Shakespeare's Other Pen Names Revealed! with Robert Prechter

[@mayaradoczy4982]

I love what you are doing! The conversations with Robert Prechter are excellent! More, more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@phoebe_devere]

Thanks so much :) another one is in the works

[@mayaradoczy4982]

I just posted this on my FB page. 2 weeks ago, I posted one of your short clips---and I think it influenced a friend of mine. She was angry before about the idea of deVere being the real author--but last week sent me an article about deVere. All I said was, yes it is amazing how deVere's biography matches the plays, and also his erudition, including fluency in many languages. Thanks for what you are doing!

[@phoebe_devere]

Awesome, thank you!

[@nicpanagopoulos3469]

Words fail in describing the innovative and goundbreaking quality of "Oxford's Voices". What a monumental, titanic work!! Many congratulations to Robert Prechter, and to you Phoebe, for bringing this out. On it's own, it completely revolutionizes the field, exponentially expanding (alliteration unintended) our knowledge of Elizabethen literary production as well as Oxford's writing career. Just a small note, the Iliad although it includes deities, doesn't fall into the category of "classical mythology" as Bob mentions, but "classical literature" (Homeric epic). Moreover, most experts agree that the remains which Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) unearthed in Anatolia in1870-73 were indeed ancient Troy. It's possible, therefore, that the Iliad is based on an actual campaign, making it at least partly historical.

[@phoebe_devere]

Many thanks!

[@tomgoff6867]

Phoebe's comment on Pessoa is astute, partly because Pessoa isn't only playing for play's sake, nor is he merely generating buzz around a heteronym's supposed work, but also is discovering just what differentiates one invented personality (say, Alberto Caeiro) from another invented personality (like Ricardo Reis). It seems likely De Vere was using his multiple voices with similar purpose, to similar effect--birthing the playwright he became.

[@Alacrates]

Great discussion! Looking forward to the next installments. I liked the upgrade in the production too, the intro graphics & animations were well done. Not sure if you two are doing more on de Vere's early years, but I'd be interested to hear more about the translations of Ovid's Metamorphoses & Apuleius's Metamorphoses - to me those two chapters on Arthur Golding and William Addlington were the most fascinating parts of Robert Prechter's writing on de Vere's possible early works. (Though the discussion you had here about the Arthur Brooke's "Romeus and Juliet" was probably equally as fascinating, as well as the information about the actual William Fullwood, that was interesting - seems hard to square that guy's life with the works attributed to him.) Also loved the discussion of Fulwood's Castle of Memory.

[@phoebenir7093]

Thanks Daniel!!

[@properitum9091]

That was fantastic. I think you have opened the door to another vast castle that I need to explore here, Phoebe. 30 volumes you say? Best get started!

[@ronroffel1462]

Wow! What a great interview. I was initially skeptical about Prechter assigning different names to de Vere's works, but the idea of a combined canon makes sense. In an era when copyright and authorial control was limited, the only thing a prolific writer really had was to adopt different pen names to see his works go into print. It would also make sense that the people whose names de Vere used might want to cash in on their own name and publish something of their own. It would be interesting to see how many of de Vere's allonyms went to print not long after their names were used by the earl. I have been looking at the physical structure of title pages and I would like to see whether or not the title pages and first pages of the books and pamphlets Bob cites have the same sort of gematria and number puzzles which are in the front matter of the First Folio and the dedications to Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, and the Sonnets. That would provide more evidence for Oxford's voices if those title pages would contain the same types of puzzles which are in the "Shakespeare" canon. I can't wait for the next installment in your series. Keep up the great work.

[@phoebe_devere]

thanks!!

[@ContextShakespeare1740]

Great work, I have found a few dedications that have a similar style, the words travel or travail or labour seem to be interchangeable and common in dedications of works that are suspiciously attributed. I am really interested to hear about Oxford's contribution to the pamphlet wars. Especially between Nash and Harvey.

[@phoebenir7093]

Should have a video about Nashe and Harvey out soon… also I talked about the pamphlet war in an episode of the Blue Boar Tavern a few months ago… thanks for the comment :)

[@ContextShakespeare1740]

@@phoebenir7093 I have taken out Pierce Penilesse and Pierce's Supererogation from the library. the small amount I have read so far made me giggle. Lots to unpack. I should have my video on Love's labours lost out soon. The French connection first then the Harvey connection to follow.

[@Alacrates]

@@ContextShakespeare1740 Looking forward to the Love's Labour's Lost video! Not sure if the library you use has a copy of Nashe's "Strange News", but I found that was helpful to read alongside Harvey's "Pierce's Supererogation" - a lot of what Harvey is reacting to in that pamphlet is directly to "Strange News" (though actually Pierce's Supererogation is kind of three pamphlets stitched together - the middle one is the earliest, from 1589, and it's responding to "Pappe with a Hatchet" - I found it helpful to find a copy of that too.) I think it'd be great if there was a new critical edition of the pamphlet wars, that included all the Martinist and anti-Martinist pamphlets, the Nashe-Harvey pamphlet wars, and probably also in the same collection all the pamphlets about the astrological predictions for 1588. I think if we were able to read these all, chronologically, in a critical edition, a lot of obscure things would become more clear.

[@DrWrapperband]

Robert's book is amazing. The only head ache was loosing your place with ~3300 pages .....

