SAT Conference 2020 - 5 - Alexander Waugh - Shakespeare the Outcast

[@AgathaVelvet]

Much thanks for this wonderful broadcast. Bravo Alexander. 🌹

[@cleliagiangrande2300]

Thank you for sharing your great knowledge.

[@ronroffel1462]

If you look closely at the name William in the dedication to Lucrece (8:40), you will see that it is not a single upper-case w or 2 identical v's, but what I would call an improvised ligature of a small v next to a larger one. While the use of two v's as a w is common, placing two next to each other in such different sizes is a hint to read the dedication more closely. Oxfordians do not have to be told that the double v ligature is definitively an allusion to how de Vere would often sign his letters: "yours, double V". Also note that the 17th upper-case letter is another v in "VVere" in line 10. The decorative letter which begins the poem is not counted in these types of puzzles as I consider them to be part of the decorative elements of the page, not just the first letter. The first line of John Weever's Epigram 11 (21:41) has another interesting little 'coincidence': there are 17 letters before we get to the word "faire" which is a pun on "Vere". Epigram 22 has the same number of letters and numbers before "Shakespeare" in the Latin title. And the epigram read at 25:40 has yet another interesting 'coincidence': the number of characters in the brackets in epigram 119 is 17 once again. Coincidence? I think not. The last line of epigram 119 has 34 letters. I am surprised that Alexander has not recognized the 1-3-5 hand signal which is on the title page for The Encomium of Lady Pecunia (9:35). The figure of Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey makes the same gesture which may be a hidden code for initiates into the proto-masonic/Rosicrucian society that de Vere, John Dee, and Sir Francis Bacon may all have been members of, if not founders. In what may be coincidence, the 17th word in the publisher's statement (counting the initials as 2 words) is Temple-barre, suggesting exactly what I hypothesize.

[@MrMartibobs]

Ron, I keep answering this one. If you look at the title page of the 1657 'Discovery of Witches', you will find it attributed to 'Matthevv Hopkins'. Which means that unless de Vere was working as a zombie witch-finder general 53 years after his death, then the vv / w thing was simply an artifact of the curious history of the printed letter W. There are many examples of this. I can quote them if you insist. This W bollocks is presumably, is an example of the 'mountains' of evidence for de Vere. Pathetic. Oxfordian scholarship? It would be a good idea.

[@ronroffel1462]

@@MrMartibobs You still don't get it do you? If you look at the front matter of the First Folio as I have, you will find that the ligature double v as a w is often used on the same pages as an actual lower and upper-case w. The Dedication to the Reader is one perfect example. This means without a doubt that the use of it has a purpose. Compositors, the people who set type for a living, would not have wanted to dip their hand twice into the case to make a w out of two v's if they had w's on hand. It took too much time and cost investors money as the days wore on while books were set. The only explanation we have for this is that the ligature double v's signify something hidden. That is what Oxfordians (and even Baconians) have found. I would suggest reading Arthur Melzer's book Philosophy Between the Lines published by the University of Chicago to get more information on hidden writing in historical times. He makes a clear point that until the advent of scientific rationalism in the 19th century, many writers hid information in their works. "Shakespeare" was no different, nor were the people who printed books while he was alive and long after. As for scholarship, Stratfordian biographies are 95% conjecture, 5% fact. And those facts they have can be written down on one or two pages as a Wikipedia article. Most, if not all, of the documentation we have of the Stratford man relate not to writing or literature, but small-time business, tax evasion, grain hoarding during a time of famine, and a surety of the peace which was brought against him by William Wayte in 1596. Simply put, there is no paper trail or allusions to him being a writer. His son in law Dr. John Hall never said he was a writer in his own diaries (written in Latin), nor did any of his contemporaries living in Stratford when he was alive. Based on that primary evidence alone, the Stratford claim fails. He did not even send his daughters to school, which you would expect of a man who left such writing behind. What sort of man would prevent his children from reading what allegedly earned him so much money? Nobody. Nope, the Stratford claim falls on all counts.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@ronroffel1462 Many biographies are 90% conjecture. This is because biographers weren't actually there. Claire Tomalin's great biography of Thomas Hardy is of necessitiy full of conjecture. And what you're saying is that the compositors ... KNEW and the engravers ... and the actors ... and the other writers ... and the Queen Wasn't much of a secret, was it? Have you actually looked at John Hall's diary? It's not 'dear diary went to the Dog and Duck for a pint'. It's a MEDICAL journal. Yes he mentions MIchael Drayton but only because he was a patient and because he thought his profession was relevant and/or impressive. He does mention his wife's bowel motions, but he doesn't express affection or say how loveliy she is. Because it's not that kind of diary. The letter W has a weird history (why is it could double U???) and the idea that a printer/compositor would be chuckling to himself and deliberately inserting misprints and 'clues' is almost as big a joke as the idea that engravers were deliberately doing dodgy engravings. Luckily we have first hand testimony from Ben Jonson to clear up any doubts. Nobody has a counter argument to this. But do feel free to call me a 'jackass' as Stritmatter did in answer to this unanswerable question. Or maybe you could come up with something Elizabethan.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@ronroffel1462 As to the Dedication to the reader: The vv formations are lower case. The W formation is upper case. Why the different letter formations? It could well be that for important things like titles, printer might decide it was worth investing in nice lettering, whereas for text, it was less important. Or he had run out of his stock of lower case 'w'. There is DEFINITELY ; a difference between upper and lower case W formations at the time. I suspect that the upper case letters- only being used for titles - would wear out more slowly. Or maybe he has just invested in a nice set of upper case letters, but he's still bimbling along with his older set of lower case ones. Or he's just set up another book, and he's run out of lower case 'w' letter. There could be a million reasons. But using vv for W is not at all unusual at the time, and has no significance. Funnily enough, if you look at the 'Discovery of Witches' You''ll also find a mixture of 'W' and 'vv'. It don't mean squat....

