Відео

World of Words is a translation dictionary. Only an idiot would take a word nobody understands and translate it to a word he just made up.

Just what system of coordinates was around in 1623?

De Vere lived in the house of William Cecil, who had the most complete garden in England. De Vere had free use of the garden. John Gerald appears to have dedicated his work on botany to De Vere (and Cecil and others). Also he had estates in Warwickshire, so he had direct experience of the flora. Where does Shakespeare demonstrate leather working knowledge that De Vere could not have access to?

​@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 I'll take "Things For Which There Is No Evidence for 100, Alex." No evidence he has the free run of anything, not that Gerarde mentioned any of the peculiar midlands names for flowers Shakespeare used. De Vere was persona non grata at Cecil House after murdering a servant and then accusing Cecil's daughter of cuckolding him, knocking up one of the Queen's ladies, and generally being an all-around shit. Gerarde, who was also one of Cecil's servants, would more likely have dedicated some hemlock or dodgy mushrooms to De Vere.

He'll have his work cut out for him in catching up to Robert Pretcher, who claims that just about everything PUBLISHED within spitting distance of 1604 was actually written by De Vere.

Well he was born before Shaksper.

Most just redate the plays to before Shakespeare died. They explain away the fact that there is no record of any of them being preformed by claiming the names were changed. They explain away the post 1604 contemporary references by claiming that others added them. They have an explanation for everything. What they don't have is any evidence.

There are no composition dates for any Shakespeare plays. All we can say for sure is that each play was written before it was performed and published. Eva Clark Turner in 1929 published a massive volume that dated the plays according to contemporary allusions in the plays themselves. The Stratfordians responded with their own timeline that was based on the need to fit each play within the timeframe allowed by Stratford's life dates, and the need to eliminate De Vere from consideration as Shakespeare. There is no reason to think that any Shakespeare play was written after 1604. The note to the reader in Troilus & Cressida1608 hints that the author is dead, and the dedication of Shake-speares Sonnets 1609 seems to confirm this.

@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 So when Shakespearean scholars include all sorts of contemporary allusions and flat out direct references to things which happened after De Vere died, they're just doing it to rule out De Vere, but when an Oxfordian forgets to mention all of these things that rule out Decomposing De Vere, that's...what?

@@Jeffhowardmeade NO need to wonder ..."what"...when that question has already been answered almost a century ago. You produce some alleged contemporary allusions from your so-called scholars, and I will respond with Eva Clark Turner's explanation for the same references.

@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Measure for Measure, first performed December 26, 1604. De Vere has been dead for six months. The play's mcguffin is a character sentenced to death for knocking up his fiancée to whom he has only been handfasted. The practice of handfasting had been banned in England just that year.

De Vere was dead before half the plays were written, and his surviving work is dreck. Marlowe was dead before most of them were written, and his surviving work is devoid of any humor. Emilia Bassano was a published poet, and her writing is nothing whatsoever like Shakespeare's.

@@Jeffhowardmeade I agree with you generally, but in all honesty you are wholly wrong to assert that Marlowe's work is devoid of humour. Try his translations of Ovid, his Hero & Leander, the Jew of Malta (a black farce in which the only decent people are the Turks, and the Christians come off especially badly as liars & hypocrites - I was almost rolling in the aisles as one anti-Christian joke after another came forth in an excellent production I saw years ago with Ian McDiarmid in the title role), or Tamburlaine, which is Ubu Roi about 400 years before its time.

@@timothyharris4708 A good actor can make any scene funny by playing it that way, but that's different than the author actually writing puns and gags. A cackling Barabas bragging about his evil deeds might have some element of dark humor to it, but he's no Falstaff. Can you imagine Marlowe producing anything like the Dromeos or Bottom?

@@Jeffhowardmeade I am sorry, Caius, but I have to say again that you are wrong, which I don't like doing since I have hitherto respected everything you have written very much. T.S. Eliot (who, so far as I know, had not seen a production of it) remarked that 'The Jew of Malta' was a farce filled with "savage comic humour", as have many reviewers of productions of the play. And it is certainly not a matter of 'good' actors being able to making 'any scene' funny (try doing that with final scene of 'Lear'). The sardonic humour is there on the page when you read the play, as a younger friend of mine, an actor, discovered when he read the play for the first time recently. Have you actually read it? And, no, I can't imagine Marlowe producing anything like the Dromeos or Bottom, since his darkly sardonic intelligence, temperament, and sense of humour are radically unlike Shakespeare's. There really are more ways than one of being funny. I am a great admirer of both Marlowe & Shakespeare for their very different gifts and achievements, and see no reason to denigrate one in favour of the other, or to make the not very logical claim that because Marlowe didn't create a Bottom or a Falstaff, he lacked a sense of humour.

@@Jeffhowardmeade 'All this might suggest an uncomfortable evening in store, but with Marlowe such expectations are there to be upended, and this toxic cocktail of alienation and murder is laced throughout with deadpan black comedy.' From a review by Michael Billington in the Guardian.