[@ronroffel1462]

Hi Phoebe, thanks for the nice reply. I always look forward to your views and information at the Blue Boar Tavern. Unfortunately I had to miss the last third of the latest episode due to technical problems with our internet connection. Imagine having fibre optic cables running all over the city, yet the service still craps out on the majority of people here and you get what we go through. The boxes attached to the cable does not know how to communicate very well with each other. I hope that for the next meet up, I don't have that problem. Back to the latest BBT. I agree with you that Bacon cold not have been the author. My principal reason is that he did not have the skill with words nor did he have the time. He was too busy being a lawyer, amateur scientist, and all-around schemer to devote any time to writing plays. He never had the strong connections that de Vere had to writers or the theater. His writing style is vastly different than what is found in the works. There is a host of other reasons but Baconians approach their man with the same quasi-religious fervour that Stratfordians have, so it is nearly impossible to get them to understand why they are on the wrong track. Anyways, have a super rest of the day and stay safe.

[@MrMjolnir69]

You mean losing your place. Oxford would insist.

[@Nope.Unknown]

This is probably nothing, but I noticed Robert, Thomas, and William are the names of the Cecil's that Oxford grew up with. ROBERT Green, THOMAS Nash, and WILLIAM Shake-speare. Probably a coincidence, but hey I noticed it and thought I'd share.

[@phoebenir7093]

Cool

[@gregrice1354]

Thanks Phoebe for introducing us to Mr. Prechter's invaluable work. It is as exciting as finding Indiana Jones has been archiving the live and artefacts of the secret, original creator of the works known as "Shakespeare's".

[@phoebe_devere]

I so agree!! Thanks for watching :)

[@MundaSquire]

This hypothesis also explains why Oxford had to disappear behind a pseudonym. As a propagandist for the queen and the nobility, the ordering system of Elizabethan England and before down to William the Conquerer, and to create the impression that England was a new pinnacle like the high points of ancient Greece and Rome, exposure would blow the whole project. Preacher also mentions both Ovid who, DeVere loved (and didn't he translate Metamorphosis in his younger years?), along with DeVere's self comparison to Pallas in the work Lea work Pretcher ciites (a correlation shown soundly by his contemporaries by Alexander Waugh). The growing abundance of various clues as to De Vere being Shakes-peare are too overwhelming to dismiss by any serious scholar, literary or historical.

[@wynnsimpson]

It makes sense that young Devere was learning about the concept of the pseudonym at such a young age. Perhaps one of the actors in his father’s Acting Troupe mentioned it to him. Maybe it was Yorick!

[@driftlessbooksandmusic4217]

Great Work!

[@phoebenir7093]

Thanks man!

[@Nope.Unknown]

Is there a part 2?

[@phoebe_devere]

Coming this week

[@Nope.Unknown]

Yay!! Thank you!! This is just wonderful. I also just purchased Oxford's Voices and I am just riveted! Thank you for putting this on KZbin!

[@phoebe_devere]

@@Nope.Unknown amazing!!

[@Nope.Unknown]

😢 I can't find it ​@@phoebe_devere

[@michaelstepniewski6834]

Great interview! Robert Prechter's work is full of marvels. I think Oxford-Seymour Theory can answer questions on the strange pamphlets concerning "Monstrous Fourmes and Shapes" of infants (and pigs too) that appeared between 1562 and 1603. Oxford was 'converted' at some point in 1550 from Edward Tudor-Seymour, son of Elizabeth Tudor and Thomas Seymour (St Maur), to 'de Vere'. He became a monster -- literally a 'Maur-EO'. Check out the better Latin Dictionaries; (Latin) Morio is defined 'an arrant fool', and 'a monster, a deformed person'. Oxford is enjoying a little interlingual wordplay on his proper surname. This Latin Morio explains "Hamlet" (The Fool), as well as these monstrous births. In 1562, Oxford would become 14 years old; so he's older than many think.

[@michaelstepniewski6834]

Bob discusses this from 12:45 -- 16:45 in this video, and about page 142 in his book.

[@phoebe_devere]

Thanks for watching and commenting :)

[@tomditto3972]

Romeus and Juliet conceivably could have been written by Thomas Sackville or, at least, he could have written the play referenced by the poet as his inspiration for the poem. Here's the discussion: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqqyiXmKpJKonas

[@patricktilton5377]

The link is to this same KZbin video, not to some other one. WTF???

[@Alacrates]

@@patricktilton5377 I mentioned this to Tom, and the video he was intending to link to was "Sabrina Feldman: Discoveries that Change the Future of the Shakespeare Authorship Question" on the Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable channel

[@joecurran2811]

​@@AlacratesThat was a great video

[@mattheweisley8570]

Phoebe, you're too smart to have such lousy acoustics. Hang curtains, put rugs down, and put away the boxes. Give your subject the quality exposition he deserves.

[@wynnsimpson]

Robert: as I listened to your convincing voice I wondered if you found any similar type of juvenile writing BEFORE Young Oxford could possibly have written them. Say 1540 to 1554. (I am reminded that Mozart wrote his first pieces at age 5)

[@phoebe_devere]

Bob says that he thinks de Vere might have written things down that young, but his first publications came at age 10 :)

[@relaxationmeditation499]

You have that beautiful nerd vibe.

[@CharFred-vr1ti]

It's a stretch to say that poem when he was 9 years old was definitely Oxfordian.