[@ronroffel1462]

@@MrMartibobs You obviously haven't read many biographies, then. If you look at the references for around 95% of biographies about famous people you find hundreds of independent sources that are based on contemporary records and historical documents. Most biographies of the Stratford man on the other hand are speculation built on rumours and outright lies. Even Sir Stanley Wells admits that. There is nothing in the contemporary record which links him to writing activities of any kind. Diana Price has made a list of Elizabethan and Jacobean writers who have left a paper trail and of the 15 or so categories such as contemporaries saying they were writers, Shakspere fails in every one. We have more independent information on de Vere's writing activities (see Francis Meres' Palladis Tamia for example), than anything linking Shakspere to writing. The contemporary evidence against the Stratford man is overwhelming.

[@gordoknott7830]

I imagine that DeVere managed to get his bastard heir through Southhampton but when the queen found out he was punished for it it -- he could have the child and his heir but his punishment was to lose his other children--his plays. He would have his posterity in the form of a bastard child, but not his posterity in the form of fame as well. So she decreed that since his child was the product of another man's loins, his plays would forever be the product of another man's mind. This is the first dramatically appropriate motive I've heard for why the monarch herself may have dictated DeVere never get credit.

[@willsirotak]

I think Queen Elizabeth was the mother of Wroithsley, the Earl of South Hampton, Edward De Vere"s son. I think she may even have been Edward's mother too! An illegitimate son wouldn"t be enough to condemn any nobleman in the 16thccentury English court. However , fathering an heir by the "Virgin" Queen made acknowledging the bastard son of even the best poet in English history impossible. I think that EDV / "Shakespeare" decided that his son by Elizabeth should surrogate another bastard, to adopt & continue the Tudor/Cecil/De Verene line, under the Earl of Oxford family name, once he realized she would go to her grave without acknowledging their son as heir to the English throne. Before he went megalomanic mad, Henry the 8th was also a very talented poet.

[@cooperwesley1536]

👏 👏 👏 👏 👏

[@yorkshireroots]

Johnathan Bate and his 'The Genius of Shakespeare' is also required reading

[@rooruffneck]

Is this an advertisement or are the presentations now being shown for free?

[@guruuDev]

So Devere may have been the child of Queen Elizabeth -- who may have had had a child (his son and brother) with queen Elizabeth -- who he then entreated to have a child (his grandchild and nephew) by his mistress - to be presented as his own child???

[@patricktilton5377]

