Henslowe's Diary - The Key to Shakespeare's Authorship? Ep#7 Shakespeare Authorship Series

Подписаться 407

Просмотров 4,3 тыс.

50% 1

Brady & Chance dive into the artifact known as Henslowe's Diary and its significance to understanding Elizabethan Renaissance and SAQ.
::--CHAPTERS--::
0:00 Intro
2:58 What is Henslowe's Diary?
8:50 Timeline of English Renaissance Playwrights/Poets
28:20 Through the Henslowe Diary
1:26:35 Final Point and Closing Thoughts
Support us on Patreon
/ apokalupsishistoria
Support us by Venmo donation @brady-nash-2

Опубликовано:

1 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 65

@chancecolbert7249 11 месяцев назад

Donna Murphy* not Donna Price. She has several works on the subject but the best starting place is her book, The Marlowe Shakespeare Continuum.

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

The problem is that there's plenty of documentary proof that a boy from Stratford went to London, became an actor, and tried his hand at writing. What part of that story do you find hard to believe??? It's genuinely what happens. It would be pointless to list all the people who had humble origins and no university education who went on to become great writers. Because that would be story of MOST writers. So I am DUMBFOUNDED by the idea that only a senior aristo could have written some plays. Mostly because it's bloody stupid but also because it's at odds with the known facts. And the idea that an aristo wants his authorship to stay secret and so laces his work with clues to let everyone know he's the writer is probably the most insane ideal I've ever heard. We KNOW he went to London. We KNOW he was an actor, and on the evidence of Jonson, Beaumont, Webster and all the elegists in the First Folio, we KNOW he became a writer. End of story. Americans went to the moon, too. And the Earth is as globe. I know these things because of the evidence. Just like I know that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Happily, there's copious evidence that he did. This is pure good fortune. There's far less evidence, for example, for the authorship of the Revenger's Tragedy. We know virtually NOTHING about Webster. The only signature we have for Marlowe actually reads 'Marley'. Some stuff survives, some doesn't. As Kurt Vonnegut says, 'so it goes'. If I suggested a 'good place to start' in order to become a flat earther, I imagine you'd feel insulted. That's what all Shakespeare deniers do. It's like talking to a Jehovah's Witness. They assume you've never come across the Bible, and all you need is to retail a few cuddly Jesus sayings and you'll see the light and agree with them. Seriously, I KNOW the arguments. They're very ingenious. The one minor drawback about them is that they're bollocks.

@chancecolbert7249 10 месяцев назад

@@thoutube9522 i'm disappointed Thou. You side stepped all of the discussion to revert back to generalizations that are outdated and unscientific. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. But that'll be the end of our discussion for now. If you do get around to mulling over those questions I brought up about Henslowe or STM, just drop a line. And I agree 100% on the other playwrights. We know so very little about them as well. If you'd watched enough of our channel, you'd know we doubt Marlowe and Webster as much as we doubt Shakespeare. Take that as you will!

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

@@chancecolbert7249 Great. My problem is that I have no idea what your problem is. The evidence we have is EXACTLY in line with what it would look like if a talented kid from Stratford became a playwright. Which is a STAGGERINGLY unsurprising proposition. I have literally NO idea why you think that being an Earl makes you a better writer. That is patent bollocks.

@JimFess 10 месяцев назад

@@thoutube9522 In The Faerie Queene, Agape has three sons (Priamond, Diamond, Triamond). Each's death will transfer his soul to the next and at the end three souls merge to one. Areopagus is a perfect anagram of Ours-Agape. In The Shepheardes Calender "entitled" to Philip Sidney, "*Bellona* ... shaked her speare." Philip Sidney organized Areopagus (*Ares* Rock). After his death, his sister's Shakespeare merged souls (brains) of Wilton poets supported by the Herbert family, to let her brother resurrect in the literary world, their dreamland (Pembroke's) Arcadia. Ares and Bellona are consorts. Philip and Mary Sidney (Herbert) are consorts. Areopagus and Shakespeare are literary consorts. Shakespeare is "a literary venture from 1577 to 1743." 1577. "Philisides, the shepheard good and true." 1743. Wilton House copied the 1741 Shakespeare statue in Westminster Abbey but changed the inscription to "And then is heard no more!"

@chancecolbert7249 9 месяцев назад

@@JimFessLove this comment. Thanks for watching and popping in the discussion!! Brady and I will be checking out your stuff! We very much want to bring the Sidney's to the forefront of the SAQ. Info like this does wonders for that. Please check out some of our other stuff because it is replete with Philip Sidney. Though we definitely need to get more Mary discussion going. Let us know if there is some literature we should check out!

@cynthiaghany 11 месяцев назад

Please look at Raleigh's 'History of the World', and the history plays, to me it represents the same messages, ideology and thought. One is written in verse and the other in prose. His life is reflected in the sonnets according to my research.

@chancecolbert7249 11 месяцев назад

Thank you Cynthia! Both for watching and your comments. Its exciting to see when other candidates still have an active following. I would love to find more Raleigh in WS as I'm a fan of his sharp wit/smart mouth. I will look into this!!

@thoutube9522 3 месяца назад

@@chancecolbert7249 Was there a single person in the COUNTRY who wasn't busy writing Shakespeare's plays? Did they take it in turns? Maybe they drew lots? It sounds like everyone took it in turns to shag the Queen and write the plays. I imagine the playwriting was the easier gig.

@rooruffneck 11 месяцев назад

Really interesting video!

@apokalupsishistoria 11 месяцев назад

Glad you think so!

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

What's very refreshing is that instead of blocking adverse comments you actually present arguments. This is almost unknown among Shakespeare deniers, who aren't really interested in discussion with anyone who disagrees with them. You really made me think. Keep going! Sure you shouldn't be writing detective stories? Brady and Chance definitely sounds like buddy cops.

