How to Debate A Stratfordian! Edward De Vere Vs. Will of Stratford as the true William Shakespeare 

'Must have'? That's not evidence. Sir Thomas ditched his teaching commitment at the first possible moment, using the ambiguous comment that he could 'teach him no more'. I suspect milord was an objectionable little shit, and the fact that he murdered an under-cook in his youth is testament to this.

@@bootube9972 'I suspect" isn't evidence either.

@@niemann3942 But... that's why I SAID 'I suspect'. Because at this distance in time it's all you can do in some cases. What we know of de Vere doesn't suggest diligence, industry, and devotion to a higher cause. But that's just surmise based on limited evidence.

@@bootube9972 "'Must have'? That's not evidence." I'm sure you also tell that to traditional Shakespeare biographers and scholars, right -- considering how much of what we are told we "know" about Shakespeare and his life is rooted in "he must have" ... "he likely" ... "no doubt he" ... etc?

@@FGoodman114 Okay. Here are some facts. 1 William Shakespeare WAS christened in Stratford in 1564. 2 He later turned up in London. We know it was the same person because a clerk of the court wrote 'William Shakespeare GENT in the county of Warwick Stratford on Avon 3 So we KNOW that Stratford Shakespeare went to London. 4 William Shakespeare's name appears on as one of the main actors in Ben Jonson's published plays. So we KNOW that Stratford Shakespeare was the same person who was the London actor. 5 There is no other person of the name who was entitled to be called 'gent', and the College of Arms lists him as 'Player by garter', so we know that this 'gent' was the actor whose father had been granted the title of 'gent'. 6 Shakespeare's name also appears in the letters Patent drawn up by for the King's men, and also in court cases surrounding the inheritance of shares in the acting company. 7 This Shakespeare is mentioned by Jonson: a) in the elegy in the first folio b) in a prose memoir which specifically refers to him as writer c) in conversations with Shakespeare fan Drummond, who had conversations with Jonson after Shakespeare's death. 8 John Aubrey refers to Shakespeare as actor and writer, based on conversations with the son of Christopher Beeston, who was an actor in the King's Men. 9 Shakespeare's will ties the whole thing together. It was clearly made by Shakespeare of Stratford, but it makes legacies to members of the King's Men. Shakespeare was also a legatee of Augustine Philips, also an actor in the King's Men. 10 William Davenant wrote an elegy referencing Shakespeare as writer IN CONNECTION with Stratford on Avon. Obviously, there are more contemporary references to Shakespeare as writer, including the Parnassus Plays, and the writing of Francis Meres and Robert Greene. The Stratford memorial constructed shortly after Shakespeare's death says EXACTLY what you would expect about Shakespeare as writer, and Leonard Digge's poem refers to the 'Stratford Monument' in his elegy. The evidence is wide-ranging, direct, and consistent. Evidence for de Vere is ... er ... he was captured by pirates. And he went to Italy. Not SINGLE documentary link between Oxford and the plays and poems. Oh, apart from that damned bonnet. Because you can only imagine a hunter having a hat if you've seen that Titian. England being such a hot country, hunters never wear hats there. Give me a break. Oh and ... Shakespeare actually mentions the tiny village where his mother lives AND another where his Aunt and Uncle lived. AND a person who lived in Wilmecote. AND the unusual names of two Stratford citizens (Fluellen and Bardolph) pop up in the Henry IV plays. What a coincidence!

It is perhaps worth pointing out that Birmingham is around 35 miles from Stratford. In our crowded island, that's quite enough to be several accents away. The modern Brummie accent probably emerged as ex-farm labourers (like my ancestors) converged on the growing industrial centre in the 19th century. But I adore the way people deny any hint of snobbery in their denialism, and then instantly give themselves away. We have clever people in Birmingham, actually, as well as thick ones like me. I know it's hard to believe, but do try. Tolkien lived here from the age of three. Jim Crace still does. And David Edgar. And David Lodge. Writers come from all levels and regions of society. Sorry if that undermines your world-view.

@@bootube9972 give exactly what away ?. I actually said that Brummie didn't exist in 1600. My heroes are Faraday and Heaviside. Oliver had limited schooling and Michael had none whatsoever. This snobbery argument is ridiculous. There's too much data and bugger all evidence of it's compilation. This has zero to do with wanting it to be posh boy. There are plenty of contributors from Oiksville, Marlowe most notably.

The Warwickshire accent is nothing like the Birmingham accent. Also if you listen to original pronunciation as far as they can reproduce it, it will become very obvious why Shakespeare is sometimes spelled Shagsbere or similar. And this really did happen all the time in the 15th and 16th centuries..it's evidence of nothing at all apart from non standardised spelling.

@@joannemoore3976 unlike ANY of the actually very few printed references to Shake-speare or Shakespeare. Of course there are zero contemporary written references regarding the author. Hall makes no reference to the talents of his father in law. Proof, I have discovered, is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't want to see it you can just stick with what you are comfortable with. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RbEvdjH21Xg.html

There is no debate really. Shakespeare was born in Stratford and moved to London. How do we know? Because he attended a London court to give evidence, and a clerk recorded him as 'William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon'. (yes, that spelling) How do we know this was the man who became an actor? Because he was recorded as 'Shakespeare the Player' by the College of Arms. This was in connection with the coat of arms awarded originally awarded to JOHN Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon. So far, we have established that the man born in Stratford moved to London, and that the same man became an actor. Further confirmation of this is that he both received and gave bequests to other actors. Also because his name appears in the printed editions of Ben Jonson's works as one of the leading actors who performed his plays. But evidence that he was a writer? The plays performed at court during the winter of 1604-5 were attributed to him. It lists SEVEN of the canonical plays. Added to that we have contemporary eye witness accounts from John Davies of Hereford, Ben Jonson (in both prose and poetry and in conversations recorded by William Drummond), William Davenant, Leonard Digges ("To the memorie of the deceased author Maister W. Shakespeare") and praise from fellow writers including Francis Beaumont and John Webster. Francis Meres speaks of him as a writer of course. John Aubrey on the evidence of the son of actor Christopher Beeston, said that he was both actor and writer. The Stratford monument says he was a wrier. Actors Heminges and Condel said he was a writer. His name is in the stationer's register and on the late quartos. I seriously don't know how much more you could ask for.

@@thoutube9522 You must be a beginner at this. That is a conventional and elementary primer. Volumes have written about each of those claims. Davies, Jonson, Davenant, Nashe, Digges all knew the Stratford man was an allonym. Ben Jonson reviled and mocked him. He was not regarded highly as an actor and appears to have had a few small roles.

​@@roberts3784 Well of COURSE volumes have been written on these.When you whole LIFE revolves around a spurious claim that there's no evidence for Shakespeare writing the plays, it's a terrible embuggerance when contemporary accounts are brought up that tell you you're wrong. You have to dismiss them as irony, as littered with CODES. If someone refers to the river Avon, of COURSE they mean Hampton Court. The fact that Avon seems to mean Avon according to commonsense is all to the good, because that makes it all the more exciting for the conspiratorially minded. That's why people LOVE this patent nonsense. Because they are in the know, while all those fuddy-duddies with their ridiculous knowledge and genuine affection for the bard can be dismissed. Of COURSE I've seen all these ridiculous claims. In Oxfordianland, it's EASY to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Ooooooooh. Where are Shakespeare's manuscripts? Not in the will! GOTCHA! Er .... no. Manuscripts had no value. That''s why they're not in the will. Neither was the dung in the courtyard. And there literally are NO manuscripts of public plays of the time now extant. Not from ANY writer. So of COURSE l no manuscripts are mentioned. But why spoil a good story with boring facts?

@@roberts3784 Ah. I begin to see what I am dealing with. Is there any documentary proof that Shakespeare was a GOOD actor? Well, yes actually. The published cast list in Jonson's 1616 folio identifies the PRINCIPLE actors in his plays as Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillips, William Sly, John Lowin, William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Alexander Cooke (listed in that order). Just how facile a grip do you have to have on the facts if you're not even aware of this? Oh wait! The cast list was IRONIC! Of COURSE it was! Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillips, William Sly, John Lowin, William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Alexander Cooke were all TERRIBLE actors. Jonson was just mocking them all!

@@roberts3784 Here's Jonson's prose memoir of Shakespeare. Anyone who sees this as ironic clearly doesn't understand irony. Anyone who doesn't see it as a moving testament to male friendship doesn't understand male friendship. Anyone who thinks it's a conspirator, acting on behalf of an earl to cover a secret known only to printers, engravers, actors, writers, aristocrats, the Queen, the poets, anyone who was a courtier in the Queen's earlier days, the Master of the Revels, the Lord Chancellor, the theatre managers, Old Uncle Tom Cobbly and all is ... what's the word? Er .... dick. That's the word. Jonson: "I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand;” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was indeed honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power: would the rule of it had been so too. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned."

I just answered this above, where you were apparently writing under another name (thoutube9522) for some reason.

Wow, thanks so much, Roger! I've been working on the next one about the First Folio and your papers on the Spanish Marriage Crisis have been so helpful.

@@phoebe_devere Keep up the great work. I'm working on a new book of essays (mostly by other scholars) on the FF that will be out this spring to celebrate the 400th anniversary. It is the Stratfordians best and worst evidence all wrapped up in one book!

