This documentary is sublime, a great example of an interviewer letting the camera run and allowing the interviewee to say what they really mean - love the catty Oxbridge don! You can tell he's got a classical education because he pronounces 'homo' the old-fashioned way, i.e. with short vowels like 'homogeneous' (meaning 'same') rather than the modern pronunciation with long vowels like Homo erectus (meaning 'man'). And having Enoch Powell is a coup. They really don't make documentaries like they used to. Bravo, PBS!
@apollocobain8363
4 ай бұрын
That dude (Rowse) is hysterical, 35:22 him declaring that OTHERS exhibit "snobbery" = ironic 38:00 "in point of fact he was a roaring Ha-Moh" ...goes on to name the guys he championed as 'the clever grammar school boys' moments earlier
@daytime12
Ай бұрын
I agree with you!!!... Rowse is hysterically funny!!..21:49 he states that Powell does not qualify to have an opinion...then Rowse sticks his chin out in defiance!!!... As if his chin said "yeah I said it!!" Hysterically funny😂😂😂
@liloleist5133
7 ай бұрын
"The Shakespeare Trust" a hypnotic experience in *Mass Psychosis😅*
@thoutube9522
5 ай бұрын
prove it.
@mississaugataekwondo8946
3 ай бұрын
I find a great parallel between Sir Stanley Wells, a penis puppet for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, and Wilfrid Hyde-White as captain of the Magic Christian-both working for fraudulent enterprises.
@rubaidaallen2764
4 ай бұрын
I will never tire of watching this documentary. So, so good 👏👏👏👏
@anthonybrakus5280
4 ай бұрын
A. L. Rouse does a wonderful job of demonstrating the symptoms of prideful, stubborn, surety. When asked to comment on what has been said regarding the authorship question he doesn't speak to Shakespeare's authorship instead he insults the people who question the authorship. Another hint that someone is speaking from their feelings and not from logic is when they get all squirmy and their lip starts quaking and they make inappropriate body language all the while getting more and more distressed.
@emhl
6 күн бұрын
My god, he sounded like a buffoon when emotionally chiding mr. Powell. It was cringeworthy.
@Northcountry1926
Жыл бұрын
Intetesting - thx
@MartinSoundLabs
8 ай бұрын
Loved this.. has elements not even included in Truer Than Truth or Anonymous!
@Wyrmwould
Ай бұрын
I love how fast Stratfordians resort to insults instead of actually debating the subject.
@tjaruspex2116
Ай бұрын
If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If neither, attack your opponent.
@Nullifidian
Ай бұрын
What is there to debate? There is no contemporary documentary evidence for any other author in the Shakespeare canon barring John Fletcher, and since Shakespeare's name is listed alongside Fletcher's the latter's authorship does not preclude the former's. Nor is there any contemporary testimony establishing that any other so-called "authorship candidate" wrote Shakespeare's works instead of him. Close stylistic analysis and its computer-age descendant stylometrics has added some more names to the canon in the early and late plays, but they're all recognized playwrights in the early modern Bankside theatre community, not scribbling aristocratic amateurs like Edward de Vere. In fact, stylometry firmly excludes Edward de Vere from contributing to Shakespeare's body of work, as does close analysis of his writing style, which reveals a rustic East Anglian accent with different pronunciations (since people spelled things as they sounded to them in this era) and rhyme words than William Shakespeare. But, frankly, anyone with an ear for early modern literature can exclude Edward de Vere as having written Shakespeare. There's an Oxfordian who haunts KZitem named Steven Hershkowitz and he challenged people to tell who wrote what in a chimeric poem made up of Edward de Vere's verse (and one poem misattributed to de Vere) and William Shakespeare's. Using no other aesthetic standard than whether it was good or bad, I was able to distinguish 100% between de Vere's verse (bad) and Shakespeare's (good), and I even correctly identified the part of the poem that drew from a misattribution to de Vere, which was too good for him but too poor to be Shakespeare's work. Rather than admit that I had successfully answered his challenge, he deleted the entire thread. But I was predicting that response and archived his chimeric poem and my post in response. So, in the absence of any documentary, testimonial, or stylometric evidence for other "authorship candidates" as the "real Shakespeare", what remains to be debated? Merely a bunch of irrelevant claims and speculations that do nothing to forward the case for authorship even if they're taken as true for the sake of argument. Any advocate for an "alternative Shakespeare" will have to rebut the following prima facie case with specific evidence to the contrary or a demonstration that the logic somehow fails to support the conclusion, at a minimum. If they can't even do that, and none has yet, then the entire subject is a non-starter. oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html P. S., If you're interested I wrote a five-part point-by-point rebuttal of this documentary in the comments to the more widely-viewed version of this video uploaded by NorthropN156. They were left four months ago, and if you want to read them then sort by "Newest First" because otherwise one of the posts will not appear.
