Mister Waugh you are brilliant! Thank you so ,much for your high intellectual lever, for your distinguished english language. It is a great pleasure to discover you.
I get re-in-spired everytime I engage with one of your exposes. Bravo as always and eternal thanks for keeping our Earl and his Shake-Spear sharp and ready for the next Performance.
I remember you mentioning this subject earlier in the year; glad to see you got it done. Excellent case for Oxford being the patron Apollo and Shakespeare.
So amazing. Totally makes sense that the team of writers would be involved in churning out the plays initially -- writing and staging them in steady succession. Then followed by 13 years where Devere could work over the plays in solitude to make them more his own -- fully resolved and completed to his satisfaction.
Excellent! Yes, I agree Oxford's annuity was with the decline of the Revels' budget. My recollection is that the latter took place over a few years prior to 1586, and did indeed total roughly £1,000.
My source is 'The Exchequer in Elizabeth's Reign' by Frederick C. Deitz, Smith College Studies in History, Vol VIII, no. 2 (January 1923) 'Expenditures of the Exchequer' pp. 96-104. I am comparing the average annual payments to the Revels Office 1559-1586 with the same from 1587-1602, which shows an annual drop of £1000 (£1072.2 to be exact). Annual payments were variable and it is fair to say that the drop in payments from the exchequer to the Revels Office is a calculation of averages. There was only a single payment to Revels in one year from 1587-1602 and that was £411 in 1594, for all other years after 1586 the payment was zero. Oxford received £1000 every year from 1586 to his death.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I did a double take when I heard this in your very enjoyable presentation and wondered immediately what your source was. This seems quite extraordinary. Well done 👏.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 _...Oxford received £1000 every year from 1586 to his death._ - including a continuation by James I, who referred to him as "Great Oxford". Oxford eventually died precisely fifteen months after Elizabeth (24/06/1604 and 24/03/1603 respectively) .
@@EliteRock This emphasizes something that's itching in my mind about all this: if the poets were seen as propaganda, & De Vere was receiving such sums, we have to consider why all the *other poets* started having to take on other jobs right around the time that the pseudonym of Shakespeare starts being used. The books _reference Shakespeare as a contemporary after the fact._ But unless I missed something, our host's contention is that there is nothing historical from before 1591 attributing anything to that name *at that time.* & if De Vere going broke was the reason, why were his poets appealing for his help? *_Financial_* help? Modern thinking might see poets as simply that. But like Chaucer, John Dee or Michelangelo, the ancients were *rarely* Only One Thing. We have poets willingly taking part in propaganda, all leaving & becoming involved in things overseas at the same time. 🤔 I get the feeling that there's a LOT MORE to this story. Mr. Waugh, on the chance that it may open up a new line of investigation for you, allow me to introduce Tess Clark. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bMpMMHuW7ZU.html. Take everything with a grain of salt, but these poets were strictly trying to capture & rewrite _Italian_ poetry. They referred to all Roman & Greek Gods by their _Roman,_ not their Greek names. The Gods were planets, people used to watch the heavens more closely than we do now, &... there is simply too much to try to cover. Let's just say that if you go into that link above with the same attitude as the current 'accepted' Shakespearian historians that you won't like much of it. There are likely new theories to be found there.
Thank you Mr. Waugh for another very interesting and impressive video. I wonder quite what was meant by patronage. Was it mainly the provision of food and lodging and occasional handouts if the patron was particularly pleased? Were these men employees who were set tasks, and whose work was published and distributed at the patron's expense; or hangers on who tried to attract attention by seeking praise and largesse for whatever writing they had done by themselves, and who socialised with their patron when he felt so inclined? Would Oxford even have known that some of them were on his premises, squeezed in by friends and all living at his expense, particularly if he was careless about his expenses?
Thank you for your interesting post. I wish I could answer all those questions. Of one thing I am certain is that Oxford would have known all the scholars in his scriptorium. They were after all gathered in his own lodgings. Nashe uses the word ‘kept’. Bed, lodging, food and fuel were all included and I imagine a small stipend. When the row broke out, the landlady at Peter’s Hill wrote to Oxford: ‘You know, my Lord, you had anything in my house whatsoever you and your men would demand’. In a letter from Churchyard to the landlady he lists coals, billets, fagots, beer and wine as among things to which they were entitled at Oxford’s expense, while confessing that ‘napery and linen was not in any bargain I made with you for my lord.’
