Shakespeare and Italy - Alexander Waugh - SAT 2013

www.shakespeareanauthorshiptru... Alexander Waugh speaking at the Shakespearean Authorship Trust Conference, Much Ado About Italy, London, 24 November 2013

[@justinalderson9846]

What a superb lecture.

[@2Worlds_and_InBetween]

I have to agree

[@thoutube9522]

@@2Worlds_and_InBetween So ... what's the evidence that Italians didn't go into pubs? And who cares? You think a successful theatre company, making shedloads of groats would not be able to commission a translation of a story?

[@3dcpsolutions381]

@@thoutube9522 Your comments make no sense but no one is shocked at your lack of common sense and ability in misinformation. There is NO PROOF that the man from Stratford “Shakespeare” could even sign his name without difficulty.

[@onefeather2]

Love this man, he has a great sense of humor and says it like it is.

[@Shewriteslikeagirl]

Thank you Mr. Waugh. I so appreciate your very colorful way of lecturing. I look forward to more lectures from you and DO video tape them. Again thank you.

[@shakespeareandflorio9954]

Alexander Waugh is a brilliant Shakespeare scholar, very important what he states about Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy that is also what Richard Paul Roe superbly underlined in his book "Shakespeare's guide to Italy". Shakespeare's knowledge about Italy is deep, fascinating, and subject worthy of serious attention, but one, sadly, with which the modern literary academic is reluctant to engage.

[@cooperwesley1536]

It is SO interesting to re-watch these older conference lectures to see how far the SAT has come. Thank you Mr Waugh for doing your part in educating the populace on the authorship debate! You will be remembered fondly by history.

[@karlhungus888]

He's so enjoyable to listen to, I always find myself wishing his lectures went at least twice as long.

[@menschkeit1]

Charles' Beauclerk's book "Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom" does a great job of applying the AQ in the reading of the plays. It's like finding a secret passageway in a familiar mansion, leading to a chamber full of treasure.

[@shaneculkin7124]

Alexander is a very fun lecturer and, more so, debater. He is always good for a few laughs!!! Thank you sir.

[@barbarahedlund5472]

As more and more genuine research appears, the traditional story about the man from Stratford begins to look like a fairy tale made up from whole cloth.

[@stevebari9338]

Nothing compared to completely out of thin air stories of alternative candidates

[@marask3668]

exactly.

[@modifiedcontent]

Compared to blank verse pioneer Marlowe using Shakespeare as pen-name while in exile in Italy, the stratfordian theory is far-fetched, unsupported by facts and rather ridiculous.

[@davidforbes2795]

Why no reference to Giovanni Florio? The evidence of his contribution is overwhelming. I’m not suggesting that Florio was the one and only Shakespeare but the masterpieces could not have been written without the “Poeata italiano diavolo incarnato”

[@tomgoff6867]

I've seen this amusing and informative speech more than once--best of all, the aspect that could be titled "The Unbearable Laziness of Being Stratfordian..."

[@ShakespeareanAuthorshipTrustUK]

Keep it clean and polite, people. Moderation is now in place and abusive comments won't appear. Perfectly happy to accommodate a range of different opinions but not snark, sarcasm, and personal insults.

[@rexmundi2237]

Delightfully waspish lecture. Loved it. People like Waugh are doing a much better job of prosecuting their case than Stratfordians have done defending theirs.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Normal people are constrained by the facts. If we could simply make up any story that would fit within the well known historical lacunae, you'd be scrambling to counter hundreds of spurious arguments by saying "there's no evidence", and we'd say "so what?" and accuse you of making excuses and circling the wagons.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Normal people are constrained by the facts. If we could simply make up any story that would fit within the well known historical lacunae, you'd be scrambling to counter hundreds of spurious arguments by saying "there's no evidence", and we'd say "so what?" and accuse you of making excuses and circling the wagons.

[@EliteRock]

Practically the entire biography of the 'Stratford man' (Shaksper/Shagsper/Shaxper et al - as he and his family were illiterate it was left to clerks to spell it phonetically on legal documents) and his alleged writing as Shakespeare is a "historical lacunae', which gives Stratfordians pretty much carte-blanche to make "spurious arguments", doesn't it?

[@brucerobbins3584]

HELLO!!! Waugh is NO SCHOLAR!!!!! He is not a Wells. Or Rutter or Edmondson. He is an amateur trying to link only the current fake SAQ.

[@rexmundi2237]

Zenaida Robbins Hilarious comment Zenaida - Marlowe and his university educated pals probably said exactly the same thing about Shakespeare - he was no scholar either! Hoist on your own petard I'm afraid - thanks for doing the job for me. - Plenty of brilliant and inventive thinkers never graduated from university; it's the quality of the mind and the ideas which matter, not how posh and expensive your education.

[@Widdowson2020]

I've come to the conclusion that Stratfordians have not actually read Shake-speare.

[@stevebari9338]

+Heath Widdowson And how do you know this exactly?

[@likebox2]

+Steve Bari because they fail to notice the astonishingly accurate Italian details, through willful incompetence.

[@Widdowson2020]

+likebox2 Thank you yes its true, although I didn't mean to be disparaging in my comment. Anyone interested in the subject should read Richard P Roe's book 'The Shakespeare Guide to Italy' which is very informative. Edward de Vere went to Italy and studied its Commedie del Arte. Regardless of what the traditionalists assert he was at the forefront of Elizabethan theatre. The evidence is apparent. I don't think there is any room for debate anymore. The writer of the Italian Shakespeare plays was physically in Italy.

[@likebox2]

Heath Widdowson I agree with your main conclusion, but I suggest you look at Peter Farey's essays "Oxfordians and the 1604 Question" and "The Wrong Candidate", and read Edward II, and look at Mendenhall and Farey's stylometric graphs, as they will convert you to a Marlovian, as they did me.

[@Widdowson2020]

+likebox2 I haven't read it it but I think I know where your going with it. May I offer the following analysis. It is certain that de Vere is the author of the narrative poems and is therefore "Shakespeare" however I think we can look at the term "Shakespeare" as a sort of production company, like 'United Artists', particularly when it comes to the 'history' plays which seem to have been sponsored by the crown 'through' de Vere. I think this concept resolves the 'multiple' author hypothesis, and would explain a lot. Therefore in some cases we can see Oxford as 'producer' and 'editor' rather than writer. This would also address the role of "Anthony Monday' and his relationship to this line of historical inquiry. Thoughts?

[@jamesaiello4667]

Twenty minutes of free association and magical thinking. .

[@green-user8348]

"Half wits and demented goons!" I love it, Alexander.

[@peloritano82]

Shakespeare was italian

[@stevebari9338]

+Messinatudine Being Italian myself I'd love that to be true but just doesn't ring true. He got the governments or ruling figures wrong in several plays and barely used Italian. Taming of the Shrew is only one I'm familiar with and its like 3 lines. He used French far more.

[@geoffJG1]

Brilliant Alexander,ive given up discussing with Stratfordians pithy insults about styles.The Earl's style is different in quality for good reason,around 15 years of development and improvement as well as being crafted from theatrical re-workings to the perfection in the folio's.All the other points I took apart on the page that had Edwards De Vere lecture video.Keep on banging your head against these blind sycophant's Alexander and good luck getting through all that buried sand.