@@rstritmatter how exciting :)

Yes let's do that. He really DID murder an unarmed under-cook, leaving his pregnant widow to fend for herself. So let's acknowledge it. Recognition, by all means.

@@bootube9972 And Shaksper of Stratford ditched his family in Stratford, was listed in a restraining order by someone who feared violence from him, illegally hoarded grain during a time of famine and starvation, evaded paying his taxes, tried to enclose the common lands in Stratford, etc. So your point is ...?

He has the recognition. Elizabeth remembered his fart, and so do we

@@Jeffhowardmeade I seem to remember that I once pointed out to you that Sir Philip Sidney criticized Shakespeare for inventing some things about Henry V. Which you didn't handle too well, since Sidney was killed in 1586 and thus couldn't be referring to Will of Stratford.

@@patricksullivan4329 Judging by Caius' ignoring your points and going straight to ad hominem insults, he's still not handling it well.

@@patricksullivan4329 Interesting. Where's the evidence?

@@patricksullivan4329 Are you aware that there was a version of Henry V doing the round (performed by the Queen's Men?) It was written (probably) in the 1580s so if Sidney was having a pop at errors in a play, this version is the one he was having a go at. Shakespeare managed to get three cracking plays out of the story. What a talented man that Stratford geezer was! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Famous_Victories_of_Henry_V

@@bootube9972 'The Famous Victories' probably was written in the 1560s. It's obviously the work of a novice playwright. It's also obviously the original version of the Prince Hal trilogy, and the most likely author was Edward DeVere. But, with Sidney being killed, and a war hero in 1586, there's no way Shakespeare would have lampooned him for writing a sonnet to his horse (Act III, scene 7, iirc), nor adding the /Greek chorus to Henry V after his death.

I've asked the same question. Phoebe seems remarkably reluctant to provide an answer. I wonder why.

Its not new. The tract was claimed to be discoveted then lost hundreds of years ago. No one today knows if it rsally existed yet alone was genuine. It is claimed that it was in the name J Shakespeare, so was claimed for john shakespeare. However some claim the wording of the tract was not used during john shakespeares lifetime so they have transposed it to joan. Utterly pointless stuff over something we dont have and cant even verify to have even existed

@@johnsmith-eh3yc Yes I'm aware that the document is not news. I read about it in Stephen Greenblatt's Will In the World many years ago. That's why I was asking about recent news, specifically about claims attributing the document to Joan Shakespeare.

Okay. I can do that. His name is on the books. The documentary proof that he was at least an actor is incontrovertible. It follows that he wasn't illiterate, because no illiterate could survive in the incredibly challenging world of the Elizabethan Stage. He must therefore have had some education, and it's reasonable to assume that he received it at the excellent Grammar school 150 yards from his door. Yes, I know, there are no records of this. There are no records whatsoever for MOST schools of the period, for reasons too obvious to go into. His first publisher was a Stratford man, which would be a wild co-incidence if the work was actually by a random aristocratic knob. In 'Shrew' there is a reference to two obscure villages near Stratford, including the one where his mother was born. Also to a woman who actually lived there. Henry IV and V make reference to unusual names of people who lived in Stratford (Fluellen and Bardolph). There's also a reference in 'Merry Wives' to a known enemy of the Shakespeare family, Thomas Lucy. There are two sonnets which play on the name 'William' and one concludes with the line, 'and then thou lov'st me for my name is Will '. In 1604 several of the canonical plays are listed as being performed at court, and are attributed to 'Shaxberd', which may be a weird spelling but it's a million miles away from 'Oxenford'. Francis Meres listed many writers, including Oxford and Shakespeare. He clearly regarded them as two different people. Many elegies were written after WS's death which make it clear that they refer to Stratford Shakespeare. Jonson wrote an unambiguous prose memoir in which he both criticised and praised the man from Stratford, specifically as a writer. Shakespeare's involvement as a sharer in the theatre company is well documented, demonstrating an important and long-term commitment to the company. Shakespeare's will lists actors among the legatees, and Shakespeare was also the beneficiary of the will of Augustine Philips, actor. John Aubrey gave an account of WS's career as actor and writer, based on the evidence of William Beeston, son of King's man Christopher Beeston. John Webster is on record praising Shakespeare as a dramatist : "the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake-speare, M. Decker, & M. Heywood, wishing what I write may be read by their light: Protesting, that, in the strength of mine owne iudge-ment, I know them so worthy..." (shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/white-devil-john-webster-refers-shakespeare-name-his-dedication#:~:text=The%20playwright%20John%20Webster%20included%20Shakespeare%20in%20the,in%201612%20by%20Nicholas%20Okes%20for%20Thomas%20Archer. ) In short, Shakespeare's life and work is astonishingly well documented. Not as well as Jonson's, but much better than many of his contemporaries.

@@MrMartibobs "His name is on the books." Robert Greene is known to have complained more than once of poets of "calling and gravity" "getting" front men to set their names to their works. It was written that there were court writers who "suffered" their works to be published without their *own* names to them. That indicates someone else's names were on them. Thus *all* names on title pages from the period have to be considered suspect to some degree. If one were intellectually honest, that should lead scholars to try to decide whom those hidden poets and writers were, and whom, among names on title pages, were fronts. "He must therefore have had some education, and it's reasonable to assume that he received it at the excellent Grammar school 150 yards from his door." Actually, we do have a documentary record indicating the extent of the education available at the Stratford grammar school at the time. They were listed as having only one book - a dictionary that was kept chained in the classroom. That's what the documentary record shows about the breadth of education at the Stratford grammar school. "In 'Shrew' there is a reference to two obscure villages near Stratford, including the one where his mother was born." It's always amazing to watch Stratfordians flip-flop back and forth between "Shakespeare was the most invisible of writers, the works are not autobiographical!" to eagerly grasping the slightest biographical indications pointing to their man. Apparently the works get to be autobiographical for him, but not for anyone else. As it happens, there is evidence that Oxford had the nickname "Will" among his literary circle, as some pamphlets from the time refer to a *"Will Monox"* and a *"Gentle Master William"* - both in the context of specific events from Oxford's life, among his circle of writers. Also, Gabriel Harvey addressed Oxford with the phrase "Vultus Tela Vibrat" ... translatable as "your will shakes spears". "Jonson wrote an unambiguous prose memoir in which he both criticised and praised the man from Stratford, specifically as a writer." No, he praised and criticized the *writer* in that book. He said nothing about Stratford in doing it. We do know, however, what Jonson thought of the man from Stratford, though, because he portrayed him as a loudmouthed, ignorant, pretentious buffoon and country bumpkin who came to town occasionally to see the shows.

Okay. Here goes. William Shakespeare existed. He was born in Stratford. We know that this William Shakespeare was the one who became an actor in London, because a clerk in a London court recorded him has 'William Shakespeare of Stratford in the County of Warwick.' We also know that this William Shakespeare was an actor because he received a payment for court performances and because h ies named as a principal actor in the printed works of Ben Jonson. But Shakespeare of Stratford was ALSO the beneficiary of the will of actor Augustine Philips and himself left legacies to three King's Men actors in his will. Also the College of Arms referring to the coat of arms granted to William's father, named William as 'Shakespeare the Player'. In addition to this, he was given enough cloth to make a doublet and hose for the coronation of King James. And he became a 'sharer' in the company, a fact that is confirmed by many documents. So Stratford Shakespeare WAS London actor Shakespeare. The evidence is overwhelming. So the proof that he was also writer? 1 The 1604 Revels list shows seven canonical Shakespeare plays and lists the author of 'Shaxberd' Before you object to the spelling, I must point out that there are many eccentric spellings of Shakespeare's name, as there were for many contemporaries. Even the name of the illustrious Sir Walter Raleigh Sir had numerous variants - Raleigh, Raliegh, Ralegh, Raghley, Rawley, Rawly, Rawlie, Rawleigh, Raulighe, Raughlie, or Rayly. So we can be sure that the author of those seven plays was the man from Stratford. 2 There is a good deal of internal evidence in the work: in 'Shrew' his mother's village is mentioned, as is the tiny village where his aunt and uncle lived. There is mention of 'Marion Hacket' of Wincote - and yes, there WAS a Hacket family living in the village at the time. In Henry IV and V, the very unusual names of Stratford people pop up - Fluellen and Bardolph, who appear with John Shakespeare on a list of people who failed to attend church. 3 Numerous elegies were written after his death, in which he is invariably referred to by the honorific 'Master'', which was the correct one for his actual status (gentleman) and would be a deadly insult to an earl or baronet. Davenant's elegy links the writer with Stratford upon Avon. Jonson's elegy refers to a 'Sweet Swan of Avon' and refers to him as a talented comic actor, with 'small Latin and less Greek'. Jonson also wrote a prose memoir in which he praised his 'brave notions', but criticised him for lack of revision and asserted that his writing occasionally prompted unintended humour. He also referred to the other actors as Shakespeare''s 'fellows' - which is fine if you're talking about a humble player, but hopelessly inappropriate if talking about an Earl or Baronet. The elegy of Leonard Digges refers to his 'Stratford Moniment' - there is indeed a hefty monument in Holy Trinity Church which itself refers to Shakespeare as WRITER. 4 Other writers also acknowledged the influence of Shakespeare on their work - notably the distinguished writer Francis Beaumont, who wrote : "And from all learning keep these lines as clear As Shakespeare’s best are, which our heirs shall hear Preachers apt to their auditors to show How far sometimes a mortal man may go By the dim light of Nature." 5 One often overlooked fact is that in the First Folio, the writer is listed as one of the actors who appeared in his own plays. This would be an unbelievably weird thing to do if the writer was actually the Earl of Oxford of Francis Bacon. 6 Shakespeare's first publisher was Richard Field, a fellow Stratford man. It would be an outrageously unlikely coincidence if this happened by chance. 7 John Aubrey attested that Shakespeare was an actor and writer, on the evidence of the son of Christopher Beeston, who was a King's Men actor. 8 John Davies of Hereford wrote a poem in which he asserted that if Shakespeare hadn't been an actor playing kings 'in sport', then he might have been a companion to a king. He then goes on to praise Shakespeare's wit - thus binding together the actor Shakespeare with the writer. 9 In 'Merry Wives of Windsor' the Lucy family coat of arms is lampooned. The Lucies were local Warwickshire bigwigs, and there's every reason to believe that they were at odds with the Shakespeare family (mostly through the semi-aristocratic Arden connection).

