'Anonymous' - Prof Carol Rutter & Prof Stanley Wells discuss the Shakespeare authorship question

[@marshfilm]

"It is immoral to question history".... And you just lost all credibility.

[@markwilson4052]

The film invents history without any evidence. This is an immoral issue. I suspect a lot of right wing consiracy theorists support the Earl of Oxford narrative.

[@marshfilm]

@@markwilson4052 ... Good. It seems the Right are right here as well then.

[@joshuapray]

I don't think he spoke particularly well there, but I also don't think he means what you think he means (or want him to mean). He is saying that it's wrong to take all the historical _evidence_ (which this short discussion proves is readily available and perfectly easily answers any of the authorship questions posed by the film), and dispute it simply for the sake of questioning it. If the answers are right in front of you, it's perverse indeed to try to convince younger, less experienced people that those answers do not exist. This film (and the theory behind it) do exactly that.

[@marshfilm]

@@joshuapray .... Thank you, and good point.

[@masamus6570]

@@joshuapray You cannot formulate an educated opinion on the subject without in-depth scholarly research, which you cannot get from a single interview.

[@menschkeit1]

this would be more interesting if the two interlocutors weren't on the same side of the issue.

[@rstritmatter]

But that would be a catastrophe for orthodoxy. They would actually have to talk to the enemy.

[@TheTacomaven]

Well said! When asked why he participates in documentaries about the authorship debate when he is in fact a Stratfordian, Stanley Wells' response was "vanity".

[@charlottebruce979]

They are critiquing the film, that in itself is the 'opposite' side of the debate.

[@menschkeit1]

@@charlottebruce979 I was referring to the authorship question, and they're both stratfordians

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@menschkeit1 Do you have the same critique of the hundreds of videos put up by the SOF and Al Waugh?

[@winston2015]

What a joke. He didnt even own the Bible, for goodness sakes! The evidence that his daughters were illiterate is based on the good evidence. That of their signing legal documents with a 'mark as opposed to a signature. They wont address whey there were no lamentations, from any corner, for the loss great bard, upon his death. If his own neighbors & contemporaries did not believe he was to the great bard, why the heck should we ??

[@brucerobbins6227]

Man you guys are so ignorant!! Back then girls did not have to know how to read or write. There was no Women's Lib. They did not have to go out and get jobs. The had to lean how to get a husband, marry, and have children!! How to keep house, cook, make candles, chop wood, bake, make ale, and dozens of other chores that girls don't have to worry about today!!! Anyway, Shakespeare left for London when his children were 5 and 3 years old. It was up to Ann, if the children were to be educated. She herself, might have been illiterate and saw no need to send her daughters to school. Hamnet is a different story. He might have been sent. But he died at age 11. So we will never know. He was not known as "the great bard" back then, just another writer. He died in Stratford, 3 days from London. News traveled slow. In his will he left mourning rings for Burbage, Hemings and Condell members of his group and good friends. Shakespeare had plenty of friends. "Gentle" Shakespeare as Jonson called him. His London troupe was like a second family to them, and he spent most of his adult life with them, not his actual family.

[@yankinengland]

Precisely! No one in the whole of Elizabethan society ever says they knew him, no one ever received a letter from him and, as you correctly observed, upon his death, no one said a single word of accolade or sadness.

[@brucerobbins3584]

dc....Ben Jonson was a good friend...Burbage, Hemmings and Condell certainly knew him as well as all the actors in the troupe he was with for 20 years must have known him!!! How stupid can you get. You are obviously a proud anti-Strat who thinks like one. "No one received a letter from him" REALLY? How do you know that? Special powers. Maybe you don't know that paper is very malleable and disappears easily in 400 years. Shakespeare retired and died in the town he was born in 4 years later. Stratford is about 110 miles from London. There were no newspapers, TV, radio, cell phones, computers, etc. It must have taken a while before the news reached London. Again, how do you know there were no accolades or no sadness. Do you have a crystal ball or just a thick head.

[@brucerobbins3584]

winston: what is your source? God? How do YOU know he did not own a Bible? I've heard illiterate daughters a million times. Girls back then did not go to school. They didn't need to. There was no Women's Lib. He was in London. Ann took care of the kids. Will's father may have been illiterate because there were no schools in Snitterfield. So what??? Irrelevant in the question if Shakespeare wrote the plays. You have to prove that HE was illiterate, dummy!!! Wanna try that? Lots of people in London were illiterate. Lots of people today in America are functionally illiterate. As Dr. Wells said we have evidence that both Susanna and Judith could write their names. There are plenty of contemporary references to Shakespeare being a poet and playwright. And of course after his death by very prominent people, like other playwrights and England's first Poet Laureate. How about funeral orations, for Home, Chaucer, Marlowe, Kyd, Jonson, Middleton, Dekkler, Beaumont? What does this have to do with whether or not Shakespeare wrote the plays with his name on them? I means NOTHING!!!!!

[@stevebari9338]

Zenaida Robbins Aside from the signature for Susanna, we have the anecdotal evidence of Susanna's meeting with Dr. Cooke, a man who published her husband's medical journal. In this meeting, in his own words, Cooke attests to this allegedly illiterate woman provided the volume he was interested in, mentioned that there are other volumes dealing with physick of the body and provided those to to him, and got into an argument over if certain handwriting was or was not her husband's. So she procured him the volumes, mentioned what one of them is about and argued about handwriting. Pretty clear evidence that she was able to read. Since she could read and write her signature she was obviously educated at some point to do this. If her, why not her sister, who lived in the same house with her and was only 3 years younger than herself?

[@TheMangoDeluxe]

I have to disagree with Prof. Wells. I think it is good that people should question received historical evidence rather than blindly accept what they have been told. I did and came out convinced that Shakespeare is indeed "Shakespeare".

[@JPFerraccio]

I agree. That's what I did, and came to the same conclusion. The problem is people don't keep going through the research, checking facts and accepting cherry picked facts, ad hominem attacks, and other logical errors as fact.

[@jessiereynolds3121]

I SO AGREE!! This should be applied to ALL academia and politicians too! The term "Conspiracy Theorist" was invented in the early 70's to degrade & insult anyone who questions authority. Also keep in mind if it ever came out that Shakespeare was not real or it was a group of men writing under that pen name, MANY people in England think they would lose out on ALOT of money in tourism and other stuff. I dont think that is true but they sure do! It is a national pride issue so they're going to fight and hide any proof of the truth.

[@gregb7595]

Omg...what a damn laugh.

[@Sk8erGirlJoJo]

Strongly agree. There is no definite proof of who wrote what -- we can just assume. Though after having done thorough research, I'm 95.3% sure Shakespeare is Shakespeare too.

[@jespermayland571]

Agree with you all! The whole conspiracy issue should be agreed by all, either for or against that the Stratford man IS Shakespeare, that there simply isn't enough info to 100% claim either side! I'm leaning towards the Oxfordians but by no means certain!