[@thoutube9522]

It's not just the style. It's the poor-me whining that runs all the way his poems AND his letters. But also ... there is literally NO evidence connecting de Vere with the work. If there had been manuscripts and letters about the plays and poems, then they would have been preserved. De Vere had a big house and a secretary to organise his stuff. But he left nothing. Absolutely bugger all. Nix. Nothing. Zero. Every one of those six authenticated Shakespeare signatures links the man from Stratford with the world of London theatre. And also ... Ben Jonson told us that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare: "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." Explain that if you can. And before you say he's cunningly writing about the Earl of Oxford, Jonson accuses the writer of lack of classical learning. Oxford had MA degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge. Whereas Shakespeare would have had (as Jonson wrote elsewhere) 'small Latin and less Greek'.

[@thoutube9522]

Is it conceivable, do you think, that if the writer had been to Italy, he would have known that there are no significant tides in the Mediterranean area - particularly on inland waterways?

[@marclayne9261]

'The House of Wittgenstein'......I love this book.....

[@MrDizzyvonclutch]

Been listening to him, this is the first time I’ve seen him... he fits the look of the genius I figured him for! lol... I would have thought from his voice that his hair was blonde though.

[@josephcampagnolo157]

I believe the theory that Shakespeare had an Italian mistress, who was his informant on things Italian and musical, gives Stratfordians good cover: conjecture vs. conjecture. AL Rowse and his grad students got it right: Emelia Lanier

[@mariannaiannaccone121]

John Florio was Shakespeare, no doubt about it :)

[@jomurphy1654]

Er....obviously not!

[@jamesbassett1484]

What a fascinating and amusing lecture! As an atheist and antistratfordian, they are the same thing really, I lean toward the Marlovian hypothesis. It would be interesting, and perhaps I will try, to look for historical records of Marlowe's presence in any of the cities used as settings. Property records come immediately to mind. If in 1598, a man named (say) Cristobal Marlotti bought a house and yet, Mr. Marlotti is not on any of the local family trees, this person would bear further scrutiny. The depth and breadth of knowledge of Italy in the work appears to be too great to be based on one grand tour.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 It would be good for Oxfordians as well. So far you've got nothing, which you attribute to the most successful conspiracy of all time.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 @Steven Hershkowitz You've been bludgeoned with all of this evidence time and again. You think that you somehow have the right to make demands of the evidence, to pile caveats upon it until you can fool yourself into thinking it doesn't exist. Then, when we meet your irrational demands, you tuck tail and run away, visit your pshrink or hypnotherapist of whatever it is you do to wipe your memory, and come back and ask for it again. 1. Here's the Wikipedia article on the manuscript containing Hand D. It's full of names of people putting their names to the attribution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_More_%28play%29?wprov=sfla1 2. Ben Jonson, William Davenant, Henry Condell, John Hemminges, William Camden, Thomas Screvin, just to name a few. 3. Categorically false. Despite the fact that the Oxfraud site is dedicated to debunking you nutterbutter Oxfordians, and not to proving the case for Shakespeare, it's full of links to documentary evidence. It ALSO includes piles of documentary evidence that you Oxfordians are full of shit about Eddie De Vere. 4. I've repeatedly crammed documentary evidence down your throat like you were a frikken foie gras duck. It takes a special kind of idiot to keep forgetting it time and again and come back for more.

[@rstritmatter]

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 1. No. 2. No.

[@mattiamechtatel]

Shakespeare was John Florio. The World must know it!

[@marask3668]

It's 2018, it's time to acknowledge that the fairytale of the country man who couldn't even write from Stratford and became the greatest genius of literature, is fake.

[@MrMartibobs]

Snobbery is a terrible thing. It denies that education, can enable ordinary people to do extraordinary things. Look at the curriculum of the Elizabethan grammar school. It taught EVERYTHING that talented man from Stratford needed to write his plays. Long live Shakespeare, the Warwickshire playwright! Down with snobbery! An Earldom does not confer writing as a super-power, you dimwits! It takes hard work , and experience to learn stage-craft!

[@bokhans]

@@MrMartibobs no name and no picture, not very proud of your own opinion and you know very well you are wrong on all accounts. But support this channel and all other channel debunking the illiterate man from Stratford that didn’t read and write but was a hell of man at holding horses and selling grain.

[@MrMartibobs]

@@bokhans Why does my name matter? I'm nobody in particular from a grimy town in the English Midlands. My name carries zero authority. That's why I always cite evidence in my comments. Here's a piece of evidence from a reliable first-hand witness. We know he worked with the man from Stratford on good documentary evidence (it's actually printed in the cast lists of his plays.) And he says, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. This is not the only evidence. But it's my favourite. Because it's a testament to the unchanging nature of male friendship. It is of course, Ben Jonson, and in this piece he doesn't ONLY praise Shakespeare as a writer. He also takes the piss. (teases) Sure he praises William as a writer, but he also accuses him of not revising his work enough, and says that the writer of 'Julius Caesar' wasn't up to the job. No classical education, you see. (or none compared with Jonson's impressive knowledge) Here is the quote: "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." This is NOT what you would write about a toff with two master's degrees. It IS something you would write about a man who came from Styxville and had to get by on a grammar school education. Well done, William Shakespeare, that talented man from Stratford. And down with the snobs who think that if you don't have a title and/or university degree you can't write anything more complex than a shopping list., It's wrong, mate. Look at Dickens, Look at Tom Stoppard. Look at Jerome K Jerome. Look at Alleyn. Look at Webster. Look at Marlowe. Look at George Eliot. Look at Jane Austen. Look (irony of ironies) at Mark Twain. Look at Harold Pinter, who reinvented 20th century theatre. Look at Evelyn Waugh, who scraped through a degree but his results were so piss-poor that he didn't bother collecting his certificate. If you look through a list of Elizabethan playwrights, the ONLY one with a title is Francis Beaumont. Some had degrees, some didn't. It didn't seem to make alot of difference. Why should it?

[@MrMartibobs]

@@bokhans Oh and ... er ... illiterate? We know he was an actor. That is a matter of evidence which nobody disputes so ... please explain how, exactly, an illiterate man manages to survive as an actor working in the complex plays of Elizabethan theatre. Thus he MUST have attended the grammar school in Stratford, along with fellow Stratford man Richard Field, who published 'Venus and Adonis' , the 'Rape of Lucrece' and 'The Phoenix and the Turtle'. Ooooh, you might almost cite this as a link between the writer and the town of Stratford, don't you think?

[@MrMartibobs]

@@bokhans Actually, I have the most boring name in England. You will literally find it used as such in 'The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy', when Ford says something like ...... 'This is Xavod Beeblebrox, inventor of the pangalactic gargle-blaster, not bloody ______ ____ from Croydon." My face is equally unprepossessing. So I keep it to myself.

[@thoutube9522]

If the author had been to Italy, is it possible perhaps that he would have worked out that few Italians are called 'Sampson' or ''Gregory' or 'Peter'?

[@megaluther1]

How could one man write all of this

[@thoutube9522]

Mr Waugh seems terribly confident that Italians didn't go to pubs in London. How, exactly, does he know this?

