Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Alive: The case for Edward de Vere

I've been taking a break from energy and physics, and delving into the topic that caused me to pick the pen name that I did for this blog: Eddie Devere.
Yes, this is a play off of the names  Eddie Vedder and Edward de Vere, two artists I admire greatly.
I was caused to delve into the Shake-Spear authorship question by a friendly email from Alan Tarica, who sent me a link to a website (Forgotten Secrets) he created in which all 154 of William Shake-Speare's Sonnets are available to read, along with Alan's comments. While there's a lot to read, Alan makes a very convincing case that the Sonnets are written by Edward de Vere, and that the sonnets are written to Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Southhamption, who is likely the son of Edward de Vere and Queen Elizabeth.  While personally think that there's still some debate as to whether the Earl of Southhamption was the bastard child of Edward de Vere and Queen Elizabeth, I have virtually no doubt that  Edward de Vere used the pen name William Shake-Speare. The goal of this blog is to give a summary of the main arguments why Edward de Vere is the actual author of the sonnets, narrative poems, and plays that were written under the pen name William Shake-Spear.


Trying to determine who is the author of these sonnets, narrative poems, and plays is like going down the rabbit hole or getting stuck in the Matrix. It's easy to get lost in a world of Elizabethian politics, paranoia, and conspiracy theories. But let's not get stuck down in the rabbit's hole.
Let's ask ourselves one simple question: what do famous authors write about?  Answer: they write about what they know best.

What did James Joyce write about? what about Faulkner? Virginia Woolf? They wrote about what they knew best. Ireland, the South, and depressed women.

So, let's look at a few of the many possible authors of the Shake-spear collection:  Francis Bacon, William Shakspear, Edward de Vere, Queen Elizebeth, Christopher Marlowe, and Ben Johnson.

Now let's ask the question: what did Francis Bacon write about? He wrote about science and religion. His most famous text (Novum Organum) is a philosophical text about the methods of science, that is written in bullet format. It's pretty dry, just like Aristotle's lecture notes "The Organum", of which this text is based. Francis Bacon just didn't have the literary skills to write the Shake-spear collection, even though he might have had the education to have done so. 

Now what about William Shakspear? We don't know much about William Shakpeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. But one thing is abundantly clear. William Shakpeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was not capable of writing poems, let alone sign his name. William Shakpeare's will makes it abundantly clear that William Shakpeare is not a world famous playwright. Likely, what happened is that, after the death of William Shakpeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, the local church in  Stratford-upon-Avon tried to make it look like William Shakpeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was William Shake-speare, due to the similarity of the names and the fact that nobody else had stepped forward as the author of the poems and plays.

So, let's once again ask the question: what did Edward de Vere write about? Guess what!  Edward de Vere wrote poems about love and melancholy, and with a lot of references to Greek&Roman mythology. Here's a link to some of the poems. But that's not all. As detailed in a Front Line documentary make in 1989 of the Shake-spear question, it was well known at the time that Edward de Vere wrote under a pen name. (See the end of the following website for quotes from famous writers who list Edward de Vere as an excellent poem and playwright.)


A lot of authors write under pen names. Here's a wiki list of some of the famous ones. Some of the most famous include: Ben Franklin (Richard Saunders of the Poor Richard's Almanac), Mark Twain (Samual Langhorne Clemens), Pablo Neruda, Moliere, Lewis, Carroll, Mary Ann Evans (George Elliot), George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair), Leslie McFarlane (of HardyBoys fame), J.K. Rowling, O. Henry, Isaac Asimov, V. Nabokov, Sylvia Plath, Soren Kierkegaard, Lemony Snicket, Woody Allen, and many, many more.

The assumption should be that the name on a book or play is a pen name, unless there is some direct proof that it's not a pen name. As such, there's no direct proof that William Shakspeare wrote the poems and plays of William Shake-speare. For example, we have no evidence that William Shakspeare could even write; we have no evidence in his will that he wrote poems/plays; and we have virtually no evidence from his original gravestone monument that he wrote plays/poems. (See image below.)



Notice that the image of the original gravestone monument is not the same as the one there today.  The church changed the image in order to make it appear more like the image from the publication of Shake-speare's First Folio of plays (which appears completely fabricated.) My guess (unlike the story told in Anonymous) is that there is no connection between William Shake-speare and William Shakspeare, meaning that William Shakspeare was not a front for Edward de Vere, at first. Perhaps, the similarity of the names caused William Shakspeare to move to London and to become an actor in the hopes of taking advantage of the vacuum in authorship. Not really sure about this. But either William Shakspeare or the Church in Stratford-upon-Avon had the gall to sell the lie, i.e. to sell the lie that a nobody could have written plays that would have required a detailed knowledge of Italy, court politics, Greek & Roman mythology, and legalese. (Note that there have been a lot of genius and you don't have to be aristocracy to be a genius...look at Mozart, Beethoven, Newton, Einstein. But you do have to be the aristocratic Edward de Vere to write Hamlet, Henry III-V, as well as the dedications to "Venus & Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece.")

