Alexander Waugh speaks for SAR on John Dee & the Authorship Question 

How do you know he owned no books?

@@Jeffhowardmeade - because you would have told us if he had.

@@alexanderwaugh7036 Spot on.

@@Eudaimonia88 There is simply no way of knowing whether or not he owned books. He didn't mention any in the will. But he also didn't mention plates, cups or piss-pots. If you think that no books in the will means he didn't have any, then you have to argue that he never ate, drank, or pissed. He owned biggest house in Stratford, and was wealthy. His house would have contained many, many items. Yet all he mentioned was the second best bed. (he didn't even mention the BEST bed. WEIRD!). What is the key to this mystery? No mystery at all. Like many wills in Stratford, it would have been supplemented by an INVENTORY. Many such inventories are extant for Stratford (see 'Family life in Shakespeare's England'). So now you know that, I presume it will change your view, since your opinion was based on this fallacious idea.

​@@thoutube9522 His manuscripts would have been his most valuable items the more so when they have a personal significance to people around him. There were no letters handed down, and none of the gossipy diarists in London ever recorded having met him.

If you've ever been to those places, you would not find it so vivid. Shakespeare made a huge number of errors about the places he set his plays. Since he was dramatizing stories written by others, he already had most of the details to begin with.

Dear D. D, there is an excellent book called 'Shakespeare's Guide to Italy' by Richard Roe which confirms Shakespeare's intimate and detailed knowledge of Italy. On account of this some Stratfordianists (eg. Stanley Wells) have tried to argue that the Warwickshire merchant may have gone abroad but the records are lost, ho ho!

@@alexanderwaugh7036 Hi Alex, have you got that quote of Stanley Wells please (and where you got it from)?

@@alexanderwaugh7036 I am astonished that you take Roe seriously. His method is based on a mixture of wishful thinking and guesswork. He can't see a conclusion without jumping to it. Most hilarious is when he 'discovers' Romeo's sycamore grove. His method? Ask a taxi driver, who immediately takes him to something that looks like a bunch of sycamores. And THAT'S IT. He crosses it off his 'to prove' list and buggers off. He doesn't investigate the age of the trees, or take the trouble to check their extent, or consult records to check on how long sycamores have occupied the site, or look for paintings or maps depicting that part of town, or consult a forestry expert to assess the probability that there was indeed a grove on this site. It's scholarship, Jim, but not as we know it.

He used Elizabethan Google maps. At the public Elizabethan library.

Alexander Waugh made a RU-vid video about how Kepler's Supernova of 1604 is alluded to by Jonson in his laudatory poem to Shakespeare in the 1623 Folio, "Shine forth thou Starre of Poets" etc. The "new star" [Nova Stella] lit up the skies around 3 or 4 months after the 6-24-1604 death-date of Edward de Vere. If Oxford FAKED his death, then that 'New Star' -- which Elizabethans & Jacobeans could not have foreseen (or COULD they...?) -- couldn't really apply to him. I'm not 100% against the idea that Oxford may have faked his death, as he may have known he was nearing death in mid-1604, and for numerologically occult reasons chose to have it thought that his death-date was June 24th, though actually dying maybe a few months later . . . but we don't want to go down the same dubious path that Marlovians must go, do we? Or the Elvis-faked-his-death crowd, right?

ROMEO AND JULIET (RECOMPOSED) by Jason Rudge THE PROLOGUE The CHORUS enters. Our scene is set in an enticing city Where two rival households swap stinging scars, Uglifying the air two teens make pretty When true love blows their hearts across the stars,… Which rouse a prickly sun imparting heat To twisting blades that twist the plot on stage For the benefit of worms seeking meat From fools who rashly court despair and rage. Youth can make fools of all the greatest lovers, But sometimes outside forces play a part And in this tale a foolish youth discovers His love can’t keep old hatreds from his heart- Nor halt hearts taking trips to heaven’s gate, Which fast becomes the lovers’ tragic fate. The CHORUS exits. .

it is complicated.. “the no man jigsaw puzzle” episode from batman is another clue for us all.. “the riddle of the sphinx”

di in chinese means emperor or country.. vere in dutch means “ferry” .. it’s all a bit of a word play.. or a play on words.