[@cengime]

After Shakespeare's death, William Basse wrote in a poem entitled "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616" (very clearly referring to the Stratford man) saying that Spenser, Chaucer, and Beaumont (all interred in Westminster Abbey) should move over to make room for Shakespeare, and it would be a long time before a fifth would be worthy to join their number. True, his reputation didn't rise to its present height right away, but his plays remained consistently popular throughout history.

[@kilianklaiber6367]

so what?

[@lukec1146]

How do they know when the plays were written? Macbeth could just as well refer to the gunpowder plot against Darnley in Scotland, which De Vere would've known about by living with Cecil.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Well, there is the opening line, in which the words "fair" and "foul" were juxtaposed. This is a response to a sermon delivered by famed orator Lancelot Andrews giving thanks for the deliverance of the Royal Family. Lady Macbeth's line "Look like th’ innocent flower, But be the serpent under’t," is a reference to a coin struck to commemorate the failed plot. It shows a serpent hiding in a bed of flowers. The drunk Porter's rants about an "equivocator" who "...committed treason enough for God’s sake yet could not equivocate to heaven." Refer to Jesuit Henry Garnet, who was an advocate of the practice of equivocation and who was executed for treason. Most of the plays believed to be from Shakespeare's later period have such contemporary references in them.

[@MrDawnRise]

I hope Roland Emmerich is harked as a genius movie maker (never happen) in 400 years and someone makes a movie about him being a fraud, and I hope people without understanding of the history of Sir Emmerich believe it...

[@johndoe1512]

Immoral to question history.... wow. This guy can't stop projecting his characteristics upon others.

[@brucerobbins6227]

Hey, if you want to write a book questioning whether the earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa, be my guest. Or that Darwin was wrong and Creationists, right. Go right ahead. Or that the moon landinds were filmed in Disneyland, do it Joe!! Absolute lack of proof does not seem to bother you or Emmerich.

[@stevebari9338]

John Doe You're right. Its not immoral to question history, if there's something to question. However, you can't be afraid that the answer to your question will simply be what history has said all along. It immoral however, to deny a man his life's work and give it to an undeserving waste of space like Edward De Vere. Shakespeare worked to create these plays working with other actors and sometimes other writers. He didn't blow his family fortune and then become a state welfare case and sat in a room listening to the voices in his head.

[@olivertaltynov9220]

@@stevebari9338 "what history has said all along" - funny statement. You have no idea how does it work.

[@olivertaltynov9220]

Really scientific approach :-D something is "immoral" :-D 14:04 something "is dangerous" to encouraging people to question "historical fact." Is he from China?

[@rstritmatter]

Exactly. Great job applying basic critical thinking skills so as not to be blinded by the radiant light of academic dogma.

[@sebastianverney7851]

Talking fast, in a loud and shrill way, and dismissing people who think differently, should not be necessary for people who know they are right. Prof Stanley Wells says it's "immoral" to take the credit away from Shakespeare. Why? Whatever the truth may be, it is surely not immoral to look for it.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Asking is one thing. When you find out that all the evidence is for Shakespeare and none for anyone else, you're no longer asking. You're attempting to steal credit for an amazing accomplishment from the rightful owner.

[@varkony60]

@@Jeffhowardmeade You are wrong. Sorry.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@varkony60 Don’t be sorry. Prove it or you’re just a deluded fool.

[@cengime]

I think that if Green wanted to accuse Shakespeare of stealing credit for his plays, he would have written that instead of dropping cryptic hints that can only be deciphered by people who already think Shakespeare didn't write his own work. Shakespeare deniers aren't keeping an open mind, they're committed to denying all the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship and then setting up somebody, anybody else as the true author.

[@cengime]

Anyway, have you read de Vere's poetry? It is distinguished only by its mediocrity. Even if it could be realistically thought that Lord Oxford could have concealed his authorship of Shakespeare's works, he lacked the talent to write them.

[@cengime]

There are no records of Ben Jonson's attendance at Westminster, nor any manuscripts of his plays. There is no evidence of any playwright of Shakespeare's time that would meet Oxfordian standards for evidence of Shakespeare.

[@PhilHardgrave]

Simply not at all true, check your facts. there is a checkllist of 20 types of evidence, showing many for others and nothing for Stratford man. Wells is quite simply a dottering old fo..l.

[@cengime]

Then clearly the danger of losing one's head or hands was not a motive for concealing authorship of these plays at all, since there's no reason to think there was any such danger. Why, then, would de Vere have wanted to conceal his authorship, and why would he have used the name of a real person working in the theatre at the time instead of using a fictitious name, or simply publishing the works anonymously?

[@cengime]

Re: Oxford's life, consider this: King James's father was murdered. His mother was suspected in the scandal and soon married the supposed murderer, a heavy drinker. Mary's meddling chief counselor was murdered in her presence, and his body was disposed of secretly by means of a stair-case. James was a melancholy, indecisive prince, interested in learning, a poet, married to a woman whom he treated shabbily, and a likely successor to the throne of England. Does this "prove" he wrote Hamlet?

[@MickeyCuervo36]

I'm going to slightly disagree with the professors. Not on the subject of Shakespeare's authorship, which I think is completely genuine. I disagree on their saying that it's immoral to question the established history. To question something is important. One must never take things at face value. Question history. Then question the questioners. Always strive for understanding and truth. Do your own research. Seeing this film didn't sway me into thinking Shakespeare was a fraud. It did make me wonder what evidence the director/producer had put forward, and it's accuracy. It made me cross reference those "facts" with other sources so that I might affirm or discard them as needed.

[@brucerobbins3584]

Oh, I agree. We learn by questioning and I disagree wit Wells on that also. But to do it the way Oxfordians are doing it, that is without any objective evidence, by pure speculation, by amateures is a questionable goal.

[@rockripper2380]

Ha ha.

[@p.k.abernathy499]

Zenaida, no, your statements are misleading. While it's true the Oxfordian argument does not rely on a lot of direct evidence to-date, what you're saying implies that direct evidence is the only valuable evidence, which it is isn't. Circumstantial evidence, despite colloquial references, is also quite valuable. Further, there is A LOT of circumstantial evidence used in the Stratfordian argument, as well i.e. That he was educated at the local elementary school when there are no such records that demonstrate that to be true. It is a circumstantial assumption Stratfordian scholars make. Your statement about Oxfordians being amateurs is also incorrect. There are educated people, worldwide, who have taken up the Oxfordian cause. Traditional scholars tend to excessively diminish their number and credentials.

[@jeffmeade8643]

Even the "evidence" the various factions put forward for their particular candidate rely on copious amounts of interpretation and fuzzy logic, and heavily on the supposition that all those who said Shakespeare was the guy who was buried in Stratford were either lying or dupes. The "evidence" so far offered for any Anti-Stratfordian candidate is not so much "circumstantial" as it is "tortured into confessing".

