Sabrina Feldman: Discoveries that Change the Future of the Shakespeare Authorship Question

[@chriscassin7232]

Thoughtful, fair and very interesting. Your book on Apocryphal Shakespeare is excellent. Orthodox scholars just don’t touch the riddle of the apocryphal works.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Who told you that? Scholars argue over whether Shakespeare had any hand in apocryphal works all the time.

[@brendanward2991]

Excellent talk. The Shakespeare Authorship Question is one of the most exciting fields of research in modern literature.

[@resolutejohnflorio]

Agree 😊

[@PASHKULI]

• Shakespeare was not born on 23.4.1564 on the one hand, as is generally assumed today, but on 19.4.1564, after which he was baptised on 26.4.1564 and died on 23.4.1616. • At his time, pure Catholicism was forbidden in England, which is why William Shakespeare officially confessed to Protestantism, which, however, was tantamount to a fraud, because in truth he was very strict and almost fanatically addicted to Catholicism and thus a strict and fundamentalist believer of this religion. • However, he knew how to hide this so well that only his wife Anne, née Hathaway, who was eight years older and married to him in 1582, knew about it. • The wife had fallen for him, which is why she remained silent in spite of many marital quarrels and in spite of his jealousy, even when she learned through dream mumbling on his part that he was treacherous and spying for the Holy Pope in Rome with regard to the Anglican Church - Church of England, State Church. • 'Hamlet' and 'Romeo and Juliet' were not written by William Shakespeare but by Christopher Marlowe, as were various other works, although the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward of Vere, also wrote various works for Shakespeare, who himself was not so good at writing in the manner attributed to him that he could have written the works attributed to him today. • From his own writing came only very trivial and insignificant things, which he also did not bring to the public, and so all the 38 known dramas, comedies, poems and histories attributed to him came from the pen of Edward of Vere and Christopher Marlowe. • Both used Shakespeare during 1589 to 1613 only as a makeshift to publish their works. • Edward de Vere was not so good, but Christopher Marlowe was a very good poet and playwright. • Both of them, however, had profound reasons to use Shakespeare as a makeshift, especially Marlowe. • Edward of Vere was, not a particularly good poet and playwright, used Shakespeare, so that he would not have to appear himself, because he feared bad criticism. • Christopher Marlowe, on the other hand, had to flee because he put his life in danger with regard to his faith. • So, in the spring of 1593, he arranged a well-considered brawl with friends in which he was allegedly stabbed to death, which allowed him to escape unrecognised. • The truth is that he fled and went to Italy, where he could live under a different name and without the danger of persecution. • It was there that he wrote most of the works he had sent to Shakespeare until 1613, who then used them under his name. • However, he was not allowed to do so under his own name, nor was he allowed to do so under his false name, because otherwise he would have been recognised, persecuted and handed over to the courts. • Christopher Marlowe himself died at the age of fifty on 28 May 1614, so that Shakespeare naturally did not receive any more works from him during the last two years of his life and nothing else became known under his name.

[@TomSmith-lf8tr]

Wonderful comments. Well deserved. I was a De Vere supporter until the Thomas North publications came to light. Now I’ll have to review Sackville..And I’m nearly 70 yo. What a journey we all have ahead of us.

[@irtnyc]

Sabrina, if youre reading this two comments, related. First, regarding your "third way" hypothesis that William Shakespeare (of Stratford) may have adapted pre-existing plays for public theater. As you note the "clowning" "breezy" and "coarse" low-brow comic interludes often have a distinct voice. It's consistent between plays (giving credence to the idea the same comic writer or room full of writers worked on many of them) but is notably different from the non-comic plots and poetry... the high-brow main line of "the book." This makes sense if you're trying to turn a profit performing plays for a working class audience, and freer to be crude and make ribald sex puns at Blackfriars or The Rose etc, compared to putting on an earlier version of the more formal play at court? Which we know both happened. This supports your theory. On the other hand sometimes a serious heavy long play just needs a clown to break up the flow, and reset the audience's mood. (Or logistically make time for a major set- or costume-change for the lead? The clowning is also usefully flexible as the clow can ad lib dancing or pantomimes as long as needed (or gets laughs). Modern comps: - Cirque du Soliel did this live in their early touring shows, literally with a solo clown, better big "set piece" song. - Some of Falstaff scenes in The Hollow Crown henriad films capture this really well, with the "call and response" audience participation bits with Hal. Perhaps the director or dramaturg is using the drunks in the pub to stand in for the "groundlings" in the live theater audience? Secondly, regarding Catapie and the notional "silly food jokes." Im not sure if youre just being polite, but this is not silly food gags. It's overtly puns on sex acts and genitalia in Tudor slang. Some of which still exists today in some subcultures. You can look up cake and pie on the search engine of your choice. Keep up the good work!