Thanks for this! Interesting as always. I thought Nashe lived in an episcopal palace -- but during what time periods, I don't know. He was on the run a few times. (I do wish the Isle of Dogs had survived, especially if it scorned the Elizabethan police state.) Nashe was a scrapper -- that's what I like about him. Sad that there is no portrait of him, but only a defamatory tiny image of a wooly-headed man in manacles.
I don't know how aware people are that the arts are still - probably more than ever - manipulated to guide public mindset. If you are interested, D J Mark Devlin goes into the sinister side of popular music, exposing many 'stars' as promoted and controlled by handlers working foir the secret services. I hadn't imagined it went back so far!
It would be tremendously helpful to see a timeline that shows us how the scriptorium/policy of plays (1583-1591?) corresponded with other affairs of state. Also, it is difficult to understand why Oxford went broke in 1591 when the Exchequer had granted him 1,000 pounds a year! (Or had this been suspended?) Finally, I assume the release of the "Shakespeare" plays into the public theaters from 1593 on was given the Queen's stamp of approval?
Thank you. Yes, the sort of timeline you suggest would be an excellent resource. Bankruptcy happens when a person's expenditure exceeds his income such that his net assets are insufficient to cover his debts, thus people with large incomes are as capable of going broke as people with small incomes. The Revel's Office (an office of the crown) did not allow all Shakespeare plays to be shown in public theatres. There are many Shakespeare plays with no public performance record in Elizabeth's reign and the printing of 18 of them was not sanctioned until 1623. Henry VI was evidently shown in public theatres before 1593 - not though under the name 'William Shakespeare'. I have written this up as '1591 - A Watershed Year for Oxford and the English Theatre', DVS Newsletter, Vol. 28, No. 3 (July 2021), pp. 4-18, which contains more information than that shown in this video.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for your generous reply, and for your many excellent RU-vid videos. I only recently discovered your work, just ordered your book on classical music, and am hoping there will shortly be a Waugh book on the Shakespeare controversy. I would like to share my book on music with you. May I send you a gratis copy?
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank you for this explanation - I was wondering this too. So did De Vere continue to receive the £1000 per year after 1591 but he still couldn't cover his debts? Also would I be right in understanding that the plays were probably performed during the 1580s privately for the court? Apologies if these are rather basic questions - I'm trying to absorb all of this.. Thank you. Its fascinating.
The saying “I am that I am” comes from Exodus 3:14. Thus, Oxford is saying he serves queen and god. Note on the Garden of the Muses frontpiece, we see the twin-pillars (or twin pyramids) of Masonry, with the Sun-god beaming above. These were the twin-pillars of Solomon’s Temple, namely Yachin and Boaz (or the Great and Second pyramids of Giza). All very Masonic, and yet 117 years before Grand Lodge was established in 1717. And is that a sprig of acacia between the pillar-pyramids? It looks like my masonic lapel badge. It was a sprig of acacia that marked the grave of Hiram Abif. More importantly, in Egyptian lore, the River Nile sprang from between the twin-peaks or twin-pyramids of Giza, while the acacia tree is symbolic of the Nile Delta. Ralph
Dear Ralph, I think in the Bodenham illustration the intent is to depict the twin peaks of Mount Parnassus, not Jachin and Boaz. These twin peaks sometimes called the twin thrones of Apollo and Artmemis were the mythological shrine of the poets. Oxford is not precisely calling himself God with ‘I am that I am’ but is stating that his achievements are effected by himself and the grace of God within him, as when Paul-Josephus says: ‘But by the grace of God I am that I am and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I but the grace of God that was with me.’ 1 Corinthians 15:10.
They may have been looking to Greece, but the motif and hieroglyph of the sun setting between twin-hills was also common in Egypt. In fact this was the name of Pharaoh Akhenaton’s capital city - Akhet-Aton (Amarna) the Horizon of the Aton. It was spelled with the Akhet glyph. But I don’t think the city of Akhet-Aton was discovered until the early 18th century. The sun between two hills - the Akhet: ancientlights.org/CalendarHouse/images/CalendarHouseCh1_html_17973163.jpg R
This short article has the heiroglyphic spelling of Akhetaton, using the twin-hills and sun glyph. www.arch.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/current-projects/life-ancient-egypt-amarna-resources-schools RE
And the Amarna princes all wore the long side-lock of hair, as did Henry Wriothesley. But again, as far as I know the discovery of the Amarna dynasty post-dates the Oxfordian era. Unless they discovered something earlier, and did not disclose it. Not sure that the Elizabethans explored Egypt at all. RE
Thank you Ralph for these interesting posts. It seems that all roads (in this game at least) lead not to Rome but to Egypt! Just finished your fascinating book on King Arthur - stunning research!