[@brucerobbins3584]

This happened 400 years ago and nothing is certain, but we have to work with what we have. That is why we have scholars, who do this full time. There is the First Folio, which is objective, empirical evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. There is also circumstantial evidence, references to him as a writer, much indirect evidence, that is, enough evidence for him to be the most credible candidate for the writing of the plays, plus, of course, h is name on the quartos. I don't think any reasonable person can ask for any more evidence. There is much less for any of the other of the candidates.

[@cengime]

So what? The only documentation we have of middle class individuals like Shakespeare from that time consists of legal and financial records stored in government depositories, church registers, and scattered documents that survived by chance, so his life is not well-documented enough for silence to be significant. Oxford was an aristocrat, so his life is well-documented enough that silence IS significant. What direct evidence connects de Vere to these plays? Did he mention books in his will?

[@cengime]

Shakespeare was considered among the greatest in his own time. Richard Carew (c. 1595) says the best poets of the day are Surrey, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Daniel, Spenser, Davies, and Sidney. William Covell (1595) lists Sidney, Spenser, Alabaster, Daniel, and Shakespeare. Richard Barnfield (1598) praises Spenser, Daniel, Drayton, and Shakespeare. Francis Meres (1598) writes that "mellifluous and hony-tongued Shakespeare" is "the best in both [tragedy and comedy] for the stage."

[@thornecassidy9019]

Biased, and broadly misrepresents the Oxfordian arguments.

[@cengime]

If somebody offered you an argument for the existence of God, and similar reasoning provided an equally good argument that your cat is God or that there is an invisible dragon who lives in your garage, don't you think that would be a good reason to think they hadn't proved anything? We know far more about Shakespeare than about Christopher Marlowe, so please explain to me how you can think that William Shakespeare didn't write his own works, but Christopher Marlowe did.

[@cengime]

Are you suggesting that Shakespeare's father did not actually get a coat of arms? That's absurd.

[@petercrossley2956]

Bravo and brava. Wonderful discussion.

[@cengime]

How can you be sure about that? The Cambridge student records that supposedly refer to the playwright say "Christopher Marlin," and there was another student there at the time called "Christopher Marlow." And what was Marlowe doing signing his name (which he spelt "Marley") to a will in Canterbury in 1585 if he was supposedly attending Cambridge? Denying the evidence for Shakespeare opens the door to denying the evidence for everyone else.

[@TheChrishoughton]

This can all be explained in modern terms. Pete Seeger, who came from a privileged background wrote many songs, as did many of his contemporaries. Educated, from the right eschelons of society and yet a mid-west bumpkin, who dropped out of university, was able to write songs way beyond that which Pete Seeger could write. Just for one minute, explore the similarities between Shakespeare and Bob Dylan. Both were seemingly uneducated, compared to their contemporaries and yet they both surpassed them. Not just by a small amount, by an ocean of understanding, that cannot be explained. Both understood the common people and the way they think. Both understood the underhand workings of the state. Both tried to expose them. Lords and Earls, do not question the minds of Kings. Shakespeare did and so did Dylan. Question what is before you and understand the deviousness therein. 'But I mean no harm, nor put fault, on anyone living in a vault, but it's alright Ma! If I can't please him.' Or perhaps ' Little boxes, on a hillside, little boxes, made of ticky-tacky, little boxes, on a hillside, little boxes, just the same.' I'll leave you to decide, if a priveleged mind, wrote those words.

[@laurensealey194]

There's zero mention in writing or evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare even attended Stratford grammer school :/

[@stevebari9338]

There's zero mention in writing or evidence that ANYONE in Stratford attended the grammar school for the first 250 years of its existence. So does this mean that no one went to an open school for 250 years or just that no records of it survive?

[@floatingholmes]

No, it means every person in Stratford went there. It means that whatever evidence we want to rely on to make an argument about Shaxper of Stratford can be invented at will! Never mind that he’s the oldest son of an illiterate wool dealer who had every reason to put him to work and no reason whatsoever to teach the boy Latin. And when Will’s dad was put under house arrest, there is zero possibility that Will’s imaginary education continued past the age of 12. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story.

[@MatthewHenderson1]

Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare but by another man of the same name.

[@varkony60]

Not a really pioneering phrase, I've seen it even in Hungary countless times.

[@not2tees]

It's the Flat Earth Theory, only with Shakespeare instead of The Globe.

[@cengime]

Then what do you mean by suggesting that Shakespeare was not a gentleman? You do realise that that's what "gentleman" means in this context, right? Having a coat of arms. The fact that written sources identify the playwright is a gentleman is part of how we know Shakespeare wrote the plays. For example, in 1615, Edmund Howes listed "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman" on a list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets" in order of social rank.

[@cengime]

The historical record speaks with one voice: the Stratford native, actor, Globe-sharer, and playwright were one and the same. Nobody ever suggested that one of these was somebody using a pseudonym, nobody of the Elizabethan or Jacobean eras ever doubted the attribution, and there is no evidence tying any popular alternative candidate to the plays, the theatre company, or those identified as the playwright's friends. Explain THAT away.

[@rstritmatter]

You wanna bet?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@rstritmatter Arguing with a decade-old comment? Nice one!

[@rstritmatter]

@@Jeffhowardmeade Hahaha. You really don't have much self-awareness, do you Caius?

[@cengime]

What about the fact that we have dozens of letters written by de Vere, and he doesn't mention his own purported literary activity in any of them? He even often says that most of his time over the past year(s) has been spent on various schemes for restoring his squandered fortune. We DO have eulogy poems for Shakespeare (e.g. the eulogy by William Basse), but despite Oxford's higher social rank, no acquaintance or stranger is known to have mourned his death.

[@robertedmistonii5071]

Just an observation, how many of you have studied the history of the time? Have any of you noticed that most of the artists of the time are "unknown"? How many authors can you name in contemporary times that remain relatively unknown as they just don't care for society to know them? You know the stars who act in the movies, but how many playwrights and book authors who wrote those stories can you name? In the time of Shakespeare, there were absolutely brilliant architects, authors, painters, decorators, poets and such that we know very little about, if nothing at all. We know more about how the rich decorated their homes and gardens than we do of the artists who painted their portraits. Just as then as now the egomania of the rich and famous is more known than the incredible talent of the artists that live among us. Many of our contemporary artists have had what some consider "common'" educations. You might want to use this excellent video to disabuse yourselves. Do some real reading and research before you go around making such personal attacks on the speakers as well as blanket statement that lack any foundation.

[@cengime]

In addition, Meres includes Shakespeare and Oxford together on a list of writers of comedies, indicating that they were distinct authors. Notice that while Shakespeare is noted as an author of both tragedies and comedies, both Puttenham and Meres mention Oxford solely as a writer of comedies.