[@oisinofthefianna3246]

As always, great work, Sabrina! Mention of the "Gunpowder Plot" brought to mind several books that may be of interest to you as they examine the court intrigue of the English Ruling Class at the time: 1. The Gunpowder Plot - Hugh Ross Willamson - A history of realpolitik, what is called conspiracy now, the Squire Plot, The Babington Plot (how they murdered Mary Queen of Scots), The Gunpowder Plot. 2. The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest, and The Gunpowder Plot - John Gerard SJ - Gerard was allegedly involved with the plot. Great firsthand account of both the English political culture and the "Plot." Two different books. Also, there is another John Gerard SJ writing on the Gunpowder Plot, he wrote hundreds of years later, his book is also recommended.

[@SirTopas1]

Thanks for these great book suggestions - I’ll definitely check them out!

[@CulinarySpy]

Whoever wrote the description of Sabrina's books as 'novels' please correct it. They are non-fiction works, and jolly-well researched too!

[@ShakespeareAR]

'tis fixed, my Lord.

[@mississaugataekwondo8946]

What is missing from almost everyone's is where did Shakspere get the resource material for the plays? There is not a shred of evidence that he ever owned a book and no evidence that he had a patron who had a library or had access to any of the libraries where the source material was contained. And, also, William Stanley had the WS initials during this period and was a playwright and son in law to the 17th Earl of Oxford.

[@no_rubbernecking]

If he was simply a play broker, as most anti-Stratfordians seem to believe, then that would normally mean there were multiple authors, none of which were the broker. Yet here we are with almost everyone who says he was a broker also fighting to push a single specific author. It's almost like they hadn't even heard their own arguments. The evidence is overwhelming that he was a broker and not a main author. He may have contributed to editing. It's a small step from brokering wool to scripts.

[@DerekHunterDHChaosRiddler]

Loved this! Absolutely brilliant! Loved Sabrina Feldman's argument, she makes a thoroughly excellent case for Sackville, and love the insights she provides for the Apocryphal Shakespeare plays.

[@SirTopas1]

Thanks so much for this comment, Derek - I’m really glad you enjoyed my talk! You can reach me at [e-mail] if you have any questions, and I’m planning to restart my website apocryphalshakespeare.com later this summer or fall.

[@tanukilodge]

Really interesting and convincing presentation. I'd love to hear a more detailed discussion of the case for Sackville!

[@ShakespeareAR]

Read Sabrina's book! :)

[@tanukilodge]

@@ShakespeareAR Actually I have read the book! But I would love to hear Sabrina discuss it, and learn anything she has discovered since she wrote it!

[@metcaelfe]

Search for the work of Alexander Waugh on his channel by the same name, keep an open mind and you never know what you might discover

[@MundaSquire]

Waugh has brought together vast amounts of information from Shakespesres contempories that, for me, are too much to ignore and point quite convincingly to the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward De Vere. No other candidate has this amount of evidence by any measure. I now am an Oxfordian in my views.

[@duncanmckeown1292]

I'm an Oxfordian, but I admit that Macbeth is the Achilles heel of his candidature....Alexander Waugh seems to think that the play was "updated" by Middleton for 1606. This is what I like about the "skeptical" side of the argument...we don't hit each other over the head while upholding OUR candidate, but treat the authorship issue in a civilized manner. Stratfordians seem totally wedded to ad hominem attacks on their opponents.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

You fail to understand the difference between ad hominem attacks and simple heckling. If I say you're wrong because you're a goofball, that's ad hominem. If I say you're wrong because of all the evidence that says you're wrong, and therefore you're a goofball, that's not ad hominem.

[@peterrichards931]

I don't care who the author(s) actually was/were...there's many 'Achilles heels' with any candidate.

[@johnsmith-eh3yc]

People who say they dont care who the author is yet spend their time on authordship sites and videos do seem to care very much about who he isn't, ie William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon, as he is described in a London Courtcase. Such people are usually anglophobic non English foreigners who cant abide the bardolatry of this famous Englishman, or Self loathing English people of who George Orwell once said would rather steal from the poor box than sing the National anthem

[@boogiewoogie9770]

Excellent research and presentation thank you!

[@PetrichorAllegory]

One of the best lectures on the subject I have heard. Inquiry: Could the "bad quartos" have been penned by say a less sophisticated writer, someone like Oxford or Sackville, and then later "touched up" by Ben Johnson for the First Folio?

[@MrAbzu]

How much time did William Shakespeare, the grain dealer living in Stratford upon Avon, actually spend in London? With a whole building full of his business documents that should be an easy question to research. Tax records from London show at least one other William Shakespeare living in London as impoverished, a common affliction for actors and playwrights at that time. There was at least one other Stratford near London at that time, now an Olympic soccer pitch. We do not know if we have the right Shakespeare or the right Stratford. What we seem to have is the enterprising fiction of the local vicar who put Stratford upon Avon on the map with the coincidence of a fairly common name at the time.

[@avlasting3507]

Absolutely.