One of the key things that happened in 1591 was the marriage of de Vere to Elizabeth Trentham. We are never told what kind of deal might have been made in order for Trentham's family to take charge of Oxford's finances. This has not been investigated to my knowledge.
Keats's one-time mentor Leigh Hunt, in his Imagination and Fancy, refers to Ben Jonson in a way that meshes perfectly with the argument given here, on the playwright who "did our Lyly out-shine." Hunt writes, "Inquiring of a gardener, for instance, what flower it is we see yonder, he answers, 'a lily.' This is matter of fact. The botanist pronounces it to be of the order of 'Hexandria Monogynia.' This is matter of science. It is the 'lady' of the garden, says Spenser; and here we begin to have a poetical sense of its beauty and grace. It is 'The plant and flower of light,' says Ben Jonson; and poetry then shows us the beauty of the flower in all its mystery and splendour." Hunt is telling us the lily receives Jonson's highest accolade for brilliance and shining beauty among flowers. How brilliant then must be the sun that so far outshines "our Lily." Impossible to mistake Jonson's praise of Shakespeare-Apollo for anything but the acme of all praise...
Dear Robert, thank you. I am sorry I have been unproductive on RU-vid for so long. I have been diagnosed with a rather vicious stage four prostate and bone cancer which has taken a little of the wind out of my sails. I have however recently completed a nine-episode dramatic script of the life of Edward de Vere and a three-volume co-edited scholarly edition of contemporary allusions to Shakespeare. I have not given up the fight. There will be more! AW
@@alexanderwaugh7036 no way?!detox.c only thrives in acidic body.stay away from pharma pimps.they know nothing except Rockefeller’s lies.some good videos on bit/-chute about this.all the best Alex ..oh and eat more avocados 👍🏻drink distilled water..etc etc
One thing I have trouble with here is taking at face value that Oxford would have truly been offended at Marlowe's atheism. Steeped as he was in classical paganism and hermetic (neo-platonic) philosophy, Oxford's own religious views were at least unorthodox. It is not a far step from worship of Man to self-worship which at the very least is a type of idolatry. Is atheism really so much worse than idolatry? Narcissism being a constant theme in the works, (showing Oxford was keenly aware of the problem) I don't see it as credible that Oxford would then take refuge in a (sincerely held) narrow piety with respect to Marlowe's religious views. Couldn't it be yet another front or mask, an external show of piety in the endless game of cat and mouse with Lord Burleigh and his minions? In other words maybe Marlowe did something that made them all look bad or maybe Oxford just didn't like him and used Marlowe's professed atheism as an excuse to get rid of him.
Yes all that is possible and indeed Kyd may be protecting Oxford by saying that he could not countenance Marlowe’s atheism. Remember that ‘atheism’ did not mean what it does today. It simply meant disagreeing with the prescribed religions. The Jesuits called Thomas Tresham an atheist and Bruno (a very holy man) was executed for ‘atheism’. Much to ponder!
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Unless there is more to Kyd's letter throwing Marlowe under the bus, Marlowe's "atheism" seems only to be implied, not specified. "Divine prayers not quartering with reprobates" could have applied to Marlowe being any type of depraved scoundrel, without regard to his atheism. I do agree that Kyd was protecting Oxford (*especially* because he doesn't name him). That being said, I think that this entire brilliant video seems to entirely shred the Strafordianist narrative. I don't expect to see a rebuttal or "debunking" of this.
We accept biblical research and debates over who Jesus was, but to question the identity of the author of the plays attributed to the Stratford Man is strictly taboo.
Although I greatly support all the material in this presentation, I think Jonson also wants to look back on Kyd, Marlowe and Lily so he doesn't have to compare Shakespeare to himself. But that is a secondary issue. I love Alexander's work.
The OED definition of 'extant' you mention is '3. Existing so as to be publicly seen' which, when applied to verses, obviously means 'published'. If you go to EEBO and search 'extant NEAR/6 books' you will find copious examples of 'extant' meaning 'published'. OED sites Leland (1555) 'whose books were not of long extant' (ie. had not been published for long). The context of Bodenham's remark about Oxford is unequivocal as he contrasts two sources of Oxford's verse, those which are 'extant among other peoples writings' (ie published under other peoples names) and those which are 'private labors and translations' (ie unpublished in MS form) and the word is used in precisely the same context on the following page where Bodenham mentions verses he has taken 'from many of their extant workes and some kept in private'. We tend to use 'extant' lazily nowadays to mean 'existing'. Bodenham uses the word four times in his opening remarks about the verses he has taken for his book and there can be no doubt that on each occasion he means 'published' as opposed to 'private' verses which are still in manuscript form and not therefore 'existing so as to be publicly seen'.