[@rstritmatter]

In addition, you have not read Meres and don't really know what he says about Shakespeare.

[@cengime]

So Sidney Buchman didn't write Mr. Smith Goes to Washington because he was never a senator? Christopher Nolan didn't write and direct Memento because he doesn't have short-term memory loss? Tolkien didn't write The Lord of the Rings because he never cast the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom? John Milius didn't write Apocalypse Now because he was never a Green Beret? How are these cases different?

[@cengime]

According to you, Shakespeare was "a tax-dodging, grain hoarding, land grabbing money lender". That sounds like we know a lot. But what do we know about Christopher Marlowe? Did anyone refer to him as a writer in his lifetime? Were any of his works published in his lifetime with his name on the title page? Do we have any manuscripts or letters from him?

[@thomasair5469]

Where can I download that essay?

[@jamesanonymous2343]

The question is, "Is it Hamlet, or is it Humbug".

[@cengime]

Actually, there is no record of Jonson's attendance at Westminster, but it is a reasonable inference from a reference Jonson made in conversation with William Drummond to "his master Camden" considering that William Camden was headmaster at Westminster at the time he would have been there. This is just how we know many things about famous people of that time. As I said at the start, your argument is based on ahistorical assumptions, and historical context is needed to refute them.

[@cengime]

If Oxford were the author, why would he set so many plays in a country he disliked? He wrote to Burghley in September 1575, "for my liking of Italy, my lord I am glad I have seen it, and I care not ever to see it any more.... I thought to have seen Spain, but by Italy, I guess the worse."

[@cengime]

My mistake, Henry VI, Part Three.

[@cengime]

Died young? He was 52 and apparently retired. The average lifespan for an adult male in England at that time was 47 years, and only 35 years for rich people in London due to the terrible sanitation. Your hero Oxford was himself "only" 54 when he died (with a dozen Shakespeare plays yet to be written).

[@cengime]

If you think that these aren't facts, can you name even one person who lived during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I or King James I (17 November 1558-27 March 1625) known to have thought that "Shakespeare" was a pseudonym or that somebody else had written the plays and poems? You can't, of course, because the case for Shakespeare is found in the historical record and the case for everyone else is found in active imaginations.

[@ronroffel1462]

Neither of these people have looked at the entire picture. I will not go into the counterevidence that supports doubts about the authorship of the plays because that would take far too long. So, I will set the record straight on one item. They present some "misinformation" (to give it a polite word) at 16:55: they claim de Vere had no prior theatrical experience. Here are some facts. De Vere sponsored two acting companies, Oxford's Men and Oxford's Boys throughout the 1570s to the early 1600s. He also sponsored the Children of St. Paul whose manager was Henry Evans, portrayed as Evans in the Merry Wives of Windsor. De Vere also purchased the lease of the first Blackfriars playhouse and gave it to his secretary John Lyly, who was one of two pre-eminent playwrights in the 1580s while he was in de Vere's employment. Another one of de Vere's secretaries at the time was the second theatrical powerhouse of the period: Anthony Mundy (coincidence, I think not). De Vere's father famously entertained Queen Elizabeth on one of her progresses, so he would have been exposed to the theater at an early age (his father patronized an acting company). If being surrounded by playwrights, owning shares in a playhouse and patronizing three acting companies was not having some theatrical experience or exposure to drama, then what is? Furthermore, he was Lord Great Chamberlain to Queen Elizabeth I which meant that he was responsible for arranging all entertainments for visiting dignitaries, along with his ceremonial duty of dressing the monarch before their coronation. As Lord Great Chamberlain, he would also have "borne the canopy" (see Sonnet 125) as the queen entered Westminster during the victory thanksgiving in November 1588 after the Spanish Armada was defeated. Given these established facts, how could these two scholars in all good conscience claim he had no theatrical experience?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

By your standard, Henry Carey and King James had "theatrical experience" because they, too, patronized acting companies. Henry Carey, as the Lord Chamberlain, was the one in charge of court entertainments, not De Vere. De Vere was the Lord HIGH Chamberlain, which was an entirely ceremonial, hereditary position, with no official duties besides showing up at special events.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Also, if he "bore the canopy" after the victory over the Armada, it would have been a huge insult to all those who DIDN'T abandon their posts.

[@cengime]

I doubt that Oxford would have recalled such details, since his time in Italy was mostly devoted to sexual adventure. In a poem published two years after Oxford's death, Nathaniel Baxter recalled that that Oxford had led a life of "infamie" in Venice, contracting a venereal disease from a prostitute, and was recalled to England by a higher power. His major souvenir of Italy was a handsome 16-year-old choirboy named Orazio Cogno, who later fled Oxford's service citing sexual abuse as his reason.

[@Agamemnon2]

To make a case for any such conspiracy, you need motive, means and opportunity at the very least. The means are within the reach of a 17th century conspirator, and perhaps even the opportunity (though that they'd escape detection and doubt for several centuries is questionable), but what of the motive?

[@cengime]

The idea that a hyphen indicated a pen name in Elizabethan times is completely unknown outside of Oxfordian literature, and there is no evidence to support it. Proper names of real people were hyphenated all the time; one finds such examples as John Old-Castle, Charles Fitz-Geffrey, Thomas Camp-bell, and Robert Walde-grave.

[@cengime]

And what, you think the Fitz-Geffreys were formed by the union of the Fitzes and the Geffreys? In his 1605 book Remaines, William Camden suggests in a long section on the origin of English names that some men derived their names "from that which they commonly carried, as Palmer, that is, Pilgrime, for that they carried Palme when they returned from Hierusalem, Long-sword, Broad-speare, Fortescu, that is, Strong-shield, and in some such respect, Breake-speare, Shake-Speare, Shotbolt, Wagstaffe."

[@cengime]

Whether or not I am giving denialist claims a fair hearing, the fact remains that there is clear direct evidence that Shakespeare is the author of the plays and none that anyone else is.

[@cengime]

That sentence does not end with a period. Oxford's name is the first in a list which is in order of social rank, not necessarily what Puttenham considered their relative merit. Of all that can be said about Puttenham, I will simply note that he also writes that the greatest poet in all genres is "the Queen our sovereign Lady, whose learned, delicate, noble Muse, easily surmounteth all the rest that have written before her time or since," so his opinion can be put down as pure flattery.

[@cengime]

Contrary to what you have assumed based on your anti-Stratfordian prejudice, the five faculty members who taught at the school at the time Shakespeare would have attended all had Oxford degrees; some published original Latin poetry. There's no record of his attendance there, but there's no record of ANYONE'S attendance there prior to 1700. It was a very good school that prepared him for his illustrious career as a playwright. Ben Jonson too had only a grammar school education.