[@Alacrates]

I lean toward Oxford, but Thomas Sackville is intruiging to me, I'll have to read the presenter's book. I noticed the writer Henry Peacham writes in 1622 that both de Vere and Sackville were among the among the finest Elizabethan poets, in a list that does not mention Shakespeare.

[@rstritmatter]

Alternative candidates make headway only when the case for Oxford, overwhelmingly more powerful, is ignored. Some researchers pursue their tunnel vision over decades while ignoring the massively accumulating evidence for Oxford.

[@russellmartocci323]

Sabrina is right, in that Oxford wrote plays for the Elizabethan court, as well as adapting them for public productions, using the pseudonym William Shakespear

[@resolutejohnflorio]

Very interesting thank you for sharing this video 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@justsoification]

It seems Florio deserves more study as likely author

[@jennyf2120]

I completely agree with you. He is the mastermind.

[@duderama6750]

If you see Shakespeare as a society, it all comes into focus.

[@ryanmurtha2392]

Bacon is your man, he began publishing immediately upon leaving Cambridge in 1576. So the first books in the Shakespeare canon, which have many parallels in the later plays, are The Anatomie of the Minde (1576), Anti-Machiavel (1576), The French Academy (1578-98 in four volumes), if you look at those texts you will see the writer as he began his craft. Bacon may have written the North material, that might be the answer there. He was extraordinarily prolific and the 1580s are wide open as far as attributions.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

A weird alternate universe Bacon is your man. One where a Bacon who was eager for prestige and advancement was nonetheless using front men to publish works which would have brought him great renown. Yet he was publishing under his own name as well. No wonder he was a nobody until James became king. He was hiding his light under a bushel.

[@ryanmurtha2392]

@@Jeffhowardmeade Ladies and gentlemen, can we get a round of applause for our courageous servants at the 77th! He never sleeps, this one, Rule Britannia aint gonna rule itself...

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@ryanmurtha2392 Wrong continent. Have you managed to plug up the myriad holes I poked in your Anti-Machiavel hypothesis? Or are you okay being the only person who believes your inane notion that Bacon was writing a massive polemic against The Prince while still a tween?

[@ryanmurtha2392]

@@Jeffhowardmeade I'm not hanging my hat on the Antimach, I worked on it for a few years and am working on other things. I was wondering what my life was lacking though, and it's you Jeff. Why don't we get married. We can just argue at home without interfering with the public airwaves...

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@ryanmurtha2392 It would never work out. You would attempt to make some bizarre attribution based on nothing more than similar theme, and I would laugh my ass off and then become completely engrossed in The Anatomie of the Minde the way I was with Gentillet, and I would ignore you and you would become jealous. I think you might be better off with someone who can't do basic math, and wouldn't notice that Bacon would have had to have started reading the copious bibliography involved when he was still in diapers, and started writing by the time he was twelve in order to have these books in print by 1576.

[@Northcountry1926]

Impressive … Hoping to purchase your books - thank you 💯‼️

[@arealphoney]

Concerning Stylometric analysis using Edward II as the Marlowe example .... I attempted this and realised almost immediately that there were stylistic anomalies in that work which make it significantly different to Marlowe's other plays, and therefore not a good example for comparison. The language of The Jew of Malta and Doctor Faustus are arguably closer to Shakespeare than to Edward II

[@bertjilk3456]

A very interesting and revealing discussion. I was always curious about where the Shakespeare of Stratford would fit in if someone else was the author. The information about the apocryphal works - and contemporaries' scathing opinions about the 'uneducated ape' - answered that question in a very logical way. Unless solid evidence comes to light, we'll likely never have a definitive answer about the real Bard's identity. Sackville is certainly a convincing candidate.

[@CulinarySpy]

Great stuff thanks Sabrina!

[@arealphoney]

37:36 Concerning Farey's stylometric analysis of Marlowe's Edward Ii, i have also done a stylometric analysis of that play, expecting that it would fit quite neatly into the histories .... but it does not. However, i discovered another intetesting fact- the play has certain stylistic peculiarities which do not fit with Marlowe's other plays, any better than with the canonical works of Shskespeare. So an assessment of whether Marlowe wrote Shakespeare cannot be made effectively, if based on THAT particular play. There are recurrent patterns of language that are so unlike those of Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta that, based on these characteristics alone, one has to question whether Marlowe wrote Edward Ii.

[@T0varisch]

The enormous supernova SN1604 is not in the works. Everyone alive at the time knew about it. Waugh's solution to the Sonnets is unarguable, but is effortlessly dismissed. Stritmatter's solution to Paladis Tamia is likewise. IMHO, if this guy is in he has to be part of the scriptorium. We know who VVilliam Shake-Speare was. Great presentation thanks

[@ReturnOfTheJ.D.]