@apokalupsishistoria 10 месяцев назад

Funny enough, as we talk about in the "Our Origins" episode, it was specifically writing ambitions that brought us here to the SAQ. We touched on reading several of the Pulp-Crime-Noire classics from Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Ross McDonald, Jim Thompson etc which precluded the deep dive into Shakespeare canon. Big shoutout to HBO's True Detective as well. I wear this comment with honor! My aspiration has been to finish this magnum opus detective novel set in Galveston...eventually... As I relay in the episode, after we were deep in SAQ research, I pointed out it was funny that Chandler's famous detective Philip Marlowe seemed like a funny amalgamation between Christopher Marlowe and Philip Sidney. At this that's when Chance remembered that one of the few items detailed in Philip Marlowe's room was a copy of the Shakespeare folio. The plot thickens?? -Brady

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

@@apokalupsishistoria There are WEIRD links between Chandler and Marlowe/ Henslowe's diary was discovered in a trunk in Dulwich College, which was founded by Elizabethan actor and writer Edward Alleyne. Raymond Chandler went to Dulwich College when he was 12. Yes, he was born in the US but to an English family and they moved back here to Blighty for some reason. I'm not sure when the diaries were discovered, but ... maybe the young Chandler was somehow inspired at Dulwich because of the link with its founder. Alleyn (as you'll know) helped run the admiral's men. Presumably that's how the diary got there. Marlowe is mentioned in the diary, so maybe .... that's why the name appealed to the young Chandler. It just seems TOO much of a good story. There must be some link that binds all this malarky together. Looks like a case for Brady and Chance (private detectives) Watch out for the femme fatale. Also if it follows the Chandler formula one of you will get beaten up before you crack the case.

@goodlookinouthomie1757 10 месяцев назад

I agree. To me it's a fascinating topic. I've been obsessed with Shakespeare for years and I love the author. Conflict of interest by the way... I'm an actual Stratfordian in so much as I live in the district of Stratford on Avon. Owever, my very identity is not hung on any particular certainty of authorship. Although it would cause a massive headache for the Trust over here if any alternative arguments gained popular traction. The trouble I have with a lot of the debate is people like Waugh present what looks to me akin to numerology, secret codes and symbolism, shady cabals of mason-esque societies.... There will need to be something more concrete to pursuade me, but I really am fascinated by the possibilities.

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

@@goodlookinouthomie1757 Nice to hear from someone open-minded, but I agree with you that all the codes and cabals are massively unconvincing. Ben Jonson's small poem in the first folio has been used to prove BOTH that Francis Bacon AND the Earl of Oxford were the real writers. In the absence of strong evidence, it's reasonable to assume that the man whose name is on the books did the writing. Nobody questioned his authorship in his own time. I don't know why people think that having an aristo title makes you a better writer. It's hard not to conclude that it's pure snobbery. Hope you enjoy living in Stratford. I love the place, though maybe tourists like me are a pain the arse for the people who actually live there.

@goodlookinouthomie1757 10 месяцев назад

@@thoutube9522 Stratford is just a normal town mostly. I live in a village nearby to the west of the town so I can avoid the touristy parts when I just want to go shopping 🤣

@patricktilton5377 8 месяцев назад

We know that Edward de Vere was a playwright -- "the best for comedy" according to THE ARTE OF ENGLISH POESIE -- and Jonson's encomium to 'Shakespeare' in the Folio lists WS as a playwright contemporaneous with Kyd, Lyly, and Marlowe (i.e. active in the late 1570s through early 1590s, with V&A debuting the name "William Shakespeare" in 1593). We need to ask ourselves some questions regarding this Earl of Oxford who was involved with the production of plays: 1) Would it not be understood, as a matter of principle, that the Earl's name could/should/would NEVER be explicitly stated in a document such as Henslowe's Diary? 2) Would Henslowe even KNOW whether a play such as TAMING OF A SHREW were actually written by Oxford years before, as a Court production performed before Elizabeth and her courtiers at Hampton Court (known as 'Avon' according to Camden), and only RE-ISSUED for performances in the public theaters during the timeframe this diary covers? 3) If Henslowe DID know that Oxford had written various of the plays included in this list, would he have courted controversy by specifically crediting him as the playwright, or would he have credited it to one or more of his underlings -- to one or more of those under his payroll due to the 1000 pounds annuity he got from the Queen's exchequer? Oxfordians theorize that the spendthrift Queen financed Oxford's theatrical endeavors as a matter of State Policy, a kind of patriotism-nurturing propaganda in a time when threats from the Pope (who had made it official policy that Queen E. could be assassinated and it wouldn't be reckoned a 'sin') and Catholic nations such as Spain were a clear and present danger to her Tudor regime. It's ludicrous, I think, to expect to see the name 'Edward de Vere' in any form scribbled into the pages of Henslowe's Diary -- because Henslowe would have known better than to 'out' De Vere as the writer of any particular play, even if it were known (from references in THE ARTE) that Oxford was a playwright, indeed "the first" in talent "if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest." It confuses some people in Modern Times that an excellent writer's writings "could [NOT] be found out and MADE PUBLIC" in certain cases -- yet that's how things were back then when it involved an Earl of the Realm stooping to the 'base' business of penning plays. Such people COULDN'T use their own names, should they seek to have their literary works published. That left 3 options: 1) ANONYMOUS publishing, wherein NO NAME was put onto the Cover Page, the space between two parallel horizontal lines kept BLANK; 2) ALLONYMOUS publishing, where SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME was used, behind which the Nobleman author hid; and 3) PSEUDONYMOUS publishing, where a FAKE NAME was used, a pseudonym such as "Martin Mar-prelate" -- the HYPHEN giving it away that it's a fake name . . . such as the name "William Shake-speare" which was sometimes hyphenated (as on the Title Page and on the verso headers of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS) and sometimes was NOT hyphenated (as on the Dedication for VENUS AND ADONIS). If Henslowe lists a play known to be by 'Shakespeare' -- yet not so credited to him by name -- it would have been necessary for him to issue the payment(s) for certain performances to others who were most probably working on behalf of the Earl, earning their parts of that 1000 pound financing overseen by Oxford. Think of it this way: if Prince Charles -- who's now the King of England -- had happened to have a yen for ghost-writing silly BBC bawdy comedies, it would have been UNTHINKABLE for such a secret to be blabbed about, if anybody -- i.e. some go-between working for the Prince -- happened to be in-the-know. If Charles, though, throughout, say, the 1980s and '90s, had just so HAPPENED to have ghost-written certain silly comedies in which people from his own high-falutin social circles were being ruthlessly spoofed, then his 'victims' would undoubtedly KNOW that they were being publicly mocked, even if the Masses by-and-large were clueless regarding such ulterior motives. As far as the Masses and the BBC producers would be concerned, some FRONT-MAN would be officially credited with the writing of those silly episodes. Prince Charles and those few underlings in-the-know would keep mum about his involvement in these 'vulgar' entertainments -- especially if they were well-written and widely enjoyed, I should think. No, I don't believe now King Charles ever wrote silly comedies for the BBC back in the '80s and '90s, but I certainly DO think that the 17th Earl of Oxford did so in the 1570s through the 1590s -- spending his last years writing the Sonnets and revising & publishing "newly-revised" versions of his best works in quarto, using his pseudonym "William Shakespeare." Unlike a Jonson or Marlowe, De Vere couldn't allow his own works to appear under his actual name. Too many of the aristocratic 'targets' of his pen were still alive and could push back against such 'slander'.