You're confusing Mr. Waugh's thesis with the plot of the film ANONYMOUS. According to Waugh, Edward de Vere became unable to father children (if I recall correctly, due to an injury sustained in a public duel with Thomas Knyvet, whose niece Anne Vavasor had scandalously and outrageously been impregnated by the Earl -- a sword thrust most probably aimed at the genitals). Having only, up till that point, been the father of three legitimate surviving daughters with his first wife (Anne Cecil), he needed a legitimate male heir to succeed him as the 18th Earl of Oxford -- his bastard son by Anne Vavasor, of course, ineligible for the succession of the earldom. So, according to Waugh, Oxford sweet-talked the narcissistic Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, into being a surrogate father . . . to inseminate a woman who was probably the most fertile gal in Elizabethan England -- Lady Penelope Rich. Waugh believes that one of the children she gave birth to was physically and genetically the son of Wriothesley, a child that was to be taken from her and raised to be the 18th Earl of Oxford, raised by Edward de Vere (who was the 17th Earl of Oxford) as if he himself had begotten him. Waugh does not endorse the so-called 'Prince Tudor' theories you (guruuDev) indicate -- that Edward was Queen Elizabeth's bastard child AND that he committed incest with her to produce a doubly-incestuous bastard in Henry Wriothesley, the plot which was used for the film ANONYMOUS. There are Oxfordians who DO believe that Oxford was not Elizabeth's secret son yet DO believe that he and Elizabeth were the natural parents of Henry Wriothesley. I myself tend to favor that theory, and think that that is why Oxford would have sought to enlist Wriothesley to the task of begetting a secret heir (i.e. his pseudo-son, Henry de Vere, the 18th Earl of Oxford). Why? Because of the biblical 'levirate marriage' concept. According to the Torah, if a married man dies before he has a chance to father a son to inherit his property, his next closest blood relative is dutybound to impregnate the widow -- see the story of Er, Onan, Tamar, and Judah in GENESIS. Oxford, then, I think, wanted Henry Wriothesley to father the heir to his (Oxford) earldom because he knew that Wriothesley was in fact his own son. Of course, in the Elizabethan Age, the levirate marriage concept was not in play, despite the fact that the Bible endorses it as a solution to the problem of generating an heir when the would-be progenitor is unable to do so -- the deceased Er in the biblical tale, and the wounded-in-the-gonads Oxford in this case. Why else wouldn't Oxford have sought out the 'services' of, say, one of the 'Fighting Veres'? Inquiring minds want to know . . .

[@guruuDev]

@@patricktilton5377 Very interesting. Thanks for the info. I was being a bit facetious -- just stringing together all speculations I think I might have heard -- not necessariy from AW. I recall one AW vid where he considered that E. Devere may have taken a vow of celibacy as a knight of some religious order. So many possibilities -- though the fencing injury seems a more likely explanation.. It does seem far fetched that Elizabeth would have sex with her own son -- though there is a known syndrome where mothers and sons separated during the child's infancy and later reunited when the son is of sexual age -- can feel a strong compulsion to have sexual relations. So one more possible factor to add to the mix.

[@seanodonovan5451]

@@guruuDev I have been very skeptical of the Tudor Prince theories, but I can't deny the mounting body of evidence. As it seems you know, there is a good case to be made for the theories you mentioned above. It gets even murkier when you include Essex, Arthur Dudley, and Anthony & Francis Bacon. I'm keeping an open mind to all possibilities.

[@guruuDev]

@@seanodonovan5451 Yet more characters. I'll have to stay tuned in to learn more. The incest thing still seems very bizarre and unlikely. With AW's deciphering, it seems they had a veritable internet chat going on back then -- and they liked hiding the info for posterity. So who knows what additional info might yet emerge!

[@guruuDev]

@@seanodonovan5451 Hope this isn't offensive. Don't know if you have looked into Truth Movement info. Here's some sample material -- that relates to the secret coded intrigues of yesteryear -- in case your curious and haven't encountered such info. Seems particularly relevant in light of William, Shakespeare being first to get the jab. Dark Journalist - Catherine Austin Fitts Exclusive Interview: Humanity In The Balance! kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKS6ZIeEfKeoodk They Love SIX.. SEE For Yourself kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4G2oKiCqZ1-bbM (This one features some gematria coding just as in days of yore.) Harrison Hanks The Ultimate Crisis Actor kzbin.info/www/bejne/bom4iqB6h71qfa8 (A touch of humor -- an oldie but a goody -- just add COVID to update.)

[@riksmusicchannel]

A 23rd century take on this question: rikramblings.com/2020/03/06/the-secret-genius-of-charles-iii/

[@MrMartibobs]

Here's a quote from Ben Jonson : "De Shakespeare Nostrat 1 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." Which is a fancy way of saying that ... Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Why don't you people find yourself another hobby? There is just no answer to this.