Maybe an alternative field of enquiry should actually be - why did people of the late 1500s/early 1600s not care about who the author of a publication was, even a play, when it is so important to us today? Probably because of two things - no copyright laws (or ways of enforcing them) and no way of publishing widely due to widespread illiteracy and no one language spoken across many nations. In that time, there werent' even effective police forces (that started a couple decades after Shakespeare) so murders and assaults were quite common, and which often appear in his plays, with little to no discussion about being caught by a police force, or prosecuted by a justice system. The enforcement of copyright would come much, much later in time. So who wrote something would not translate to wealth, as there was no way to stop reproductions by others. Then you have the fact that English was not a widespread language at the time, this being (just) pre-British Empire. Combine that with the fact that most people were illiterate and you have a field that appealed to only a small and select audience, with no doubt high costs of publishing and poor distribution networks. Obsessing over who wrote something, under those conditions, would have been pointless, so no-one cared. It's almost like today where the internet renders many written publications unable to make the kind of money they did before, but just in reverse (it's now easy to get access to copies of writen material rather than hard).

[@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.

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

Not mentioned in The Will that was signed SHAKSPERE: any books, any writings, any Poets, any Playwrights; Shakespeare's best pal Ben Jonson was not mentioned either. It is agreed that the poems in the First Folio were all written by Ben Jonson - but he signed them with different names!

[@avlasting3507]

Do not the references to Heminges and Condell in Stratford Shakspere's will (spelled Shakspere on p. 1 and 2 of his will and Shakspeare on p. 3) appear to have been hand written in later. This should be tested forensically. Also it'd be useful to determine exactly how many William Shakespeares were living in London in the mid 16th century. It's estimated the population was ca. 200,000 at that time.

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

@soltron1324 Yes it is agreed. "Ben Jonson, not Heminges and Condell, wrote the two letters, as George Steevens showed in 1770. Steevens, a distinguished 18th-century Shakespeare editor, produced twelve pages of parallels between the epistles and writings of Jonson. He concluded that Jonson wrote both epistles, and Edmond Malone agreed. Jonson, unlike Heminges and Condell, was qualified to write the two letters and edit the plays in the Folio, having edited and published his own collection of plays, the first folio of English plays, seven years earlier..."

[@russellmartocci323]

Thomas North was likely a prior pen name for Edward DeVere, before he adopted William Shakespeare as a pen name.

[@MrAtsyhere]

*important observation: at minute 17:31 the quote "Leaps from the Antarctic world unto the sky" could not have been written by William Shakespeare because the Antarctic was not discovered until 1820 full two hundred years too late.

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

"Antarctic" is not the same as "Antarctica" "Leaps from the Antarctic world unto the sky" was written Christopher Marlowe (who was not Shakespeare, but lived at the same time)

[@PASHKULI]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 He (Marlowe) was a 'ghost writer' for Shakespeare (rather the latter was his 'ghost strawman') as well as the Earl of Oxford (de Vere) gave some of his works to Shakespeare. • Shakespeare was not born on 23.4.1564 on the one hand, as is generally assumed today, but on 19.4.1564, after which he was baptised on 26.4.1564 and died on 23.4.1616. • At his time, pure Catholicism was forbidden in England, which is why William Shakespeare officially confessed to Protestantism, which, however, was tantamount to a fraud, because in truth he was very strict and almost fanatically addicted to Catholicism and thus a strict and fundamentalist believer of this religion. • However, he knew how to hide this so well that only his wife Anne, née Hathaway, who was eight years older and married to him in 1582, knew about it. • The wife had fallen for him, which is why she remained silent in spite of many marital quarrels and in spite of his jealousy, even when she learned through dream mumbling on his part that he was treacherous and spying for the Holy Pope in Rome with regard to the Anglican Church - Church of England, State Church. • 'Hamlet' and 'Romeo and Juliet' were not written by William Shakespeare but by Christopher Marlowe, as were various other works, although the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward of Vere, also wrote various works for Shakespeare, who himself was not so good at writing in the manner attributed to him that he could have written the works attributed to him today. • From his own writing came only very trivial and insignificant things, which he also did not bring to the public, and so all the 38 known dramas, comedies, poems and histories attributed to him came from the pen of Edward of Vere and Christopher Marlowe. • Both used Shakespeare during 1589 to 1613 only as a makeshift to publish their works. • Edward de Vere was not so good, but Christopher Marlowe was a very good poet and playwright. • Both of them, however, had profound reasons to use Shakespeare as a makeshift, especially Marlowe. • Edward of Vere was, not a particularly good poet and playwright, used Shakespeare, so that he would not have to appear himself, because he feared bad criticism. • Christopher Marlowe, on the other hand, had to flee because he put his life in danger with regard to his faith. • So, in the spring of 1593, he arranged a well-considered brawl with friends in which he was allegedly stabbed to death, which allowed him to escape unrecognised. • The truth is that he fled and went to Italy, where he could live under a different name and without the danger of persecution. • It was there that he wrote most of the works he had sent to Shakespeare until 1613, who then used them under his name. • However, he was not allowed to do so under his own name, nor was he allowed to do so under his false name, because otherwise he would have been recognised, persecuted and handed over to the courts. • Christopher Marlowe himself died at the age of fifty on 28 May 1614, so that Shakespeare naturally did not receive any more works from him during the last two years of his life and nothing else became known under his name.