"...and they also never mention that aspiring female playwrights at that time had one major/crucial additional reason to hide behind a collective or singular pseudonym: women were not permitted to write plays!" Do you have any evidence that women were not permitted to write plays?

​@@NullifidianOh boy - there is just so much overwhelming evidence that women were only allowed to translate plays or be closet playwrights - just as they were not permitted to play female roles. I can't spend my time summarizing a ton of material that you don't appear to have spent time researching yourself. Women like Amelia Bassano and Mary Sidney(who translated plays) were well capable of writing great plays but didn't or didn't dare have any plays they may have written performed in public using their own name or a female name. Paul G

@@EVUK-bd2vn "I can't spend my time summarizing a ton of material that you don't appear to have spent time researching yourself." You don't have to summarize "a ton of material". All you have to do is do two things: point to the standing rule that prevented women from writing plays, and then show that they wrote plays anyway for the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men. As for my knowledge of the subject, I've spent most of my life reading the works of early modern playwrights. I started on Shakespeare when I was eight and branched out to his early modern contemporaries at the age of thirteen, which was thirty years ago. I've been aware of Shakespeare authorship denial arguments nearly as long, having participated when I was in high school and college at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. Though I wasn't interested in authorship, I couldn't help but see that all of the anti-Shakespearian arguments were debunked at length with specific evidence and solid reasoning. The upshot of all this is that there is hardly anything you could tell me about the early modern period and its theatre that I don't know, either in terms of _real_ scholarship about the era or anti-Shakespearian pseudo-scholarship. Your argument seems to be that women could have written the Shakespeare corpus precisely because they were allegedly 'prevented' from doing so. But that's a completely bass-ackwards way of looking at things. If women were 'prevented' from writing plays, that's a good argument for concluding that they *DIDN'T* , and that the more likely author of Shakespeare's works was a man. And when you reflect on the fact that every single canonical work that contained an author's name was attributed to William Shakespeare, that William Shakespeare was an actor and sharer with the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men (which was the company identified as performing all of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare on the title pages of the quartos) and that the author was identified as an actor, that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was a gentleman (the *ONLY* armigerous gentleman of that name in the country at the time) and that the author was also identified as a gentleman and associated with Stratford and the Avon, the identity of the man in question becomes an easy one to solve. Also, the fact that you concede that women could write closet-dramas and do translations of foreign-language plays also militates against the claim that they wrote the works of Shakespeare, since even if they had some ridiculously anachronistic notion that *ONLY* writing drama would fulfill their need for self-expression-even though plays were *NOT* regarded as important literary works in Shakespeare's time-they had viable outlets for that self-expression without having to go through the additional trouble of writing for the public theatres. It's not like today when actors are cast *AFTER* the play is written and brought together for the specific needs of the play. Rather, they had pre-existing theatre companies of differing sizes and strengths all around London and the playwrights had to work with the strengths and weaknesses of the specific companies in mind. You had to leave enough space for the doubling and tripling of roles, and write enough dialogue to cover the necessary costume changes, you had to write around the specific properties that the theatre owned, around the structure of the stage (e.g., whether it was tiered with an upper balcony, whether there was a trap door below, etc.), and write to the specific skills and physical types of the individual actors. With closet-dramas, none of this was necessary. So why would women, who allegedly weren't allowed to write plays for the public theatres anyway, but who *COULD* write closet-dramas, give themselves the trouble of writing for the public theatre when closet-dramas were both more prestigious and far easier to write?

Thanks for the recommendation. Just ordered a copy of Coghill's book.

@@Jeffhowardmeade I shall be interested to know what you think of Coghill's book. It's years since I read it. I was a student of Nevil Coghill and was directed by him. Unlike so many critics who treat the play as if it were a nineteenth century novel, Nevil analyses it asa play.

Yes, it says you've bought into bullshit. There is no evidence at all that William Shakespeare's children were illiterate, and there is as much evidence as anyone could reasonably ask for that Susanna Hall, Shakespeare's eldest daughter, was profoundly literate: there are two extant signatures from her, there is an account of her correctly describing a book belonging to her husband as a "book of physic" even though it was in Latin, she likely wrote her mother's epitaph, and her own epitaph calls her "witty [i.e., learned] above her sex". However, even if his children were both provably illiterate, all it would mean was that Shakespeare was a man of his time and didn't rate female education that highly. John Milton trained his daughters to read to him in various languages, including Latin, Greek, and English, but he never taught them how to understand what they were reading. Does his neglect of his daughters' literacy mean that he couldn't have written _Paradise Lost_ ? Not that it's apparent what Shakespeare could have done all the way from London to help his daughters' literacy. Was he supposed to tutor them via Skype?

You can find all of our scholarships here: www.brunel.ac.uk/scholarships. However, many other scholarships offered by foundations, companies, government organisations, etc. are not listed here. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our scholarship team directly at scholarships@brunel.ac.uk.