Apparently Giulio Romano is the only artist mentioned by Shakespeare, he died in 1564, and worked on the Palazzo del Te ...Te meaning 'you' in Latin, I just thought of him yesterday because of his name resembling Romeo and Juliet...and it seemed an interesting coincidence that his death is the same date as Marlowe's and that guy from Stratford's birth year. And in a few of your lectures you mentioned T being an important sign, quite a few of the plays have pretend deaths, could Marlowe be collaborating with Oxford from Italy or wherever? Hopefully they became better friends through their mutual love of Ovid...+ wasn't Shakespeare first used as a pen name 13 days after the death of Marlowe? Interesting timing.
Sorry, Giulio Romano died on 1.11. 1546. not 1564..so that seems less relevant..and then I noticed a painting of Anthony-Maria Brown, 2nd Viscount Montague, who might be more connected to the play? Isn't 17EO quoted as saying or writing Mary was an adulteress and Joseph a cuckold, which is very similar to a slightly less polite comment on the matter by Marlowe ? Presumably when EdV's funding was coming from redirecting church funds he might have got more guarded about expressing any opinions that would offend them? Several Gods have iconography that fits very well with the imagery you mention, Hekate would be fine with the T because it looks like representing the joining of 3 roads, isn't She mentioned 3 times in the Plays? and G could just mean Group (if several writers are working on the plays)? Also, in one of those lists of poets , wasn't WS spelt Shakspeare. ..was that compiled after the writers death? I like that if the calendar is altered the way John Dee suggested, EdV's birthday would be 23.4 ..and his death would be 4 or 5 ,July, does that date have any significance..apart from Lewis Carroll's momentous trip down the river , or American Independence day of course...?
@alexanderwaugh I never hear you in all of videos discuss the idea that 40 in 1740 stands for the 40th monarch of England and is the reason Devere’s signature (which had 40 encoded in it ) changed dramatically with the ascension of James to the throne. What is your take on that?
Dear Virginia, British monarchs are properly counted from William the Conqueror , the fortieth is our present queen. Oxford was not a monarch, though some (not I) assert that he and/or Francis Bacon were illegitimate offspring of Elizabeth I. Even if this were the case neither Bacon nor Shakespeare would suggest themselves as the 40th British monarch since the monarchy does not pass through illegitimate lines.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Thank for your reply. I started with Petter Amundsen’s portfolio observations and found your series. Obviously you have a much stronger case for Oxford than he has for Bacon. Given the close associations and the number of people ‘who knew’ , I do wonder if there wasn’t a committee who were at work in the plays with Oxford at the head and continued after his death until publication of the first portfolio. As for the 40th/4t, I understand the count of monarchs could be done in different ways but the huge change of Devere’s signature at the exact time when James’ ascension was imminent is extremely striking to me, (if this video (around 16 min) is accurate ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-k7v8CosOHSs.html&feature=share (which also explains earlier why Devere could have counted Eliz 1 as 39th based on histories available to him) ) I think, beyond Shakespeare’s identity, you are beginning to uncover a drama at the Elizabethan court and I wonder if there other hints about the scandal details by contemporary authors at the time. I am also really surprised you have not gotten wider attention from your discoveries as Amundsen seems to have done in Norway. Amundsen did something very clever to put his arguments into a adventure / discovery narrative in a movie. Ken Fischer ken@atigro.com
Alexander Waugh. Perhaps you have missed the obvious symbol on the cover page of Shake-Spears Sonnets and that is the Double V pattern on the first and second lines. At minute 15:00 look upon the page and in your mind draw a line from the first S in Shakespears to the First S in Sonnets. Then from the lower S in sonnets back to the second S in Shake-Spears. From there, draw a line down to the lower S the last S in SonnetS" and finally to the upper S in Shake=SpearS* You should get the familiar Double "V" symbol of the Vere's Motto.
But I am not done yet. This double v is also a STAR map and we know how important Astrology and astronomy were in Elizabethan England. That familiar pattern is also reminiscent of the constellation Cassiopeia " Cassiopeia is famous for its distinctive W shape, an asterism formed by five bright stars in the constellation." It represents a vain Queen sitting upon her throne.