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

I'm not educated on what you're referring to but I do know maps have been discovered which identify a continent as existing albeit unexplored, far earlier than that.

[@gerardsheridan5525]

greene and nash were inventions apparently

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

Of all the alternate candidates, Oxford checks far more boxes than the next nearest candidate. The more you research the subject the more obvious it becomes that Oxford is the true author.

[@MaHa-um5sv]

the Sibyls at Oxford receiving King James makes more sens to me as having been a reception of Macbeth - using famous characters already known, not the other way around - honestly, Macbeth makes most sense as being about MQof S's murder of Darnley, and pretty darn anti-Scottish propaganda, suitable to ease E1's guilt about MQofS's execution. But the play was popular, so had to be retconned for James.

[@SmallWetIsland]

Interesting. One query. By describing the Swallow as a poet who "ever doth enjoy her youthful spring," Davies implies that he is an older man.? ...Yet the line is "ever doth enjoy her "joyful" spring," so am I missing something

[@SirTopas1]

Thank you so much for pointing out my mistake! You’re definitely not missing anything but I do think that Davies implies the Swallow poet is older in the following lines: So might the swallow, whose swift muse doth range Through rare Ideas and inventions strange, And ever doth enjoy her joyful spring, And sweeter than the nightingale doth sing. O! that I might that singing swallow hear, To whom I owe my service and my love! His sugared tunes would so enchant mine ear, And in my mind such sacred fury move, As I should knock at heaven's great gate above With my proud rhymes; while of this heavenly state I do aspire the shadow to relate.

[@martynhanson]

A few years ago Oxford University co-credited Henry VI with Shakespeare and Marlowe

[@Libbyyyyyyyyyy]

so It's a bit like if in a couple hundred years we as a society venerate Carlos Mencia as the greatest comedian in history.

[@WasOne2]

Where should I start? The information contained in this presentation was excellent. But the presentation was very poor. There were too many times when Ms. Feldman started to read something on from the slides, then broke in mid-thought to start a new sentence. Slides that needed emphasis were hastily gone over at a pace that was often incomprehensible. I had to stop the playback many times to try to understand the importance of what was being said. At first, I thought that KZbin was set at a faster speed. I will listen again, but I found the presentation lacking in communication style. I'm certain that there is good material in there, but it is not well presented.

[@adamshinbrot]

Anybody who has ever given a Powerpoint presentation is faced with those problems. The intelligent presenter will try not to insult the audience by simply reading the slides verbatim. But then, the information is on the slides because the presenter wants the audience to absorb that information. It's a dilemma, and in addition Ms. Feldman was trying to present an awful lot of information in a reasonable amount of time. Given the constraints I think she did well, and while your comments are presumably well-intentioned I have to imagine you've never tried to present an hours worth of data in 45 minutes using Powerpoint. When you've done that I certainly hope you come back with some constructive, rather than destructive, suggestions.

[@senojah]

She talked so fast that it was hard to understand what she was saying.

[@seanodonovan5451]

Thank you Sabrina

[@user-martinpd]

If you roofed a house with shake and added a spare row, there is some chance it would fall off, full extraneous

[@user-martinpd]

Columns and rows being of interest

[@Mooseman327]

Nope. Not Sackville. Not Bacon. It's Oxford. And because Oxford employed many of the best poets and writers of the time, besides running two major theater companies, and being given a yearly stipend from Elizabeth I to do so, many of their influences are seen in the plays. That's why one scene can be tied to Lyly's style, another to Nashe's. Etc. Plus, Oxford's life is echoed throughout the plays, especially in Hamlet.

[@billlloyd4029]

I really like the flute solo after the third verse....

[@gibsoneb3]

Not either or - he was a product of his times - an innovator like the Beatles - who took their name from Buddy Holly and the Crickets.

[@regmunday8354]

The myth of WS sole author and genius churning out plays in his room, treats theatre as if it is Literature rather than one of the performing arts. This is because shakespeare scholars are academics fixated on textual analysis: the written word rather than performance and stagecraft. Highly collaborative by definition, between writer(s) actors, director, wealthy patrons. Once that fundamental fact is accepted it then becomes a question of WHO wrote WHAT, and how much if anything was written by 'Mr Stratford'. 😊 The plays themselves are indestructable and can withstand all forms of scrutiny, including authorship.

[@ToddsBookTube91]

The 2011 movie anonymous is one of my favorite movies. I love this subject! Great video! Such a handful of possible other writers. I have my own channel where I talk about books

[@williamberven-ph5ig]

Me too. I just wish they had stuck to the authorship question and didn't include the Southampton/ Elizabeth/ DeVere patrimony-maternity nonsense. It dragged the very credible authorship question into conspiratorial nonsense. A good movie all the same.