Excellent, clear and concisely written with points well made. The evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote and performed the plays I feel is to great.

@@niemann3942 I asked for evidence that there was just one book in the school. You failed to produce it. Also that de Vere was known as 'Will'. Failed again. As for that utter bollocks about 'shaking spears', it's completely trashed by the fact that a real William Shakespeare really acted, which is listed in the ACTUAL works of Ben Jonson. You believe that William Shakespeare (the one listed under that name in court who lived in Stratford on Avon) just HAPPENED to have EXACTLY the surname dreamed up by Oxford on the basis of something to do with Gabriel Harvey???? (or possibly Pallas Athena: I wish you people would make up your minds?) prithee pull the other leg, thou credulous varlet. Captured by pirates? So were lots of people. Pirates were common then. And if it happened to de Vere it would be the talk of the town. Which means that the story was available to anyone in search of a sub-plot to get Hamlet back to Denmark in time for the last act. Here's what Ben Jonson said about the flawed and brilliant man who was his friend, William Shakespeare: "I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand;” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this, but for their ignorance who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was indeed honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power: would the rule of it had been so too. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." According to Jonson, the writer is lazy, and sometimes his work is so badly conceived as to be laughable. lt was sometimes necessary he should be silenced. Reference to the Earl of Oxford? bollocks.

Yea sure let me know how to be in touch

@@phoebenir7093 whats your email?

Thank you!

thanks!

Actually the pugilistic stance (“biff, biff!”) is rather childish and unconvincing…

Yes. It just doesn't say anything about him being a writer. But while we're on the subject ... In order to account for the wide variety of learning in the plays, all the knowledge of Italy, and so forth, we're often told that "Shakespeare had a mind like a steel trap and never forgot anything he heard." Or "Shakespeare was a genius with a photographic memory." Or as Schoenbaum put it, "He was superhuman." YET ... When that incredible genius memory was actually put to the test in that deposition ... To quote the Folger: "He confirms his involvement in persuading the plaintiff to marry the defendant’s daughter, but pleads failure of memory on exact details." Scholars suddenly do a 180 and say how the document shows him to be "merely a befuddled mortal." But that is what the documentary evidence actually says about the Stratfordian's memory: He couldn't remember what had happened in his own living place.

@@niemann3942 I'm taking it one step at a time. If you want the entire document trail, that's great, I'm posting it below. What this proves is that that Shakespeare of Stratford was also Shakespeare of London AND HE USED THAT SPELLING. As for your strawman about memory, ('we're often told that...') it's not really worthy of counter-argument. People say that? So what? People say lots of things, many of them idiotic. I don't care a kipper's dick. But you haven't given a source, so I assume he's Mr Straw and his straw friends. So Shakespeare OF STRATFORD was in London. But was he the actor? Well, William's father John had attained the rank of gentleman. Thus Shakespeare is listed by the college of arms. As it happens, they LISTED Shakespeare of Stratford as 'Shakespeare the Player'. You can find the evidence here: shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/repository/college-arms 3 William Shakespeare is also listed in his collected works by Ben Jonson as one of the 'principal tragedians'. You'll find the original documents here: shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/works-benjamin-jonson-shakespeare-included-two-cast-lists We also have evidence of a payment made for a court performance, and Shakespeare's name being listed on the Letters Patent given to the King's Men company. Exchequer, Pipe Office, Declared Accounts: Listing Shakespeare as a leading player of the Lord Chamberlain’s company | Shakespeare Documented (folger.edu) Exchequer, Pipe Office, Declared Accounts: Listing Shakespeare as a leading player of the Lord Chamberlain’s company | Shakespeare Documented (folger.edu)

@@niemann3942 If you're thinking of Roe's 'Shakespeare in Italy', I can only say I am amazed that people take this book seriously. The idea that it's a serious work of scholarship is a JOKE. For example, his first 'discovery' is that Romeo's sycamore grove actually existed. HIs research method is to ask a taxi-driver to take him to it. The driver obligingly takes him to look at some sycamores. Roe then does some serious study in the town library, appoints a forestry expert to assess the extent of the 'grove', and checks in the Town Hall for ancient maps. ONLY KIDDING! Of COURSE he doesn't! He just ticks 'Sycamore Grove' off his 'to prove' list and moves on to the next town. During his next 'study' he decides that 'tides' in 'Two Gentlemen' are obviously references to the opening of canal locks on an inland waterway. Evidence? Because he says it. And that makes it so. Of course.

@@bootube9972 "What this proves is that that Shakespeare of Stratford was also Shakespeare of London" Fine. If you would read carefully, you would see I agreed with that already. "AND HE USED THAT SPELLING." Well, no, HE didn't. None of his signatures use that spelling. A handful of references to him by other people use that spelling.

@@niemann3942 Here are some points about the signatures: 1 They are written in secretary hand. It's designed for speed rather than elegance, as the name suggests. His weird curlicues are actually standard practice in this style. 2 They are all made during the last four years of his life. Is it possible, do you suppose, that he might have been ILL during the four years before he dropped dead? Take a wild guess. 3 Look at them in context. One was made in a court-room with someone else's quill. Two were made on tiny legal tags attached to larger documents, and have standard secretary hand abbreviations when he's forced to truncate the final syllable. The remaining 3 signatures were probably LITERALLY made on his death-bed. You'll find pictures here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_handwriting I'm afraid you can't argue with a document that puts William Shakespeare of Stratford in a London courtroom in the case of his long-term landlord. Nobody cared about spelling then. In surviving documents, Marlowe's name varies enormously, and the only signature we have is spelled 'Marley'. But as it happens, you're wrong. The last signature on the will is 'By me William Shakespeare.' Look it up on the link above.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Every single point you make has been debunked by scholars. So, go do some reading besides Stratfordian industry apologists.

Details about Italy could only have been gained by travel there.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Diana Price asked some questions- which is what independent minded researchers do - that eluded the orthodox. Could the Stratford man write? Did he earn a living by writing? Is there contemporary evidence he was a writer? Did family, neighbors, colleagues and other locals acknowledge he was a writer.

Another vexing questions for Stratfordians: the complete silence at the time when the Stratford front man died. Crickets. Here is the famous author and actor, acclaimed in writing during his career, invited to perform at court and at noble homes, theater owner, wealthy land owner in his country home of Stratford, yet, not a word anywhere that England had lost its greatest poet. His family wrote nothing and no involvement in the First Folio (sponsored by a DeVere relative) We have such evidence for other writers. Spencer died near the same time as Shakespeare. The monument was years later. No one noted Shaksper’s death AT THE TIME, because the royals, nobles, other writers knew better.