The Vere family motto is 'Vero nil Verius' which means Nothing Truer Than Truth The Double "V or W with period dots over the top could be seen as the Hebrew letter SHIN. SHIN has a few meanings one is "Peace" the Other >>VERE
We do in fact know a little something about the Athenian comedian Aristonymus. Has anyone who has worked on the Meres’ Palladis Tamia passage considered its possible relevance? Aristonymus wrote a comedy called The Sun Shivering (Helios rhigon), the title itself vaguely appropriate to a concealed or ruined Phoebus, in which (according to the scholia to Plato’s Apology) he called out the young Aristophanes (as also did Sannyrion in Laughter (Gelos)) for having concealed his identity in his early comedies. The passage from the ancient Vita reads, “Being very cautious at the beginning, as well as talented, [Aristophanes] entered his first dramatic contests under the name of Kallistratos and of Philonides. For that, Aristonymus and Ameipsias [[in Meres paired with Gascoyne]] made fun of him, saying he was born on the fourth day, according to the proverb, laboring for others.” It’s another matter how current this information from the ancient Vita and the Plato scholia was in late 16th century England. Thank you for these thrilling videos!
Dear Charles Mercier, Thank you very much for this very informative post. Really it belongs in the comments under the line on the video called 'Francis Meres Knew..' Have you seen that one yet? I wish I had known it when I made it. Thank you, Alexander
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I see I should have put this on 'Meres Knew...' If it better serves discussion, please delete the post here and I'll repost it there. Thanks!
@@charlesmercier3644 Thank you. I passed your original post through to Dr Stritmatter who has done a great deal of work on Meres and was the original discoverer of the Aristonymous connection with Shakespeare. He is most keen to be in touch with you. How shall I tell him he can do that? If you have a moment I should also be very pleased if you reposted your original post onto 'Francis Meres Knew' and leave it on here as well.
He may well have written the sonnets{devere} but that doesn"t mean he wrote the plays.Since they were written for the plebbies they would have turned their noses up with the sonnets taken as the higher art form and deserving of a spot at Westminister.They might have been too snobby to acknowledge working class willy the non oxfordian.The thing about Shakespere was'nt that he was just good, it was that he was a freak, and a freak can come from anywhere. I still think that he wrote the plays despite ingenious commentary and research.Its just not what he wrote about but the way he wrote.Insight empathy etc and the sheer breadth of his collected work.However always interesting and detailed exposition which I highly enjoy.Thanks for putting these out
Very interesting and thought provoking video. At 30:20 you state that the number 10 is "Io or Apollo"...do you mean Io the mythical lover of Zeus or do you mean "eye -O"? Eye was the Sun, Day's Eye (as in daisy), and the figure O with the dot in the centre was Sol, the Sun in alchemy- that having close association with gemmatria. Trying to make sense of that statement. Anyone? For some reason a line has been crossed out in my comment..not sure why that has happened.
Dear Carl, the Greek number 10 is written by the letter iota so the 'io' in 'iota' has long been associated with our number 10 (io). The so-called 'io io paean' is the famous call to Apollo, not to be confused with the mythical Io lover of Zeus who was given a cow's head, although it is true that fasting for Io was meant to last 10 days. I have made several presentations touching on the subject of Apollo and 10 which is of course connected to the circularity and unity of that number which is commented on by Agrippa and others. You might enjoy this one: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xG2O9A2JE_Q.html&ab_channel=AlexanderWaugh. The other one is called 'Francis Meres Knew...'
Hi. I really enjoy your videos. One thing I don’t understand. How can some people believe that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare? I watched some videos regarding him but I don’t agree with their evidence.
For a moment I wondered when bacon was in Europe, I can't remember where though. He had access to a private letter and the message therein was used in a Shakespeare play. That letter wasn't made accessible for a very long time after. Did de vere see it when in Europe if not. That leaves bacon.
@@margarethoskins6625 Bacon lived in France 76-79, then went on the Grand Tour in 1581/2. France, Italy, Spain. All fully documented in Smedley. Also DeVere wasn't Shakespeare because he was an arrogant idiot who died to early.
Whatever Kyd wrote after being rounded up and tortured cannot be taken at face value. He wrote tragedies and was a tragic figure himself, most likely dying at age 35 from the injuries received.
The 'face value' of all historical evidence should be challenged. Is there a particular passage from Kyd's letters to Puckering you consider unreliable?
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Kyd's disavowal of a relationship with Marlowe is a classic case of coerced rejection. The two were very likely sharing "the same room" for sleep as well as wake. Say no more. A wink is as good as a nod to a blind bat. Jurists are taught to avoid evidence that can be characterized as fruit from the poisoned tree. Contaminated by torture, Kyd's letter should be dismissed in its entirety.
Interesting about the 1000-pound drop in Exchequer payments to the Revels Office, simultaneous with Oxford's 1000-pound annuity for propaganda plays. Perhaps we could revise our ideas of Oxford as a total incompetent with money. Artists can be diligently alert to their artistic earnings / investments and slightly to utterly inattentive about their other fiscal affairs--or so I think (from personal experience?). To add to this, control (and secrecy) of the policy of plays might have been considered stronger if the 1000 yearly pounds passed through the great playwright's own two hands, rather than through several persons.
Thank you Tom. Oxford is constantly berated for his mismanagement of money. It is nonsense. He was ordered to pay £3000 by the court of wards while in his minority then fined on top of that £11,000 for failing to pay on time. He was bankrupted by the system before he came of age. Other courtiers who died with colossal unrepayable debts include Walsingham, Leicester, Hatton and Sidney. So what is all the fuss about?
After about ten minutes 'Educate the people of England ' said without sarcasm! Obviously this was controlled as much if not more than today's fascistic efforts...
I d be interested in why you believe John Florio could not be Shakespeare. He has all the connections and possibly abilities that are required for the author of the works.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 I have seen a lot of your videos and I find the evidence unconvincing. What is your refutation of John Florio as the playwright Shakespeare, or have you been only investigating De Vere ? Of course as an Englishman I would like the author to be English but the evidence for Florio is very strong.
In unlikely case of your being unaware of the fact - double ‘v’s have a conventional symbolic meaning of the two nails going through Jesus’ hands on the cross. Ref. - ‘The Chamberlain Key’ Timothy Smith (Alan Green recommendation).
De Vere is the favored alternative candidate for the authorship of the Shakespeare works. Therefore he is seem as a threat to those who are entrenched in the orthodoxy. To your second question.... there are a number of possible reasons. Most would be covered by simply looking at other pseudonymous writers of the past and present.
Maybe those real figures were chosen afterword by some editors of history of the system to give them the literature works to compose the game that will hide the ultimate secret and proof for future generations to find.
Mr. Waugh's video 'The Divinity of Man' and his videos on John Dee clear up alot of that occult influence, a hermeticism that's heavily Christian after its reworking in the past century. I doubt de Vere or any of the other playwrights would have anything more left field in their radar, as it was illegal, and I believe their hermetic beliefs were kept hidden through secret societies. Ted Hughes has a great essay called 'Shakespeare and Occult Neoplatonism' which explores this era's 'occult underground' - i highly recommend it.
@@Bradford.C.Wallsbury The original Christians were called Chrestians, the word chre or kre being etymologically related to Krishna. From 3 AD onwards they began to literalize the Bible and the divine in man became the man divine. It was never meant to be taken literally (2 Cor 3:6) and in the words of Nietzsche it has proved to be the greatest burden on the European mind. We live in a world of inversions so the divine in man becomes the man divine and now people are waiting around for a Galilean peasant to come along and save them. Only you can save yourself, not the church nor some vicarious saviour.
The Galilean is already implanted within our psyche if we are born in the West. But more importantly in the opening of the higher heart chakra. We just have to find him within us which takes much work for most people. It’s Christ Consciousness linked with Buddhic activity. Head and heart. Pineal, pituitary and Alta major centre deflects energy into the thymus gland and hey ho we are on the road to Damascus. Everything counts but no thing matters. ❤️
Could this be a reference to your underlying feelings about women? You're saying everything about yourself and nothing about the muses, who, whether you like it or not, were female.
@@alexanderwaugh7036 Good point! However, being something and being likened to something are two different things. As far as I'm aware the Muses were female. And why would disproportioned mean that they were male and not female? Non sequitur.
Thanks for another well researched and interesting video. Christopher Marlowe was an alias of another very famous person, accordingly to Jacob Roberts, who will reveal it in his next book. His death was staged. The portrait in your video was found in his former dorm room at Cambridge. I have decrypted it with hints from Jake, who found the Autobiography of Bacon for all to "read if thou cans`t" on the funerary plaque in Stratford-upon-Avon and wrote the step by step decryption. The portrait was painted by Bacon, who had multiple aliases as painters, including TiberioTenelli. They bunch of these men were spies with many prearranged identities. G is God and also Bacon. 17 is R for Rosacrucion, H in reverse cipher (which is the double Tau,) and REX (Bacon was the Dauphin of France with H shows prominently on that coat of arms. He was born the legitimate son of Francis II of France and Mary Queen of Scots, which made him the older brother of James I and thus the heir to those thrones as well.) According to Roberts and Bacon, Oxford was the illegitimate son of Elizabeth I and Thomas Seymour. Rosacrucions used Bees with their "M" secret hand signals in many of their portraits to honor them.
Drive-by insults calling Alexander Waugh dishonest is the best you have? How about offering a serious response to the large body of evidence presented here by actually addressing some of the details?
If DeVere was ao pious, why did he engage in whoring and adultery, disavow the parternity of his daughter Elizabeth, and try to cast shame on his wife Anne? Why did he constantly write to Cecil about his determination to put his own concerns above all else, imcluding rhe keeping of his very young wife and then newborn daughter. I do believe DeVere probably was Shakespeare, but he does NOT seem like a good and pious person, regardless of his literary talent. I think his onvious narcissism actually supports him being Shakespeare because Shakespeare comes off as incredibly arrogant in his plays - which is why I can see Ben Johnson was initially thought to be a contender as a possible true author.
... cont'd The term 'God' is a greek acronym 'G.o.d' derived from 'Geometry of divinity', the angular relationship of the objects of the celestial sphere. 'Angel' means "angel", the latitude and longitude of the celestial sky globe that hold/guard the sky together, supporting it. As the Earth rotates, they rise up into the sky in the east and fall down to Earth in the west - risen and fallen angels/angles. Various numbers describe the phenomena of the sky, such as 7 days of the week, 7 beasts of revelation (new sky 'world' order due to a new pole star "king" appearing), trinity of 3 (universe/stars, sun, light), 30 day moon cycle, 12 zodiac constellations, 6 for 6 pm plus 6 hours to midnight to 6 am (666, the number of the scary beast/nightsky, Star of David, as celestial sky above, so celestial sky below), 8 latitude lines (circumcisions/circumference cuts), 40 days and night "passage of time", 11 for north and south axis "towers, pillars", 4 seasons and cardinal directions, 2 for male/female (opposites), 360 degree circle, 1 for unity/light, and many others. So, we see the jew/phoenician infatuated with meanings of numbers and Words (gematria), geometry (angles), night sky (Is-Ra-El, kingdom, temple, church, synagogue, etc.), invisible sun (Sol-Om-On, Apollo, Lucius-fer, antichrist/light, satan/opposer, etc), and related ideas. See the jew Dee and other jews like him. Most jews/phoenicians are hidden/cryptic jews, following their way of life/practice/craft. From the crypt/tomb, the underworld (opposite celestial sky), where the night sky comes from, often revealing itself as the Word/light/stars of the celestial night sky = 'God' = light, its shining behaviour = spirit/soul. Elite jewry, Edward de Vere/royalty/peerage/etc being of it, does all of this as a way of life, constantly, beginning with the inbreeding, self-idolizing phoenician's/jew's inception 6000 years ago, growing exponentially, adding endless new rackets to old rackets running, using literally-taken mythology as the template for its commercial business empire called Modern Civilization. The Shakespeare racket is a grain of sand on the dark water shores of the celestial night sky-worshipping jew's Earthly, worldwide, profiteering, racketeering, warmongering empire. For a purposeful reason the Phoenician/hebrew/jew uses the first two letters, 'alef/ph' and 'bet', of its writing system, forming the term 'alphabet', to write the languages of the world societies it has infiltrated and subjugated to itself over the last 6000 years. Vowels were added to facilitate written trade agreements and contracts. The jew certainly wouldn't be using anyone else's (humanity's) writing system. Because it believes itself as the celestial universe, the jew thinks of itself as the Word of 'God', that is, light/god itself, to rule over humanity, Earth, Nature, Life, and everything else in existence. The insane mind and behaviour of the inbreeding jew. Some of the mal-developments of inbreeding are savants (mental genius in one area, impairment in others), Hapsburg jaw, cone head/misshapen skull, rat ears, reptile/jutting lower face, long tongue, long face/skull, beady eyes, frail physique, bodily disproportion, gigantism, midgets, alien/exotic features, hooked nose, sexual disorders such as infertility, lesbianism, homosexuality, and bisexualism, socio psychopathy, rare congenital diseases (e.g., hemophiliac), and much more, see jewry. The jew's scams are endless. Another one is 'Christopher Columbus' from 'Cristo-fer Colon' meaning "light-bringer dove" = dawn sky. Another fabricated jew figure posed as light of the morning sun, not yet risen, discovering the new sky 'world', posed on Earth's surface. Then there's Santa Claus, from Saint Nicholas/Nicklaus, meaning light of the north polestar, presenting shiny glittering star "presents" down the black chimney of the night sky above Earth's surface as "he" rides his Big Dipper "cart, wagon, sled, sleigh" around the night sky 'world'. And Nikolas Tesla, the dawn sky, Prometheus the "fire/sun bringer", full of quirky behaviour such as marrying a pigeon/dove, wiping his dining room/"night