[@ToddsBookTube91]

@@williamberven-ph5ig I agree

[@ToddsBookTube91]

@@williamberven-ph5ig the fact the movie tried to say he had sex with his mother was ridiculous

[@m1klgordon]

Hi Sabrina, I'm looking at a freeze-framed image from your vlog at 01:49. To me it seems like conspiratorial 'click-bait'. Previous Anti-Stratfordians have failed but you know where they went wrong. Right? How about you and I face off with a public discussion on the sources, influences, dramatisation and dating found in The Tragedie of Macbeth?

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

When was Macbeth written? The date of composition is the only thing that is important to the SAQ.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 And that date can only be established by the contemporary events, drama and literature which influenced it. Lots of them occurred after your boy got ghosted.

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

@@Jeffhowardmeade name even one event that precludes Vere from having written anything. so I was looking at "prove deformed" = M. Ed Vere, Opford... Does M = Mister? Why not? Ed Vere is a Mister, and he is in this case the writer Ed Vere; but regardless it equals 4O. Also, Ed could simply be an abbreviation for Edward. And as far as "Edy" is concerned, it occurs to me that the "Y" is actually a cross and not a nickname at all. As far as "Opford" is concerned, if one puts an "x" over the incorrect letter, then one has solved the puzzle BUT if one puts the "P" above the "X" then we have Chi Ro symbol. So Prove Deformed = M. Ed. Vere, Oxford BUT with a Chi Ro for the X in Oxford.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Wow. You're really or there today, Stevie. There's just no awareness whatsoever. Do you have good days and bad days? Or just bad days and worse days? In 1605 James had a commemorative medal struck which depicted a snake hiding beneath lillies. Lady Macbeth tells her husband "look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t." So there's one. There are many more. And in Shakespeare's time, a MASTER (not mister) signified a specific (and lowly relative to an earl) social rank. Had you dared to call Edy De Vere "Master", he would have likely stabbed you in the undercook.

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

@@Jeffhowardmeade First you deny anagrams, then you assert that anagrams must use proper titles to be valid. There are no stupid people but my god are there some stupid ideas. Medals take many years to prepare. The motif had been planned for some time and there can be little doubt that Vere would have been aware of the motif and the planned medal. In any event, as we have no "manuscripts" there is NO WAY to no what was in "The Author's" composition and what was added by the editor. Vere could have written Macbetth decades earlier with the little mention of a motif added between his death and publication. Why don't you come up with a reference that Shaksiepoop could have employed, and then prove that he did.

[@EVUK-bd2vn]

Surely(so to speak!) the most open-minded and logical conclusion - until proven otherwise - is that a male and female group or 'Shakespeare Salon' of playwrights wrote but NOT co-wrote the plays, then submitted them to the group for read-throughs, finessing, minor or not-so-minor changes and suggestions - just as movie screen-writers do. And as always noone points out that (would-be) female playwrights had one other major reason to hide behind a male pseudonym in Elizabethan England because women were not permitted to write plays and have them publicly performed under their own names or using any female name for that matter! So I'll continue to broad-mindedly believe - until proven otherwise - that the likes of Mary Sidney, Amelia Bassano, Marlowe and Edward de Vere all contributed their own individual but "willfully"(!!) very "Shakespearean' plays to a Shakespeare Salon or collective - and a Mr. Will 'Spellcheck' Shak'spear from Stratford, real actors, closet actresses and others in the theatre business would also frequently attend the Shakespeare Salon's meet-ups. And much (very productive) fun would have been had by all. I can't wait for a now long-overdue movie sequel to "Anonymous" that reflects and both entertainingly and intelligently dramatises all of the above and much much more besides.. Paul G

[@vetstadiumastroturf5756]

So, basically the Oxfordian Theory, but with the addition of extra writers.

[@joecurran2811]

Great talk. I disagree Sackville but you might be onto something here.

[@patricktilton5377]

I'd argue that the 6-2-4 cipher which John Rollett found in the SONNETS Dedication Page -- which Alexander Waugh has magnificently decrypted and buttressed in his work ["THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER THE FORTH T" coupled with the Petrine Cross rebus found in the 19-grid of the text comprised of the letters "DVE" (in the word "ADVENTVRER") with the letters "ERE" ascending vertically up from the central "V" to make the name "DE VERE" depicted in an upside-down 'T'-shape, the 4th 'T'] -- proves well enough that Edward de Vere was the "ever-living poet" referred to in that text. Further, Oxford's personal history of having been a Royal Ward is an obvious link to a play like "ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL" -- it being sensible that he was depicting himself as somewhat of a pompous cad ('Bertram') in order to depict his wife Anne as a loyal and loving wife, clever enough to make use of the 'Bed-Trick' to get him to consummate their marriage -- with Percival Golding later stating that that's indeed how Oxford was made to father his first child with Anne; well, it makes infinitely more sense that Oxford was dramatizing his own life story to a certain degree, rather than somebody else purposely dramatizing Oxford's biography -- be it Shakspere (unthinkable!) or Sackville (improbable). Or was Sackville, too, a Royal Ward who had impregnated his wife due to the 'Bed-Trick' having been used to fool him? Whoever wrote "ALL'S WELL" was purposely pointing a finger at Oxford (and Anne) as those dramatis personae, so, what motive would Sackville have to do that?