@vetstadiumastroturf5756
Ай бұрын
@@Nullifidian Why is it necessary to construct a case if there is nothing to debate? Because there is no documentary evidence. Edward de Vere as a hidden writer requires that a case be made, but Willie Shaks as Shakespeare demands that there should be literally thousands of documents that equal proof without the need to construct a case of mere evidence. Your entire line of reasoning is without merit. I believe you are referring to The Benezet Test, which was not created by any KZitemr, real or ghostly. IT was created by a guy named Benezet, and he's been dead for a while. The rules are: without cheating determine which lines belong to Shakespeare and which to De Vere. If care or skill could conquer vain desire, Or reason's reins my strong affection stay, Then should my sights to quiet breast retire, And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray; Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast, Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed. My reason, the physician to my love, Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve Desire is death, which physic did except. Past cure I am, now reason is past care, And frantic mad with evermore unrest; Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong; My mazed mind in malice so is set As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long; Patience perforce is such a pinching pain As die I will, or suffer wrong again. For, if I should despair, I should grow mad, And in my madness might speak ill of thee; Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad, Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be. Love is a discord and a strange divorce Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power, As mad with reason, we admit that force Which wit or labour never may empower My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, At random from the truth vainly expressed: For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, Who art as black as hell, as dark as night. Why should my heart think that a several plot, Which my heart knows the wide world's common place? Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not, To put fair truth upon so foul a face Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart? Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint? Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart? Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint? Who first did print with colours pale thy face? Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest? Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace? Who made thee strive in virtue to be best? Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, The more I hear and see just cause of hate? O, though I love what others do abhor, With others tho shouldst not abhor my state. What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire, When only sighs must make his secret moan ? A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire, My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone. Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above, To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love.
@Nullifidian
Ай бұрын
For the record, tjaruspex deleted my comment where I responded to the Bénézet test, but left this one up, therefore I'm going to repost what I said in this post in the hope that he's mistakenly confident that he successfully suppressed my post and won't be looking at this one. @vetstadiumastroturf5756 "Because there is no documentary evidence...." So title pages, dedication pages, Stationers' Register entries, Revels Accounts entries, contemporary literary anthologies including William Shakespeare's works under his name, and written statements by Shakespeare's contemporaries that he was an author, including those who had known him personally and/or professionally do not constitute "documentary evidence"? This is the kind of topsy-turvy worldview that prevents Shakespeare authorship denialism from being taken seriously by Shakespeare experts. It's not because they're invested in "the man from Stratford", but because the first act of any denialist is to ignore the documentary evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. But if you had anything like this for Edward de Vere, you'd be thrusting it in my face daily and denouncing me if I pretended that it didn't exist. Shakespeare authorship denial not only runs on willfully ignoring evidence but also the rankest hypocrisy. As for your test, I'm glad to take