sky" clean/clear every night, saying he could see the past, present, and future (night, dawn, day) all at once, naturally. And Dracula the night sky, drinking the "blood" of the day sky's red sunset to exist. And the Wizard of Oz/ounce of gold, the easy money-grubbing banker jew behind the curtain/scene, pulling the purse strings. And so on, endlessly, it's all Hollywood, 100% elite jew. As the jew "shakespeare"/apollo/Edward de Vere/hidden sun/Taurus chief said, “all the world's a stage”, meaning an elite jew-produced, -directed, and -starred in stage/theatre followed blindly by a low paid, dumb-downed, desperate-living extra called humanity. Lesson? Don't take mythology literally yourself, and see the jew behind literally-taken and -pushed mythology everywhere, creating the comedic farce and human tragedy called Modern Civilization, the death walk of the human species into extinction, courtesy of the middleman, world trading, profiteering, racketeering jew/phoenician. If only it had remembered what Genesis 3-24 truly meant, the life-threatening, species-killing Earth behaviour being described and lived in accordance with by our ancient ancestors until the humanity-raping and -pillaging, lie- and confusion-spreading jew came around 6000 years ago, preferring greed for temporary easy money, power, profit, and fame over eternal life for civilized humanity. Nature provides no shelter for inbreeding, only self destruction for that following and accepting it. Are you a follower or an allower, jew or yew? Shakespeare, another jew nail in humanity’s coffin.
Leaving aside the fact that Marlowe died in 1593 - if he was the true author, who did Southampton think was addressing him in the dedication of Venus and Adonis?
Don’t worry Mystico, I am not converting to Prince Tudorism. He was as he says ‘in a manner brought up’ by her! Perhaps ‘quasi-aunt’ would have been better.
don't get the significance of 17, which seems to be the key to all waugh's interpretations. also the idea of the greatest playwright ever also being a great patron doesn't work, genius is not usually interested in nurturing lesser talents.
17 is NOT the key to all my interpretations, but if you wish to understand the significance of that number to Oxford-Shakespeare take a look at 'Revealing the Number that unmasks Shakespeare' and another called 'The Divinity of Man'. There are thousands of examples of geniuses nurturing lesser talents. In fact I struggle to think of one who did not.
Alexander your title for this fabulous video is misleading. Why not call it Oxford's Apostles? I have no idea why anyone could believe that Marlowe was Shakespeare b/c he has the same problem as Will of Stratford. He lacks the education, access, & knowledge that de Vere had. Just b/c Marlowe was smart and a good writer in no way imbues him w/the life experiences expressed in the Shake-speare Cannon. You never address how Oxford could plead bankruptcy if he rec'd 1000 pounds until his death. Surely he could cover the expenses of his Scriptorium, right? I luv your channel and I visit from time to time to see if you have posted. Last question, why aren't the winning videos of the Tom Reignier competition posted? I luv the "Just a Coincidence" video by Mark Andre Alexander but I have to plow thru the 3-hour session to find the 3-minute clip.
Oxford juggled his finances in a peculiar way. He earmarked certain of his lands and incomes for certain projects. He did not just have a pot of money into which he dipped, but allocated for instance the rent from this farm to that writer or musician. His contract with lutenist Robert Hales still survives. In 1591 Oxford was being ripped off by two of his servant trustees, Thomas Hampton and Israel Amyce. The poet Henry Lok had just left him after 20 years service. Oxford’s finances were in a parlours state. That he was receiving a £1000 annuity is not material. Financial worries can afflict those with large incomes just as easily as those with small incomes as the problem does not concern income but expenditure. We do not know how the scriptorium was ended in 1591 but I suspect the Queen had something to do with it as Thomas Churchyard complained to her when he was left holding the candle responsible for the rent St Peter’s Hill. Oxford did not ‘plead bankruptcy’. Burghley appears to have taken command of the St Peter’s Hill fiasco and Oxford’s patronage of his play writing scriptorium came to an abrupt end.
What about Philip Sidney? Assuming he lives beyond 1586...maybe the natal chart that John Dee did for Philip Sidney has clues? Watch our videos for new theories!
I am begining to understand...Culture is a matter of state policy even that times...the birth of a nation was careffuly prepared by Her Majesty Public Sevants....So I can get it...Shake spear, even he was a real figure could not have the abilities to write what is called today Shakespeare works....Still in the public view he did wrote by himself all these masterpieces.....although no manuscript of his wax found until today....