@@roberts3784 You must all have heard of ChatGPT by now. I just had these conversations with it. 1/31/23 Me: So you agree that, unlike many authors of the time, there is no unambiguous primary source evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon, a man who did exist, I don't need proof of that, was a poet dramatist? Chat GPT: Yes, that is correct. Unlike many other authors of the time, there is no unambiguous primary source evidence that definitively links William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to the authorship of the plays and poems attributed to him. There is evidence of his existence, including records of his baptism, marriage, and death, as well as legal documents such as land deeds and wills that bear his signature. However, there is no contemporary record that specifically states that he was a playwright or poet. The attribution of the plays and poems to William Shakespeare is based on the available historical evidence and the absence of any credible alternative authorship claims. The evidence includes references to the playwright as "Mr. William Shakespeare" in the First Folio of his plays, as well as contemporaneous accounts that refer to him as the author of the plays. In conclusion, while there is no definitive primary source evidence linking William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to the authorship of the plays and poems, the available historical evidence supports this connection and makes it the most widely accepted theory. 2/3/23 Me: Is there unambiguous primary source evidence that the following were authors or dramatists or poets during the time of William Shakespeare: Ben Jonson, Thomas Nash, Samuel Daniel, Edmund Spenser, Philip Massinger, George Peele, Gabriel Harvey, Michael Drayton, George Chapman, William Drummond, John Marston, Anthony Munday, Robert Greene, John Lily, Thomas Heywood, Thomas Lodge, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Watson, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, Thomas Kyd, John Webster, Christopher Marlowe. ChatGPT: Yes, there is unambiguous primary source evidence that many of the individuals you listed were authors, dramatists, or poets during the time of William Shakespeare. For example: • Ben Jonson: Jonson was a contemporary of Shakespeare and was a well-known playwright and poet in his own right. There are numerous primary sources that mention his works, including references in literary works of the time, and his own writings, such as his poems and plays. • Thomas Nash: Nash was a writer and poet who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his satirical works, such as "The Unfortunate Traveller" and "Pierce Penilesse His Supplication to the Devil." • Samuel Daniel: Daniel was a poet and playwright who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his works, such as "Delia" and "The Complaint of Rosamond." • Edmund Spenser: Spenser was a poet who was active in the late 16th century. He is best known for his work, "The Faerie Queene," which is considered one of the greatest works of English poetry. • Philip Massinger: Massinger was a playwright who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his plays, such as "The Roman Actor" and "The Duke of Milan." • George Peele: Peele was a playwright and poet who was active in the late 16th century. He is best known for his plays, such as "David and Bethsabe" and "The Arraignment of Paris." • Gabriel Harvey: Harvey was a scholar and writer who was active in the late 16th century. He is best known for his works, such as "Four Letters" and "Foure Letters and Certaine Sonnets." • Michael Drayton: Drayton was a poet who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his works, such as "The Barons' Wars" and "Idea's Mirror." • George Chapman: Chapman was a playwright and poet who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his plays, such as "The Blind Beggar of Alexandria" and "All Fools." • William Drummond: Drummond was a poet and scholar who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his works, such as "Poems" and "A Discourse of the Forrests." • John Marston: Marston was a playwright who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his plays, such as "Antonio and Mellida" and "The Dutch Courtesan." • Anthony Munday: Munday was a playwright and poet who was active during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He is best known for his works, such as "The Mirror of Mutability" and "The English Romayne Life." • Robert Greene: Greene was a playwright and poet who was active in the late 16th century. He is best known for his works, such as "The Honourable History of Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay" and "Menaphon." • John Lily: Lily was a playwright and poet who was active in the late 16th century. He is best known for his works, such as "Eclogues" and "The Woman in the Moon Because the ChatGPT response was cut off after John Lily I resubmitted the remaining names Me: Is there unambiguous primary source evidence that the following were authors or dramatists or poets during the time of William Shakespeare: Thomas Heywood, Thomas Lodge, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Watson, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, Thomas Kyd, John Webster, Christopher Marlowe. ChatGPT: Yes, there is unambiguous primary source evidence that all of these individuals were authors, dramatists, or poets during the time of William Shakespeare. For example, their works were published during their lifetimes, and some of them mention each other in their writings, indicating that they were active in the same literary circles. Additionally, some of them were listed as playwrights in early editions of plays, or in records of performances, providing further evidence of their work as dramatists. ********** End of ChatGPT questions and answers and my question for Stratfordians is "Who interfered with ChatGPT's database so that there is unambiguous primary source evidence for 24 of Shakespeare's contemporaries but none for Shakspere/Shakespeare himself?" And while I'm on that theme, it's interesting that the Stratfordian approach always follows the same path: "But he could have..../others didn't either...." all of which are excuses for why there is no evidence for Shakspere being a writer i.e. special pleading, as opposed to positive unambiguous primary source evidence for him being a writer, the kind of evidence we have for the 24 contemporaries. To any Stratfordian caring to respond, please note that I am saying nothing about Edward de Vere so please don't bring him into your reply. There are two distinct issues here: Was it the man from Stratford and if not was it Edward de Vere? I am addressing the former which has nothing to do with the latter. IMHO before taking on de Vere one has to agree on the Reasonable Doubt that ChatGPT summarizes so well. It's not right because ChatGPT says it's right - it's right because of the evidence ChatGPT uses to say it's right, i.e. I am. not quoting authority. If there is Reasonable Doubt then we compare Shakspere and de Vere and see who has the stronger argument in their favour, but unless both sides agree there is Reasonable Doubt we will continue to go down the road of "But he could have..../others didn't either...." and ad hominem will lead us down irrelevant rabbit holes.

It's my impression that in preparing the First Folio, Jonson's plan was to make it believable that this man from Stratford had written these plays for the ages. Crediting him with "small Latin and less Greek" was part of the smoke screen.

@@matthewzuckerman6267 There are many instances like this that are a bit of an embuggerance if you want to dismiss the idea that Stratford man was the writer. Look at Jonson's prose memoir of Shakespeare. He thought Will was the writer. This is an unambiguous and unironic testimony. Seriously, it IS possible to be a talented writer, even if you don't have an aristocratic title. Hard to believe I know. But I have to break it to you, it's true. Here's Jonson talk the unembellished truth: I REMEMBER the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him: “Cæsar, thou dost me wrong.” He replied: “Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause; and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned.'

@@bootube9972 Great word, embuggerance. And great proof that you quote too, as long as you believe that Jonson was telling it as it was instead of how he wanted you to believe it was. But that old saw about not having to be an aristocrat to be a good writer....No one believes or says that. Marlowe was no aristocrat, for example. The Stratford man may indeed have written the plays. There are plenty of reasons to believe it and plenty to disbelieve it.

@@matthewzuckerman6267 I have no idea why Jonson would want to protect the Earl of Oxford's reputation years after he was dead and buried, and pretty much forgotten, after a life spent writing begging letters and buggering choirboys. And actually, in Ben Jonson you have evidence that a university education wasn't needed to become not only a writer, but a notable scholar. He had EXACTLY the same background as WS, except that perhaps Westminster school had a cachet that the Strat school lacked. There are a STAGGERING number of documentary links between Stratford man and the works, and absolutely NOTHING for anyone else. BTW. Can't take credit for 'embuggerance'. It was how Terry Pratchett described his terminal illness. It IS good, isn't it?

@@matthewzuckerman6267 This was written long after the Earl of Oxford was dead and rotten. And based on NO evidence - certainly not internal evidence in the extract - you have to believe an elaborate story that Jonson was pant-wettingly anxious to protect the reputation of the deceased Earl who had (two decades before) gone to join (and probably sodomise) the choir invisible. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If he was being IRONIC then he would have praised Shakespeare's erudition and industry. Instead, it's a brutally honest assessment of his comparative ignorance, laziness, and lack of judgement. At the same time, he shows a huge respect for Shakespeare's vision and originality. Actually this is just the old get out of jail free card, that rejects even the most compelling evidence in favour of a weird and purposeless conspiracy that makes the Q anon nuts look like models of sanity.

thanks Jane!

@@Jeffhowardmeade Its not true. Though I know this has been espoused.

Charitable readings of any work can draw parallels to anyone's life. It's called confirmation bias. Isn't one of the parallels people draw between Hamlet and De Vere that both were kidnapped by pirates? You know who else was kidnapped by pirates? Miguel de Cervantes. Hmm Cervantes also travelled extensively in Rome especially Venice. He had extensive military experience (Othello?). You can pick anyone and play that game all day. It proves nothing. You know what constitutes proof? Documentary evidence. You know what there is not any of? A single, one iota, one loose sheaf of scrap paper, one forsaken post-it note, linking the Earl of Oxford to any one of Shakespeare's plays or to Shakespeare.

Thank you so much Bill!

You've formulated this beautifully, I hope other people will benefit from what you've shared!

@@phoebe_devere Genuine question: Does Oxfordianism really just come down to making suppositions about the author from the plays and poems? It seems strange to me. It would imply that all art is autobiographical which we know isn't true. Imagine, if you will, if The Metamorphosis or The Library of Babel were published anonymously. I think we would draw some very odd conclusions about the authors if we tried to apply this same logic.

@@jkvideos22 Respected Stratfordian scholar Charlotte Carmichael Stopes spent 8 years searching for any evidence she could find connecting Will of Stratford to the Earl of Southampton, to whom Shakespeare writes such loving and flowery dedications. She failed to find a single piece of evidence connecting the two men and died feeling a deep sense of disappointment. On the other hand, the Earl of Southampton was engaged to Edward De Vere's daughter. Nonetheless, Stratfordian scholars will confidently pronounce that the Earl of Southampton was Shakespeare's patron, even though there is no evidence to suggest this but their own supposition. I use this anecdote to demonstrate one of many serious holes within the Stratfordian authorship theory unrelated to textual interpretation. Thanks for your engagement!