it. To make it clear what I'm responding to, I'm going to quote each passage with my reasons for attribution to de Vere or Shakespeare. "If care or skill could conquer vain desire, "Or reason's reins my strong affection stay, "Then should my sights to quiet breast retire, "And shun such signs as secret thoughts bewray; "Uncomely love, which now lurks in my breast, "Should cease my grief, through wisdom's power oppressed." This is whiny, boring, overly alliterative, and doesn't keep the meter (the sixth line lands hard on the extra syllable-op-PRESSED-which throws off the entire meter, as contrasted with the occasional use of a "feminine" ending with an eleventh unstressed last syllable in Shakespeare), so I'm going to conclude it's by Edward de Vere. "My reason, the physician to my love, "Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, "Hath left me, and I, desperate, now approve "Desire is death, which physic did except. "Past cure I am, now reason is past care, "And frantic mad with evermore unrest; Now this is entirely different in tone. While it is a complaint, it's not merely whinging. In fact, it was very badly strategized of Louis Bénézet to place these passages next to each other, because it really shows the difference in how de Vere and Shakespeare handle the same theme. Shakespeare handles it deftly and with humor and the use of imagery. I suppose "reason's reins" is a kind of image, but how much more satisfying is it that reason is portrayed as a doctor who got angry with his patient for not following his prescriptions and therefore left the recalcitrant patient to his fate. He then goes on to play with the proverbial expression "past cure is past care". Verdict: Shakespeare. ""Fain would I sing, but fury makes me fret" "And rage hath sworn to seek revenge of wrong; "My mazed mind in malice so is set "As death shall daunt my deadly dolours long; "Patience perforce is such a pinching pain "As die I will, or suffer wrong again." Again, this is just whinging with no imagery to leaven the complaint with the exception of the sort-of pun on "sing" and "fret". The problem, though, is that frets are an instrumental feature, not a vocal one. You can contrast this with Shakespeare's use of the same "fret" pun in _The Taming of the Shrew_ , where Katherine smashes a lute over her music tutor's head. There the analogy is exact. It's less exact in _Hamlet_ , but even in that case there's an instrumental motif, since Hamlet is trying to get Guildenstern to play the recorder. Plus the extreme alliteration is typical of de Vere. He's so incompetent that he can't find a way to maintain alliteration, which seems to be his poetic hammer with which he treats every line of verse as a nail, without using the word "daunt". Death doesn't end his "deadly dolours long"; it just momentarily intimidates them. Laughable. This bad poetry screams Edward de Vere. "For, if I should despair, I should grow mad, "And in my madness might speak ill of thee; "Now this ill-wresting world is grown so bad, "Mad slanderers by mad ears believed be." This is Shakespeare. It's clear from the fact that he doesn't start off from an affectation of despair already, but rather treats of despair in the subjunctive mood. Also, "ill-wresting" is the kind of striking image that de Vere was simply incapable of. Instead of saying, "credulous" or "calumnious", he uses the analogy of an object being wrenched out of shape. One is reminded of the passage in Much Ado About Nothing : "Thou hast frighted the word out of his right sense, so forcible is thy wit." "Love is a discord and a strange divorce "Betwixt our sense and rest, by whose power, "As mad with reason, we admit that force "Which wit or labour never may empower" This is the only passage so far to cause me the slightest hesitation. Not because I think Shakespeare might have written it-he is too good to make a rhyme like power/empower-but because I have the instinct that it is just too good for de Vere, even though it's inferior to Shakespeare. I suspect someone else's verse has been misattributed to de Vere. But since I suspect that, I'm going to go with de Vere (attributed) rather than Shakespeare. "My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, "At random from the truth vainly expressed: "For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, "Who art as black as hell, as dark as night." Now I have no question about this. This is the real voice of Shakespeare. Aside from the power of the language, there's again the use of real imagery