[@kissfan7]

Whenever someone makes fun of my spelling, I will point them to 3:50. My typos are Shakespearian.

[@cengime]

Hamlet was an old story; what evidence is there that the Hamlet Nashe and Thomas Lodge saw was Shakespeare's Hamlet? The tone in which they write of it suggests that it was an old-fashioned play which they both found rather ridiculous.

[@sillylittlerocksongs]

But of course young people should be encouraged to question things; otherwise the 'academics' are the ones pushing possibly false information of them. I haven't seen this film but from a scientific perspective (more my thing than English lit) the theory is valid and there's no decent arguments against it - this video is exceptionally biased.

[@ShaneyElderberry]

The goal of this video was to criticize the contents of Anonymous. Other outlets for that argument outside of the details in Anonymous can be found elsewhere. Their opinions are not from a vacuum, they've actually done research and know quite a bit about the period and details that do exist. In my estimation, they countered the film's themes strongly. Dissenting specialists and people with normal interest usually leave important details out of discussion, and it irritates Rutter and Wells.

[@cengime]

What makes you think his handwriting "smacks of illiteracy"? What documents handwritten by Elizabethan illiterate people do you have to compare it to? Shakespeare was an actor, and acting was a profession which required literacy. There was a school within walking distance of his house which he could have attended for free, and it's an obvious inference that that is where he learned to read and write.

[@EndoftheTownProductions]

John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623. Ben Jonson's eulogy in the First Folio clearly praises Shakespeare as a great writer. He states that "thy writings to be such, /As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much." Heminges and Condell also praise Shakespeare as a writer, stating that "he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him." These are "his works" and "his papers" that they are publishing. He is clearly presented as the writer of these works in the First Folio. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare of Stratford clearly connects him with the 1623 First Folio through Heminges and Condell and it is clear that Shakespeare is presented as the author of the plays.

[@cengime]

But that wasn't for "attaching his name to the printed word." It was for sedition. Shakespeare's works were not seditious, so why would there have been any risk in having one's name attached to them? Was anybody's hand chopped off just for writing a play like Hamlet or Henry V?

[@DmNetworks]

One things is certain. Shakespeare didn't write those plays.

[@brucerobbins6227]

If Shakespeare did not write the plays, then who did? You must supply us with a better, more credible candidate. I bet you can't....

[@stevebari9338]

Axel Schultz And how are you so certain?

[@DmNetworks]

Steve Bari with all the proof showed is obvious that someone else did it, but we don't know who

[@brucerobbins3584]

Axel Schultz Axel....how old are you? You really should learn how to write a sentence. Maybe when you write such an outlandish things you should have some evidence to back it up. There is plenty of evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the play, and nothing that any other persons did. Which is why 99 percent of the world's people give him credit for writing the plays with his name on them. Unless you can provide me with a more credible candidate, your assertion that Shakespeare did not write the plays is meaningless and laughable.

[@stevebari9338]

So Axel what proof? What can you show that proves so conclusively that someone else wrote them? By the way what's your favorite play and why?

[@ShaneyElderberry]

We should remember that these people are much more invested academically with the historical information, which is why they are against the spreading of this film's hypothesis. For them it is the literary equivalent of pushing intelligent design on an unsuspecting, non-scientific public.

[@cengime]

Re: Oxford's education, he was not an educated man. All his degrees were honorary. He matriculated at Cambridge, but left after five months, perhaps for reasons related to all the assessments for the repair of broken windows in his room.

[@cengime]

What evidence is there that Oxford wrote Shakespeare's work? His life is much better-documented than Shakespeare's, and there is no sign of his purported literary activities. For most of his life, Oxford's main concern was restoring his squandered fortune, and in his letters, he often explicitly writes that most of his time over the past year (sometimes multiple years) has been spent on his various get-rich-quick schemes.

[@cengime]

If Shakespeare's parents were illiterate, so what? His generation was much more educated than his father's. There was an excellent school within walking distance of his house which would have been free for him to attend, and he entered a profession which required literacy (acting). There is also a surviving letter addressed to him, indicating that he was able to read a letter. Somebody must have taught him to read and write, and it seems clear that he learnt to at school.

[@cengime]

As a matter of fact, there are many people who think that Oxford/Bacon/Queen Elizabeth/whoever wrote not only all of Shakespeare's works but all of Marlowe's as well, but that's not the point. If the evidence you claim for Shakespeare not being an author is valid, we should be able to apply the same tests to other writers of the period and not reach ridiculous conclusions. How can we prove that Marlowe was a writer? There are no letters. No one called him a writer in his lifetime.

[@cengime]

The evidence is decisive. These works were printed with his name on the title pages, lots of his contemporaries refer to him as their author, and there is no plausible alternative candidate.

[@stuartlloyd1746]

How come no one in Stratford seems to know he's the greatest ever writer while he's alive?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@stuartlloyd1746 How do you know what they knew? Do you have piles of letters and memoirs from them?

[@cengime]

In the Second Quarto of Romeo and Juliet, one finds the word "cousin" spelt cosen, cousin, couzen, cozen, and cozin, to choose just one example. Shakespeare spelt words however he wanted because there was just no standard spelling at the time he lived. As mentioned in this video, there is a surviving manuscript of a play called Sir Thomas More about three pages of which are in Shakespeare's handwriting, and in three lines, he spells "sheriff" shreiff, shreef, shreeve, shreiue, and shreue.

[@cengime]

Meres did not call Oxford "the best for comedy among us", although Oxfordians often misquote him as if he had; Oxford's name is the first in a list (ordered by social rank) of people who are collectively "the best for comedy among us", but when you cut off the quote in mid-sentence, it looks like he singled out Oxford. In fact, Meres lists Shakespeare in the same sentence, indicating that he knew de Vere and Shakespeare to be distinct individuals.

[@cengime]

Why does it matter what Ernesto Grillo thought in the 1920s? Other research has shown that he was wrong, and you can find information about Shakespeare's sources in any Oxford or Arden edition of his plays.

[@aarondavenport3143]

******Final note, if it were proven that De Vere really did write the work, I don't understand why people, especially in the literary field, have such a hard time coming to terms with the idea of it being "BASED ON...." like every other film that proclaims "TRUTH." At the end of the movie there is always going to be some dramatization - it's just inherent with narrative no matter the medium. Narrative is the Subjective Portrayal in order to create an Objective Experience/Lesson/Moral/Idea across to an audience. Timothy O'Brien's "The Things We Carry" comes to mind, and is just one more reason why I can't help but see this kind of response as being hyper-defensive and more personal than academic. They almost come off as pretentious, at least credit the story for what it is, rather than criticizing it's historical accuracy alone, I mean they are Literary Professors not History right?

[@philltolkien5082]

Snobs can't handle a normal middle class boy from the Styxs can be world class genius. One of the most important people of a millennia is shakespeare.