Thanks for your engagement. I think Peter Farey, who you quoted (he's a marlovian, not an oxfordian, but it's irrelevant to our purposes) does a decent job of explaining this in the rest of the article that you pulled from. marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2009/06/stratford-references-in-taming-of-shrew.html If you're interested, I'd look up Ben Jonson's "Sogliardo" which also seems to portray Will of Stratford in a buffoonish, comedic fashion, referencing his role as De Vere's front man. you can search for "sogliardo" in this longer article as a starting place shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/rebuttal-to-reedy-and-kathman/

@@phoebe_devere Thank you so much for your response. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time, and it's good of you to take the trouble Most of the article by Farey is circular logic based on the idea that Marlowe was Shakespeare. The ACTUAL explanation for the intimate detail included in the play is (according to Farey) that the lines were added after Shakespeare's death. This is a MASSIVE assumption, and begs the question of how any of the people who assembled the first folio (Jonson, Hemings, Condell) would have known the names of two obscure villages 100 miles from where they lived, much less the name of one of their inhabitants. As for Jonson, if he depicted Shakespeare as a buffoon, I'm fine with that. WS was a rival whom he considered less educated than himself. He was dead right, actually. So if he took the piss, so what? Taking the piss is a strong component of male friendship. But we don't have to look at fictional supposed depictions of the Man from Stratford and make dodgy assumptions and wild inferences. I'm pretty sure that the brilliant 'not without mustard' gag was a jibe at Shakespeare's aristocratic pretentions. But to pole-vault to the conclusion that the character is therefore entirely based on WS is a gross misunderstanding of the creative process. Happily, Jonson made it very clear that he considered Shakespeare to be the writer of the plays in plain, unambiguous prose: "I REMEMBER the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him: “Cæsar, thou dost me wrong.” He replied: “Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause; and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/on-shakespeare/

@@phoebe_devere I can't find a reference to 'Sogliardo' in the article attached to the link. There seems to be an article on the website, but it's password protected. But to be honest, Jonson's observations on Shakespeare are unambiguous, and clearly trump any supposed coded messages based on numbers, ink-blots, anagrams, geometric voodoo, the Masons, the Knights Templar, John Dee and other assorted excrement. Jonson simply told us in plain English that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. What's more he made it clear that he was talking about the rather flawed living, breathing human being whose work was sometimes far from perfect and who was a mere 'gent', rather than an aristocrat, but was (according to the elegy) a gifted comic actor.

@@MrMartibobs Jonson's "observations" come from a poem. They are not to be considered documentary evidence. There is zero documentary evidence that links William Shakspere of Stratford with the Works of Shakespeare unless one employs circular logic or gets his evidence from plays or published references. Evidence of actual events are not extent. Q: How do we know that Shakspere and Shakespeare are the same person? A: Because his name is on the plays. Circular Logic.

@@phoebe_devere Actually Ben Johnson worked with and for Francis Bacon and called him "The Chief"

@@Jeffhowardmeade Oh, I knew someone named Barry, must be the son of Larry.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Hamnet is to Hamlet, as Barry to Larry.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Hamlet likely comes from a Danish prince story of Amleth. But it’s really not important, is it? The first performance of Hamlet is mentioned in 1589 when the Stratford man was 25 years old. Only diehard apologists on the payroll of the Stratford museum would believe he wrote that masterpiece by then.

@@Jeffhowardmeade As I referenced elsewhere, there is already proof beyond a reasonable doubt that DeVere is Shakespeare. I don’t see what meaning he would have in naming (sometime before 1589) a play after Hamnet. It’s possible but do you think DeVere would have such interest in a commoner’s child. He was obsessed with the Earl of Southampton.

@@Jeffhowardmeade In the last 20 years, scientists and authors Rollett, Roper, Sturrock and Erickson demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that DeVere, Jonson and others left ciphertext embedded in several “Shakespeare” dedications and a sonnet attesting to DeVere’s authorship. To date, no one has disproven this work. The case for DeVere is proven until shown otherwise. See Sturrock and Erickson Article in July 2020 Journal of Scientific Exploration, and How Science Proved Edward DeVere was Shakespeare, 2018.

The Great murdering chorister- buggering Earl of Oxford, to give him his full title.

@@thoutube9522 No wonder the family and the Queen’s chief advisor wanted the nobility hidden.

@@roberts3784 Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose. We still have talentless lazy senior aristos behaving badly.

Pimp? George Wilkins was a pimp. We know that because he kept a bawdy-house. By contrast, William merely had theatrical lodgings in London. Another of your evidence-free flights of fancy? It's helpful to think of a world in which there are no banks. If you need to borrow money you ask someone you know. If you have spare cash, you lend it at interest because there were no banks to keep it in. You could buy land, lend it, or stuff it under the mattress. Usury was theoretically illegal, but an economy can't operate without it. Think of how the merchants' ventures were funded by Shylock. But maybe WS was a tax-dodger and a loan shark. So what? You think writers are uninterested in money? The screen-writer's guild in the US might disagree. I certainly don't blame him for dodging tax to fund wasters like de Vere, and the vicious government that had laid waste to the (distant) Arden side of the family who lived around 20 miles away in Castle Bromwich. The Tudors were all psychopaths. Tax dodging was a civic duty, in my opinion.

You've been asked repeatedly for evidence of this. No response. You say he was a pimp.

Facts, reason, and common sense

The First Folio contains 4 plays that were previously unknown. How could the Stratford man have written them? The Folio was published in 1623. The Stratford man was dead and buried seven years by then.

@@michellek3714 Francis Bacon however was alive. Bacon and the Jaggard Connection ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tkep5xNEEgQ.html

No one knows when the plays were written. Even among Stratfordian scholars there is disagreement about when they were written. All we have for certain is dates of publication and performance. By that same logic, we can also ask how Shakspere of Stratford managed to write half the plays when *he* was dead, as they only first appear in the historical record seven years after *he* died. Your argument does nothing but demonstrate the circular reasoning that abounds in traditional Shakespeare scholarship. * We believe the man from Stratford wrote the plays. -> * Therefore we will sprinkle conjecture dates of composition throughout his lifetime. -> * Since that timeline of the plays' composition matches the Stratford man's life, that proves the man from Stratford wrote the plays.

I think you mean when SOME of the plays were written, or better, published and staged, since many of the Bard's plays can be dated by publication and/or staged, and all of his great tragedies (if you don't count Hamlet, as it appeared before the death of Liz which was before his imprisonment in the Tower of London). I forget if Liz died before or after Oxford died), but this phase began with his much butchered Measure for Measure, culminated with Macbeth or Othello and included many other wondrous works....In fact, I believe Shakespeare's tragedy phase began after the death of his pal, Edmund Spencer, in, hmmm, 1598/99. I believe there is much to be read into the Pilgrimage to Parnassos plays, as homage/requiem to Spencer by Rawley, oops, Shakespeare.

@@michellek3714 Well, clearly, even though the plays hadn't already been published, someone still had the scripts. Probably the theatre company which owned the rights in them. this is so obvious, I'm surprised it needs to be pointed out.

@@Jeffhowardmeade I didn't know that. Thanks, Caius Martius. I suspect you know a good deal more about this than she does.

But Shakespeare was not merely "competent" in Latin and Greek. Shakespeare's Works are steeped in classical references and material and style. Shakespeare is a scholar of the classics. The idea that he had just a little Latin and Greek is a sarcastic joke. Even if he only had a little he would still be the equal of the classical writers, but he did not have a little, he had a lot. This begs the question of why Jonson would praise Shakespeare as being merely competent. It reeks of a contradiction that is begging for an explanation.

@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 I would challenge your assertion that Shakespeare is 'steeped' in the classics. He DOES use Ovid a good deal, but then Ovid was standard Grammar school fodder. He based 'Comedy of Errors' on Plutarch, but again, this is the kind of stuff you would come across in a grammar school. Actually, Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra are drawn from North's translation of Plutarch. Compare the famous 'barge' speech with Plutarch's version with the famous Shakespeare version: PLUTARCH: "...the poop whereof was of gold, the sails of purple, and the oars of silver, which kept stroke in rowing after the sound of the music of flutes, howboys, cithernes, viols, and such other instruments as they played upon in the barge. And now for the person of herself: she was laid under a pavilion of cloth of gold of tissue, apparelled and attired like the goddess Venus commonly drawn in picture; and hard by her, on either hand of her, pretty fair boys apparelled as painters do set forth god Cupid, with little fans in their hands, with the which they fanned wind upon her. Her ladies and gentlewomen also, the fairest of them were apparelled like the nymphs Nereides (which are the mermaids of the waters) and like the Graces, some steering the helm, others tending the tackle and ropes of the barge, out of which there came a wonderful passing sweet savour of perfumes, that perfumed the wharf's side, pestered with innumerable multitudes of people." SHAKESPEARE: "The barge she sat in, like a burnished throne, Burned on the water: the poop was beaten gold; Purple the sails, and so perfumèd, that The winds were lovesick with them; the oars were silver, Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made The water which they beat to follow faster, As amorous of their strokes. For her own person, It beggared all description: she did lie In her pavilion, cloth-of-gold of tissue, O’erpicturing that Venus where we see The fancy outwork nature. On each side her Stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids, With divers-coloured fans, whose wind did seem To glow the delicate cheeks which they did cool, And what they undid did." But the thing is ... most of the plays are NOT based on the classics. Sources include Chaucer, Arthur Brooke's 'Romeo and Juliet' and other contemporary popular romances, including Thomas Lodge's 'Rosalynd' and the collection of stories in 'Il Peccerone'. And LOTS of Rafael Holinshed. Also other, earlier plays, such as King Leir (an anonymous Elizabethan play), and perhaps the ur-Hamlet, and a Queen's Men play, 'The Famous Victories of Henry V'. In short, I don't recognise your characterisation of plays 'steeped in classical references'. If they were, then they would be far less popular. The narrative poems 'Venus and Adonis' and 'Lucrece' are BOTH based on Ovid, a poet who was very widely studied in grammar schools. But you're the one making the assertion. So give me act, scene, line numbers proving that the writer was an accomplished classical scholar. Because for ACTUAL sources, that just ain't where Shakespeare goes.