[@Jimeo722]

Again, a Stratfordian relies on something written long after the death of the Stratford man to try to show that he was known as a playwright during his lifetime. De Shakespeare Nostrati was written in the decade after Jonson's introductory material to the 1623 First Folio, which was itself produced seven years after William's death. We have correspondence between, and references to, other authors and/or public figures and Jonson during the lifetime of the parties involved, but none for/between Ben and a man named William "shaksper" identified as being from Stratford. It's too long a subject to detail in a mere reply to a KZbin comment, but read the introductory material that Jonson wrote for the FF with an open mind. As you read it (he wrote all of it, even the parts attributed to others), see if you don't agree that he's hinting that the actual author is different person than the "Shakespeare" supposedly being honored. Really; look into it. So, of course he's still going along with the gag in the 1630s, when he writes De Shakespeare Nostrati as part of the posthumously-released Timber. Why did Jonson agree with others that the true author should remain anonymous (or, more accurately, pseudonymous)? I don't know. It's a gap that I haven't seen bridged. But we know that the true author had good reason to remain unknown to the authorities. In Elizabethan and Jacobean England, playwrights and other authors were subject to imprisonment or worse for what they wrote - Jonson himself spent time in the slammer for just that. And if you want to read a story with gaping holes in the plot from beginning to end, just read any conventional Shakespeare biography.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@Jimeo722 Mmm.. . I admire your pluck trying to deal with this one. Because Nobody can. Not even Herr Stritmatter. Because what we have is clearly an affectionate recollection of a friend and rival. And yes. Seven years after the death of Shakespeare and long, long after the death of Oxford. So ... why would anyone care a kipper's dick? (sorry, Birmingham expression) Why? And as it happened, Jonson came from precisely the same class as Shakespeare. And like Shakespeare he didn't go to university. He was living testament to the fact that there was never any reason to question Shakespeare''s authorship. He emerged from the same prosperous middle-class background as most playwrights of the time. Just like Webster and Marlowe. (and incidentally Thomas Cromwell and Cardinal Wolsey) . I just don't get why you people pick on Shakespeare. Lots of playwrights came from comparatively humble backgrounds. If Cromwell and Wolsey could make it to chief minister, what's the big deal about someone who isn't Lord Snot of Snottington writing for the popular stage? AND yes indeed. Why WHY?

[@Jimeo722]

@@MrMartibobs Well, obviously I'm not going to convince you, Marty. I'm asking others to read The FF with an open mind. Also, you don't actually dispute anything I said; you bring up another Shakespeare Authorship sub-sub-topic, to wit: how the true author's education compared that of his contemporary literary lessers (he had no equals). That issue is covered extensively by those on both sides of the debate, and can be researched by anyone with internet access and/or a nearby library. So I won't follow you down that path now. But thanks for taking such an immediate note of my reply, and for complimenting my pluck!

[@MrMartibobs]

@@Jimeo722 It's entirely a subjective judgement whether he had equals. He is certainly the one who has been sanctified by posterity, but he had some great contemporaries. And ... some of the plays are truly abysmal. This is because he was a professional writer, working to deadlines, not an effete aristo wondering whether to work on a a play that day, or write another begging letter, or whether to just bugger his captive choir-boy. So the quality is patchy.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@Jimeo722 and what you HAVEN'T done is explain how Jonson could possibly be referring to the Earl of Oxford. He wasn't, as is obviously to anyone who can read. So what you have is a first-hand testimony from a denizen the theatre that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. Case closed.

[@bastianconrad2550]

My problem: Why for Alexander do all the arguments fit better with the Earl of Oxford than for Marlowe? kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGi5loRthKqFZ5Y Alexander ended his talk by expressing that he would be …..„not at all worried if people want to write, what an ass, what a fool that’S all (??…difficult to understand?? …) .Even though that’s not my primary intention, i cannot resist objecting to a certain extent Waugh started with reading Sonnet 72 not mentioning that Sonnet 71 similarly is inextricably linked with sonnet 72 in which the 'true' poet (still alive!) is deeply aware that after his death no one will take notice of him (»O Least the world should taske you to recite, / What merit liued in me «,» And hang more praise vpon deceased I «). After his death, he assumes, he will be forgotten ("After my death ... for get me quite"), and he hopes that his friend will do more for him . He seems to have the hope that the truth about his forced death pretense will eventually see the light of day (“Then nigard truth would willingly impart”), that he might even lie for him and speak well of him (“may seeme falce in this "," That you ... speak well of me vntrue "),since his name … (" My name be buried where my body is ") . this stunnung ‚ allegori‘ sentence " only makes sense when we become aware of the tragedy that another person with his [feigned] name [Shakspere] will be remembered Consider that In Sonnet 71, the poet signals that his friend should convey to the world once he is dead ("Give warning to the world that I am fled") that he had to escape the "public" world, The friend should tell posterity that it was he who wrote all of this ("Nay if you read this line, remember not, The hand that writes it"). The true Shakespeare basically asks, hardly hidden, that he should reveal the truth about his tragic life to posterity. How else should one interpret the phrase : "Give warning to the world that I am fled"? For Shakespeare (as well as Edward de Vere) there is no discernible motive why he [ in 1609!] should have made this request Care was taken for the memory of him after his death, but not for a poet who had lost his identity. The friend should learn his "poor" name by heart like a role on stage ("as my poore name reherse"). If you look at it logically, the "poore name" cannot have meant William from Stratford or Edward de Vere , but only the unidentifiable nameless poet. (C.M.) Numerous serious objections could be raised against much of what Alexander says about „Venus & Adonis“, kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZqan3mhncd3oK8 „ Polimanteia“, kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoqzfJRprd57j9E „John Weever“, Thomas Bancroft