[@cengime]

Why do you think he never wrote a letter? In Shakespeare's day, paper was expensive and invariably recycled. How many commoners of that time can you name whose correspondence has survived other than by chance, as in the case of, for example, Richard Quiney? Interestingly, among Quiney's paper when he died was a letter addressed to Shakespeare, suggesting that Shakespeare would be able to read one. Tuition was not a problem. John Shakespeare got a free education for his sons as a job benefit.

[@telekonable]

I think those who doubt the authenticity of Shakespeare use the same innuendo arguements that Dan Brown used in "The DaVinci Code". Hey, let's make a lot of money by writing a book. Truth is not an issue. Just twist the facts because there are always people stupid enough to buy it.

[@cengime]

Third, his son-in-law didn't write down that he was an author-so what? Do you go writing down your relatives' professions in your diary all the time? There is plenty of other evidence for Shakespeare's authorship. Fourth, who says the Sonnets are autobiographical? Fifth, Oxford was in fact a spendthrift playboy and was totally responsible for squandering one of the largest fortunes in the kingdom.

[@cengime]

I think even stronger evidence is found in the contrast, in both style and quality, between the work of Shakespeare and the surviving poetry of Oxford. Oxford could certainly have written worse, but it is rather amazing that anyone thinks "In Peascod time when hound to horn gives ear while buck is kill'd" could have come from the same pen as "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day". Oxford could not have written these great plays and poems because he did not have the talent.

[@cengime]

And this rube Shakespeare just agreed to take all the risk upon himself? We know perfectly well where Shakespeare learnt what he knew about great statesmen and leaders: he read about them in history books. If Shakespeare was able to write more convincingly than I can about things we've both only read about, it's simply because he was a better writer than I am and had a more fertile imagination. His plays show no special knowledge that couldn't have been obtained from books or conversation.

[@cengime]

Handwriting, like language, evolves over time, and Shakespeare's looks strange because it's in an archaic style called secretary hand-your own writing would probably look like an illiterate scrawl to him. There is no reason to think Shakespeare couldn't have had an excellent education. There was a school within walking distance of his family's house which would have been free to him where Oxford-educated teachers would have taught him rhetoric and introduced him to classical literature.

[@cengime]

In your own diary? Why? You know who your father-in-law is. And the reputable scholarship on Oxford (Alan Nelson, Steven May) concludes he didn't write Shakespeare.

[@cengime]

Waldegrave regularly hyphenated his name on the title pages of works he printed from 1582 on; one of these is reproduced on page 31 of Matus's "Shakespeare, In Fact". Charles Fitzgeoffrey's name was hyphenated regularly as Fitz-Geffry, Fitz-Geffrey, or Fitz-Geffrie. It seems to have come down to the idiosyncrasies of printers; you'll notice that of the 15 quartos where Shakespeare's name is hyphenated, 13 are published by Andrew Wise or the man who took over his business, Matthew Law.

[@cengime]

The generally-accepted chronology is based on evidence which you can find in standard scholarly literature. It is Oxfordians who try to force it to fit someone else's lifetime, and no coherent pre-1604 timeline has been offered.

[@GrandFanale]

If you are Honorary President of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, what else will you say? How much money does the SBT make per year on tourism? Also, the film takes a lot of artistic license so to dispute the film on "facts" is just plain silly. And the young Oxford was NOT 7 yrs old in this film. They're panicing now because the authorship controversy is making its way into academia. Wells says "It's immoral to question history".

[@cengime]

Shakespeare wrote dozens of plays in which all sorts of things happen to hundreds and hundreds of characters, so it's not surprising that you can go through them looking for thing's that resonate with some given individual's life and come up with a rather impressive list.

[@rstritmatter]

Except you can't do that with the traditional author at all. He's an alien in the world of his own work.

[@Nullifidian]

@@rstritmatter And just think about how early modern theatre audiences were _clamoring_ for kitchen-sink dramas about actor-playwrights. They couldn't get enough of them!

[@EndoftheTownProductions]

John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623.

[@cengime]

The key mistake behind a lot of anti-Stratfordian thinking is trying to apply modern assumptions to Elizabethan lives, and here's a perfect example: because you live in a society where your name has one spelling and that's it, you think it's odd that Shakespeare used more than one spelling. You don't stop to think: IS it odd for someone of that time to use more than one spelling? When you look at all the evidence, nothing makes more sense than Shakespeare's works being written by Shakespeare.

[@miklyon77]

Wells job is to keep the tourists and more importantly their cash flowing into the Stratford tills. Why make this video if the movie they talk about was so derisory? If something is that daft surely one ignores it. I haven't seen this particular movie and am not a supporter of the Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare school. However, the idea that a grammar school boy of the 16th century would have knowledge of court life, know Italian, Latin, Hebrew and Greek, have a thorough knowledge of music, law etc is plainly beyond belief. That he never left any letters, plays, poems etc make it stranger still and the greatest ever writer of English left no library or in fact a solitary book, makes the Stratford schoolboy an extremely unlikely candadite for the bard himself. I laughed at Wells proof that the Stratford mans daughters were not illiterate by offering the fact that they could sign their names, was it a capital X they signed maybe. Anyway Proff Wells can still rely on free cream teas and scones at the "Olde Shakespearean Tea Shoppe", he done his best to keep the money flowing up the Avon. i la

[@brucerobbins6227]

That is a true insult to Prof. Wells without any justification. He is mainly Professor Emeritus and has written many books, and is a renowned expert on Shakespeare and his contemporaries and his era. The movie is out to prove Shakespeare did not write the plays. It starts from that and uses all kinds of errors of fact, and unfounded speculation to do that. It shows Shakespeare as an illiterate drunken fool, an approach I thought that went out with Delia Bacon, Looney, and Ogburn. Shakespeare lived in London for about 95% of h is adult life, so there is no surprise that in Stratford he had few books. He was not known as "the great Shakespeare" back then. Unlike Jonson, he did not even try to put together a Folio of his plays and poems. That job was up to Hemings and Condell, good friends and business associates, who did it as a memorial to their friend, who died too young to have a hand in it, if he even ever thought of doing so. We don't know. We don't even know how Shakespeare felt about his own work. Did he see himself as immortal? It certainly does not seem so. Did Marlowe, Kyd, Donne, Milton see themselves as immortal? Did Shakespeare ever suspect that his works would be performed around the world in every language in existence, in 400 years time? I think he would have laughed at such a prospect. Like asking him if man would fly airplanes, make the trip from New York to London not in a week, but in 6 hours, automobiles, telephones, televisions, you might as well ask him if he expected that. His plays were performed less after her retired. Even the best go out of fashion, and Shakespeare did. Until the mid-1700's Shakespeare was pretty much forgotten.

[@stevebari9338]

Mike Lyons The tourists were showing up long before Wells and they'll continue to come after he's gone so he doesn't have to do anything for the tourism as it takes care of itself pretty well. Grammar school then was not grammar school now. How many grammar school students today do you know that can converse in and translate Latin and Greek? That was their core curriculum, along with rhetoric, the basis for law. Court life in Shakespeare's plays is a pretty causal affair, it was much more stringent and title oriented. You couldn't have one courtier speak to another without their proper appellation, your grace, your eminence, your etc. This is show sparingly in the plays . Shakespeare was a rich man and had ready access to books and a family friend was a publisher, who's also mentioned in the play Cymbeline by name. Most of the plays are not original ideas and based on preexisting plays or stories. The source for a lot of material comes primarily from these earlier versions. So any learning featured in the plays could have also been simply copied from these earlier works. A 1631 lawsuit filed by Susanna Shakespeare tries to recover stolen property from her father's house and some of this property were books and desks. This daughter signed her name and no not with an X. How about do a little research before you derisively condemn Wells as your points are easily refuted.

[@brucerobbins3584]

Mike Lyons mike: all anti-Strars greatlyi exaggerate the learning in Shakespeare's plays as a way of making it impossible for him to have written them. They don't understand that Shakespeare's plays are not textbooks showing his learning but entertainments he wrote for audiences. Also, anti-Strats seem to think that Shakespeare was kept in a closet to write plays. Man, his education did not Stop in Stratford when he was 14!!!! It continued when at 23 he left for London. He was not a man of learning like his friend Ben Jonson, who did not go to a university, but was self-taught. But we don't read Shakespeare to gain knowledge. We read him for the beautiful poetry, the unforgettable characters, his humor, his understanding of all human emotions/ These are the hallmarks of literary genius, things you can't learn in school. Just because we have no extant letters does not mean he did not write any. It only means that none have survived 400 years, like most pieces of paper. Unless you are an expert in Shakespeare the Elizabethan times including the London theater and Shakespeare's contemporaries, you have no right to laught at these two experts and you are making a fool of yourself it you do. Obviously, you know nothing about the grammar schools back then [spoiler] they were nothing like today's grammar schools.

[@MarbleWhornets]

I’d love to see these two do a commentary track for the DVD!!!

[@cengime]

Some outside-the-box thinkers believed the Earth was hollow. The theory was considered and rejected. That's you.

[@cengime]

Second, practically all of the incidents in the plays which supposedly parallel Oxford's life come from Shakespeare's sources and were common literary tropes at the time. It's just coincidence, as you can see by the many such lists which have been drawn up for competing candidates.

[@rstritmatter]

Second, I don't suppose it would be asking too much for you to supply a citation to said comparative lists? I thought not.

[@cengime]

Of course Shakespeare had books when he died. Unfortunately, the inventory of his property that would have accompanied the will, and which would have listed things like books, has been lost. Italy-so what? The plays show no knowledge of Italy that could not have been obtained from books or conversation (and it is often taken from identifiable books). Eulogies-nonsense, lots of people eulogised him, including William Basse, who titled his poem "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616."

[@villaparis2]

Is the interviewer American or British?

[@thomasfranklin6869]

+villaparis2 She sounds American.

[@apollocobain8363]

Since "Shake-speare" is a pen name having the actual name "Shakspere" excludes the illiterate wool dealer from Stratford. While we're on it: Shania Twain did not write "Huckleberry Finn" Diedrich Knickerbocker was not one the NBA's Knicks, and Lemony Snicket does not have a brother named Limony

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

My satire detector is our for repair, and I can't tell if you're serious.

[@rexmundi2237]

Problem for Shakespearian scholars like Wells is that IF it's ever proven that Shakespeare did not write the plays the professor's reputation and career would be in tatters.They have a conflict of interest which requires them to create as much doubt as possible about the sceptics. This is true of most experts: historians, literary critics, theologians, scientists etc. They may also be right of course (just as I am sure scientists who believe in anthrogenic climate-change are probably right) but it still raises some serious doubts about the so-called expert's objectivity and open-mindedness. It is no longer reasonable to doubt climate-change but it is entirely reasonable and legitimate to continue questioning the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.

[@brucerobbins3584]

Wells' and thousands of scholars and 400 years of research would be shattered. That this has not happened, not even close, is This is an internet proposition. Without the internet it would be a dead issue. The vast preponderance of evidence points to the man from Stratford. It is that simple. There is no one else, and Shakespeare fits the bill on all counts. Debate over, and Wells knows it.

[@brucerobbins3584]

Edward de Vere? Don't make me laugh. He died in 1604, and as Dr. Rutter said, that is enough to disquality h im from being the writer of the plays. There is not documentary proof that de Vere and Shakespeare ever met, or de Vere went to Shakespeare's plays, or know the name of one of them. NADA!!! There is no objective proof that Oxford had anything to do with the plays of Shakespeare..

[@rogerstritmatter1212]

No, actually, Ms. Robbins, *you* come on. Your post is full of half truths and outright, um, lies. You clearly do not even understand the proposition you are defending or the proposition you are criticizing. So laugh all you want, but don't tell me that de Vere's dying in 1604 has the slightest bit of real relevance to whether or not could have, or actually did, write the plays. Here's my book that covers the single most essential question related to that matter: www.amazon.com/Date-Sources-Design-Shakespeares-Tempest/dp/0786471042/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474577186&sr=1-1&keywords=stritmatter+shakespeare+tempest When you can write a book that proves that the Tempest was, as we have been hearing for two hundred years from your team, written in 1611, then you can lecture me. Until then, save your laughter 'cause you're going to need it.

[@rogerstritmatter1212]

"Edward de Vere? Don't make me laugh. He died in 1604, and as Dr. Rutter said, that is enough to disquality h im from being the writer of the plays." You already said that. That Dr. Rutter said that too is merely an indicate of how out of touch she is with the reality of contemporary research on these questions. She hasn't read a book on the subject and neither have you. Stop trying to control a discussion you don't understand with emoticons. It won't work.

[@brucerobbins3584]

Roger: I don't see your name up there, but if you want to joust, let's go at it. This is b.j. robbins. I use my wiffe's name sometimes. The question is: why is it always"The Tempest" with you? How about the other two plays that we know go with the Tempest? Why don't you include them also> You want The Tempest to be written in 1604 or before for obvious reasons. Then all three plays must be written before 1604. Because they are all so similar in versification and them. Well, if you accept as proof that The Tempest is based on the voyage of the Sea Venture, that is allusionaryi p[roof that it was written AFTER 1604. What was written in 1604? Othello. A tragedy. That is all Shakespeare was writing at this time. Tragedies. No comedies, and no histories. Shakespeare wrote like that. Certain periods contained certain kinds of plays. Look in any book of the plays, and you can find that. Peter Alexander. Roger, it does sound like you take the movie "Anonymous" as your main source of information on the SAQ. Is this how you teach? How do you hold your job? A movie as your main source of information?

[@cengime]

Some of those people may have accomplished great things, but what makes Mark Twain or Charlie Chaplin an expert on Shakespeare? They had the same lame and unconvincing arguments as anybody else.

[@ShaneyElderberry]

An interesting view. I own the blu-ray and the special feature interviews seem to suggest that they are exposing a falsehood to educate the masses. What are documentaries but opinionated education pieces? We shouldn't confuse the documentary category with non-fiction and historical accuracy. While they probably haven't made art (if scholarship isn't creative in its way), I don't see how this helps forward your opinion that they have no taste (they're Shakespeare/Jacobean literature experts).

[@cengime]

Yes, it's too bad that despite being born with every advantage in life, Oxford failed to make use of the opportunities he was given.

[@cengime]

I am not invested in Shakespeare being the author. I would be totally open to hearing convincing evidence that it was somebody else, but a long and hard search has turned up none. If you have a reason to publicly cast undeserved aspersions on the character and talent of one of the greatest authors in English, surely I have a reason to explain where you've gone wrong.

[@cengime]

"I've read a fair share of both sides, and find the Stratfordians to be arrogant and outright liars, such as claiming that the 3rd Earl of Southampton was his patron, when there's NOTHING that links them, even obliquely." Ridiculous. Shakespeare dedicated both of his narrative poems to the Earl of Southampton. It doesn't seem very likely that he would have dedicated a second book to Southampton if he had received no reward for the first.

[@cengime]

That is quite a stretch. I think when you read that in context, it's pretty clear that he is making fun of Shakespeare as an actor for expanding into writing plays as well as performing them (he calls him a Jack of all trades), specifically identifying him as the author of Henry VI, Part One with his allusion to the line "O, tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide". There may well be another candidate, but until one actually appears, it would be most unreasonable to just assume that one exists.

[@cengime]

Who ever had their hands or head chopped off solely for "attaching their name to the printed word" in Elizabethan England? Name a single person.

[@colinmatts]

It's interesting that people try to use Shakespeare's "poor" spelling and lack of vocabulary as ammunition for their conspiracy theories. Before 1611 and the publication of the King James Bible, the English language was in a state of flux. There was no real standardisation of spelling or even grammar. Let's also remember the vast amount of words Shakespeare made up. Who needs a grand vocabulary when you can just invent words. Shakespeare's plays are much more about imagination than education.

[@appletongallery]

No one ever addresses the motivation an author would have for not taking credit for his own writing. If The Earl of Oxford wrote the plays why not put your name on it? This is the most essential question to my mind.

[@stuartlloyd1746]

It explains that in the film, writing plays and poems was seen as beneath the activities of an aristocrat. There's also the religious dimension, back then you had to be very careful what you wrote, especially if you were from a powerful family.

[@appletongallery]

@@stuartlloyd1746 Are there any other examples of an aristocrat creating a great body of art and obliterating all authorship?

[@Nullifidian]

​@@stuartlloyd1746 Then I hope the film has some explanation for why Edward de Vere very publicly wrote poetry (and it was tripe) and was so insistent that it made its way into print that he even published it in other men's books, like de Vere's poem in _Cardanus Comforte_ translated by Thomas Beddingfield. Perhaps the film can be excused for making things up, since fictionalization is foundational to Hollywood, but as an answer to a real-world question it must fail because it doesn't reflect reality.

[@cengime]

This is no different from what I hear from believers in any other conspiracy theory: you're just too narrow-minded to see the truth, and my theory is not widely accepted because academics have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Please, let's just keep to the facts.

[@robertjackson5645]

The authorship debate is nonsense and pointless; ultimately what Shakespeare must be thanked for, aside from the art, is creating a whole academic and publishing industry.

[@MikeD0011]

The Earl had an acting troop under his/his father's patronage to answer their question as to how de Vere could know about the working of a play. Also, this guy on the right is head of the Stratford Shakespeare society which makes money from perpetuating the Stratfordian myth.

[@MikeD0011]

The are several books that suggest the plays were written and performed at earlier dates that are accepted by academia. I'm sure if you do the research you will find that no exact dates are known for sure. As for why no plays are attributed to him at the time, you should also know that it was considered taboo for men or women of status to engage in work. It was considered beneath their station.

[@MikeD0011]

Here is what we are considering. A man who we don't have any record of attending school, who in his 20s, wrote the greatest works in the English language. Versus a guy who we know went to school, had exposure to plays as a child, who traveled through continental Europe, who grew up with access to classical works in the home of his caretaker Lord Burley, who possessed knowledge of the inner workings of the court, and we have surviving examples of his early poetry. Or its some guy who came from a provincial village and left us with nothing written by his own hand.

[@MikeD0011]

Even if it's not Oxford, which I'm fine with being the case, it's probably someone like him who wrote those works. I'm also ok with the Stratford man being the author. However, I don't think sufficient evidence exists to be sure one way or the other. Honestly this question never bothered me until I started noticing the lack of knowledge there was about the man Shakespeare near the end of my college days. It just seems odd.

[@MikeD0011]

Zenaida Robbins not one of those books was written by a contemporary or drew from contemporary sources. And that's the issue I have. Again, I'm not putting forth an alternative candidate. I'm just suggesting that alternative candidates exist since we do know that other writers of that era of social rank were forced to use pseudonyms. I don't have my books with me at the moment be when I get a chance I will cite that statement. I think what I'd settle for saying is that it could very well be Shakespeare who penned all the works, however, there are so many gaps in the historical account that I could not say for certain. I think though that those who often oppose that view become so combative that it forces folks like me to be even less accepting of the orthodox view. Anyway, I have more to add but would like to ask,if I may, what works you have read that you found most convincing or you found drew from the oldest sources so I might give them a look myself. Thanks.

[@MikeD0011]

Firstly, your argument is filled with more falsehoods than I can count and you don't seem to deny that there is virtually no contemporary accounts of his life. There is still no evidence he attended any school. His cirriculum is an assumption. I'm beginning to question whether you have ever had to write an academic paper or even understand what a fact is. The man from Stratford's name is Skakspere. So the possibility of a pseudonym is definitely real. if he joined the King's Players in 1594. Well the first 5 plays attributed to him were performed before then. Why? Why is there no evidence of him being paid as a writer? Why was nothing said about him when he died? Also your first argument is nonsense. "Everyone believes it's Shakespeare'." Everyone also believed the Earth was the center of the universe because that was what was taught. Anyway, I must conclude that you have either some connection to the Shakespeare trust or have a vested interest maintaining the orthodox view. Since you have not explained your intest I will assume both are true and your argument invalid. Either way you've clearly decided to take the tact that it is foolish to doubt a "fact" based on insufficient evidence. You've done nothing to convince anyone of anything. Happy trolling.