@chancecolbert7249 8 месяцев назад

Thanks for the watch and comments Pat! So that's not from the Arte of English Poesie (that's by George Puttenham.) Rather, it's from Francis Meres's Palladis Tamia aka Wits Treasury, a commonplace book about everything and anything. One of its many chapters is about the Poets/Playwrights/Authors. I'll come back to this text in a second... While Oxford fits the bill according to your parameters, so does Francis and Anthony Bacon, Edward Dyer, Philip Sidney, Walter Raleigh, Thomas North, Thomas Sackville (and more). Brady and I are 110% on board with State-Run propaganda being pushed by the queen/Cecil/Walsingham. However, an endeavour like that would likely extend beyond one person--and I don't just mean "underlings." Relatedly, while the 1000 pound annuity is extremely tantalizing as a prospect for explaining the WS composition process, it's still speculative. But potentially a good one! I'm a little concerned that this is less an attempt to figure out who is behind WS and more an attempt to figure out who Oxford became--which isn't necessarily bad, but can quickly lead to circular thinking. So back to "best for comedy" : You (as well as most other Oxfordians) quoted Meres to show we know Oxford is a playwright. BUT you then spent a considerable time arguing that DeVere's name would not show up in print as a playwright in Henslowe's Diary because he can't be known as a poet/playwright based on social status. Those two statements are contradictory. How am I to resolve that???? Furthermore--it seems an even sillier argument when considering the document listing DeVere as a playwright was published and commercially distributed and sold. The document which you suggest purposefully avoids his name was never published and was not even known about until basically the 1800s. This "Derogance" hypothesis has been around for a while, and until it gets an update or overhaul that could resolve the above contradiction, I'll remain skeptical. In fact, I've had this same discussion with Ron Roffel on the comments of his YT channel. As informed as Ron is and as much of a believer as he is in EO, I figured he had an answer--but, NOPE, he failed to resolve it. So hoping you got an answer!!

@chancecolbert7249 8 месяцев назад

Also, Henslowe may or may not have known who plays' original authors were--BUT he definitely knew if a play was new or not. That's what he paid his writers to do (i.e. write new plays) which is documented in the 1597-1602 sections and he lists plays as new when they are new which are in the earlier section from 1591-1595. If I remember correctly, Taming is not listed as new--but that is also Taming of A Shrew--not Taming of THE Shrew, which seem to be different versions of the same play. Thanks again for the awesome/thoughtful comments Pat! Keep em coming!!!

@patricktilton5377 8 месяцев назад

@@chancecolbert7249 I quoted directly from my facsimile edition of THE ARTE OF ENGLISH POESIE in my previous post, Book I, Chapter XXXI, which is all one huge paragraph covering 4 and 1/2 pages (on page 75, with Book I beginning on page 19, in THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS edition). The ARTE is usually attributed to George Puttenham, but the actual book doesn't have anybody's name on it, so who REALLY wrote it, nobody really can say with 100% certainty. There is one theory out there that De Vere himself wrote it, in order to give a learned riposte to Philip Sidney's DEFENSE OF POESY, which Oxford would have most probably read prior to its publication, with Oxford and Sidney really belonging to different 'camps' on the subject. I've heard many an Oxfordian argue that Sidney disapproved of playwrights who didn't follow the Aristotelian 'unities' (etc.) -- whereas Oxford (as 'Shakespeare') flouted that convention all the time, obviously disagreeing with Sidney's declamations on the subject. I'm not so sure that Oxford himself wrote the ARTE, but I wouldn't rule it out, as there doesn't seem to be any reason why Puttenham himself wouldn't have claimed authorial credit for it, had he actually done so. Anyway, re-read Chapter XXXI of Book I of the ARTE and you'll find the passage I quoted from -- which is followed later in that same chapter by another reference to "Oxford and Maister Edwards of her Maiesties Chappell for Comedy and Enterlude" being the best of the bunch. Then it says: "For Eglogue and pastorall Poesie, Sir Philip Sydney and Maister Challenner, and that other Gentleman who wrate the late shepheardes Callender" [i.e. Spenser]. I need to acquire a facsimile edition of Francis Meres' PALLADIS TAMIA, though I have seen it quoted ofttimes in Oxfordian literature.