great comment 👍🏻

@@jesusislukeskywalker4294 Thanks 🙏

❤ yes .. immediately

Check out the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship.

you just lead me down a wild rabbit hole, ending with star bucks coffee logos being the luna sol elementa ignis logo, basically, representing the blood line of the elite whether they believe it to be fallen angels under lucifer or jesus and magdaline, idk. But either way, both represent the holy grail. And if you descramble the first letters of luna sol elementa ignis, you have LIES. If you turn the ace of cups upside down, you get M o M. the luna sol el. ig logo also represents the devil. Its really weird. John Dee was a favorite of the court until he wasn't and was exiled to another country where he became very poor. i can't shake the idea that the King James bible, or one of the official versions, had similar shakespearian numerology in it...

just found something else interesting. As pointed out earlier, the Dee sigil of LSEI can be deciphered as Lies. Well guess what? The original starbucks logo can have a five pointed star on it, the words starbucks coffee tea spices, why spices?, where the five points line up are B dot F I dot back to B, so two dots, and BIF, or backwards, FIB. Same as Lies, a fib. Now, get this, they say they named their company after a nautical theme because Seattle was a nautical city, thus, Starbucks from Moby Dick, but the character's name didn't end with an s. So if we make a six pointed star you get fib and SES with the e in tea being the other point going down. Which gives us, Se Fibs. Now, this goes way deeper. The original name was going to be Pequod, the name of Ahab's ship. If they had done it, then you would have the P symble, and quod, or quad, just like the william shakespear symbols for the chi cross. And, the original founders were 2 teachers and a writer. Bowker was the writer, who wrote radio plays and screen plays for tv. The original store location was at Pike Place Market. A pike is also known as a spear. Anyway, I have a bigger thing to relay from this rabbit hole. At first, Starbucks really did sell tea coffee and spices, in bulk, but not drinks. Why is this important? Because the whole idea of the holy grail is in that logo... First, you have a star of Bethlehem. A male lamb is also called a buck. In making the buck plural, they are saying they are bucks, or star bucks too. You have the spices along the trail the wise men from the east brought, three gold, frankincense and myrrh, so you have the replacements of coffee tea and spices. Let us not go into tea standing for t or a cross. Coffee could actually stand for the arab magi, since coffee was arabic in origin, and since the star is at the top, you have the whole manger scene, making the mermaid Mary, but she has two tails, that's because Marim gave birth to Jesus, and Mary Magdaline was supposed to be his wife.. So two tails, two mermaids. Well, I might make a video on this, but why? We don't know if these people worship a fallen star called lucifer, and sadly, some of the bible writers used the word luciforous twice to refer to Jesus in the greek, as a morning star. Oddly, lucifer in the old testament is really a babylonian called Hulul, meaning person who screamed and anguish, had nothing to do with a morning star or light bringer. So the evil elite probably think they have alien dna that make them special, and the other elites think they have god dna that make them special. Who is right and who is wrong, or both wrong or both write, I do not know.

Looked on the dollar bill seal, of the eagle, and it is the ace of cups John Dee logo too, and the eagle looks toward the banner and you can find the letters LIES in it.

@@gristlevonraben your a genius to work that out fantastic mate

@@LeaPustetto thanks, but its only because of years of occult research that I have discovered this so quickly, not because of genius, but I appreciate the compliment. If you had not pointed out the tarot card I would never have gotten it. And I have done research into tarot cards now, because of you, and found something you might find interesting. Tarot cards started out as a simple card game in the 1400's called tarocci, meaning alert, as in this is a card game of trickery. It was not occult, but more like the trick card games that street people do to get money. But a century later an occultist, Jean Baptiste Alliette decided to use them for entertainment and reworked them to match up with egyptian mythology and magic, or tried to. The original pictures were simply goofy cartoons of everyday life of the rich and poor. But because of Alliette, the cards became popular at parties as fortune telling. However, enter John Dee, who had his hands in everything, it seems. It was during his liftetime that the cards mysteriously changed appearance into Rosicrucian-like designs. And whether he did it, or his contemporaries did it, they did alter the cards. Finally, a standard came out, though that is a strecth, since in reality there is no real standards other than the original trick playing cards in Italy and France called Tarok, but for the occult, the standard form of the cards came from our time, in the early 1900's, by Author Waite, a researcher of the occult, a mystic, and wrote a book on the kabbalah. published in 1909 by the rider company, the cards are oddly named the Rider Waite Tarot Deck. The artist was Pamela Coleman Smith, an intelligent woman who became a popular illustrator who worked with William Yeats, the poet who introduced her to The Order of the Golden Dawn, ie, pre-satanists and witches/druids. These two combined Kabbalah, Golden Dawn and possibly, Jamaican mythology, since she was into her Jamaican myths of her homeland, into those cards. So the cards we use today are a 20th century contrivance, that was built up on the work of former occultists, from egypt, then to rosicrucians, then kaballah and golden dawn. The mythology is so messed up in these cards that a number of occult beliefs might be found in them. Ultimately, the cards are meaningless to anyone unless they have a pet religion or belief system and find their ideas mirrored in the cards and thus suspect the card makers are coconspirators, when in fact, everything in the occult encyclopedia was thrown at them.

Which is how they did astronomy ...

Yes....but basically harmless. ?

@@2msvalkyrie529 If they ever tried to be dangerous, they would likely just end up hurting themselves.

There is no definitive composition date for any of Shakespeare's plays. All that is certain is that they were written before they were published.

Orion Trunk of the Zodiac

Dear Jungastein, I should be very grateful for a citation to Jung talking about this. AW

@@alexanderwaugh7036 I am not a scholar and my resources are limited, I do have a paper copy of Mysterium Coniunctionis which I have culled again; and you will find here photos of indexes and possible pages of interest. I have another (unpaginated) Jung on my drive, Vol. 12 Psychology and Alchemy, which I'll share with you. There is an essay on the Trinity in Vol. 11 as well. I have not read it. My interest in Jung and in Shakespeare, Dee, alchemy etc. is not professional but personal and aesthetic. Most of the Dee passages quoted in MC are from "Monas hieroglyphica" which you know well already. Of course, Jung's interest was psychological, clinical, I guess one might say phenomenological, but also personal. I have attempted to send directly through your RU-vid channel, and via email guessing name@youtube.com, but that failed. P.S. my screen name makes no reference to Carl Jung but to a goofy nickname a roommate at college gave me. Maybe it is misleading 😉

Casaubon.

It's equally bonkers.

St Peter's cross... in which you referred as the "denier cross..." was a request of Peter because he did not believe he was worthy of death the same way as Jesus. The hidden T or upside down T as you referred... is the hidden divinity in everthing... God in everything. God in man. It was hiding the belief of the divinity in man. The monad hieroglyphica, the vitruvian man, the triple tau all hides this meaning. Royal arch masons...

Not exactly - but it represents a Hermetic - neoPlatonic understand of trinity as a three fold-fourfold godhead which incorporates Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the four elements of the material world.

Well yes. You can make both 17 40 within a triangle and 17 4T (if you treat the T as the ancient symbol of an ox) out of Oxenford. In this sense Oxenford is more versatile than Oxford as an exemplar of the number of his name. Perhaps this is why he used it in his signature.

@@alexanderwaugh7036 Well said. I stand corrected.

@@alexanderwaugh7036 And _why_ would you treat the T as the ancient symbol of an ox? If you can just make up whatever rules you like, then you can arrive at any result.

@@Nullifidian Oh gawd. Don't get him started.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Perhaps I shouldn't, but I can't help but be curious since the letter T is entirely unrelated to the ox ideogram, which became a different letter entirely. I'm also wondering how anybody in early modern England is meant to have known about the evolution of the alphabet from Phoenician and Egyptian precursors. If the argument relies on importing a present-day understanding onto a time when these things weren't known, then surely even Waugh can see that he's merely finding what he wants to.

The main thing is your point about when did he have the time, I don't see how the life of a playwriter and the life of an occultist can could work. Both would require alot of time and discipline. He wasn't just staring into a black mirror. There was alot more involved and wrote many of his own works that aren't similar to Shakespeare. Regardless, John Dee is still perhaps one of the most interesting people to have lived

'Revealing' not 'hiding'

Lol

Shite

As John Dee might have said: don't even think about it, unless you have a brain.

You knew him personally. Well that settles it.

@@masamus6570 No, but I can read what he wrote.

@@jamessheffield4173 So can I.

@@alexanderwaugh7036 Good for you. Blessings.