SAT Conference 2019 - 10 - Shakespeare, Essex & Authorship

SAT Conference 2019 - 10 - Shakespeare, Essex & Authorship - Panel Discussion and Q&A

Рет қаралды 2,864

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 17

@shakespearestreason 4 жыл бұрын

Yes, it was Cecil (and of course the Queen) who spared Southampton’s life; but the reason, I suggest, is that Southampton was more valuable to Ceil if he remained alive and held hostage in the Tower until after the succession of James. If the author of Richard II was the Stratford man, then he paid no price; if the author was the Earl of Oxford, then in one sense Oxford paid the heaviest price of all: the loss of his link to Southampton (whatever you think that was) and the posthumous and “permanent” loss of his identity as the great author. How could the Stratford man moan that “my name be buried” or that “I, once gone, to all the world must die”? I suggest Oxford is telling us that this was part of a bargain he had agreed to, in order to save Southampton and gain his freedom with a royal pardon. Oxford himself had no funeral, left no will, and we really aren’t sure where he was buried. A very heavy form of execution. But he was determined to outwit this death sentence by means of the Sonnets: “I’ll live in this poor rhyme” (107).

@Jeffhowardmeade 4 жыл бұрын

Who was the leading peer on the jury which condemned Southampton?

@shakespearestreason 4 жыл бұрын

The Earl of Oxford was the highest-ranking peer on the jury that convicted both Essex and Southampton of treason and sentenced them to death. The trial was held eleven days after the rebellion, and during that interim period (sonnets 27-38) Oxford recorded his bargain with Cecil as a means of saving Southampton’s life and gaining the possibility of his ultimate freedom with a pardon from James. In 34 he records the need for Southampton to repent, in this case a form of ransom other than money, and “those tears … are rich and ransom all ill deeds.” This form of repentance will be reflected by Southampton in his long poem to the queen, and in his letters to Cecil and the Council. Then in 35 Oxford tells Southampton, “Thy adverse party is thy Advocate,/ And ‘gainst myself a lawful plea commence,” explaining that he must be his “adverse” party by voting against him, but has also accepted a plea bargain on his behalf, the price being separation, as in 36: “Let me confess that we two must be twain … I may not evermore acknowledge thee.” Oxford will have to help Cecil bring James to the throne, secretly, and finally remove himself from both the pen name “Shakespeare” and Southampton. He will lose his identity (“My name be buried” - 72) as an insider of the court (throughout the reign) who wrote the “Shakespeare” works with their revelations; but when the succession does take place two years later and Southampton is liberated, Oxford can rejoice in sonnet 107 that in these sonnets “Death to me subscribes,/ Since spite of him I’ll live in this poor rhyme.”

@Jeffhowardmeade 4 жыл бұрын

@@shakespearestreason Well at least there was one verifiable fact in everything you wrote.

@shakespearestreason 4 жыл бұрын

@@Jeffhowardmeade Thanks.

@shakespearestreason 3 жыл бұрын

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Steve that’s great! Thanks!

@camt9967 3 жыл бұрын

For more years than I care to count I was a Marlovian...more research, my own and other people's (Waugh, especially) turned me to the Oxfordian pov, but I'm finding it reaching, in a more and more convoluted way, to prove its point... Now, more research, and I can't go past Bacon as WS. Love all the debate.

@jschiek8054 2 жыл бұрын

It seems like the argument for Oxford has hit an impasse or plateau as the status quo seems unwilling to address or even acknowledge the Authorship Question, let alone entertain an alternate candidate. And that there are so many of them now-Bacon, Marlowe, Oxford, etc-each with their own chain of circumstantial evidence and relative conjecture that there seems a move to over-prove the case for Oxford by finding hints, hidden clues and intrigues everywhere. If Occam’s Razor still excises Shakspere from his authorship candidacy (and in a slightly more complicated manner, I believe it does) it seems to have been discarded in the formulation of some of these more recent “findings” and arguments. I would be curious to know what has swung you back over into the Baconian camp. Like yourself, I’m fascinated by the Question and debate, I’m just extremely wary of it when it starts to sound like the plot outline for a new Dan Brown novel. The process of changing beliefs in this matter seems analogous to lacing a complicated pair of boots, walking several miles in them, and then unlacing and relacing them again. Very tiresome for the intellectual fingers, as it were.

@joecurran2811 2 ай бұрын

@@jschiek8054It will never end but it is admittedly an extremely slow burn. The evidence is piling up but people don't want to look/acknowledge it. The irony is if we found out it was written by someone else than is commonly believed then interest in Shakespeare would explode!

@russellmartocci323 2 жыл бұрын

What if Southampton was the son of Elizabeth and Oxford? Wouldn't that explain why she was having such trouble executing him and why she tolerated Richard the 3rd, knowing Oxford wrote it? Their offspring had a legitimate claim to succession. She was tortured by denying Southampton's legitimate claim and betrayed by Essex, who was her favorite. The Essex rebellion was about Southampton's claims, not Essex. That is what she was remonstrating about in her final days rantings, which she did as PERFORMANCES. Like the plays. No doubt her rants were conveyed to Oxford. I think the price for Southampton's head, was Oxford's head. She demanded that he not survive her, so to assist Southampton lay any claims. For that, Southampton was allowed to live.

@EndoftheTownProductions Жыл бұрын

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.