@chancecolbert7249 8 месяцев назад

@@patricktilton5377I was wondering!! "No way he mixed those titles" is what I kept saying in my head during that previous response! Excellent recommendation. I will be rereading that asap, I haven't read it in years and it may predate my SAQ era! Puttenham is a super sketch figure in his own right, so I would not be surprised in the least if its a penname. Especially Oxford. Puttenham kind of has that same vibe. Especially since it seems to be influenced by Sidney. It seems to me Sidney and Oxford are obsessed with each other to some degree--no one influences the one more than the other. Along those lines, last night I came across an Oxford poem I read years ago, "Megliora Spero." Now that I have my Sidney lenses on, I realize that poem is talking about Philip (Love) and Penelope (Fortune) and DeVere (Truth). But in that poem it suggests truth and love went to the "wood." And may have done some work together. Seems this is referencing when they were both banished from court. May be hard to reconcile with the fact that they were pretty freshly feuding even to the point of a duel in this period, but Oxford seems to be a master at reconciling with his enemies and Sidney is all about syncretism so it may not be too crazy. But perhaps this escape to the "woods," or "arcadia," might be the birth of Shakespeare in full and true. Food for thought!!! I'll let you know when I get to ARTE!! Thanks again Pat!!

@xmaseveeve5259 4 месяца назад

It's a psyop.

@SAVANNAHEVENTS 11 месяцев назад

Greetings you 2. Just completed an initial digestion of your youtube videos to date and finished with your video, above. BRAVO and again, BRAVO😮 my friends. So many roads, so many intersecting writers and ...brokers/editors/actors. Love your "metaphysical map"..the Hermetic/Freemasonic/Rosicrucian/ current running straight through John Dee and Bacon to be sure. Sidneys, DeVere etc However, you so brilliantly shine a light in the dark and gnarled story within the case-meant of 'Stratford vs DeVere.' I suspect that even your emphasis on wiki as an initial spring-board into deeper and vaster waters of close-reading of the plays is attracting, as we speak, a potentially massive new audience of younger scholars, literary forensics majors, new teachers ..etc all revolving around your core teaching method ( far more effective for the larger market of 'Anonymous' outside the tenured halls of now mainstream generational academics. I was brought to your channel through the Oxfordians I suppose As to John Dee...his estate and his deeply vast library, did border (or was at least within walking or short riding distance to DeVere (and Bacon) who were regular visitors growing up. Combine Dee with Bacon, Bruno, Cambridge U Wits, the Henry 8 Tudor line with the apparition of Shakespeare's ghost and there you have it...the Play within the play..the beating heart of the Hermetic tradition applied to and illuminated by Court politics and an archive of magical symbology. As Above So Below I am currently re-reading for the umpteenth time 'The Elizabethan World Picture' by the great E.M.W. Tillyard. Along with 'Shakespeare and The Stars by the brilliant Elizabethan scholar/astrologer, Priscilla Costello. I am convinced that your great Author-Ship contribution will occur and evolve through your multiple author approach with a close read of the text, this time looking for styles and subject matter attached to specific, real authors ..all sifted into the Quarto format. The alchemical result? One central embedded message (especially evident in the later plays as time went on) one multi-layered it appears, using multiple authors and/or pen names. But in its essence...it is Hermetic and deeply metaphoric. Finally there is this from Ben Jonson which I dedicate to the both of you forensic comrades: 'To Edward Alleyn' by Ben Jonson extracted by this writer. "...Who had no less a trumpet of their name, Than Cicero, whose every breath was fame. How can so great example die ...in...me. That, Alleyn, I should pause to publish thee. Who both their graces in thyself has more Out-stripped, than they did all that went before, And present worth in all dost so contract As Others speak, but only Thou dost Act. Wear this renown. 'Tis just, that who did give To Many poets life, by One life should Live." Note eliptic and Upper case emphas intended for Close Readings of Key Texts (Ben Johnson's Epigrams)

@Rikktor123 11 месяцев назад

I too have applauded this sort of modern approach these 2 have brought. But BRAVO to you too!!! Thank you for this comment. I shall look into those texts.

@chancecolbert7249 11 месяцев назад

Anderson, thank you so so so much for your comments!!! It's sometimes a Sisyphusian endeavor making SAQ videos and Brady and have hit that wall a few times already, so encouraging and informative and engaging comments like this mean the world! It's awesome to see other SAQ'rs who are Agnostic towards a conclusive candidate. It seems to me this is very very expansive and may take a ton of time to fully unravel--if thats even possible. However, I do think you are absolutely right to emphasize close readings! A year or two ago I started eschewing close readings and moving towards external documents, as close readings are open to interpretation and parallel passages can be misleading; similarly external documents seemed more sturdy as evidence. Fast forward to now and and i'm moving back to the close readings, I think I just needed a wider base of context to attempt them. I'm not necessarily moving away from external documents though. More like trying to bring together the two. We'll be looking at Meres's Palladis Tamia and The Parnassus Plays in the next couple of videos and then hopefully turning to the sonnets soon! Thanks again and stay tuned! I'll have more commentary on some of your specific ideas and. points soon too!

@SAVANNAHEVENTS 10 месяцев назад

@chancecolbert7249 I just now saw this reply while listening back over the Henslow video. Thank you so very very much for your insightful commentary. I can tell you are a great teacher and timely suited to do this at this time, seems to me.

@therealshakespeare9243 10 месяцев назад

Decimus Erasmus Buglawton has made about 20 RU-vid videos about his new book "Debugging Shakespeare". Here is the first in the sequence:- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qSzEEzIP0xI.htmlsi=m8ZN_uXhryhx0jcc

@jaelynrae6045 9 месяцев назад

Appologies of you covered this in other vids - just found your channel - I'm wondering what your thoughts are on De Vere being responsible for a good chunk of Shakespeare's work? The entire Shakespeare cannon is CLEARLY a collaboration on some level, regardless of who is attributed as the primary contender, that fact - IMO - is undeniable.

@apokalupsishistoria 9 месяцев назад

Welcome and thanks for commenting! I don't think we've fully explicated Devere's role in all this, but I believe in our "Sleuthing the Sonnets" video we show a series of Sonnets started by DeVere and a response by Philip Sidney, using it as a precedent of how to perhaps read some of the Shakespeare sonnets. Our recent live stream episode I think Chance pitches a semi working theory too. We find it likely that DeVere does have a part to play in all of this but we hope to find it through meta data and historiography rather than a bunch of cryptography clues potentially embedded in printings. DeVere crops up too often to ignore him but we find it harder to ignore the influence that Philip Sidney had on this Renaissance scene. In a few days we'll be dropping new episode expanding more on all of this.

@chancecolbert7249 9 месяцев назад

Thanks for watching and commenting!! So glad you found us!! (Brady runs our channel page and I use my own username to answer comments) If a label is useful, then we are "group theorists" and we love the idea of collaboration/serial composition. So, definitely loving your comment! As for DeVere, like many folks he is a big part of how we got to this point Shakespeare doubt. That said, seeing a lot of compelling evidence for Bacon, Neville, North, Mary Sidney (to lesser extent the Stanleys) led us to group theory. Since we've gotten here, we have added Edward Dyer (a kind of mentor figure to Sidney and DeVere and others) and Philip Sidney to the discussion. Beware: some of our videos may wax anti-Oxfordian--but it's an attempt to combat the Solo Genius Framework as well as diminish the priority folks give to cryptographic evidence. But we do not exclude DeVere and very much think he is a big player in this scene.

@jaelynrae6045 9 месяцев назад

@@chancecolbert7249 this is all extremely fascinating! It would completely uproot everything I have learned, especially given that I have an MFA in English Literature! None of this was discussed when I was in college more than a decade ago, though you did hear whispers from fringe groups, which was largely dismissed in my academic circles. Now, it seems the tides have turned and even the scholarly are beginning to concede that there may be some truth to it. I found the AI linguistic analysis particularly fascinating! Are you of a mind to disregard any of the cryptography outright? While I am still heavily skeptical about it because they seem to just randomly "find" what they are looking for, some of it does seem rather compelling...along the lines of the Davinci Code or National Treasure, which while works of fiction, were actually inspired by actual practices of various groups, such as the Freemasons, Rosecrutians, Templars, and even employed by Lord Burghley in serve to QE1. Given that, it does seem a bit arrogant to just brush that off as nonsense - speaking for myself there and no one else. Before I forget, is there any concrete evidence of where De Vere is buried? I know that's a bit off topic but that came up in a few vids and it seems highly unusual for someone of his status to now have a plethora of documents/info about his death and place of burial.

@artvillacom 9 месяцев назад

Well done. Anyone going to such a great effort to say, IT'S ME" with numbers and such would care so much that they would sign their work. There are poets who have written such that the block of words is a rectangle. It ruins the poem and number and page games would ruin a play. Sending secret messages is too much trouble. There were no copyright laws. All works works were fair game. Good theory. If they are imprisoning writers, then the group would assign aliases, "Don't arrest me, it was dropped in the doorway with this Shake-Speare name on it."

@rooruffneck 11 месяцев назад

Love the book recs at the end! You can join a modern literary mystery and read The Lost Scrapbook by Evan Dara. Phenomenal.

@chancecolbert7249 11 месяцев назад

Thanks for the REC as well! I will try to get more of that sort of stuff into future videos!

@user-bp7qp6uk9p 10 месяцев назад

Buglawton's book has every Elizabethan writing and piece of work done by the same guy.All aliasis of one person.Multiple author theory in reverse.

@therealshakespeare9243 10 месяцев назад

You mean Decimus Erasmus Buglawton's book - "Debugging Shakespeare"? - Where did you obtain a copy of the book? (Is your name really Colin Black, or is that a pseudonym?) Buglawton has made about 20 RU-vid videos about his book. Here is the first in the sequence:- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qSzEEzIP0xI.htmlsi=m8ZN_uXhryhx0jcc

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

I don't know if there WAS a 'norm' or 'standard'. They were pretty much inventing showbiz and each company probably developed a different approach. I'm sure there WAS some kind of account book like HD but we don't have it now. And that's the entire reason why we don't know much about what they were doing. There were plenty of law school dropouts looking for work so there was every opportunity to commission plays. I read somewhere that the costumes cost loads more than what they paid the writers. But I suppose they couldn't go on strike like the people in Hollywood, so that figures. Old showbiz joke: definition of a loser is a starlet who tries to advance her career by sleeping with the writer.

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

Why do you think we would KNOW who was working for the LCM/King's Men? To do that, we'd have to have an equivalent document to Henslowe's diary. Such a document doesn't exist. Obviously, two plays a year wasn't enough, even assuming there were lots of revivals, and I genuinely think that's an interesting point. It suggests that like Henslowe, they must have used the work of other playwrights. There were lots of old standards like the Revenger's Tragedy and Queen's Men plays like Henry V, so it's likely they filled the stage with these and commissioned others. And remember WS didn't really get started until around1592. The most intense period of creativity was in the middle of his career. They clearly managed before he started writing for them, and they managed after. But in the absence of surviving playbills (there aren't any) , programmes (didn't exist) celeb interviews, reviews on press and TV, or videos of the show, how would we know? And before you start saying how fishy it is that the KM didn't leave a similar document, I'd point out that even the 'diary' is just a fragment, and that the Globe burned to the ground in 1613 and that we had this big barbecue party in London in 1666, which must have incinerated many thousands of documents.

@chancecolbert7249 10 месяцев назад

These are all excellent points Thou! I suppose to answer the first, I don't necessarily think we know or should know those names or details sans some HD type document, at least not most of them. BUT I do find the current treatment of that topic a little evasive and disingenuous. Like there are dozens of armchair sources talking about LCM or KM, including Folger and none of them have even hazards guesses or mentioned the disparity between what we know about Henslowe vs LCM/KM. Furthermore, my big complaint is that they treat LCM/KM as the norm or standard cause its Shakespeare and they say Henslowe is the anomalous set-up, but the documentation doesnt really allow us to make that judgment. If anything it should be the other way. That said, I totally agree on many of your points. No way we'd ever talk about Richard Hathway, Wentworth Smith, Robert Wilson etc if not for the Diary. The names would certainly narrow down. But even then, I can't help but feel that things aren't adding up. Name every big playwright from 1600 and they are all mentioned in the Diary except Shakespeare. Jonson, Chapman, Marston, Webster, Dekker, Chettle, Drayton, Munday, Middleton, Heywood. And it sort of mirrors my complaints with STM and Hand D. Try finding any scholarship about Hands S, A, B, C, E is nearly impossible. But dozens of books and essays saying Hand D is Shakespeare are available. Few of them if any seem to have any decent idea as to when how or why the play was written. And its because it goes in the face of everything they say about WS and his role with LCM/Admiral's Men, I.e. he's a solo artist not associated with Henslowe after 1595. Thanks for watching Thou, will give this comment a verbal shout out in next recording because these are excellent counters/questions!!

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

@@chancecolbert7249 Shakespeare IS in the diary. Only once, but he's there. There are several misleading posts on the internet saying it's not menetioned. The entry lists receipts for sixteen performances of “harey vj” by the Lord Strange’s Men in 1592 at the Rose on March 3, 7, 11, 16, and 28; April 5, 13 and 21; May 4, 7, 14, 19, 25, and June 12 and 19; and in 1594 on January 16. Have to confess I can't really read secretary hand so I have to just believe the interpretation on the Folger websight. I don't know what's so mysterious about Hand D. Somebody had an idea for a play. Shakespeare contributed a few lines to a tentative draft. Other recognisable hands are present. So what? Sounds exactly like something that would happen in a system where team writing was employed. And remember, it's not JUST handwriting that's being used as evidence. They all use algorithms to distinguish style. I could imagine finding a similar failed start being found for an episode of 'Friends' or 'Frasier'. Jonson was writing for the King's Men. I think Drayton was mostly working on plays collaboratively and thought of himself as a poet rather than a playwright. Webster acknowledged his debt to Shakespeare as writer, and it's thought that his plays were performed by the King's Men. there's a published version of 'Duchess of Malfi' mentioning this on the Wikipedia page. I'm sure several other playwrights worked for the KM, but we wouldn't necessarily know.

@chancecolbert7249 10 месяцев назад

@@thoutube9522 2 or 3 Things: 1) If we're counting by titles, then yes "he's" in there and its definitely more than once, Henry V, Titus, Taming and others all make appearances. But that's precisely my point. His name is never mentioned. The same could be said of others like Marlowe, Kyd etc, but they are all dead by the contract era of the Diary. Shakespeare is the ONLY major playwright of the era not mentioned by name in the contract era (1598 - 1603). I find that highly conspicuous. 2) It's all well and good to say WS would add some lines to help finish a play but the actual details don't add up. The versification and style analyses of Hand D all point to early 1600s, but WS would and should have no association with the Admiral's Men or Henslowe by then. Furthermore Hand D's lines are hot-button controversial stuff, incurring Tilney's injunctions, possibly even being the reason the play was never shown , so explaining WS's role as a 3rd party helping to finish or correct the play seems off base. And 3) the two above items coupled together shows a severe lack of understanding of WS's relationship to other writers or even how theatre functions in general. But throw in the Parnassus Plays (why does it say Shakespeare purged Jonson and gave him the pill? Or like Barnfield why does it refer to WS as essentially a love poet and not a playwright?) and The War of the Theatres (what was WS's role? How did company rivalries play into it?) and things really start to fall apart. Regardless of SAQ ambitions--these are real actual question marks in WS scholarship. Also King's Men isn't too helpful in this conversation because they post date the Henslowe contract era.

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

@@chancecolbert7249 Why do you specify an ERA? Why is that five year window of any significance? Is this some Diana Price crap? He’s mentioned by name multiple times during his career, and the fact that HIS NAME IS ON THE BOOKS and in the Stationer’s register and in the legal documents connected with the King’s Men and in the Will of Augustine Philips MATTERS. You pick a random five year period and you say ooooooh, why no mentions? As if you really think it suspicious that four hundred year old documents might have gone missing after the Globe fire, the Great Fire of London, the English Civil War, and centuries of fire, flood and mildew … this is insanity. As for Thomas More, it’s a play that was never performed or published, and seems to have been written by multiple authors. I’m not aware of any evidence that we know who commissioned it. I don’t know why you think it suspicious that multiple writers worked on it. They seem to have been big on team writing, and Shakespeare seems to have acted as what is now known in the trade as a script doctor. There are legions of them in Hollywood. I don’t know why you think he wouldn’t have been working on other people’s scripts in the sixteen hundreds. If they were looking for someone to write a cracking speech addressed to a mob, he would have been an obvious choice, given the amazing speeches in the history plays and in Julius Caesar. You asked two comments ago how they filled the stages when there wasn’t a Shakespeare play available. Well, here’s an example of the process. They get a team of trusted writers together and blast away at a script, using their collective talents. Shakespeare’s contribution here is mind-blowingly good. It is an astonishingly moving plea for tolerance that Trump could learn from if he was capable of thought. I further don’t understand why you’re suspicious of the fact it wasn’t performed. If the master of the revels is uneasy about it, then that would be the death knell. They fell off the delicate tightrope that straddles putting bums on seats with a controversial play and upsetting the authorities. It happens. As for Shakespeare’s relationship with other writers, it’s wonderfully documented by the comments of other writers. Sometimes they were writing after his death. So what? They knew him, they’d worked with him. The only reason that their evidence is trashed by ignorant tossers like Diana Price is because they are quite simply insuperable, impeccable evidence of Shakespeare’s authorship. And she’s not keen on that, for obvious reasons. I don’t see a single piece of evidence of things falling apart. Seriously. There are some things we don’t know. So what? There are some things we don’t know about George Lucas. There are things we don’t know about Charles Dickens. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand what you are saying. Some people got together to write a play. It turned out to be too controversial and it never got performed. The play was the origin story of the protestant faith in England, so of COURSE it was controversial. But after a hundred years, maybe they thought they could get away with it. It turned out they couldn’t. So I return a big Bronx Cheer and a massive ‘So what?’ Maybe I’m too old and thick to understand what you’re driving at. Because I have LITERALLY no problem with the idea that a kid from Stratford turns out to be a talented poet with a good ear for dialogue. Why in a rain of pig's pudding do you find that difficult to believe? They have clever people in Stratford. I’ve met them. I've worked with them. Please, please tell me why this is an unlikely story, because to me it seems to be the story of pretty much every writer since Ug the cavemen started scratching pictures on the walls of his cave, and Bug the caveman said it had possibilities but maybe needed more work.

@thoutube9522 10 месяцев назад

As for Barnfield, he was himself a poet. It's genuinely within the bounds of possibility that he wasn't keen on theatre. So he liked the poems and wasn't familiar with the plays. Gee that's suspicious. I haven't been so suspicious since I looked out of the window and noticed that nobody was loitering outside my house late at night with a crowbar.

@Jeffhowardmeade 8 месяцев назад

Since I'm an invited guest, I'll do my best to be respectful. That doesn't mean I won't point out logical flaws. Case in point: You flag the incongruity of only three writers working for the Lord Chamberlain's Men in the late 1590s, based on publication, but twenty-something writing for the Lord Admiral's Men during the same time, based on Henslowe. How many of those twenty-something would still be on the list if you were to use the same method for each? Nearly all of the plays Henslowe bought make appearances in the Lost Plays Database. The list of LAM plays which made it into print with attribution is just as short. Aside from the uncited comment from Wikipedia (it would be better to say that the plurality of the LCM's plays were written by Shakespeare), it is perfectly reasonable to expect that many of the plays in the LCM's repertoire were written under similar circumstances. Some plays would have been solo authored and some collaborations, just as we find in Henslowe.

@chancecolbert7249 8 месяцев назад

Thanks for checking out Jeff! And so quickly too! This is good feedback! That is an excellent point--because of the paucity of documents comparable to HD on LCM side, we get a seemingly incongruous picture when compared to AM. Totally agree. I will try to feature a list of HD plays from LPD that show we wouldn't know who Hathway or Haughton or many others if not for Diary. I guess the big jist of the video is that indeed there seems to be, at least based on the documents, a large incongruity between the two groups. But I suppose that's kind of the point: even though we don't get something like Burbage's Diary, shouldn't we assume, to some extent at least, that LCM and AM function much more similarly than not? I guess our point is with the video, the dominance of WS scholarship has kind of warped how we see LCM (especially in relativity to AM). In short, seems like something is missing or lacking in our understanding of LCM. (Beyond documents lol) If there is any good reading on the subject please feel free to share! And then another question I have is why is something like the Ur-Hamlet given Ur-status whereas you don't see that same nominal status with other plays like Leir, Titus, Troilus and Cressida, etc. I feel like this is another big incongruity. Not sure how much Dekker/Chettle/Webster you've read, but Troilus and Cressida reads a heckuva lot like those three at different parts in the play, yet Folger states that the two plays are not related beyond rival companies trying to hit same topic, which not sure how they make that claim without a copy of the Dekker/Chettle play. And Jeff, you were more than respectful! Feel free to be more candid (at least with me) counter-arguments only help strengthen understanding. If you peruse some of our recent videos you will find we are getting attacked from several sides at the moment, most notably by Dr. Stritmatter and some of his supporters, so I try desperately to be cordial and use it as an opportunity for dialectic--within reason at least. We don't have a horse in the race other than trying to dig up answers and resolve possible issues in the historical understanding--which yes can mean doubting that Stratford is WS. But we're finding that's not really the end goal, just saying so and so is WS, its almost like a maguffin into researching the literature of the era. Maybe this is all just apologetics to con you into not hating us and occasionally tuning in--but just want to say genuinely respect and appreciate your knowledge even if your viewpoint is miles from ours. And that dissension is how we all avoid the echo-chamber. So thanks again!

@Jeffhowardmeade 8 месяцев назад

@@chancecolbert7249 I think this is common condition to dilletantes like us. We are reading academic output, but we aren't part of the academic discussion. On the public side of Shakespeare, there's just Shakespeare. The whole of Early Modern theater exists as context for him. The LCM? Shakespeare's company. Ben Jonson? Shakespeare's friend and rival. Elizabeth? Shakespeare's queen. It's this lack of insight into academia which has so many Anti-Stratfordians crowing a victory of sorts for having forced the establishment to abandon the "lone genius" paradigm, when Shakespeare as a collaborator has been a topic of scholarly discussion since before Shakespeare scholarship was a thing. The same is true for the LCM. The general public sees them as an extension of Shakespeare. They were the E Street Band to Shakespeare's Springsteen. Academia, on the other hand, never had any qualms about the LCM as first among equals. The discovery of the Alleyn/Henslowe papers by John Payne Collier (take the good with the bad) in the 1840s was heralded as a remarkable discovery precisely because it allowed scholars to see some of the inner-workings of an Early Modern theater company. Much of what happened in Henslowe's accounts must have also happened in the LCM's. Of course there were differences. After 1599 the players in the LCM were also theater owners, so management was more distributed than in the LAM. They LCM also had as one of their members a poet. Not just any poet, though. They had Shakespeare. And yes, he was exceptional. Like Dekker and Marston, Shakespeare was capable of collaboration, and also like them was perfectly capable of writing a whole play on his own. We will never know the extent of it without a "Burbage Diary" because like nearly all LAM's collaborative plays, the LCM's are mostly lost. Changing gears, I understand the urge to try to circumvent limits. As a police officer faced with someone who was a true blight on the community, I often asked myself "How an I going to get this guy?" The answer, as often as not, was that I couldn't. I had reached the limit of the law and my authority and could go no further. You guys are the same when dealing with Shakespeare. You are like Alexander crying because there are no more worlds to conquer. (It's Christmas, so I'm allowed to quote a Christmas movie). But you don't want to be constrained by the evidence as it exists. So you look for a way around it. You develop hypotheses that would explain the evidence and yet fit inside the lacunae left by four centuries of entropy. It's literally your only way forward. The good news is that this sort of speculation is harmless. You're not going to end up in court facing a defense attorney wearing $3,000 shoes, who makes you look like an idiot (not based on a real incident). As long as you don't libel Shakespeare by calling him a money-grubbing illiterate who (and this is a new one) was actually an enforcer for money lenders, you're probably not going to attract the ire of the Oxfrauds. And so ends my catechism. Sorry for running on long, but I figure guys who can do a two-hour podcast without a bathroom break wont mind.

@Jeffhowardmeade 8 месяцев назад

@@chancecolbert7249 Sorry to be hitting this piece-meal. I'm on a road trip and at a rest stop in the middle of Nevada right now waiting for Othello, my aging doodle, to pick a tree. Any day now, bud. The "Ur" (I've always said it's short for "urlier") in Ur-Hamlet I think stems from not only the position of Hamlet at the head of the Shakespeare canon, but also its lost status. We can't know what Shakespeare's relationship was to this play. While we can debate which of the many extant plays on the same or similar themes were Shakespeare's inspiration or model, we can't do this with Hamlet. All we can say is that it was earlier. In this way, the Troilus by Dekker et.al. could be the Ur-Troilus of we could be certain it was first, but the date of Shakespeare's play is only conjectured. As for knowing that they are two different plays, a part of the plot outline for the LAM's play survives. It's not the same as Shakespeare's. Othello is finally done. Gotta roll.

@chancecolbert7249 7 месяцев назад

@@JeffhowardmeadeNot a problem Jeff! I think you're absolutely right as far as WS vs everything else. Gary Taylor seconds that and mentions it in that STM essay. But once again, that's kind of my issue: we've acknowledged the gravitional warping that WS enacts on our perspective of the era, but we haven't really done any calibration to effectively "lens" that warping and thus we have a warped, exceptional view of the author and era. It's possible WS is that special but the jury is still out. There's still too many question marks. Which is a nice segue to your next comment. I think that's supposed to be the fun part of the SAQ--the low-risk claims/hypotheses where you can explore seemingly wild ideas and relate them back to conventional understanding. To be frank, I'm as much or more a disentegrationist as a SAQ'r. My favorite stuff is attribution studies, to paraphrase Craig from South Park, "if I could do what Eric Sams or Brian Vickers or Mac P. Jackson, i'd be so happy." I think that tendency comes from this sentiment that we should uplift many other authors (Marlowe, Webster, Jonson, Dekker, Ford) of the period to near-WS status. Which is a nice segue to your T&C comments. While there is indeed a plot to a Troilus play--it is only "generally assumed," to be Dekker and Chettles. Furthermore, Henslowe Diary has 5 different titles over several years referring to this story. We have no idea if they are all 1 play being reworked or if they are all different but interrelated plays. If indeed the plot represents the latest Dekker version, then yes. But since this is not proven, I think my hypothesis still holds possible. And yeah just curious, how much Dekker, Webster or Chettle are you reading? Might be worth it to pull out Lady Jane or Thomas Wyatt or Duchess of Malfi.

@chancecolbert7249 7 месяцев назад

@@JeffhowardmeadeJust finished Forker's essay which deals with internal evidence of Webster vs. WS. This one was better and a stronger argument than Taylor's, but it's still by no means conclusive and Former says as much. Seems to me there are a few issues: 1) webster's canon is much smaller than WS's. 2)webster's canon isn't clearly defined because of collaboration Though the overwhelming amount of internal parallels privileges WS over Webster, most are commonplace and its such a small sample size anyway. I don't think that any of this is conclusive, nor do I think that it is really disproving Chillington, rather just giving a possible alternative, maybe even a better one. Seems to me John Webster is still a totally viable candidate. But I will read more!