But in case I have not already convinced you that Edward de Vere wrote the Shake-speare collection, there is still more evidence.
Edward de Vere's uncle (Arthur Golding) was the first person to translate Ovid's Metamorphoses from Latin into English. Arthur Golding also dedicated a work to his nephew and said that his nephew had great promise in "communicat[ing] with others as well the histories of ancient times."

 Funny isn't it. The biggest influence on the Shakespeare narrative poems  "Venus and Adonis"  and  "Rape of Lucrece" was Ovid's Metamorphoses. These poems were written under the pen name William Shake-speare, and dedicated to HenryWriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southhampton.
When "Venus and Adonis" was published in 1593, the Earl of Southhampton was only 20 years old. Why would the 30 year old commoner WIlliam Shakspeare dedicate these poems to the 20 years old Earl of Southhampton? Why would the 30 year old commoner William Shakspeare says in the dedication,

"The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end; whereof this pamphlet, without beginning, is but a superfluous moiety. The warrant I have of your honourable disposition, not the worth of my untutored lines, makes it assured of acceptance. What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours. Were my worth greater, my duty would show greater; meantime, as it is, it is bound to your lordship, to whom I wish long life, still lengthened with all happiness,"

These narrative poems are about sex!!! Likely, the sex between Edward de Vere and whomever is Southhampton's mother. We also know that around 1594, Edward de Vere was actively trying to get the Earl of Southhampton to marry one of his daughters. 

It gets worse.  There is another narrative poem written during this time period and also based off of Ovid's Metamorphoses. There's a poem named "Narcissus" supposedly authored by John Clapham and dedicated it to the Earl of Southampton. Narcissus is a direct reference to a story in Ovid's Metamorphesis. John Clapham was a servant of Lord Burghley. Yup, the same Puritan Lord Burghley who raised Edward de Vere and married his daughter to Edward de Vere.

My guess is that Edward de Vere was writing poems under his own name, but that this upset his adapted father Lord Burghley. As shown in Anonymous, Edward de Vere killed a cook in the servus of Lord Burghley. My guess is that, as payment for killing the cook,  Lord Burghley makes Edward de Vere write under pen names. At first, Edward de Vere uses John Clapham as his front man, but then realizes that nobody in the court buys this bullshit. So, he eventually is forced to write under a pen name. So, he makes one up from scratch.


And it gets better!  Below is a summary of some points made int he following website.

(1) "The poetic form we now call the Shakespearean sonnet was actually invented by Oxford's famous uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey
(2) "John de Vere was the patron of a major acting company called Oxford's Men."
(3) "The Oxfords had three daughters (like King Lear). And those three daughters either married or were proposed for marriage to the only three men to whom the poems and plays of Shakespeare were publicly dedicated: the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke."

In addition, we have found Edward de Vere's copy of the Bible that he marked up. And guess what! Many of lines that are marked in the Bible show up in parts of the plays.

Well, I think that this is more than enough about Shakespeare in one blog post. If you are interested in learning more about the Shaekspeare question, I suggest doing a search down Wikipedia Lane, and perhaps check out the following sites about the Shakespeare Question.
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/peacham-on-oxford/
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/
http://www.bardweb.net/debates.html

Before ending this post, I'd like to point out why  I find the Shakespeare Question so interesting.
The main reason is that solving the Shakespeare question is quite similar to the way that scientists have to settle questions about particle physics and astronomy. There is often conflicting evidence; you always wish that there was more evidence; there are multiple sides to the debate (it's never black and white, with only two sides); the major teams want to act as if there were only two teams (i.e. those who believe in super string theory and all of those silly people who don't.)
Each side gets really angry  (for example, physics blogger Lubos Motl recently compared some other physicists to Nazis just because they questioned the conclusions from inflationists regarding BICEP2 data.) Nazis. Now that's not how to have a real debate.
Watch the Frontline documentary, or other debates regarding the Shakespeare question: people get really angry and dismissive of people on the other side of the people.

My goal with this post is to point out that you need to do your own research. Don't buy whatever the experts are selling just because they are experts. Most of the time they will be right, but some of the time they will be wrong, and will cover up their lies. 

Sometimes, the emperor has no clothes. And the whole thing was a made-up. Thing about Phlogiston, the ether, and super-string theory. Just because an "expert" believes it, doesn't mean it true.

1 comment:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete