Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare? - Ros Barber

Ros Barber speaking at the George Inn on the authorship question.

[@skeshavarz60]

Amazing! Thank you!

Nice presentation, clear and thought provoking.

[@spencear]

Thanks, this has been very useful.

[@ktheodor3968]

The *least* one could say, in the light of what this lady says here as well others who have reasoned similarly (for there are crackpots about prone to extreme flights of fancy over the Shakespeare authorship), is that there are some grounds for doubts about the accepted Stratfordian narrative of Shakespeare the author. Not being free from doubt over who W.S. really was does not ultimately detract from the whole experience, nay pleasure, one gets from watching & reading the plays, the sonnets. But as this lady says, after some four-hundred years it would be, let's say, *resting* to at least acknowledge that the opposite equivalents to the crackpots I identify above are these who unreservedly and wholeheartedly subscribe to the Stratfordian account of W.S. My thanks to the woman who gives this presentation, and whoever it was that put on KZbin this footage. (Some good use of the internet:) )

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

K Theodor Well, except for all the evidence that says Shakespeare was the author, and the complete dearth of any that anyone else wrote it, you might have a point. Logic requires that when there is evidence in favor of a given proposition, it cannot be discarded without greater evidence that it is incorrect. It should not be doubted without SOME evidence that it is in error. Ancient Aliens sewing the primordial soup with DNA doesn't get to unseat Evolution without evidence. Why should Marlowe/Oxford/Bacon/Whoever unseat Shakespeare without proof? The "doubts" which advocates for an alternate Shakespeare suggest amount to them pointing to the gaps in the documentary record, with little regard to the passage of time (all his houses and theaters were destroyed long before he became The Bard and his family line died out), often no regard for whether such evidence should have existed in the first place (that damn boilerplate will written by his lawyer! Why didn't he know we would want details about books?), and no regard whatsoever for the HUGE pile of evidence that we still have that Shakespeare was Shakespeare.

[@zeerust2000]

There is nothing for which there is absolutely no doubt, with the exception of Death itself, I guess. The scientific method is based on this fact. That's not the point. The point is this: Is there any really significant reason to doubt the Shakespeare was the author? For me the answer is: No, not really. This whole thing is a classic conspiracy theory. You may as well ask: Is there any really significant reason to doubt that Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon in 1969? For me, the answer here is also: No, not really.

[@pbredder]

Anyone who doubts becomes a crackpot? Really!

[@MrMartibobs]

Honestly, why not go after John Webster? Same background as Shakespeare, and we know pretty well nothing about him, except the name of his wife and the fact that his dad was a carriage maker. Why go after poor old Will? Or be an equal opportunities crackpot and go after ALL the contemporary playwrights we don't know a fat lot about? (ie most of them)

[@MrMartibobs]

Okay, what line, what scene, what play, what poem, could not possibly have been written by someone with a grammar school education? Give me actual references and reasons please.

[@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.

[@thoutube9522]

If they had ANYTHING like the evidence you mention for Oxford, or Marlowe, or Bacon, they would (rightly) declare victory. They haven't.

[@xmaseveeve5259]

So what?

[@thoutube9522]

Genuine question: the body of the murder victim of the 'tavern brawl' was literally present at the inquest. The jury members were able to examine and measure the wounds on the corpse. The standard Marlovian story is that the corpse of a hanged man was substituted for Marlow. Now I'm no forensic pathologist. In fact I'm not any kind of ologist, but I'm pretty sure that I would be able to spot the signs of a man who been dangled to death on the end of a rope. On death masks is very, very apparent, so on an actual body it would be bleeding obvious. So ... how did the people who plotted Marlowe's exile overcome this minor difficulty?

[@zross8471]

Excellent presentation which I happen to agree with!

[@rexmundi2237]

There are two strands to this debate: the literary and the historical, the Work and the Man. Shakesperian scholars should stop being so thin-skinned and defensive about questions of authorship, and respect the right of historians to analyse/question historical events and provide alternative theories about the lives and characters of famous people; that is simply what historians DO, just as writing essays and lecturing about plays, books and poems is what literary scholars DO.

[@MrMartibobs]

exactly. I have a theory that Henry VIII was actually Kate Harrington, a milliner from Croydon. But does anyone take me seriously? Thank you for recognising my genius.

[@MrMartibobs]

Historians? I have never heard an actual historian arguing about the authorship. If you're a real historian, you will know that many people of Shakespeare's background did very well at this time. Including Wolsey and Cromwell. . If you can become the most powerful man in England when you have an artisan class background, then becoming a playwright is child's play.

[@MrMartibobs]

Two people from humble backgrounds rose to become the most powerful people in England. Thomas Cromell and Cardinal Wolsey. That's historical fact. And you're surprised that a grammar school kid can be a humble playwright? Gimme a break.

[@howardgayton2127]

@@MrMartibobs There is no evidence that the Will from Stratford went to the Grammar School.

[@howardgayton2127]

@@MrMartibobs That is a very straw man argument. The authorship question in this case is not just some people making stuff up. There is much evidence that one would expect to be there that is missing if Will or Stratford wrote the plays - any books; correspondence; a trail that shows how he learnt Law, Geography of Italy, Courtly manners, etc. There is also quite a bit of evidence that suggests other authorship, such as the plethora of other poets that write in code about the disguised poet, the knowledge of courts workings, an intimacy of talking to aristocrats (something a commoner would hardly have the audacity to do), and the deep Esoteric knowledge embedded in the plays - something that the Elizabethan court was famous for.

[@ginawiggles918]

All those customers at the George were having way more fun.

[@jamesbassett1484]

Does anyone know where the second half of this presentation might be found, the part addressing the evidence of Marlowe being the possible author/

[@tjpieraccini]

(Reposting my original reply from 5 years ago, as it moved down the comments) Due to an unfortunate incident that interrupted the end of this half of the evening (removed by editing), the second half had to be a bit rushed, and Ros didn't feel it represented the argument as well as it might have, hence its non-appearance. Sorry about that, but thanks for the interest. I personally felt the second half was still well worth showing, but given the controversy that rages around this issue, one can understand Ros's desire to present her argument in the strongest possible way.

[@chriscassin7232]

James Bassett I’ve a feeling that there was a talk, similar to the structure here, on an academic site, maybe Goldsmiths? I’ll have a look around. It was probably at least 10 years ago. Good quality presentation in content and visuals etc. As you would expect from Ros Barber. Basically it was 30 minutes on the doubts and 30 minutes on Marlowe.

[@jamesbassett1484]

@@tjpieraccini Thank you for responding. It is a pity the rest of the presentation was lost.

[@anthonysmith9920]

Aleander Waugh is a must see if you want to understand the reference to the inscription on the Stratford monument, the 3 names refer to pppoets buried in "pposts corner" leaving room for where the "real"creator of the Folio lies

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

And if you throw the dice enough times you'll eventually get Yahtzee. It's amazing what Waugh can find if he adds enough made-up context.

[@UngKristen]

lord is that a scary sound at 29:30... had to throw off my headphones and check my apartment

[@ktheodor3968]

And where is the other half of R. Barber's presentation, arguing that it was Christopher Marlowe who was 'Shakespeare'? Barber clearly says at the beginning of her talk that there're going to be two halves. One half, questioning the accepted Stratfordian account of W.S. as the author, and the other half where she puts the Marlowe case. Why leave out the second half?! Or, if KZbin restrictions wouldn't allow a longer one single piece of footage, then why don't you put her entire presentation over two or even three separate pieces of footage? I know for sure that this can be done. The other half of her presentation please...if you could. With thanks

[@tjpieraccini]

Due to an unfortunate incident that interrupted the end of this half of the evening (removed by editing), the second half had to be a bit rushed, and Ros didn't feel it represented the argument as well as it might have, hence its non-appearance. Sorry about that, but thanks for the interest. I personally felt the second half was still well worth showing, but given the controversy that rages around this issue, one can understand Ros's desire to present her argument in the strongest possible way.

[@ktheodor3968]

Thank you for coming back. This explains things. Moreover, grateful you did put this video :)

[@ShadowinaCave]

+Tim Pieraccini Pity about that, Tim, but I can understand her position on it. Nonetheless, sincere thanks for uploading this -- fascinating stuff, well-presented I thought, very clear and actually quite compelling. I admit I have a lot of reading to do, but unfortunately so far I'm far more impressed by the Shaksper-wasn't-Shakespeare arguments than the arguments *for* any of the major candidates who've been put forward.

[@tjpieraccini]

+Shadow in a Cave Yes, I'm with you on that.

[@EndoftheTownProductions]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIibZYd5bqeIn6c&ab_channel=EndoftheTownProductions

[@aurelian6313]

The Stratford man’s name was not ‘William Shakespeare.’ The Stratford man’s name was ‘William Shakspere.’ The circumstantial evidence discovered over the past 100 years now overwhelmingly points to ‘William Shakespeare’ being the pen-name of Edward de Vere.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Speculation is not evidence, even of the circumstantial variety.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Oh, and according to the College of Heralds, his name was Shakespeare.

[@michaeludeze8470]

"Soul of the age!" "Star of poet!" "Our Chief!" This is how an accomplished poet himself celebrated another author. William Shakespeare's greatness was already known during his life time. Meanwhile, when Shakspere of Stratford died, there was no national mourning, or anything to indicate the passing of the greatest writer of the time. It is not possible that the passing of such a celebrity would go unnoticed! The Passing of Shakspere of Stratford went unnoticed because he was not the author of the works of William Shakespeare.

[@MrMartibobs]

There were actually many, many elegies. By 'national mourning' I presume you mean a TV special and the Daily Mail printed with a black border. Maybe a long obituary in the Times. There was bugger all response to the death of the Earl of Oxford - mostly because he was a piece of worthless shit. Webster's death went so unnoted we don't even know when he died. Elegies for Shakespeare were circulated in manuscript for years, then published in books - notably in new folio editions. But if it enriches your life, feel free to carry on believing that nobody noticed. It would be news to the people who referenced 'all that he hath writ' on the Stratford monument. Here's a fond remembrance of Shakespeare by friend and rival Ben Jonson: "I REMEMBER the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. “Sufflaminandus erat,” 2 as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Cæsar, one speaking to him: “Cæsar, thou dost me wrong.” He replied: “Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause; 3 and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." One of the many reactions that apparently didn't occur. You genuinely seem to forget that there was no nightly news broadcast at the time. Was there a day of national mourning for Harold Pinter, who died (I think) two years ago? What about Grahame Greene? Do you remember a day of national mourning for him? or ... Ted Hughes? Or George Harrison, the nicest Beatle? Or John, the most talented? Churchill ... yes. The Queen Mum ... yes. Ladidah Lady Di .... yes. Notice a pattern? For the 17th Earl ? A collective memorial fart.

[@michaeludeze8470]

@@MrMartibobs Sure, there were outbursts of strong emotion at the death of the greatest writer of the age, but they happened long after the passing of Shakspere of Stratsford. That's why you did not date your quotation. Find a spontaneous outflow of strong sentiment that happened at the passing of Shakespere of Stratsford.

[@MrMartibobs]

​@@michaeludeze8470 Why would you expect strong sentiment? You think there should have been a Diana moment, with crowds strewing the streets with rose petals? Here is a (not exhaustive) list of epitaphs: William Basse "On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare, he died in April 1616" The Stratford monument (before 1623) With in this monument Shakspeare ... 'all that he hath writ...' Jonson "To the memory of my beloved, Mr. William Shakespeare, and what he hath left us." Hugh Holland (1623) ("Upon the lines and life of the famous scenicke poet, Master William Shakespeare"), Michael Drayton (1627) “Shakespeare thou hadst as smooth a comic vein…” 1632 Folio "An Epitaph on the admirable Dramaticke Poet, W. Shakespeare 1635 Thomas Heywood Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels (1635), “Mellifluous Shake-speare, whose enchanting quill Commanded mirth or passion, was but Will.” 1638 Sir William "In Remembrance of Master William Shakespeare.” before 1635 Leonard Digges's "Upon Master William Shakespeare, the Deceased Author, and his Poems Please remember that it took a long time to get something into print. In wasn't in the obituary columns the next Friday, and many poems circulated in manuscript form long before they were published. They didn't put it in a nightly news bulletin. And it's MASSIVELY more than his contemporaries got. Truly. Imagine George Lucas died. Would there be a day of national mourning in the USA ? No. a national hero like John McCain gets one, but writers don't. What would happen would be a retrospective of his work, replaying some of his best stuff .... which is EXACTLY analogous to the publication of the First Folio. That WAS the most important tribute to his work.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@michaeludeze8470 I'm not sure that DURING HIS LIFE he was universally regarded as the greatest writer of the time. It was something of a golden age, and there were several rivals to that claim. He was clearly successful, because ultimately his plays were performed at court, but for Meres (1598) he was just AMONG the best poets and playwrights. He also rated the Earl of Oxford, who is listed separately. Imagine say ... Alan Bennett's death. A much-loved writer. Yes, there'll be obituaries. Probably the issue of a complete works ... but national mourning? Emotional outbursts? I don't think so. And yes of course the bloody obits would appear the same week. This is because we don't live in the bleeding seventeenth sodding century. Shakespeare did, you see.

[@bootube9972]

You didn't read what I said. The elegies circulated IN MANUSCRIPT for years before the publication. And the first folio was the finest tribute a writer could imagine. Printing it was a complicated process, he first problem being to secure the rights to all the plays, as these were in the hands of various publishers. It was also necessary to gather the foul papers and prompt copies of the plays that had not been published in order to get a reasonable version together. And patrons were needed because it was a massive undertaking requiring funding. Typesetting was slow, laborious and expensive. Printers had to schedule in more regular work so that they could survive as businesses while the printing was happening. the fact that all this was done in just seven years is a massive tribute to Shakespeare, achieved by the industry and persistence of the people who had loved and respected him. And there's also a whacking great memorial in the parish church which makes it crystal clear that he was a writer. And fellow-writers who praised him in print, including Beaumont and Webster, and Jonson If you think Oxford wrote the works, and the cognoscenti all knew it, then why the silence after HIS death in 1604?

[@bootube9972]

Is it possible you might invest in a microphone some time?

[@alfonsoantonromero932]

Repetir cientos de indicios desde hace décadas que Shakespeare no escribió la obra de Shakespeare no aportó ninguna prueba que probara nada.

[@Wavecurve]

A person who is casually dismissive of hundreds of clues and evidence has become a religious adherent.

[@rickmarquis3008]

No woman named as the writer? Exclude elizabeth, something may have composed, r and j?

[@MrMartibobs]

This is wonderful. I wonder if any of your viewers also subscribe to the Snowdonian theory of authorship with regard to Harold Pinter. Pinter was the son of blue-collar parents, educated at a grammar school. Instead of following an academic route, he went to drama school and became an actor. Supporters of the Hackneyan theory (so-called because that was where the 'playwright' was born) claim that he could learn all he needed from this meagre education. Yet he had knowledge far beyond what The Man from Hackney could have possessed. In 'The Caretaker' for example, he demonstrates an intimate and vast knowledge of brain surgery, and refers to a pre-frontal lobotomy operation in minute detail. An early sketch, 'The Last to Go', shows that whoever wrote the plays was familiar with the newspaper industry. 'The Birthday Party' demonstrates an intimate knowledge of life in a seaside lodging-house. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that he ever went to any seaside town in England, never mind 'On the South coast' somewhere near London'. If you lay out the first twenty stage directions from 'The Dumb Waiter' in a grid, with columns determined by the numeric values yielded from the names 'Harold' and 'Pinter'. You will find 'SNOW' in the bottom left corner and 'DON' in the top right. This proves beyond doubt that the writer of Harold Pinter's plays was clearly Lord Snowdon. Snowdon wasn't a brain surgeon either, and his expertise was actually in photography, but (like Marlowe) he went to Cambridge University. Like Marlowe, he was a poor student, and failed his second year exams Marlowe took the more effortless expedience of simply failing to turn up at University). I fail to see how anyone can possibly question the validity of this argument.

[@jamesbassett1484]

Sarcasm ill becomes you.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@jamesbassett1484 You don't understand. That comment was written by someone POSING as me in order to avoid the stigma of the comment column. This one was written by the real me .... OR WAS IT? Mwah ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

[@jamesbassett1484]

@@MrMartibobs Okay. The comment read like a fairly typical stratfordian straw man argument.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@jamesbassett1484 Well, possibly not all that witty, but an attempt to demonstrate the utter stupidity of trying to ascribe authorship to a dead spy when we know (on the basis of first-hand witness testimony and hundreds of documents) that a bright lad from Stratford with a good education simply turned out to be a good writer. Just like many of his contemporaries who had precisely the same middle-class background. Including Marlowe, as it happened. Marlowe did of course get a degree, but only because her Maj's minister intervened. He didn't actually LEARN much at university as he was seldom there.

[@josephhewes3923]

I love Ros Barber, but Marlow didn't write Shakespeare, Edward de Vere did.

[@MrMartibobs]

Obviously. Because writers are posh. It's a well known fact that the higher you are in deBrett's the better you are as a writer.

[@josephhewes3923]

@@MrMartibobs The overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to de Vere, not Marlow.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@josephhewes3923 Of course! Lord Snot of Snottington. How could you possibly be a writer if you didn't have a title! Weird that there are so very few aristos who have ever become great artists of any stamp. Lord Byron, Lord Lytton , Francis Bacon (lowly baronet) and er .. um er dunno I'm stuck. Maybe it's because, like the flatulent de Vere, they're so spoilt that they can't be arsed. That's certainly the impression you get from Oxford's verse. It COULD have been good but ... well, that would have meant making an effort, so it stayed mediocre.

[@ronroffel1462]

@@MrMartibobs Your attitude is showing and it isn't at all scholarly. If you claim that Oxfordians are 'snobs', then you obviously have not read the poems or plays carefully at all. The evidence that the writer was an aristocrat is plainly seen in the works themselves since the majority are about nobles and royalty. Furthermore, the characters tend to condescend to those of lower classes and the writer gives most of the lower-class characters names like "Dogberry" and "Bottom", hardly names which a commoner would give his fellow tradesmen and women. The snobbery you so eagerly deride is in the plays, not those who contend that Oxford wrote them. They are just going by the evidence.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@ronroffel1462 Oh dear, this one again. Of course he looks down on the lower orders. He's middle class. His dad was Lord Mayor of Stratford and had three houses. You have to lose the silly idea that the Shakespeares were dirt poor. They just weren't. They were among the most influential families in Stratford, and Shakespeare had links (through his mother) to nobility. That's why there able to get a coat of arms. You didn't get a coat of arms without an aristocratic background, and proof that you were an influential family. All this came up when people challenged the Shakespeares' right to it. You can look this stuff up. And why did he write about royalty?? Gee let's see ... well for a start, a good many of the plays are HISTORIES. Try writing a history play without including the royals. Try writing a Roman play without writing about Emperors. Other than this, almost all his plays are adaptations of stories. So as a jobbing writer, he chooses that stories that will fill theatres. Simple. And as a jobbing writer, his work is patchy. This is because he is NOT Lord Snot of Snottington, the lonely genius, writing non-stop classics, and feeding them to underlings. . That's why the quality is often patchy. And that's why it includes lewd comic routines including one with dog that just has to be a set-piece belonging to one of his performers. And as it happens, in Ben Jonson we have a contemporary who told us without equivocation that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. So prove Ben Jonson a liar, or find another hobby.

[@geoffJG1]

Surely the smug dismissers (im thinking of the gritted teeth of Prof Shapiro when insulting the pro Oxfordian real Shake-speares believers in the Earl of Oxford) will be quieted very soon?

[@stevebari9338]

You do realize that this video Marlowe as the candidate not Oxford, right?

[@ketmaniac]

+Steve Bari The section of her talk dealing with Marlowe is missing. It's an empty space that any Oxfordian will immediately fill with the great Earl's features.

[@stevebari9338]

Yes Oxfordians certainly fill things in they wish to be true. Everything I've read about the killer, war deserter, accused pedophile, wife deserter and profligate show De Vere to be anything BUT great.

[@geoffJG1]

+Steve Bari Pathetic cantankerous bore as usual ,do you actually read anty other book but biased Professor Nelson's or books propounding the :Illiterate drunken ,miser and broker from a village. Shakspere probably didn't have any education at all and at most 6 years ,in which time he became the greatest genius of book learning in history lolol.

[@stevebari9338]

Prove that he was illiterate (an actor has to be able to read his lines and a businessman to read over court documents and contracts that his signatures are signed to) Prove that he was a drunk (no arrests for drunk and disorderlies, in fact he was referred to as not being a company keeper and not being debauched) Prove that he was a miser (he left 10 pounds for the poor which is half a year's salary for a school teacher and money to buy memorial rings in his will) Prove that he was a broker (what did he buy and sell and not just have a one time record of) and that he only spelled his name that way (on his coat of arms application, the one paper where the last name is to be memorialized in the country's records its spelled as "Shakespere" and "Shakespear", two different ways and both phonetically with long vowels. If you can support any of your assertions then we can talk. If not, you're just making these labels up.

[@JPFerraccio]

4:43 He was never "prosecuted for hoarding grain." Sigh. His household is on an INVENTORY of grain POSSESSORS from 1598. Several other households had more (Sir Thomas Lucy, the vicar, the schoolmaster). And even if his name was on the inventory, it would have been his dad or his wife who arranged for the grain, since he would have been in London at the height of his career. Ms. Barber is like every other anti-Stratfordian, citing things that are false to support her case.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Well, to be fair, they've learned from the masters of the embellished biography. There are so many things about Shakespeare which have attained mythic status without cause that it is only natural that Anti-Stratfordians would use that as a starting point. The good news is that we've moved on and now examine the old claims and know what is borne up by the evidence (i.e. "Shakescene") and what is not (an eternal crab tree, deer poaching, etc.)

[@brucerobbins3584]

Jerry, of course, is absolutely correct in everything he said. Every household in Stratford hoarded grain. Grain was necessary for excistence back then. Of course, none of this is proof, any kind of proof, that William Shakespeare did not write the plays. NADA. And of course, Kit got a dagger in the eye in 1593, and died pretty instantly. Thom Kyd died a year later, leaving the theater field open for William Shakespeare. Those are facts, and the sexy narrator can do nothing to disprove them. Facts are stubborn things, Barber.

“Sexy narrator?” What in the devil is that about?

[@brucerobbins3584]

Yes.Ros has really nice boobs, and she loves to show them off. Exccellent cleavage. That is the only reason I watch her garbage videos.

heeheeheeeee. Whatever!

[@brucerobbins3584]

Marlowe died in 1593, so it is impossible that Kit wrote Shakespeare. He was dead.

[@stevebari9338]

Yes he did. Do you ever get the feeling that all of these "Anti-Stratfordians" actually don't believe any of things they say but only are Anti Will Shakespeare because they can make money on it?

[@stevebari9338]

When their lead is buy my book, get me on the lecture circuit or read my website, I'm the one who is dubious about them. Here's my question then to the doubters. If you're truly so passionate that a fraud is being done to either the American or English public by the Folger or SBT then why not file civil suits or have them investigated by agencies that go after consumer fraud? 30-50 years ago the major champions of the Anti-Strat movement were the Ogburns, father and son, were both attorneys. They certainly appeared passionate about their cause so why did attorneys never go this route? If you actually believe what you say and feel a fraud is being perpetuated there are legal channels to correct that. I don't see that here. All I see are people trying to make a buck.

[@stevebari9338]

Thomas Dekker by his own admission had co-written some 200 plays in this era. Ben Jonson wrote 52 plays and masques and up to 10 poetical works, John Fletcher wrote or co-wrote 55 plays, Thomas Middleton wrote or co-wrote 46 plays and 18 poetical works, So in comparison Shakespeare's 40 solo and co-author plays and 4 poetical works makes him seem like an underachiever by comparison to these other playwrights. So you might as well ask when did any of these men find time to write all of this stuff? Marlowe was a spy when did he find time to write? He obviously did. The answer to Shakespeare is that this is what he did for a living, along with being an actor and theater owner. That was his primary business. Henry Condell, his fellow co-owner in the theater company was even more of a multitasker. Not only was Condell an actor but was the business manager of the King's Men and was also was member of London's Grocer's Guild where he trained 10 apprentices over a 25 year period and was also a church warden at St. Mary Aldermanbury. Not to mention the dude had 14 kids. So Shakespeare had plenty of time to write and act in London as it was his primary profession, hardly multitasking. While in London, his brother Gilbert oversaw a court case for him and his wife Anne oversaw the remodelling of their house and she was the most likely person to oversee other business interests as they were also hers. Wives did this a lot in this era. Henslowe's diary shows his wife oversaw business transactions for him. So did Ned Alleyn's wife.

[@stevebari9338]

Your point about the other writers is pretty subjective. Jonson, Fletcher, Beaumont were all far more popular than Shakespeare in the century after his death. So much so that their stuff was not radically altered by the Restoration theater producers. Shakespeare's on the other hand suffered greatly. So much so that several of the plays weren't performed in their original published form until several centuries later. Case in point, no one liked the ending to King Lear and was reworked to have Cordelia live. This version was performed until the 1800s. Romeo and Juliet's ending was changed so the lovers died together. The Tempest had Ariel with a love interest. In the 19th century, Henry VIII was a headliner play today its barely mentioned so tastes change. Currently and for the last 50 years plays by Jonson, Webster, Fletcher, and Middleton are continually put on in England on their own. So its a matter of taste. Shakespeare's prodigious historical knowledge came primarily from two sources. Holished's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland and Plutarch's Lives of the Grecians and Romans. Sometimes entire passages are copied straight out of both such as the Salique law speech in Henry V and the description of Cleopatra's barge in Antony and Cleopatra. So whose knowledge is prodigious? Is it Shakespeare or the guys he copied from? If by Italian history you are talking Roman history than yes it was taught at the grammar school The curriculum consisted of learning rhetoric from Roman statesmen like Cicero and reading Roman authors: Plautus, Ovid, Virgil, Terrence to name a few. The curriculum for the grammar schools is very well researched and pretty rigorous. Its not by any stretch what we would think of a grammar school today. I don't know of any 10 year olds today who can read, translate, speak and conduct classes all in Latin but that's what they did. Stratford is not a rural town in either population or location. The city of Leicester had 15,000 people, Stratford had 2,500. Its located in a highly trafficked area of England near the capital. Its not some out of the way northern hamlet. Any current map of England can give you an idea but just looking at the larger towns around it. These are all towns that were around for centuries before Shakespeare and all centers of commerce and travel. So not rural in the sense of being isolated.

[@stevebari9338]

For Stratford, it depends on what you mean by cosmopolitan. It didn't have the foot traffic of many peoples like London but it was populated by many accomplished families and wasn't culturally isolated. You can read this page which discusses Shakespeare's friends to get an idea of the type of men who lived in Stratford and their connections to the court and London shakespeareauthorship.com/friends.html You can think of it as London was New York City and Stratford would be a town in Long Island or New Jersey. Its close enough to have lots of business and political connections but not so close that you're part of the city. Shakespeare's work is definitely ahead of its time or more accurately stuck with themes that appeal to people across time periods than others. There's certainly lots of things that are topical in the plays but the reason that they are continually produced is because of how they address timeless themes in the human condition.The thing is, his contemporaries also wrote similar works and those tend to be more popular. Not all Shakespeare plays are hits, you only have a handful that are continually produced, maybe a third of the total play total. And again what's popular changes with the times like my example of Henry VIII. The Italian history that you're referring to wasn't taught because the plays in Italian settings are near contemporary to Shakespeare's time so as a subject of history it wouldn't be applicable to be taught in a school. Recent English history was barely taught. All of the Italian plays from "Othello" to "Much Ado About Nothing" have prior stories that they are based on. Authors like Cinthio for "Othello" or Bandello for "Much Ado About Nothing" wrote the source stories from which the plays are derived. The novellas or books were all in circulation at the time. So either he could easily buy them or what was common, books circulated among friends like a loose lending library. Hand written manuscripts of books that were not even published were lent around in this way. So for anyone who wanted them, these source books were easily obtained. As Shakespeare was rich for most of his adult life, not a big stretch to get these books and the source books for the Italian plays were actually the cheap ones. If any source stories were in Italian if you know Latin, Italian is a walk in the park. Also there were translation dictionaries easily available.

[@JPFerraccio]

+Steve Bari Thank you for all your well-thought, supported, factual comments, Steve. GREAT JOB!

[@DownhillAllTheWay]

Whoever wrote Shakepeare is dead now. Does it really matter who it was? The written work survives, and it's good stuff - a little irrelevant now in places, and some of the language, and certainly the humour is outdated now - but regardless who wrote it, the content, the scansion, the music and the force of the ideas and thoughts, and the interpretation of things that were historical in the 17th century remain. It would not be enjoyed any differently if it was written by After all, what's in a name? A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.

[@michaeludeze8470]

Does it really matter who it was? Yes - in a very far-reaching way. History of English Literature would have to be rewritten. Unless you are saying History is not a valid discipline.

[@luckybag6814]

Stupid question. The answer is ; Yes.

[@howardgayton2127]

Except that the answer is probably: No.