@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 btw the source for 'Troilus' and 'Two noble Kinsmen' was Chaucer.

@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 btw the source for Coriolanus is also thought to be North's translation of Plutarch.

@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Sources for 'Titus' are more varied, but still include Plutarch and Ovid: Hecuba of Euripides Seneca's Thyestes and Troades Ovid's version of ‘the tragic tale of Philomel’ (Metamorphoses, Book XIII) Plutarch

It's actually pronounced Worrick-sher.

You’re absolutely right

@@Jeffhowardmeade How does Holingshed being in error strengthen your argument. Btw, I've missed your explanation of the evidence of SHAKSPEARE's 'wisdom'. Did you delete it?

@@Jeffhowardmeade It would be hard to read anything 'writt' by SHAKSPEARE, since we don't know of anything (not even his work on the impresa he was paid for). I'm afraid you have once again lapsed into circular reasoning.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Wow! You want to discuss Weever's 1599 epigrams describing the triangle among Oxford, Penelope Rich and Southampton? How about #22, Ad Gulielmus Shakespeare, start here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wu4FD4Zii8c.html

@@Jeffhowardmeade Oh, yeah. You're doing so well, keep up the good work. Since you want to discuss All that he hath writt of the man not buried in the Stratford 'moniment', let consider his will, which if he didn't actually pen it, can safely conclude he dictated it. Now, what is there in that three page document that proves he was a playwright?

@@Jeffhowardmeade Do try to keep up. We're not contesting that Shaxsper associated with actors. Stage hands and set designers do too. We're looking for evidence that he was a WRITER. His will is the one thing we can confidently say demonstrates his thinking, his interests, his relationships, his property. And there is nothing at all to suggest this man was a writer. Whatever is in some other person's will doesn't tell us anything about Will Shaksper.

You are a Stratfordian arguing against Stratfordians. That is pretty funny. 1. There is no date of publication for any Shakespeare play. Another Stratfordian talking point is that there is a reference to The Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. Really? I've not seen one. 2. Tennis and Falconry were activities that would be denied to non-aristocrats by law, and violators would be punished. The commoner of Stratford would not have been allowed to get near a falcon, but Shakespeare's falconry metaphors indicate a person with extensive knowledge and experience with falconry at it's highest levels. Edward de Vere had a famous episode on a tennis court, a place that commoner Shaksper would not have been without an invitation. 4. 100,000 lines but not one word that even hints of his background? Unless it's not his background... 5. Richard Quiney wrote a letter in Latin, Shakespeare was a master of Latin. That is about as far as the similarity goes on this one. It is curious that the school records are missing; also missing are ANY document that would prove that Will Shasper of Stratford ever wrote anything except for his name six times on 4 different legal documents that have nothing to do with the writing of plays. 6. Oxfordians have never said that play writers must be from the aristocracy. Oxfordians say that a commoner could not have written the Works of Shakespeare WITHOUT LEAVING AN EXTENSIVE PAPER TRAIL, but no paper trail exists at all. Fact.

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 1. Publication didn’t work the same way then as it does today but we can reliably date the plays based 1. When they were entered into the stationer’s registry to be reviewed by the censor 2. The dates on the title pages of the plays that were published. 3. References to them.
The last one is crucial because the first reference to Shakespeare wasn’t until 1592. He was called an “upstart crow.” If we try to align the paper trail with Oxfordianism, we get a 12-year window for all 38 plays, sonnets, and narrative poems. Seems to be pushing credulity a bit, no? 2. Shakespeare started his career as an actor performing for nobility and clearly observed how they lived and used it in his material. Once again, something can be explained by “he used his imagination.” 4. There’s plenty of hints to Shakespeare’s origins. That scholarship exists if you bother to read it. There are country folktales and songs scattered across his plays. The one detail (a glaring one) that I’ll mention: The Forest of Arden. 5. Shakespeare a “master” of Latin? He was proficient to be sure. As proficient as one would expect someone educated in Latin for years as a boy would be. But no further. Most, if not all, of his Latin sources were translations. 6. No document linking Shakespeare to the plays? His name being on 43 editions of the various plays and poems that were published during his lifetime isn’t a document? The First Folio with Shakespeare’s name printed in big letters and a portrait of him that’s clearly not De Vere? The dozens of contemporary references to him by other playwrights? That’s a mountain of documentary evidence compared to De Vere, which is none at all.

@@jkvideos22 PUblication date does not equal composition date. The publication date is after the composition date. That's it. If Oxford wrote the plays he did so before 1592, mostly in the 1570s and 1580s - all well before the date of publication. There is no documentary record of Shakespeare acting. Ben Jonson credits Shakespeare as an actor in 1616, but there is no evidence to prove the claim. The acting claim appears to be a lie. There is nothing in the plays that hints that Shakespeare was a commoner from Warwickshire. OTOH the plays are crammed with information and situations that indicate the author to be an aristocrat. Read the plays and you will see. Yes Shakeseare was a master of the classics. Stratford couldn't write his name. Stop using the First Folio as "documentary evidence." It is a work of fiction. Poems are NOT documentary evidence. Yes Ben Jonson writes in a poem that he knew Shakespeare personally, but aside from Jonson's word IN A POEM there is no evidence to support that claim. Doesn't mean it isn't true, just that there is not evidence. The Stratfordian myth comes from two poems in the Folio, the first mentions "sweet swan of Avon" and a later poem mentions "thy Stratford moniment." Avon in one poem, Stratford in another poem...just reverse the order and add "-upon-" in the middle and it's obvious that William Shakespeare came from Stratford-upon-Avon!

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Did you know that in some of the published quartos of the plays the names of the actors are mistakingly given in the dialogue instead of the characters? Shakespeare wrote the role to the man. If publication isn’t an indication of composition then surely performance is. The First Folio says Shakespeare was one of “the Principal Actors in all these Plays.” Even if he didn’t perform in everything, he was an important member of his theater companies and would have attended their performances giving him ample time to observe nobility. I’m not trying to use the plays and poems as documentary evidence. I advocate the opposite. It’s Oxfordians who try to find parallels between events in the plays and parts of De Vere’s life. There’s more than just references to Shakespeare from the Folio and Jonson. In fact, there’s 8 pages of documented references on Folger’s website not only to his plays but to Shakespeare himself (over 20 different direct references by my count): shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/playwright-actor-shareholder/contemporary-accounts-and-critical-responses-plays ranging from letters, compendiums, poems, and marginalia all indicating the existence of man named William Shakespeare writing amazing plays. There’s even a recorded anecdote about him telling Richard Burbage a joke of distinctly Shakespearean wit: shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/john-manninghams-diary-earliest-mention-twelfth-night-and-shakespeare-anecdote You can't explain away dozens of contemporary accounts, his name being on all the plays now attributed to him, Shakespeare of Stratford being a shareholder in the theater company that performed the plays, etc. You're going to throw out shelves worth of biographical evidence and replace it with what? A hunch? You either have evidence or you don't. Oxfordians do not.

@@jkvideos22 Can you prove that William Shaksper of Stratford is the same person as William Shakespeare of London? That is the Authorship Question. It is circular logic to say that it's his name on the cover (sort of) thus he wrote it. Publication dates are interesting but they are not conclusive. And you have to explain away why there is no manuscript or author's journal to precisely date not one play but 37 of them. Contemporary Evidence means evidence from when the person was alive. There is zero contemporary accounts of any real person named William Shakespeare. I'm not explaining them away. I'm pointing out a fact. There are references to Shakespeare by poets, but they are all poems mostly written after all this was over. Poems. Poems are not documentary evidence, and no documentary evidence has ever been unearthed to corroborate that any of the poets who wrote about Shakespeare actually knew Shakespeare personally, not Ben Jonson, not anyone.

Righto. I am holding out for some actual evidence if you don't mind. I could announce I am the Marquis of Bath but it doesn't make it true.

@@joannemoore3976 read looney and mark anderson for one. And read Shakespeare

I do read Shakespeare..why would you assume I don't. I am not, I am afraid, going to read Looney, life is too short. I am aware of his main contentions. I just do not see that there is any mystery or question to answer regarding authorship so it would be a waste of time.

@@joannemoore3976 well then. Don’t. It’s of no relevance

I know 😂 some of us even live here..in Stratford-upon-Avon as it happens, and give a little salute to the statue of the Stratford man who wrote such brilliant plays as I go past.

We do not deny Shakespeare. That is pure blindered propaganda and a logical fallacies that even freshman English majors are taught to avoid. We do not argue that he couldn't, just that there is a a lot of reasons to question why he did. Sorry if we challenge your religion.

Imagination can't provide one with facts and knowledge. Period. That takes learning and education. Imagination can't make one familiar with the hundreds of books and sources even traditional scholars acknowledge are reflected in the works of Shakespeare, some even in other languages.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Shakespeare was de Vere's pen name ... He had way more education than even Ben Jonson.

Apparently he wrote the best comedies. You hide under your sock puppet name ... Not credible. Stop trolling.

@@Jeffhowardmeade How much evidence is there that the Stratford man had the slightest interest in books and reading? (And no, you don't get to do the circular reasoning thing of "He wrote Shakespeare, therefore that proves he read all those books Shakespeare read.")

It never ceases to amaze how little understanding of elementary logic there is among Stratfordians. The burden of proof is on those who claim Will of Stratford had an education of any sort. After 400 years no one has been able to do so.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Coming from a guy who has amply demonstrated his aversion to logic that is rich. As has been SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrated here: file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/121-Article%20Text-540-1-10-20100526.pdf it's considerably more than 'one little detail of history' that is missing from Stratfordman's biography. Of course, Sturrock relies on the laws of probability, so what's that compared to an ideologue's faith.

@@Jeffhowardmeade Those 'goofball notions' defeated the Nazi naval code in WWII, Ken Jennings at Jeopardy and numerous grand masters at chess. Bayesian inference is the most common statistical approach used in medical diagnoses, financial modeling, and solving crime (shouldn't you know that, Officer Friendly?). Do you suppose Bryan Kohberger is laughing?

@@Jeffhowardmeade Since high school students are now taught Bayesian statistics, it shouldn't be all that difficult for you to visit 'the math department break room' yourself and have an analysis done for you. But don't be surprised if all the laughing is directed at you.

@@Jeffhowardmeade How far do you think Bryan Kohberger's lawyer would get in court using your argument?

(Part 1 of 2) William Shakespeare was baptized on 26 April 1564, the eldest son of John and Mary Shakespeare (née Arden). He was preceded by two daughters, Joan and Margaret, who died in infancy, and had five younger siblings: Gilbert, Joan, Anne, Richard, and Edmund. His father was made bailiff (equivalent to mayor) of Stratford-upon-Avon when Shakespeare was four, and was also a magistrate and justice of the peace, civic positions considered "offices of honour" that entitled him to a coat of arms that was ultimately granted in 1596, making William Shakespeare as his eldest son a second-generation gentleman. William Shakespeare was married to Anne Hathaway, daughter of Richard Hathaway, a yeoman farmer. They married in 1582 after securing a license and a marriage bond for £40, with two of the late Richard Hathaway's friends, Fulke Sandells and John Richardson, standing surety for the young couple. They were also the men Richardson appointed as supervisors of his will. On 26 May 1583, Shakespeare's eldest child, a daughter, Susanna, was baptized, and then on 2 February 1585 his twin children, Hamnet and Judith, were baptized. Shakespeare's friend and his friend's wife, Hamnet and Judith Sadler, stood as godparents to the twins and named them after themselves. In 1592, Robert Greene's _A Groatsworth of Wit Bought with a Million of Repentance_ contained the first printed reference to one of William Shakespeare's plays, _Henry VI, Part 3_ . In the section titled "To those gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits in making plays, R. G. wisheth a better exercise, and wisdom to prevent his extremities", Robert Greene spoke out against the ingratitude of actors to the playwrights like himself and warned a trio of playwrights allusively referred to whom scholars have identified as Christopher Marlowe, George Peele, and Thomas Nashe against one man in particular, "an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his _tiger’s heart wrapt in a player’s hide_ , supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank-verse as the best of you: and being an absolute _Johannes fac totum_ , is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country." The line about the "tiger's heart" is a riff on the Duke of York's exclamation in _Henry VI, Part 3_ , and shows that a newly arrived actor-playwright was competing with the "best of" the Bankside's dramatic writers like Marlowe, Peele, Nashe, and Greene himself, and therefore Greene encouraged his playwriting contemporaries to cease creating dramatic works for the players and instead to let the players, who were turning writers, "imitate your past excellence" while they were to pursue more lucrative careers writing for aristocratic patrons. (442 words already and I've not even begun charting Shakespeare's literary career or the formation of the Lord Chamberlain's Men!) In the next year, in 1593, came the first printed work attributed to William Shakespeare: the narrative poem _Venus and Adonis_ . It was entered in the Stationers' Register on 18 April 1593 and was in print and at the stationers' by 12 June 1593 when Richard Stonley recorded his purchase of the narrative poem by "Shakspere" along with another book, John Eliot's _The Survey_ , for 12 pence in total. Richard Field was another son of Stratford-upon-Avon, just three years older than Shakespeare, who sought his fortune in London, coming to the print shop of Thomas Vautrollier and ultimately taking it over after marrying Vautrollier's widow. The next year Shakespeare published another work printed by Field: the narrative poem _The Rape of Lucrece_ . Like _Venus and Adonis_ , it was also dedicated to Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton. In the same year, the first plays that would be ultimately attributed to William Shakespeare began to be printed anonymously. They were _Titus Andronicus_ and _The First Part of the Contention Betwixt the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster_ (a.k.a., _Henry VI, Part Two_ ). Also in 1594, Shakespeare became a founding member and sharer of the Lord Chamberlain's Men along with Richard Burbage, the company's leading actor and son of the impresario James Burbage, who built The Theatre in 1576. The first document with Shakespeare's name on it in a capacity as actor is the Exchequer Pipe Roll for 1595, recording a payment of £20 to the Lord Chamberlain's Men (with Richard Burbage, William Kempe, and William Shakespeare all explicitly named) for performances on the previous St. Stephen's Day (26 December 1594) and Holy Innocents' Day (28 December 1598) at Whitehall before the queen. In 1595, an edition of Shakespeare's _Henry VI, Part Three_ was published, the only Shakespeare play published in octavo format rather than quarto (or, ultimately, folio). In 1596, as mentioned, John Shakespeare was made a gentleman, thus making William a second-generation gentleman by the rules of primogeniture. Tragedy struck the Shakespeare family in this year as Hamnet died age 11. Also in this year, James Burbage acquired the upper part of the priory and another building and built the second Blackfriars Theatre. Unfortunately, resistance from well-connected people who lived in the area, including the Lord Chamberlain himself, prevented it from being used as an indoor theatre by the Lord Chamberlain's Men, so it was rented out to children's companies. In 1597, Shakespeare purchased New Place, the second-largest house in Stratford-upon-Avon from William Underhill. In addition to the house, the property contained two gardens and two barns. Incidentally, since authorship deniers make a big deal about the variant spellings of Shakespeare's name, it's worth pointing out that it's spelled as the conventional "Shakespeare" in all five appearances in the exemplification of fine for the purchase of New Place. James Burbage died in this year and his interest in the Blackfriars was inherited by Richard Burbage, the leading man, and his brother Cuthbert. In 1598, William Shakespeare's name appears on plays for the first time: the second quartos of _Richard III_ and _Richard II_ and the first quarto of _Love's Labour's Lost_ (where the name was spelled "Shakespere", showing that, while occurring less frequently, there are also variant spellings in print). Also in 1598 Shakespeare was fulsomely praised as both a poet and a playwright by Francis Meres in _Palladis Tamia; or, Wit's Treasury_ . Not only does Meres praise him, he identifies 13 plays as being written by Shakespeare, identifies him as the author of _Venus and Adonis_ and _The Rape of Lucrece_ , and even notes his "sugared sonnets [in circulation] among his private friends", which is the first printed reference to Shakespeare as a sonneteer. He was also praised by Richard Barnfield in "A Remembrance of Some English Poets". In 1599, a dispute with the landowner on which the Theatre was built forces the Lord Chamberlain's Men to build the famous Globe Theatre with the timbers of the dismantled playhouse, moved across the river and rebuilt on the south bank. Shakespeare was one of four Lord Chamberlain's Men's players to purchase half a share (a "moiety") in the Globe theatre, while the other moiety was shared between Richard Burbage and Cuthbert Burbage. Also in this year, William Jaggard publishes _The Passionate Pilgrim_ attributed to William Shakespeare, though the only genuine Shakespearean works are draft copies of what would become Sonnets 138 and 144 and three love poems taken from _Love's Labour's Lost_ . However, this does show, like Francis Meres' _Palladis Tamia_ , that William Jaggard also understood the poet and the playwright to be the same person. In the family realm, John Shakespeare was granted a confirmation of his coat of arms and the right to impale the Arden family arms with the Shakespeare family arms. In 1600, _Henry IV, Part Two_ , _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ , _The Merchant of Venice_ , and _Much Ado About Nothing_ are all published with Shakespeare's name on them and the playing information identifying his company as the Lord Chamberlain's Men. (In 1598, _Henry IV, Part One_ was published, and in 1599 it identified Shakespeare as the author.) In addition, the Stationers' Register entry of 23 August attributes the plays _Henry IV, Part Two_ and _Much Ado About Nothing_ to "Mr. Shakespere". Mr. was an honorific, short for "Master", that was used of armigerous gentlemen, and the William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon whose father John had been granted a coat of arms was the _only_ armigerous William Shakespeare at the time. Shakespeare's name also appears (and _separately_ from both Edward de Vere and Christopher Marlowe) as one of the selected authors in _Bel-vedere, or, The Garden of the Muses_ , the first literary anthology in the early modern period to draw material from plays as well as other forms of writing. In 1601, Shakespeare's father, John, died, and his poem "Let the bird of loudest lay" was printed - and attributed to him - as part of Robert Chester's _Love's Martyr_ . In 1602, Ralph Brooke, the York Herald, disputed the grants of arms of William Dethick, the Garter King of Arms, on the principle that unworthy men were being raised to distinctions they didn't deserve and that Dethick was granting designs that infringed on previous patents. Among the grants of arms Brooke disapproved of was that to "Shakespeare the player [actor] by Garter". He also claimed that the design of a field of gold (or) in a bend sable (black) infringed on other patents of similar design. Dethick and William Camden, the Clarenceux King of Arms, responded to Brooke's objection by quite properly pointing out that if Shakespeare's arms infringed on three other designs, then those designs clearly also infringed on each other, and that the "spear in bend" was a "patible difference".