[@seantice]

To accept Waugh's theory, one must believe that everyone knew of De Vere's love life and the scandalous affairs of the Nobel class as well as to believe Everyone was a member of a secret society to the extent that they all knew how to write extremely complicated codes and cyphers to be able to OUT EDV at every turn in their collective works. Further, it requires one to accept that the man from Sratford was they only one who could not have known or heard of the rumors of said affair's or be able to even imitate any other poetic treatise concerning the oft fabled mockery of courtly trysts of which all artists and historians of the times where constantly recording, not to mention the gossip of the common folk who, throughout all history, favored to belittle the upper classes for their amusement. As Waugh has put it, the man from Stratford was and ape, a simple mimic as a performer incapable of understanding that which he was doing, only gifted enough to do the dance. It's no wonder people think this Oxfordian theory is elitist. Indeed, entirety of Waugh's theory is constructed to prove that all the poets, and their audiences where intelligent enough to see the hidden meaning of the poetry and plays of the time except William Shakespeare. Absurd.

[@kenfeinsteinsnevilleresear1368]

I'm not sure how scholars can build on this research to make further progress on the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

[@ronroffel1462]

Further progress is made when all the parts come together so we can look at it with fresh eyes.

[@Stantheman848]

@@ronroffel1462 There is nothing to build on. Just a bunch of flat earther nutters.

[@ronroffel1462]

@@Stantheman848 So saith someone who goes by a pseudonym online. Your point is no comment but an insult.

[@MrMartibobs]

Scholars won't Ken. But lots of conspiracy theorists will, in between Moon landing stories and theories about how Ted Cruz's dad shot JFK.

[@ronroffel1462]

@@MrMartibobs And the ad hominem attacks continue. Comparing a sound theory to modern, ill-founded conspiracies should be beneath us, but I guess for some it is par for the course. Anyone with an idea how evidence-based cases work or science works would see how the circumstantial evidence in favour of de Vere far outweighs what there is for the Stratfordian claim. Historians, lawyers, supreme court justices, actors, scientists, doctors, and other people who use evidence to find the truth have joined the Oxfordian movement and more join every week. Their jobs are to look at what is in front of them and make logical deductions from the evidence. Stratfordians do none of that and assume they have a monopoly on how to interpret the canon and by and large cannot cope with the mountains of material which supports Oxford over all other candidates. I would love to ask people like you to just read one book, one article, or see one video without bias and then come back to the discussion. If they can provide alternate explanations for the countless bits of information which point to de Vere, then I am all ears. Until then, please just keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

[@bastianconrad2550]

In Polimanteia ( Chapter: England to her 3 daughters )„ The passage illustrated by Alexander as the triangle (Delia, Cleopatra. Oxford) by no means refer to the Earl of Oxford, but clearly to one of the three daughters (as the Universities of 1 Cambridge, 2 Oxford , 3 London Court of Innes) . Difficult to understand why Alexander since long insists on this error . We read. : Let other countries (sweet Cambridge) envie, (yet admire) my Virgil , thy petrarch, divine Spenser. And vnlesse I erre, (a thing easie in such simplicitie ) deluded by dearlie beloued Delia , and fortunatelie fortunate Cleopatra. Oxford thou maift extoll thy courte-deare-verse happie Daniell

[@ronroffel1462]

Oxford is directly opposite the note on the left. The connection is inevitable that the note is about the writer's identity, not the university at all. The anagram between the dashes can only make "our de Vere, a secret" without adding letters or changing them into Greek or something equally ludicrous. The clue that it is about a man is right above the same note: "paral. Wriothesly", which is about Southampton: the paral - meaning parallel or like - applying to all four personages below the word. The word means that whatever is in the lines the notes accompany are about the people in those same lines. Alexander is therefore not in error since the logic is impeccable.

[@joecurran2811]

​@@ronroffel1462I love it when people catch out these Stratfordian trolls 😂

[@ronroffel1462]

@@joecurran2811 Though Bastian is a Marlovian through and through. Sigh...