to forward the poetic argument, not just wallow, and there's another person involved. Implicitly, this is true of de Vere's verse too, but he never seems to address the other party. Instead, de Vere is in love with himself in love and pities himself merely because he asserts his state is pitiable. This self-centeredness is pretty typical of the man who, when begged to economize by his father-in-law, said "Mine is made to serve me, and myself not mine." "Why should my heart think that a several plot, "Which my heart knows the wide world's common place? "Or mine eyes, seeing this, say this is not, "To put fair truth upon so foul a face" This is equally clearly Shakespearian, though I'm dealing with it separately because clearly it's not of a piece with the preceding passage. The fair/foul dichotomy is particularly typical. Just think of Macbeth for example: "Fair is foul, foul is fair: | Hover through the fog and filthy air." "Who taught thee first to sigh, alas, my heart? "Who taught thy tongue the woeful words of plaint? "Who filled thine eyes with tears of bitter smart? "Who gave thee grief, and made thy joys to faint? "Who first did print with colours pale thy face? "Who first did break thy sleeps of quiet rest? "Above the rest in court, who gave thee grace? "Who made thee strive in virtue to be best?" This is de Vere again. It's tedious, it's whiny, and it doesn't go anywhere. It's literally just one damn thing after another with him. The thoughts don't join up. He confuses mere repetitiveness with a poetic style. "Who taught thee how to make me love thee more, The more I hear and see just cause of hate? O, though I love what others do abhor, With others tho[u] shouldst not abhor my state." Sneaky Bénézet throwing this passage in at the end of de Vere's series of rhetorical questions. However, there is more than enough to distinguish this as Shakespeare's. For one thing, the question moves on to the second line and isn't confined to the first and involves the kind of poetic contradiction that de Vere was incapable of: "love thee more"/"more I hear and see just cause of hate". And the third and fourth lines build creatively on the image established: even though I love what everyone else abhors, don't you abhor me with them. P. S., It should be "thou" not "tho" (though) on the last line. I've altered it so it makes sense. "What worldly wight can hope for heavenly hire, "When only sighs must make his secret moan ? "A silent suit doth seld to grace aspire, "My hapless hap doth roll the restless stone. "Yet Phoebe fair disdained the heavens above, "To joy on earth her poor Endymion's love." And more tedious de Vere whinging and alliteration (five s sounds in line three alone!). I laughed out loud at "hapless hap", which is just so inelegant an expression, and the rest of the line is just bizarre if you know the mythology. Because the rolling restless stone is Fortune's stone. But Fortune deals with everybody's luck-good or ill-whereas de Vere seems to think that Fortune is a goddess created for him alone, I guess? It's very difficult to parse this passage in any way that makes sense, except to assume that de Vere was applying the artistic standard of "sod it, it'll do". And the Phoebe/Endymion reference, rather than adding to the poetic quality, just seems like over-egging the pudding, but at least it keeps him off the alliteration. To be honest, if you-and Louis Bénézet-thought that this should have been difficult for me, then it simply verifies what I've long thought about most Shakespeare authorship deniers, which is that they have tin ears to which anything written in early modern English that goes ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM, ti-TUM sounds Shakespearian. I wonder if you'll come back to tell me how I did, because I'm pretty confident I successfully identified them all. The first thing I'm going to look up as soon as I hit "Reply" is whether that questionable passage was genuinely misattributed to de Vere.
@pendorran
5 ай бұрын
"The verbal parallels between Oxford's Paradise poems and Shakespeare's works which Mr. Looney painstakingly amasses are, on the whole, mere commonplaces, often straight-out proverbs, that could be vastly increased in bulk by a person familiar with Elizabethan poetry. They prove nothing except that Shakespeare and Oxford, like all other Elizabethans, indulged in the use of fashionable commonplaces and figures." - 1927 review by H.E. Rollins, an actual expert.
@aleonyohan6745
5 ай бұрын
Wow what a fabulous documentary.