[@skadiwarrior2053]

Just thinking about how much attention and possibly reputation some people achieve from peddaling the idea that Shakespeare didn't exist-copied other peoples works-was the name of a company. HA HA. some people just need to get a life or, maybe earn a reputation and living by actually producing something real.

[@TheLenze]

This is actually an arguement for the Stratfordians in retreat,much like religion changed their arguments as science encroached on the myths spread by the superstition of Christian mysticism

[@roberts3784]

Why didn’t someone with her scientific background refer to the most scientific evidence? That is the steganography - ciphertext - embedded in the dedications and such - naming Edward DeVere.

[@roberts3784]

@soltron1324 A good place to start learning is Sturrock and Erikson's article in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. July 2020. I paste the abstract here: The Dedication of Shakespeare's Sonnets has long been a mystery that orthodox (Stratfordian) scholars have been unable to resolve, the reason being that the true message is not evident-it is concealed in cryptograms. We here address the Authorship Issue (Who was the true author of the monumental literature we attribute to "Shakespeare"?) from a scientific perspective. We follow the initiatives of John Rollett, Jonathan Bond, and David Roper, who brought their mathematical expertise to the challenge of identifying and deciphering cryptograms embodied in the Dedication of the Sonnets and in the Inscription on the “Shakespeare” Monument. We show that the combined statistical significance of the cryptograms is overwhelming, so that the messages must be accepted as the intended creations of the authors-Edward de Vere for the Dedication and Ben Jonson for the Inscription. The cryptograms confirm that Shakespeare was the mask adopted by de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

[@irtnyc]

This interesting video is harmed by the bad decision to speed up the audio. At times it’s unintelligible. Please fix that.

[@ShakespeareAR]

Not done on purpose in any way. You are the first to mention it in a year. Maybe just concentrate a little harder. Sabrina works at JPL and her mind moves very quickly.

[@irtnyc]

This is not the first comment saying this.

[@ShakespeareAR]

We did find your original comment to be 'rude' if you felt there were a technical error or a degrading of the video quality to the point where it randomly doubles in speed for the last 7 minutes why couldn't you have said that and in a more helpful manner? We are a non-profit and all the speakers and work that we do is voluntary. Catty comments about what we did or didn't intend with regard to video quality are insulting and unsupportive.@@irtnyc

[@ShakespeareAR]

So when we review this video there are no anomalies near the end or at any point of things suddenly speeding up. But thank you for pointing out what didn't work for you.@@irtnyc

[@SirTopas1]

Hi, as the speaker I do apologize for talking too quickly! I’ve heard many times that I speak too fast, particularly when I’m excited about a topic and want to share my ideas. It is certainly not the fault of the Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable :)

[@james9091]

William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was born in 1564 during the reign of Elizabeth the Protestant queen of England and Wales. His parents were Catholic and his father became an Alderman of Stratford. But due to bad deals in money lending the father fell from grace and became impoverished. William was introduced to the world of the theatre at the age of 14 when travelling players led by Fernando the eldest son of the Fourth Earl of Derby came to Stratford for to put on a public show. William introduced himself to the players and they were most impressed by his command of the English language and his natural ability of speaking it verbatim. Fernando became the patron of William and paid for his tuition so that William did not go to any university. The Derby family were Humanists. There were three types of Christian beliefs in Elizabethan England. The Catholic and the Protestant and the Humanist. The latter were a tiny minority and chiefly composed of literate aristocrats and middle class folk. Humanists were secretive and believed in esoteric subjects and were appalled by the frequent violence displayed by ardent Catholics and Protestants. The latter Christians did not trust the Humanists.

[@ericloscheider7433]

Bot

[@avlasting3507]

How does Shakespeare being barely literate square with an acting career?

[@SirTopas1]

My own theory, which I briefly touch on in this talk and describe at length in my book The Apocryphal William Shakespeare, is that William Shakespeare wrote many plays now assigned to the Shakespeare Apocrypha. I don’t view him as barely literate and agree that isn’t plausible. -Sabrina Feldman

[@ShakespeareAR]

We do believe one can talk without being able to read.

[@xmaseveeve5259]

Where's your evidence Shakepeare could write?

[@manciano2009]

What is most surprising is to see how many extraordinary writers there were (and with a powerful style) in the late Elizabethan era. John Florio, for example, left writings that seem to have been written by Shakespeare's hand-that's quite a small army of candidates.

[@therealshakespeare9243]

That's because they were ALL aliases of the TRUE Bard!

[@xmaseveeve5259]

I tend to agree. @@therealshakespeare9243

[@xmaseveeve5259]

Bacon, of course. @soltron1324

[@jennyf2120]

Correct. We are reading Florio’s handiwork.