[@rstritmatter]

Nice try, but a fail.

[@thoutube9522]

​@@rstritmatter This seems to be an unsupported assertion in defence of an unsupported assertion. I was under the impression that a serious academic like you doesn't just SAY stuff. I thought you gathered evidence, and cited it in support of any assertion you might wish to make. But perhaps I was forgetting that In Oxfordian-land, you don't need evidence. You just click the ruby slippers and Shazam! It's true.

[@thoutube9522]

@@rstritmatter And ... clearly, some biblical quotes are more striking or significant than others. These are the quotes that will be annotated/underlined, and often also the quotes that will appear in works of literature. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you take this factor into account when judging the statistical significance of a verse annotated in a bible turning up in a play.

[@3dcpsolutions381]

@@thoutube9522 It is laughable to see a Stratford Cult member talking about “evidence”. Nothing you “believe in”, because you are in an obvious CULT, is backed up by facts or evidence. The 6 signatures are the only evidence that William Shakspere fro Stratford could even write, but the Stratford Cult claims “this is proof”, proof of what? That he could ALMOST write his own name but not very well. That is YOUR EVIDENCE. Laughable, sad and disgraceful.

[@charlottebruce979]

Exactly, London was a huge melting pot of people from all over the world, of course Italians went to pubs, of course Shakespeare frequented them too, why wouldn't a charismatic actor/playwrite not chat to people in the pub and exchange information!!

[@stevebari9338]

I wonder if Mr. Waugh can explain how in Merchant of Venice it is possible for Shylock to have gone out for dinner when the Jewish quarter or ghetto of Venice was locked up at night? Also, how could revelers in disguise Lorrenzo and Gratiano go to the house of Jessica in the middle of the night, when again, the quarter was locked to anyone coming or going. They don't mention such a significant detail in the play such as bribing a guard or picking a lock. That's at least 4 people coming and going out of a quarter where they wouldn't have been able to. Strange that someone who knew the city well wouldn't have known about this VERY significant detail when writing about Venetian Jews, not to mention that canals are never mentioned in Merchant of Venice??? Kinda the hallmark of the city but its never brought up?

[@likebox2]

+Steve Bari The canals are mentioned indirectly by the mention of a gondolier. The canals are only the most significant detail when you are a TOURIST, not for a person who is living there, for whom the existence of flooded sections are a fact of life that has nothing to do with the locations of the plays. The locking of the Jewish quarter is something that is mentioned in Roe, but it might not have been so serious as it is made out to be, and if Marlowe doesn't say anything about it being a big deal, you can be sure that it was easy to get in and out. Even if it were a mistake, which is doubtful, it is a very easy mistake for a fellow to make who only visits the Jewish quarter during the day. The correct identification of the device to move boats along dry areas, which was modified by an editor, is impossible without being there.

[@stevebari9338]

The only reference to a gondola is where Jessica is mentioned by report to have been seen in one, a gondalier is never mentioned. This is the only mention of Venice’s most obvious feature. I’ve been to Venice a few times as I have relatives who actually live in the city and NO its not just something for the tourists. The areas where you can actually walk to are limited, most of the way to get around even today is by boat, especially to any commercial center where both Antonio and Shylock would have had their businesses. My uncle is a retired professor who worked at Foscari University and taught history and languages. We’ve discussed Merchant of Venice in years past as to how accurate it was and according to him the Jewish quarter was very strictly overseen. The curfew was not a casual thing and somewhat stemmed out of Orthodox Jewish practice and their Sabbath. Once night fell they were locked in and could not receive visitors, often it was the Jews own request to be separated from other Venetians. So again, you have an area that would be difficult for Shylock to get to and from, difficult for Lorenzo, Gratiano and Gobbo to get in and out of, there’s no mention of a hindrance nor even that this was a reality for Venetian Jews. There is not even a mention of what way Shylock would have taken to get to Antonio’s. Also, one of the plays most famous scenes the court scene is completely unreal. It was a difficult process for a Jew to bring a court case against a Venetian citizen. There was a lengthy process to file a suit for them and then to have it finally heard. Not something that happens so quickly in the play. The Doge or elected Duke would never have heard a case like this, it would be relegated to a minor judge. The Doge handled matters of state not a case that was at best a mid level law suit, its not even a criminal case. Nor would they have just allowed a young lawyer just to pop in, even at someone’s request. Like lawyers today, you had to be recognized to be practice law, in other words you have to have a license to practice in Venice. So the whole Portia episode putting aside the whole cross dressing thing is completely implausible. The Duke would never have been present, Shylock couldn’t just get a trial together so quickly, and Portia could never just present herself as a viable attorney. Filled with plot holes that anyone who was more familiar with the city would easily know about.

[@likebox2]

Steve Bari Whatever the mention is, the mention of gondolas is there, it is just not the main point. When you discuss legal details, and court details, you are forgetting that all the court intrigue and legal proceedings in Marlowe are highly stylized and simplified, as they serve as a high-level summary of much more complicated events, as in the histories and tragedies (see "The Massacre at Paris" for a particularly illustrative example of the manner in which he does this, illuminating the events in sketch, while dramatizing them for stage, without sacrificing historical accuracy, but also without using a cast of thousands of people, and without the intermediaries and long distances of real-life events. It's something nice that Marlowe mastered, possibly derived from Kyd). The flooded areas are only relevant for Shylock in that he is in a section surrounded by a river/canal, so he has to cross a bridge to get out of the Jewish quarter. As far as I can see, there is no indication that he is leaving the Jewish quarter when he goes out to dine. But even if Marlowe left out the bridge-guards, it is not an important part of the drama, and it is perfectly reasonable to not include this in the play. The relevance of the Shakespeare Guide is not that all the details are accurate as written, authors take license. The point is rather that those details that ARE accurate are impossible to get from England, they are the details that only a person on the ground on location could include. In the case of Venice, two details Roe identifies are various patterns of Venetian speech, and the name of the precise device used to haul boats along the dry section. The second by itself demonstrates well that the author was present at the scene. The "mistakes" you claim could be simplifications for fiction's sake, mistakes in the historical picture YOU have (not Marlowe). In the case of the walling off of the Jewish quarter, you don't know what was going on in detail, the Jews weren't exactly imprisoned, they maintained a separation from the Christians to preserve their own customs, especially on Sabbath. It is not at all clear how this was enforced, or whether it was uniformly enforced the way you make it out to be. This isn't the SS surrounding the Warsaw Ghetto. But you are missing the main point of such things--- the point is not the inaccurate details (which are arguable), but rather that there are accurate details that are impossible to observe from England, and these do exist in large number. To qualify: I have seen and read Merchant (a long time ago), but I have not read the relevant section of Roe directly, I am relying on a youtube lecture presentation of the main case. From what I have been able to see, his strongest Venetian argument is regarding the device name for transporting boats along dry areas, a device name that was so obscure that it was mangled in the transcription, because it was thought to be a mistake. The thing you should be doing in such a discussion is asking yourself whether it is plausible that the author was not in Italy and yet wrote this work, not whether you agree with his dramatization choices. I should point out the fact that this play is a better rewrite of Jew of Malta is a clear (weak) point in support of Marlovian authorship.

[@stevebari9338]

You certainly seem to cherry pick that which you deem worthy of local knowledge and that which is brushed over with dramatic license. I mention several points to where a court case like the one depicted in the play could not have taken place but eh, that’s dramatic affect. If reality can be sidestepped when its inconvenient that any writer could do that and anyone could have written the play. Marlowe, Shakespeare or whoever can write a trial scene and implausibly put a woman as a lawyer and a duke to oversee a small claims case. No special local knowledge needed. The same way Ben Jonson wrote about events in Venice and he never went there or Fletcher and the South Pacific and Padua. The Jewish quarter is just that Jewish. Gentiles did not live in quarter so Shylock going to eat at a Gentile’s house, is traveling outside of the quarter and then returns to his house later that night to find all of his stuff stolen. The term ghetto was applied specifically to this area its not a 20th century creation. The sequestering of Jews was born partially out of their practices but the curfew was a city edict so YES they were under lock and key. So this is a major impediment to characters coming and going from this area of the city without so much as a mention of it. Device to haul boats: In order for your point to be completely valid you would have to prove that this point could only have been known if you were local. As books existed on other countries and in a variety of subjects, this could be gleaned elsewhere. Boat technology is hardly a local secret. And this speaks to a majority of your position: Local knowledge vs. knowledge to someone in England. Roe has a laundry list of stuff he found right? Well, you would have to prove that the “local knowledge is just that and couldn’t have been found out otherwise. You and I can bandy this around for the next two months but we’ll be no closer to any consensus until Roe’s book is peer reviewed to verify his claims. It came out in 2011, has there been a peer review to check into his claims or to even back them up? There are a lot of hypotheses on either side of the authorship question that seem plausible on the surface but need to be scrutinized and verified. Case in point: The literacy of Shakespeare’s daughters. It’s a popular hypothesis on the Anti-Strat side that they were both illiterate and on the surface this looks plausible. Women weren’t educated like men, there’s no record of their education and one signed with a mark, However, when you scrutinize the available evidence, it becomes quite clear it’s a house of cards. His oldest daughter signed her name (meaning she was taught to write), is shown to be able to read and know the contents of books in a surviving first person diary account. The other daughter signed with one mark but people who were known to be literate also signed with marks. So she’s inconclusive. My point here is someone has what looks to be a plausible hypothesis but when further investigated is disproven and that’s what you currently have with Roe. He mentions a lot of interesting things. Great. However, he could mention all he wants but that doesn’t make it true. Even if its just to support his findings someone else would need to investigate his claims. I’ve stated that I’ve found several of his findings implausible but I’m not an expert on the subject and if I can point out simple holes it doesn’t give me much credit in the rest of his book. The best you can say about Roe its intriguing and worth warrant further study but so far its pretty mixed and until you have independent verification ALL of his claims would need to be taken with a grain of salt.

[@likebox2]

Steve Bari OF COURSE I CHERRY PICK! If you have ONE DETAIL that a person includes that is difficult to include WITHOUT BEING THERE, that constitutes evidence that HE WAS THERE, regarless of how many other things are different! For example, if I write a book about demons and ghosts haunting the three sinks at the basement of the Wrightly Tobacco Shop on 83rd st and 5th avenue, and you find that there IS a Wrightly Tobacco shop on 83rd st and 5th avenue, and there were three sinks in the basement, you conclude that I WAS THERE. No if's ands or buts. I was definitely there. The only reason to suspect otherwise would be if you had reason to suspect that I knew Wrightly personally, so that he could have told me the details of his tobacco shop. Without this evidence, since it is so unlikely, you have strong Bayesian evidence of thousands to one that I got the location from experience, since the statement that I found out the details from someone else remotely is ALSO thousands to one against in probability. Even if you only find a historical "Ritely Tobacco shop" containing a basement with three sinks in Brooklyn, even then, you have some reason to suspect I was there, although not with any confidence, because now there is a much larger chance for a coincidence (although it is still a Baysian factor saying I was MORE LIKELY there than not). Since I just made that crap up, I suggest you look for "Wrightly Tobacco shops" on Google. I am certain you won't find any in the greater NY area, although you might find a "Rately Tobacco Shop" in Indiana somewhere (I made that up too) and two other Tobacco shop with three sinks in the basement somewhere in the Bronx. The surprise is that a lot of what Shakespeare seems to "make up" is there on the ground in the locations indicated, in cases where the chance of coincidence is LOW, not high. BUT OF COURSE, you point out, this Wrightly tobacco shop that matches my setting was never haunted, and I spoke about the demons making a hole in the roof, and there was no hole in the roof at any time. SO WHAT! That doesn't make any difference. You STILL KNOW that I was there, because an unlikely detail that is right is much more unlikely that a random detail that is wrong. That's how you weigh evidence. A specific detail, like the name and location of a church, TRUMPS any stupid vague nonsense that is, in someone's opinion, inaccurate. The vague stuff can't be quantified, and has who-knows-what probability of being what it is. The SPECIFIC stuff is evidence, because it is extremely improbable that there should be a "St. Paul's Church" between Juliet's traditional house and some other location, at the place where the play says it should be. If the church weren't named "St. Paul's Church", it wouldn't be much evidence, but let's say only 1 in 10 Churches are named "St. Paul's", and the location picks out one church relatively precisely, leaving the name matching to constitute good Baysian evidence (about 10 to 1) that Shakespeare was there. It's the same for other specific locations, there might be sycamore groves all over Europe, but that there should be one precisely at the Western wall of Verona, and not, say, on the Eastern wall, this constitutes 1 in 4 Baysian evidence. So on and so on for most of Roe's evidence. For example, finding a Little Athens is not such great evidence for "Midsummer Night's Dream", because it is not specific enough, but finding a specific arch called "The Duke's Oak" is very informative, because it is unlikely that the location matched for other reasons would have this specific detail (this is 1 in 3 to 1 in 10 evidence at best, some such small factor--- you need more specificity for this sort of stuff--- it's not called "Duke Ferdinand's Oak, which would be a smoking gun, it's just "The Duke's Oak". Further Marlowe might have heard about this place from deVere, who was known to be at Little Athens, because there is independent reason to suspect Marlowe knew deVere. This is why it is weaker evidence--- there is some probability of indirect dependence). The exceptions to the rule of multiplying independent improbabilities come in cases of dependence, for example, where Shakespeare's plays have inadvertently tainted the evidence pool, like the words "Caliban" and "Ariel" in Catalan, which seem to have been back-cribbed from Shakespeare, and therefore constitute no evidence at all. This is how you weigh and evaluate historical evidence correctly, by Bayesian factors. The book on this is Richard Carrier's "Proving History", although there is a quick and dirty method for "physicist Bayesianism" Carrier doesn't explain, which uses logarithms of probabilities (like free energies) which you add instead of multiply, which is more convenient. The example of St. Gregory's Well in Milan (I made a mistake in a previous discussion--- the historical St. Gregory's Well is in Milan not Verona) is the STRONGEST kind of evidence, as it is an extremely specific, not generic, name--- St. Gregory--- attached to a specific noun (a well). There is likely only one "St. Gregory's Well" in the whole world. In this case, this title indicates something specific (a mass grave) which MAKES SENSE IN CONTEXT of the play, and not just makes sense, makes SURPRISING and INSIGHTFUL sense. This type of evidence is MANY HUNDREDS TO ONE evidence for Shakespeare being there, because it is extremely unlikely you would find anything there which matches this crazy detail, it is approximately as specific as the Wrightly Tobacco Shop that I made up above. The other alternative is that a traveller from Milan told him about this, but this is ALSO HUNDREDS TO ONE AGAINST, as this type of detail is not normally carried around outside the region, and the setting of the Shakespeare play is determined by other factors, not by matching to the existence of St. Gregory's Well. So this is an example of a smoking gun, which is why I keep bringing it up. The nonsense you say is dishonest and ignorant of what the word "evidence" means. you really need to grow up and learn what constitues evidence and what constitutes confirmation bias. If you look at the evidence that Shakespeare was in Italy for setting his plays, it is overwhelming. The way to get the degree of confidence is to multiply the Baysian factors for each TRULY INDEPENDENT detail which is TRULY UNLIKELY to be coincidental. So 4 times 3 times 10 times whatever factor for each detail, depending on the likelihood of coincidence (the likelihood of coincidence for a NON SPECIFIC detail, like yellow sand on a beach, or spontaneous sounds on an Island, is very close to 100 percent, so these claims in Roe's book are not so useful). The product of the truly surprising coincidences becomes very large very fast, so that your confidence is close enough to 100% by the end of Roe's book that to argue the other side, you need to produce counterarguments that demonstrate how Shakespeare could have heard about these places. An example would be another source, written by an author in Milan, which also mentions "St. Gregory's well", but since you don't have such a source, and it is thousands to 1 against there being such a source, you can't just postulate it to get rid of evidence. The way to do arguments like this honestly is explained in Carrier's "Proving History". While I agree that Roe's book has not been peer reviewed, I JUST PEER REVIEWED IT ABOVE (and so did all those people reporting on it in blogs). His evidence for Vulcano as Caliban's island falls apart (as far as I can see), other strands of evidence are weak, but the main identifications--- the churches and squares, the local details of Venice, these HOLD UP, and there is nothing to argue against, because these details are UNLIKELY to be gleaned in any other way. When you say "Oh, Shakespeare found out about the device in a book", you are forgetting that it is UNLIKELY that this device is mentioned in a book that Shakespeare had read, and therefore it is UNLIKELY that Shakespeare would have known about it. When you have something UNLIKELY, it is evidence that Shakespeare was there. Regarding "literate people signing with a mark", this happens in cases where people know how to read, but not write. One of Shakespeare's daughter was at least illiterate in the modern sense, of not knowing how to write. His granddaughter is DEFINITELY illiterate (she was interviewed by the fellow who was looking for Shakespeare's books 100 years later, they guy who concluded he wasn't a writer), and she was written to also have attested that Shakespeare was not a man of letters. That would normally constitute definitive evidence that he wasn't a writer. Was Judith Shakespeare (or whatever her name was) pulling the interviewer's leg? What do you think explains this? There is nothing in his documented life that suggests he ever went to Italy, or learned Italian, French, and Spanish, as the sources for the plays would indicate. His books do not exist, as a careful 18th century search demonstrated, his correspondence does not exist, as we all know, and his education is not attested to in any way, leaving you to suggest that he is like Ben Jonson, a self-educated genius. But the authentic uneducated grammar-school genius, Ben Jonson (who left a MOUNTAIN of literary and historical evidence), writes in a non-erudite style, or rather, completely differently erudite style which does not betray strong classical influences (Jonson writes like a more modern person than Shakespeare, like Moliere). Shakespeare writes like a college educated person steeped in the Roman Classics, with a distinct penchant for Ovid, Virgil, and Roman histories. These habits are hard to shake. Further, he writes just like Marlowe. That's because he is Marlowe. Regarding the situation for Jews in Venice, this depends on how the edicts were enforced. I use a vaporizer everywhere I go, and I would write about vaping my vaporizer at bars and restaurants. A person studying the by-laws of New York City would conclude that I was lying, because there is a CITY LAW that prohibits vaporizer use in bars and restaurants, and everywhere that smoking is banned. But GUESS WHAT! I use it anyway, and the number of times I have gotten in trouble I can count on one hand. The detail in Merchant is more indicative of how the Jewish edicts were enforced, they were likely LAXLY ENFORCED, and the evidence is that MARLOWE writes as if they were laxly enforced (and I believe HIM over YOU, because HE WAS THERE, and YOU WEREN'T).

[@maikino8002]

I can’t say that is true, but the probability is very high. Just have a look at your lovely Victorian houses ( Venetian architecture), your language (60% Latin), Londonium etc...there will always be a hidden, stubborn link with the Italians

[@lameduck3630]

Maybe Shakespeare frequented a pizzeria and got his info there?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

It would explain why he got so many things wrong.

[@bokhans]

@@Jeffhowardmeade no a single Stratfordian use their own name,I know it’s a embarrassing opinion if I was pushing it I would also hide my identity, just like you. Stupidity isn’t something to parade!

[@m1klgordon]

It was several months prior to your talk, Alexander, that we had fun with the Shakespeare in Italy discussion on Oxfraud's Facebook page. Valentine sets off from Verona, bound for Milan, in a "boat". According to more than one of our Oxfordian interlocutors, these words from TGoV: - "Tut, man, I mean thou'lt lose the flood, and, in losing the flood, lose thy voyage"...and...."Lose the tide, and the voyage, and the master, and the service, and the tied! Why, man, if the river were dry" etc... ...have nothing to do with the author describing a tidal river. As you well know, the Adige is not a tidal river, it does not connect to the Po unless a journey east, to the coast, is made. Hence the search for canals to make sense of the journey west and north west. But of course, canals aren't tidal either. Whilst, like your good self, we pored over maps and records, we couldn't find a route that didn't involve the speculative existence of Navigli. A rational person would conclude that the author had not been to Verona and is not writing from first hand knowledge of a system of navigable waterways...even if it could be proven that such a system existed at the time. Lastly, allowing the possibility such a waterborne journey was possible. It would have involved a lot of changes and humping luggage between several vessels of different types. Shakespeare in Italy? I think not. Anyway, good to see you in fine form Alexander.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Dear Mike, I entirely agree with you that the Adige is not, nor ever was, a tidal river and I have never tried to argue otherwise. Shakespeare qualifies his use of the word 'tide' (as you rightly infer he put it in TGofV to make a pun) by saying that by 'tide' he actually means 'flood' and I have explained what is meant by 'flood' in relation to the locks, rivers and interconnecting canals of Northern Italy in my article 'Keeping Shakespeare Out of Italy' published in 'Shakespeare Beyond Doubt?' Is it your opinion then that it was not possible to travel from Verona to Milan by river-canal in the late 1590's? If so you are bravely pushing against a colossal mountain of contrary evidence and I quail for your success in persuading others of your view. I trust that you were not the pseudonymous 'Hammertapping' who accused me of child abusing on this site, or that it was any one of your Oxfraud team colleagues. I am glad they have taken it down. You have told me in the past that you were averse to ad hominem arguments and I believed you. If you know who 'Hammertapping' is/was I trust you will severely reprimand him. As ever, Alexander

[@m1klgordon]

Briefly, your trust is well placed Alexander. If I knew who Hammertapping was I'd do more than reprimand him/her. I'd tell you so you could sue for defamation. I didn't see that comment, but have recently had some nasty (false) allegations made about my private life. I called the cops, showed them the slander and eventually, face to face with the person concerned, buried the hatchet. To say where would incriminate me! Yes, the ad hominem stuff is still about, The Oxfraud group is more than aware it detracts from exposing Oxfordian myth and fallacy. Sorry, couldn't help it! I'm probably breaching a confidence here, so all I will say is that members of our group are certain that face to face, those taking lumps out of each other in public, would be buddies in private. Share a beer, still take lumps out of each other, shake hands and do it all again. What you described about Hammertapping is not in the same category. I'd urge you to investigate and prosecute. Let me get back to you on tides, canals and floods. Best wishes and regards, Mike

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Dear Mike, you suggest that 'members of your group' are against all this ad hominem stuff and would like to share beers. You forget that your group calls itself 'oxfraud.' It is not enough for you to say 'the Oxfordians have studied the Shakespeare authorship question and have wrongly concluded in favour of Edward de Vere.' You have to state that the Oxfordian position is fraudulent - in other words a 'criminal deceit' or a 'deliberate intention to deceive'. As you well know Oxfordians are not deliberately deceiving anyone and until you boys can change the name of your website from oxfraud.com to something a little more civilised you should not be two surprised by the occasional message of reproach. I have good reasons to presume that two offensive posts to this site (both of which have been removed by the moderator) - one under the name of 'hammertapping' and one under the name of 'Ethelburga' - were placed by members of the oxfraud team. The latter was nothing short of a free advertisement for oxfraud.com. So please clean out your stables and then let's talk about beers, Alexander

[@m1klgordon]

Alexander Waugh Dear Alexander, I'n in response to the comments you made..... Oxfraud.com doesn't hide it's purpose. I doubt anyone could possibly be misled into thinking the site was anything other than intended to rebut the claims Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare. It's very straightforward. Unlike Shake-speare's-bible.com. The site uses the name Shake-speare, but the bible belonged to Edward de Vere. Despite the site's name, the bible was not Shakespeare's! I understand the site claims that annotations from the bible under discussion, are said to relate to passages from the works attributed to William Shakespeare. The annotations, assumed to have been made by Edward de Vere, extend to the speuclation that Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare. To an uniformed reader, and/or uninformed searcher using a web browser, perhaps someone seeking information about the historic WS and his bible, the name Shake-speare, associated with *his* bible might temporarily confuse. Further given the site's name and content, a person might be misled to think the annotations are a form of evidence that de Vere, I repeat, the assumed maker of the annotations, wrote Shakespeare. I say 'misled' because there is no corroboration that the markings were made by de Vere. Shakespeare is known to have been "much offended" at Jagger's passing off antics in The Passionate Pilgrim. In reference to your comment "you have to state the Oxfordian position is fraudulent". No. I/we don't say the Oxfordian position if fraudulent. In my/our opinion it's simply wrong. For reasons elaborated on the website. No idea who Hammertapping is. You have your reply from Ethel! (Below)

[@peterfrengel3964]

@@m1klgordon I'm very impressed with the civility of the exchanges between you and Mr. Waugh. I also find it reasonable to conclude that when canal locks and spillways are opened or closed, the lines you cited from "Two Gents" can be contextualized. The word "tide" is used, as mentioned above, so Lance can make a pun on his dog being "tied." If the canal boat has left, Lance must "post after with oars." And later, Panthino clarifies, "Tut, man, I mean thou’lt lose the flood, and in losing the flood, lose thy voyage." If the locks have closed, his rowing after will not be possible.

[@charlottebruce979]

Is there a remote possibility that Shakespeare did in fact go to university? Just as we have no evidence he did so we have no evidence he didn't. As for knowledge about court life and countries abroad like Italy, London was a huge melting pot of people from different cultures, countries and walks of life, and it's not hard to imagine a charismatic actor frequenting, inns, taverns, shops, parties, houses and market places, where he would have chatted to people and picked up information from friends, collegues and strangers. He also collaborated and discussed his plays with others probably all the time, exchanging ideas, asking probing questions for information, corrections and clarity, he was not in a darkened room in London but was in the midst of a bustling, busy and cosmopolitan city!!

[@RosBarber]

Even ardent Stratfordians accept that Will Shakspere (the theatre company shareholder and businessman whose name ended up on the plays) didn’t go to university - because the universities kept full records of their students and he doesn’t appear on them. And though London was indeed full of travellers and immigrants, including well known Italians such as John Florio, there are details in the plays that you would only get first hand, such as the triangulation point in Florence described in All’s Well That Ends Well, as detailed in Richard Roe’s book The Shakespeare Guide to Italy. Read it, it’s interesting!

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Ben Jonson described Shakespeare as having "Small Latine and lesse Greeke", which is unlikely for someone who had attended a Tudor university. It just happened to be precisely what one would have acquired from an Elizabethan grammar school. Francis Beaumont described Shakespeare's poetry is being without scholarship. Vicar John Ward off Stratford said he had heard that Shakespeare was a "...natural wit without any art at all". The anonymous author of the play The Second Return From Parnassus says university writers don't write good plays, and Shakespeare is much better at it than they are, implying that he was not a university scholar. Not that this was in any way a barrier to learning. The aforementioned Ben Jonson was perhaps the most erudite poet of his day, and he was largely self-taught.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@RosBarber Just curious, but if Shakespeare could describe such a place in Florence, why couldn't it have been described to him?

[@janenelson3266]

)

[@abbietyler7868]

shakespeare was John Florio.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Shakespeare was Shakespeare and John Florio was John Florio.

[@abbietyler7868]

wow you got a point there

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

I do my best. There was no reason for John Florio, who was a well-known writer, to have hidden his name on the plays. Shakespeare lifted passages from Florio's "Second Fruits", but that's about the extent of it. There is no overlap of language between the two. Florio was educated at Oxford, whereas Shakespeare's contemporaries claimed he was not university educated. His works demonstrate a reliance upon grammar school sources and almost completely avoid the Greek classics taught at universities. Even if, for some oddball reason, Florio decided to give his plays over to Shakespeare to claim as his own, I can't imagine how someone so educated would manage to ignore Aristotle's Poetics the way Shakespeare clearly did. Better?

[@abbietyler7868]

no.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Can't please everyone.

[@ChrisHanks_ColonelOfTruth]

"Half-wits and demented loons." I'd encourage anyone interested to read the comments section on the piece to which Waugh refers: www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/diary/9069181/diary-636/ It's long, but it's worth it. Listen to both sides very carefully. Listen not just to what each side is reasoning about, but *how* each is reasoning. After calling a guy a "monumental ass" while arguing the definition of a phrase versus a clause, Waugh ultimately had to admit he was in error. This particular exchange is illustrative of Waugh's argumentative style, and the end result is always the same: Clever, chuckle-inducing parrying, but no meat on the hook. And frankly, this describes the "case" for Oxford as well: No meat. Absolutely zero positive evidence in favor of De Vere, and the most damning evidence of all -- his own body of work -- eliminates him as a contender. Ward Elliott, the textual analyst and former Oxfordian, has demonstrated to a scientific certainty that De Vere's content and style is "in another galaxy" from Shakespeare's. Nothing will make this fact go away: The only science in all of this DECISIVELY and SOUNDLY eliminates De Vere. (That, plus he was dead before a third of the works were written.) Even if we *didn't* have De Vere's writing, he'd be a lousy candidate. But the fact that we *do* have his writing means we can move on. He ain't Shakespeare, people. Get over it.

[@geoffJG1]

No evidence well look for it,everywhere I look its there,go back to Stratford.

[@rennyzero9853]

Signature is Forensically Suspect.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Can somebody please tell me how Nashe wrote The Unfortunate Traveller, when there is no evidence that he ever left England? Everybody here is so impressed with Roe and his research into Italy, but you are all forgetting that everything you now know about sycamore trees in Verona you know because somebody who has been there told you.

[@rexmundi2237]

I have no strong views on this issue, but how do you explain Will's obsession with Italy ? Just curious to hear your answer. Will you allow for the possibility (if not the likelihood) that Will may have been a hack, plagiarist, who collaborated with and perhaps even stole scripts from other better educated and better travelled writers? After-all, there is plenty of evidence of literary "borrowings" aka theft in the plays eg from Marlowe.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

+Rex Mundi His obsession with Italy was probably driven by two main factors: First off, English readers and theater-goers were obsessed with Italy and all things Italian (an addiction which lasted for centuries, right into the last one. The typical English obsession these days appears to be Iberian beaches). As one who made his living by putting butts in seats, as they say, he would have been drawn to what was popular. Seconly, though no less important, was the fact that Italy was a rich source for material. Shakespeare had a few primary sources from whence he lifted his plots: History books, existing plays (which may have been written by better-educated writers, but most of the attribution are disputed), and previously published stories. The primary source for this last was Italy. As both the seat of the Roman Empire, and the birthplace of the Renaissance, Italy had produced more fertile material for a light-fingered playwright to purloin than anywhere else. Ovid (Venus & Adonis, Lucrece, Titus Andronicus), Boccaccio (All's Well, Two Gentlemen, Cymbeline), Plautus (Comedy of Errors), Fiorentino (Merchant of Venice), Ludovico (Much Ado), Bandello (Twelfth Night), Cinthio (Othello, Measure for Measure [Shakespeare moved it from Italy to Austria] ), Plutarch (Timon, Antony & Cleopatra, Two Noble Kinsmen, Julius Caesar). Even Romeo & Juliet, taken from a poem by another Englishman, and The Shrew, which Shakespeare probably rewrote from the anonymous play Taming of A Shrew, came originally from Italian sources. Basically, Shakespeare had little choice in the matter. Both his supply and his demand called for Italy. Luckily, he was well supplied with reference materials on the subject. Flemish catrographers had already produced detailed maps of Italy, which we know Shakespeare used because he repeated some of their mistakes. John Florio, a prominent Englishman with an Italian father, produced books about Italy, from which Shakespeare lifted whole passages. Will Kemp, a fellow actor in the Lord Chamberlain's Men, is known to have traveled to Italy, so he would likely have been a valuable source. And this is where the Bardolators get lost: Shakespeare is not the Immortal Bard for his great stories. He's The Bard because he was a great poet. His choice of material had something to do with his lasting fame, of course, but we don't read The Tragicall History of Romeus and Juliett because it's really boring stuff, and yet we love Shakespeare's take on the story. Nobody ever plays King Lier, The Famous Victories, A Shrew, the earlier King John, and the Ur Hamlet was not worth even printing. Everyone has seen King Lear, The Shrew, Henry IV & V, Hamlet and King John...okay, maybe that was a stinker even for Shakespeare. It is reasonably conjectured that Shakespeare collaborated with others, most of whom had university educations. I have always thought that Love's Labors Lost was a touch-up job by Shakespeare, as the first quarto says only that he revised and expanded it. Shakespeare's source play, The Famous Victories of Henry V, was probably written by someone in the employ of Oxford, as it unhistorically pumps up an Oxford ancestor (Shakespeare deleted him), and includes a robbery scene reminiscent of an incident in the life of Oxford (which Shakespeare kept). Since we know from Frances Meres that Edward De Vere wrote plays, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he personally wrote The Famous Victories. Frankly, the writing was certainly bad enough. I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure. Too much information? I do tend to run on a bit sometimes.

[@stevebari9338]

There were these things that very popular at the time called novellas written by Italian writers like Boccacio and Cinthio or featured Italian settings. Italy was a tourist destination with an exotic vibe for the English and these stories served as the basis for the Italian set plays. That's it no great mystery. And before you go into the whole "he had local knowledge" thing let me put out that in Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Two Gentlemen of Verona and The Tempest the author got the government agencies completely wrong and in the Venice plays failed to mention the most conspicuous and power seat St. Marc's Square. Not the behavior of a tourist who had local knowledge but of a London based writer recycling popular Italian stories.

[@brucerobbins3584]

Or Kyd write The Spanish Tragedy wihout visitng Spain. Or Marlowe wrote Jew of Malta without visitng Malta, or Massacre in Paris without visiting Paris? Or any of the other writers write plays that took place on the continent without visiting any of those places? Why just examine Shakespeare? Look at every contemporary writer!!!!!!

[@LazlosPlane]

Who cares which synagogue Shakespeare was referring to? It has no bearing on understanding and appreciating the play.

[@likebox2]

+LazlosPlane It shows the author is in Italy, and is documenting the area as it was.

[@ethelburga]

Alexander, As you refer to being accused of nefarious practices on oxfraud but produce no evidence, it is you who is casting potentially libellous aspersions into the wind. The post of mine that you claim was offensive enough to have been deleted pointed out that you committed the same error as Napoleon at Waterloo - that of announcing victory before the battle was over. The 'ads' for oxfraud were merely three links to articles which successfully pointed out the mistakes in your Polimanteia contention, the argument you lost in the comments thread which resulted in your (rather handsome) apology and an account the spectacular disintegration of The Oxfordian of the Year 2013 on the subject of whether he can recognise Shakespearean quality, Or Not. Also in that Spectator thread. Once again, however, you appear to be suffering from finger trouble. Scroll down. The post is still there.

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

'Ethelburga' - I have not looked at your oxfraud site since the first days of its going live, so I have no idea if you have accused me of 'nefarious practices' there or not. However I strongly believe that either you or one of your oxfraud colleagues (under the avatar name of 'hammertapping') was responsible for suggesting that I was a child abuser on a post to this site which has since been taken down by the moderator. Your previous post was offensive to Roger Stritmatter, not to me, I imagine that is why it was deleted, but I do not know, If you really wish to discover why it was removed you enquire of the moderator. As to the 'finger trouble' you refer to - do you mean the typo 'two' instead of 'too'? I spotted that the moment I sent it but there does not appear to be any mechanism for editing a message once it has been posted on this site. Do you know how it can be done? If you look back at your previous post (the deleted one) you will notice that you wrote: 'There is no such thing as an anti-Strafordian [sic] scholar'. You also wrote of the 'Elizabethan and Jacobean Drmatic [sic] Genome [sic]' Finger trouble also? Or just three simple typos that, like me, you were unable to correct? Alexander

[@ethelburga]

Alexander Waugh It is tedious not being able to edit one's mistakes. And mocking typos is SO small-minded, isn't it? However, the finger trouble I was referring to related to the fact that these comment section posts are threaded into sub-conversations and these sub-conversations can be opened and closed, revealing or hiding their sub-posts, to reduce the amount of vertical scrolling required to navigate the thread. A recent addition to the KZbin UI. My post you refer to as 'deleted' is still here. You just can't find it. And Dr RS is a SAQ heavyweight when it comes to insulting behaviour. I refer to him in *exactly* the same demeaning terms you refer to a Stratfordian Professor in your video. I can't, in type, ladle on quite as much needless disparaging sarcasm as you manage in your speech but don't worry. Given our history, Anti-Strat High Priest Dr RS (psi in your guide to pseudonyms) and I would only count these exchanges as mild flirting.

[@ethelburga]

Alexander Waugh As far as nefarious practice goes, it ought not to be difficult for a bunch of soi-disant experts on uncovering pseudonyms such as yourselves, to target their retribution for perceived insults a little more accurately. No one at oxfraud calls themselves "Hammertapping" and comments of the nature you are describing would be vaped in a heartbeat on our site. Exercise a little more care with your accusations please or, thick-skinned as we are, we might get upset.

[@truereporter2430]

He was told he was going to be William Shakespeare! Who controls Stephen Hawkins voice🧐Surely that’s preposterous ?!🤷‍♂️👊

[@gracebeliever127]

Study, Study, Study: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Read, hear and believe the gospel of the grace of God that saves your soul: " ...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scripture."

[@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.

[@firestarter7680]

john florio was shakespear,but the real author his father,michelangelo florio crollalanza (shake the spear)

[@TheLenze]

What a treasure these anti-stratfordians are to the defense of reason, science, open discourse and debate, clearing the Augean stables of all the putrefying muck of the privileged bureaucrats of Stratford.

[@joelhoffman7173]

It's a shame that the Oxford view is in the hands of this pompous and derisive Dr. Waugh. His speaking style, though entertaining, gets in the way of helping us lay people objectively evaluate the research that's been done. I don't particularly care if it was Shakespeare or Oxford, but I do care that we know. So could we just stick to hard facts, please? For example, if I were a literary genius who had never traveled outside of England but intended to set a play in Verona, why couldn't I construct the plot, characters, and dialogue, then approach someone who had lived or traveled in Italy to dress up the manuscript with local references? But Dr. Waugh's posture toward those who would raise such common sense possibilities is that we are nincompoops. Sad. To be so learned but so seemingly fanatical.

[@yorkshireroots]

Totally agree

[@charlottebruce979]

Brilliantly put, thank you 😊

[@arghyachakraborty]

The hypothetical scenario that you used here as an example is extremely far-fetched, even in 2024! I'm sure you have been to several places beside your hometown; but how many can you describe so minutely that one can set an entire play based on your description? During the Elizabethan period, very few people, barring the upper class, went abroad; very few among them had the capacity to describe what they saw in detail (true even in this day & age); fewer still had ('lower class') people in their lives who were writers! THINK.

[@brucerobbins3584]

I cannot prove that Shakespeare did or did not visit Italy. Neither can Waugh. Period. It certainly was not iimpossible. A trip across the Channel, cross France into Italy. You are not going to Mongolia. The idea that Oxford wrote the plays because we are sure he DID visit Italy, is a non-argument. Many people visited Italy. Why don't we assume THEY wrote the plays? Of course, MANY, MANY plays by other authors were placed in Italy. It was the fashion of the time. And they never left London. London was the most cosmopolitan city in Europe. Shakespeare, inquisitive, must have had a chance to meet others, see other plays. Yes, Shakespeare had an extremely creative mind, just like Marlowe, Kyd, and Johnson did. All playwrights back then did. They did not write of their own experience. That is confusing yesterday with today. Waugh is not an expert on anything.He is a journalist and critic. Does not hold a candle to Richard Grant White.

[@Eudaimonia88]

Alexander Waugh impresses as usual. However, people coughing and spluttering, almost vomiting up their intestines in the process, during a lecture, concert or in the theatre are narcissistic spoilsports whom I abhor. You know who you are, can you please stay at home?

[@zeerust2000]

I'm convinced that Lennon and McCartney couldn't have written all those Beatles songs because they were just a couple of low class Liverpool guys with no formal musical education at all. They couldn't even read music! The songs were written by an educated musician, possibly Benjamin Britten, who couldn't reveal himself as the true songwriter because it would be shameful for someone of his position to descend to the level of cheap popular music.

[@zeerust2000]

But do we really have proof about who wrote the songs? The real composer, if he or she was regarded seriously in the classical music world, would never have wanted to be associated with mere pop music. And there was so much impenetrable security and image control around the Beatles that anything could have happened, really. Did anyone actually witness first hand Mcartney and Lennon actually writing their most famous songs? No. It's no coincidence that their producer, George Martin, was a classically trained musician, with strong connections to the classical music world, who said that he wasn't really impressed with their songwriting at first. And he and Brian Epstein were with them right from the start of their success.. Think about it. It makes sense. And I think it's quite possible that Brian Epstein was murdered because he was planning to reveal the conspiracy.

[@zeerust2000]

Of course, my Beatles example is just hypothetical, but to me it's not dissimilar to the Shakespeare conspiracy theories. There is plenty of evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays. It's just that the conspiracy theorists reject all this evidence as "part of the conspiracy". And that is an undeniable characteristic of the classic conspiracy theory. Any evidence against the conspiracy, such as the First Folio, (or the photos of the moon landing, or Oswald in the book depository with a rifle etc.), is actually..........part of the conspiracy. So there is no way a conspiracy theory can be falsified, which is part of the reason academics can't be bothered with it. If an hypothesis can't be falsified, then it can't be tested. But I could be wrong, of course. So I'm wondering, what kind of evidence would you be willing to accept? What would actually, hypothetically speaking, convince you that Shakespeare was the author? Maybe this whole issue boils down to where you set the bar, as it were, for evidence?

The Beatles! Not really calibre music, so not a good comparison. And music is not about writing, music not what.s on the page but what is played, sung, etc. Leadbelly as well couldn’t.t read, nor Errol Garner, Jimi Hendrix and many more. And the argument is not about class, so why do you mention class,

[@zeerust2000]

But I think it is about class, very much so. Most of the alternative candidates are of a higher social class than William. This is an important feature of the anti Stratford argument. William was supposedly just a country bumpkin, who couldn't possibly have the background to write so well. Remember though, that Marlow was of the same social class as Shakespeare.

[@zaqwsx23]

How can you compare Shakespeare to the Beatles? The music of the Beatles is something relatively simple. The Liverpool boys had musical talent and that was enough. To be Shakespeare you need much more...