@petercrossley2956
26 күн бұрын
So Shakespeare's will names three actors as heirs. Has anyone looked at their records to see if Shakespeare is mentioned ? As a true believer, I trust in Michael Wood's PBS series " in Search of Shaakespeare": rather than these prejudiced old goats. And what about Oscar Wilde's story "The Portrait of Mr. W. H. " with direct links to the sonnets and an actor in the Globe/Rose company ? Also look at "Shakespeare in Italy" as a reference point. I do not doubt The Bard of Avon.
@edgarsnake2857
4 ай бұрын
This is a great whopper of a mystery. I swear I get convinced back and forth with every film and lecture that I watch about this. The smart money seems to be on Devere, but I've seen auguste scholars make a serious case for the Stratford man. "Tis a puzzlement.
@marshabailey1121
7 ай бұрын
I've been an Oxfordian since around the time I first saw it.
@steveharris8248
6 ай бұрын
It's impossible to take the Stratford drivel seriously after watching this.
@marshabailey1121
6 ай бұрын
@@steveharris8248 I couldn't agree more. The Stratfordian myth is made out of whole cloth. Completely made up without a shred of evidence to back it.
@Jeffhowardmeade
5 ай бұрын
@@marshabailey1121Except for all the friends and contemporaries who said it was him, his ownership in the theater company which produced the plays, and the theaters in which they were performed, local Stratford details in the plays, and his getting nearly everything wrong about places he had never been. Except that and a few other things I've probably forgotten, no evidence at all.
@calebcostigan2561
5 ай бұрын
@@Jeffhowardmeadehe could have easily been a frontman for a Nobleman.
@Jeffhowardmeade
5 ай бұрын
@@calebcostigan2561 A nobleman who never attended university and who got nearly everything about Europe wrong? I suppose it's possible and that everyone was lying. But why?
@pendorran
5 ай бұрын
Ben Jonson was the most classically literate of the Elizabethan dramatists. He was the (step)son of a bricklayer. Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to Henry VIII, was the son of a blacksmith. Upward mobility was not impossible in this era, and a man could get an education or educate himself.
@Wayland444
4 ай бұрын
Was not Marlowe the son of a cobbler?
@mississaugataekwondo8946
3 ай бұрын
True, he could, but for Marlowe and Jonson there is amply evidence, but nothing for Shakspere absoutely nothing.
@Jeffhowardmeade
2 ай бұрын
@@mississaugataekwondo8946 Except for the 20+ colleagues who said the poet was the actor and gentleman from Stratford. You forgot all of them.
@lindsay3043
4 ай бұрын
How do we know you’re not Shakespeare 42:42 🥲🥲🥲
@robertburke2253
8 ай бұрын
Most intriguing documentary about Shakespeare I've ever seen; quite fascinating...I think he was the glovmaker's son, the clever schoolboy, not the fellow of royal lineage (though they'd obviously like to think so...)
@rstritmatter
6 ай бұрын
Who's "they"? Have you read the plays? I can't tell.
@MapleSyrupPoet
Ай бұрын
😅 I believe in William Shakespeare ❤❤❤ ✍️
@tjaruspex2116
Ай бұрын
So does everybody. Hardly the question.
@MapleSyrupPoet
Ай бұрын
@@tjaruspex2116 "To be, or not to be? Or, to be a bee 🐝 that is the sting 😎
@MaHa-um5sv
4 ай бұрын
Blind faith in the idea of "genius" is not a rebuttal to context and the reality of creation. Anyone who studies the humanities has discarded the faux notion of the "isolated genius" decades ago. It was already passe in the early 90s when the docu was made. Art is not created in a vacuum.
@tjaruspex2116
4 ай бұрын
Well said!
@Jeffhowardmeade
4 ай бұрын
Shakespeare's stagrcraft was learned. His plots were all borrowed. The only genius he possessed was his facility with language. As with with any art, genius is an essential ingredient of great poetry.