[@manciano2009]

@@jennyf2120 It would be interesting indeed, to see, perhaps with software, how many phrases or concepts written by John Florio in his works, appear, then, in Shakespeare's works. I would also be interested to know the number of Montaigne's thoughts that flow into Shakespeare (since his translator to English was John Florio himself). In Italy there are books (not very scientific and stupidly chauvinistic) that say that there are over six thousand parallels (from Florio and Montaigne into Shakespeare), from which it follows that the author of Shakespeare's works is unequivocally John Florio, but it is not clear where they got this high number from... In these books, written in Italian and not translated into English, it is said that there was a conscious miniaturization of Florio, a miniaturization of the "English" nationalist type, in order to avert the hypothesis that the author of Shakespeare's plays was an Italian, as Borges said.

[@yamiexup]

This is stupid. There is no conspiracy, just facts. Up to each person to make up their own mind.

[@mariadange06]

Your voice is speeded up snd you sound high pitch snd shrill.

[@irtnyc]

Yeah I commented about this recently and was told I'm imagining things. I'm not. It's not clear what's up with this. Either somebody fiddled with the original recording or KZbin upload? Maybe it's a KZbin setting, that varies between apps/streams? The "compression" varies at transitions between words and sentences. Odd. You can distinctly hear it (or at least I can) from about 40 mins on and at the very end before the jingle.

[@raymatthews4843]

Just go to settings and set it at 0.75 percent to have it play at conversational speed.

[@theamazingmystico1243]

Add this discovery, which that I made last week, to the list: Hip. 'Tis strange my Theseus, yt these louers speake of. The. More strange then true. I neuer may beleeue These anticke fables, nor these Fairy toyes, Louers and mad men haue such seething braines, Such shaping phantasies, that apprehend more Then coole reason euer comprehends. The Lunaticke, the Louer, and the Poet, Are of imagination all compact. One sees more diuels then vaste hell can hold; That is the mad man. The Louer, all as franticke, Sees Helens beauty in a brow of Egipt. The Poets eye in a fine frenzy rolling, doth glance From heauen to earth, from earth to heauen. And as imagination bodies FORTH The forms of things Vnknowne; the POETS PEN turnes them to shapes, And giues to aire NOTHING, a locall habitation, And A NAME. Such tricks hath strong imagination, That if it would but apprehend some ioy, It comprehends some bringer of that ioy. Or in the night, imagining some feare, Howe easie is a bush suppos'd a Beare? Hip. But all the storie of the night told ouer, And all their minds transfigur'd so together, More witnesseth than fancies images, And growes to something of great constancie; But howsoeuer, strange, and admirable. A Midsummer Night's Dream. The words "forth" (a homonym of "fourth") and "nothing," with the words "Poets pen" in between them, refer to the number 40. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, sometimes signed letters as "double V" (VV), and two V's in a Simple cipher of the Elizabethan alphabet totals to 40 ((V = 20) + (V = 20) = 40). (See e.g., letter from James I to "40.") The seventeenth (17th) word after the word "forth" (fourth) is the word "nothing" (FORTH/FOURTH...NOTHING; 40). Therefore, the numbers 17 and 40 are encoded here. Mr. Alexander Waugh has posited that the number 1740 is a code for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The number 17 is Oxford's "earl number" and the number 40 refers to him being the "Fourth T" (Four-T, or Forty). Therefore, Oxford has hidden a "signature" of his in the text -- 1740. (By the way, the Shakespeare Monument in Westminster Abbey was erected in 1740.) Incidentally, with respect to gematria values, in the Elizabethan alphabet the letters in the word "Poets" has a Reverse cipher value of 54, which is the same as the Simple cipher value of the letters in "Rose." The letters in the words "Poets pen" has a Reverse cipher value of 96, which the same as the Kaye cipher value of the letters in "Cross." Considering these values, the values for "Rose Cross" (Rosicrucian) are encoded in the words. The letters in the word "Poets" has a Simple cipher value of 71 (numerals of 17 reversed.), the same as the Simple cipher value of the letters in "cypher" (an alternative spelling of "cipher" used in the First Folio.) The Kaye cipher value of the letters in "Poets pen" is 156, which is the same as the Kaye cipher value of the letters in the name "Edward." The Simple cipher value of the letters in the word "pen" is 33, which is the same as the Simple cipher value of the letters in "Bacon" (Francis Bacon), and the value of the letter "G" (God) in the Kaye cipher. (Just for the record, the Reverse and Kaye cipher values of "pen" are 42 and 59, respectively.)

[@metcaelfe]

This information is very inaccessible usually, however, Alexander Waugh has certainly made it not the case as best as one can. Yet I don't imagine your typical academic likely to pay attention once topics such as John Dee are raised, unfortunately..

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

Howe easie is a bush suppos'd a Beare? 'd a Beare" = "de Vere" another signature at the end of Theseus speech

[@theamazingmystico1243]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Thanks for pointing that out.