(Part 2 of 2) As far as whether Shakespeare was posh enough for the coat of arms, they pointed out that John Shakespeare had been a magistrate and a justice of the peace in Stratford-upon-Avon and that he had married the "daughter and heir of Arden", showing their familiarity with the facts of Shakespeare's antecedents. Later, William Camden in his _Remaines of a Greater Worke Concerning Britaine_ would praise Shakespeare along with a raft of other poets as being among the "most pregnant wits of these our times, whom succeeding ages may justly admire." In 1603, Queen Elizabeth died and King James I and VI ascended the throne. George Carey, the 2nd Baron Hunsdon and Lord Chamberlain, also died in this year, and James took over the patronage of the troupe, making them the King's Men. In the royal warrants and the enrollment Shakespeare is given pride of place, being just second immediately behind Lawrence Fletcher, who was King James' favorite actor and one who had followed James down from Scotland. Skipping forward a bit (though with the proviso that Shakespeare's works continued to be published and republished with his name on them during this period), I will come to 1607 when Shakespeare's eldest daughter married Dr. John Hall, the Stratford-upon-Avon physician. In this year, Shakespeare was also enthusiastically praised as an author by William Barksted in _Myrrha, the Mother of Adonis_ , a work significantly indebted to Shakespeare's own _Venus and Adonis_ . In 1608, Dr. John and Susanna Hall welcomed their first and only child, Elizabeth, who was baptized on 21 February. Mary Arden survived to see her great-grandaughter, though she would die later this year and be buried on 9 September, eight years and a day after her husband. Also in this year, the King's Men were _finally_ able to take possession of the Blackfriars Theatre and perform there. There followed a shift in Shakespeare's writing towards more romances, a clearer five-act structure (intermissions between acts were necessary to trim the wicks and replace candles in indoor theatres), soft music (one of the arguments that scuppered their previous attempts to perform in the Blackfriars was that performances would be too loud), and more spectacular scenic effects, such as the descent of Jupiter in his chariot in _Cymbeline_ . Another play that is published for the first time this year is _King Lear_ , and in its first quarto edition the name of William Shakespeare with the honorific ("M.") identifying him as a gentleman dominates the page. In 1609, the first publication of William Shakespeare's sonnets occurs. Edward Alleyn records his purchase of "Shaksper sonetts" for five pence without questioning the attribution. Alleyn was a theatre professional of long-standing, having been acting since at least the age of 17 and being the leading actor through the 1580s, 1590s, and 1600s with Strange's Men/Admiral's Men/Prince Henry's Men, the major London rivals of the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men. Also in this year, the plays _Troilus and Cressida_ and _Pericles, Prince of Tyre_ are published with Shakespeare's name on them. In 1611, Simon Forman recounted seeing three Shakespeare plays at the Globe: _The Winter's Tale_ , _Macbeth_ , and _Cymbeline_ and even summarized the plots of the plays. In 1612, William Shakespeare (identified as being of Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick, a gentleman, and 48 years old) was called to be deposed in a lawsuit over the marriage portion promised to Stephen Bellot when he married Marie Mountjoy. According to the deposition information, William Shakespeare had taken a hand in the marriage negotiations at the behest of Marie's mother, with whom he was lodging at their house in Silver Street, Cripplegate, London, but that he couldn't remember precisely what was promised or agreed upon. Interestingly, after leaving the family home, Marie and Stephen rented a place from George Wilkins, who is believed by scholars to be the co-author of Shakespeare's play _Pericles_ and who published a novelization of the play titled _The Painful Adventures of Pericles_ . (Wilkins was also called on to be deposed.) As a sidelight on the Oxfordian hypothesis (not to mention the Marlovian), Wilkins only had an active literary career from 1606-08. In addition, John Webster published his play _The White Devil_ in 1612. He was the author the King's Men tapped to write a meta-theatrical induction scene justifying their performance of John Marston's _The Malcontent_ , which they were acting in revenge for one of the children's companies playing _The Spanish Tragedy_ by Thomas Kyd, a play in which they had an interest. (When Richard Burbage died in 1619, his triumphs as Hieronimo, the main character in this play, would be recalled alongside his triumphs in Shakespeare's plays.) The meta-theatrical scene has Richard Burbage, Henry Condell, William Sly, John Lowin, and John Sincklo playing themselves, and shows that Webster was intimately familiar with the roster of the King's Men's actors when Shakespeare was with the company. Webster praised Shakespeare "for his right happy and copious industry" along with half a dozen other playwrights (George Chapman, Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, Thomas Heywood, and Thomas Dekker). In 1613, William Shakespeare (identified in the legal documents as "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon in the County of Warwick, gentleman"") purchased the Blackfriars gatehouse. He named John Heminges as one of the two trustees in the deal, and after Shakespeare's death John Heminges, following the bequest in his will, transferred the property to Susanna Hall, Shakespeare's eldest daughter. Also in this year, _Henry VIII_ and _Cardenio_ were performed. _Cardenio_ was attributed to a collaboration between William Shakespeare and John Fletcher in a Stationers' Register entry. Also, we can date _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ to no earlier than 1613 because it contains a dance of rustics performed to entertain Theseus that is based on an antimasque from Francis Beaumont's _The Masque of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn_ , which was written for the wedding celebrations of the marriage of Frederick V, the Elector-Palatine of the Rhine, and Princess Elizabeth, a marriage that did not take place until February 1613. When the play was first published in quarto in 1634, it was attributed to "those memorable worthies of their time; Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakspeare, gentlemen". Then in 1616, William Shakespeare made his final will and testament and he died on 23 April 1616. Before he died, however, however, he did live long enough to see his younger daughter Judith married to Thomas Quiney, a vintner. A funerary monument likening Shakespeare to Virgil in his art ("arte Maronem" - Virgil's cognomen was Maro) and saying "all yt [that] he hath writ | Leaves living art but page to serve his wit" was installed in the north wall of Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon, and Shakespeare was buried underneath the chancel. In addition to the verbal praise of Shakespeare as a writer, it also depicts him with a pen, paper, and in the subfusc of a scholar with a cushion that is typical of the style of funerary effigies at the time when they honored learned men. It was carved from a single large block of limestone. Also in this year, Ben Jonson published his folio _Works_ , and Shakespeare appears with his King's Men colleagues in two cast lists: _Every Man in His Humour_ and _Sejanus His Fall_ . In 1619, Richard Burbage died and Shakespeare's works were reprinted by Thomas Pavier and William Jaggard in what is called a "False Folio". In 1623, _Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies_ , better known as the First Folio, was published. The book contains encomiums from Ben Jonson, in whose plays Shakespeare had acted, Hugh Holland (who wrote laudatory verse for the publication of Ben Jonson's _Sejanus_ , one of the plays Shakespeare acted in), Leonard Digges (who was a stepson of Thomas Russell, Esq. of Alderminster, whom Shakespeare named as one of the two overseers of his will, andD Digges had also previously praised Shakespeare as a sonneteer), and "I. M." (thought by scholars to be James Mabbe, a friend of Leonard Digges' and the one in whose book Digges left the marginal note praising Shakespeare for his sonnets). In addition, it contains a statement fromSo there John Heminges and Henry Condell, Shakespeare's fellow actors in the King's Men, that "We have but collected them, and done an office to the dead... without ambition either of self-profit, or fame: only to keep the memory of so worthy a Friend, & Fellow alive, as was our SHAKESPEARE, by the humble offer of his plays...." Remember that Heminges was the man Shakespeare trusted to serve as his trustee in the deal to acquire the Blackfriars gatehouse. So there you have not just 500 but over 3,000 words that never uses the forbidden words or phrases. It's so long I'll have to break it up into two parts.

Look i know he was English and you are not. Deal with it

So the stratford monument refers to a never seen or referred to monument in stratford which at the time was a village not too far but across a river and marsh from another essex village called hackney where de vere was buried. Yea brilliant. Buried in hackney monument in a different village in the opposite direction to london

There are many possible explanations for DeVere’s cover, after being noted as a most talented writer.. His guardian and father in law was William Cecil, the Queen’s chief advisor. After a series of scandals and insinuations, he might likely have been pressured to adopt the allonym when publishing his romantic and homoerotic poems and sonnets to the effeminate young Earl of Southampton.

@@roberts3784 i suspected too, h e might have been his lover, about his son, i elizabeth knew to be her mother? Messy theory, everything comes back to Hamlet, if he wrote that, he was in line of succession