@EndoftheTownProductions
2 ай бұрын
Shakespeare refers to the Gunpowder Plot in Macbeth. He mentions "equivocation" and "equivocator" and this refers to the Catholic Priest Henry Garnet who was associated with the plot. There are also other allusions to the plot in the play. The date of the Gunpowder Plot was November 5, 1605. Therefore, the play Macbeth must have been completed after this date and most likely finished in mid to late 1606. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, died on June 24, 1604, which obviously makes it impossible for him to have written the play Macbeth which has been attributed to Shakespeare and later published in the 1623 First Folio. It is difficult to write a play after you have died and there is obviously no way for Edward to have known of the Gunpowder Plot and the trial of Henry Garnet before his death.
@apollocobain8363
9 ай бұрын
14:06 this 1595 document of "actor" pay is disputed
@rstritmatter
6 ай бұрын
Yes, but one does not need to question it to realize that the Stratford myth is self-serving nonsense.
@johnsmith-eh3yc
2 ай бұрын
Not disputed at all. Its part of a document listing the actors in two companies its very long and shskespeare is one of msny being paid. There is nothing anywhere doubting its ahthenticity except youtube loons. Its not the only one either. Shakespeare was also paid as a player in red cloth in 1604, listed second after king james fav actor. Its not clear if he was paid in 1604 for acting or just hanging around the new king but he was paid and listed as an actor
@apollocobain8363
2 ай бұрын
@@johnsmith-eh3yc Being an investor or player in a theater company is not evidence of authorship, especially when the person in question cannot properly write their own name. The document referred to at 14:06 records a payment to Kempe, Shagspere and Burbage. What is disputed is not the authenticity but whether the payment is for acting or his financial participation in the theater troupe. In later years Heminge is paid for the troupe's performances so the context implies that this payment is not for acting but rather producing, transportation and performance.
@johnsmith-eh3yc
2 ай бұрын
@@apollocobain8363 straw man argument. I was not talking about the author but the lie that the payment to shakespeare was disputed. The shakespeare deniers operate on two levels, denying him as an author and denying him as an actor too. The more he is removed from the theatre the better. The player paid in red cloth was spelt william shakespeare as was the player who was paid. He was almost always referredto as william shakespeare as a kings man. Interestingly enough the one time the master of the revels refers to the author of a shakespeare play by name he is referred to as william shaxberd. Shakespeare documented shows all the spellings from london and stratford and london, whether stratford land owner, actor and sharer in the theatre , and the playwright, or as the sane say, william shakespeare. Dont read some foreigners book, look at the sources
@johnsmith-eh3yc
2 ай бұрын
@@apollocobain8363 the troble with you lot is your intellectual dishonesty. I have mentionedthat in reference to 14:06 no one disputes he was paid as an actor so your response is that it doesnt prove he was a writer when that wasnt what i said. It does prove that the narrator is a liar though. And why have you written his name paid as an actor as shagsper when the video literally shows a facsimile of the payment too "william shakespeare". Shows you asa liar too. Well im done with foreigners lying about my nations national poet so will keep calling them out
@MartinSoundLabs
8 ай бұрын
Schoenbaum is deluded
@marshabailey1121
7 ай бұрын
Most Stratfordians are
@Jeffhowardmeade
4 ай бұрын
And yet he wrote a 300 page Folio-size book full of documentary evidence that says who Shakespeare was. What evidence do you have that it was anyone else?
@marshabailey1121
4 ай бұрын
@@Jeffhowardmeade There is no evidence that Shaksper could write his name let alone a play or poem.
@Jeffhowardmeade
4 ай бұрын
@@marshabailey1121 If I show you evidence otherwise, will you promise never to make that claim again?
@scunner6828
3 ай бұрын
Of course @@Jeffhowardmeade Show it. All I have seen is a mass of cherry-picked circumstantial evidence on both sides. You have more than that? Then show it.
@brutusalwaysminded
3 ай бұрын
Waste of time. If someone can prove that my edition of the First Folio doesn’t really exist then this “mystery” might be worth considering. Otherwise, it’s noise.
Пікірлер: 71