Salon' of playwrights wrote but NOT co-wrote the plays, then submitted them to the group for read-throughs, finessing, minor or not-so-minor changes and suggestions - just as movie screen-writers do. And as always noone points out that (would-be) female playwrights had one other major reason to hide behind a male pseudonym in Elizabethan England because women were not permitted to write plays and have them publicly performed under their own names or using any female name for that matter! So I'll continue to broad-mindedly believe - until proven otherwise - that the likes of Mary Sidney, Amelia Bassano, Marlowe and Edward de Vere all contributed their own individual but "willfully"(!!) very "Shakespearean' plays to a Shakespeare Salon or collective - and a Mr. Will 'Spellcheck' Shak'spear from Stratford, real actors, closet actresses and others in the theatre business would also frequently attend the Shakespeare Salon's meet-ups. And much (very productive) fun would have been had by all. I can't wait for a now long-overdue movie sequel to "Anonymous" that reflects and both entertainingly and intelligently dramatises all of the above and much much more besides.. Paul G
De Vere used almost exclusively single syllable words in order to stick to the meter of what he thought of as "poetry". It's repetitive, one- dimensional, and blessedly rare. There's a reason most Oxfordians try to pass it off as childish efforts, despite him being in his early 20s when he submitted one of his worst offenses for publication. In no world does the writing of De Vere bear any sort of similarity to the works of Shakespeare, except that they are both writing in (different) dialects of English.
Despite all the literary evidence, I'm skeptical that the elusive Thoman Nashe and William Shakespeare were the same persons. Nashe simply dropped out of sight, whereas Shakespeare lived on, past well past Nashe's disappearance, past Marlowe's murder, to emerge as one of the most brilliant figures in world literature. The Seventh Earl of Oxford claim isn't credible to my mind either, mainly because Shakespeare was well known in his day. He was married with children. known to Ben Johnson, known to dozens of actors and playwrights, at least two of whom he'd collaborated with in plays performed on the English stage--with consideration to Middleton and Kyd--notwithstanding his association to/with Marlowe. The identity of William Shakespeare as the preeminent literary figure isn't in doubt here.
Shakespeare: "tiger’s heart wrapp’d in a woman’s hide" Henry VI 3 Robert Greene "tiger’s heart wrapped in a player’s hide " Groatsworth of VVitt Thomas Nashe "ape's heart with a Lion's case" Terrors of the Night
Thanks for uploading this talk. Us doubters need all the voices we can get and Geir's erudite and truthful voice is welcome. "Merry olde England" indeed... We have been told a lie for generations that Elizabethan England was a happy time for "Shakespeare" (whoever he/she/they may have been) and able to write whatever they wanted. This talk goes a long way to exposing the myth that Renaissance England was "merry" for everyone. You cannot separate the arts from the government, the church (which was the government after Henry VIII) and the politics of the period. Censorship dictated what creative types could do which makes the works by "Shakespeare" all the more remarkable since they are still read and produced today. It was truly a case of "art tongue-tied by authority" as the "hard bard" wrote. I hope his book sells well. More people need to know what was going on and what is going on with respect to discovering the real person(s) behind the most famous name in literature.
Superb presentation. Thank you Whether or not he wrote Shakespeare’s plays, the Earl of Oxford was, as an important person in the court, likely to have been an eyewitness to much of this, and perhaps even, like his father-in-law, an investor in the trade company.
Interesting. One query. By describing the Swallow as a poet who "ever doth enjoy her youthful spring," Davies implies that he is an older man.? ...Yet the line is "ever doth enjoy her "joyful" spring," so am I missing something
Thank you so much for pointing out my mistake! You’re definitely not missing anything but I do think that Davies implies the Swallow poet is older in the following lines: So might the swallow, whose swift muse doth range Through rare Ideas and inventions strange, And ever doth enjoy her joyful spring, And sweeter than the nightingale doth sing. O! that I might that singing swallow hear, To whom I owe my service and my love! His sugared tunes would so enchant mine ear, And in my mind such sacred fury move, As I should knock at heaven's great gate above With my proud rhymes; while of this heavenly state I do aspire the shadow to relate.
Thomas Nash writes a tribute to Sir Philip Sydney, a person he was too young and probably too poor to know except by his poetry ..... However, Oxford may have had reason to leave these cold lines of praise that fall well short of generous...Sydney "knewst what belonged to a scholar, what pains,what toil" "well couldst thou give every Vertue his encouragement " Ever y Ver tue
John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623. Ben Jonson's eulogy in the First Folio clearly praises Shakespeare as a great writer. He states that "thy writings to be such, /As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much." Heminges and Condell also praise Shakespeare as a writer, stating that "he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him." These are "his works" and "his papers" that they are publishing. He is clearly presented as the writer of these works in the First Folio. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare of Stratford clearly connects him with the 1623 First Folio through Heminges and Condell and it is clear that Shakespeare is presented as the author of the plays.
