Youtube comments of Caius Martius Coriolanus (@Jeffhowardmeade).
-
48
-
15
-
11
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What about Archibald Armstrong, John Weever, Leonard Digges, Thomas Screvins, John Ward, Richard Hunt, William Davenant, Robert Dugdale, John Heminges, John Webster, Robert Greene, Thomas Watson, Francis Beaumont, John Davies, Thomas Freeman, Nicholas Okes, Nathaniel Butter, Edmund Howes, John Stow, William Basse, Hugh Holland, and James Mabbe?
Were they all in on it as well?
3
-
@roberts3784 How do you know he had "...no or little education, owned no books or furniture associated with writing, neither wrote nor received letters? Were you there?
And how can you claim that a guy who was a servant to the Lord Chamberlain, and later to King James, himself, had no entry to Court?
What evidence do you have if him "loan sharking" or being in the grain business?
And do you mean to say that nobody referred to him as a writer except these twenty?
Archibald Armstrong, John Weever, Henry Condell, John Heminges, John Webster, John Stow, Edmund Howes, Richard Hunt, John Ward, John Davies, William Davenant, Nathaniel Butter, Thomas Screvins, Leonard Digges, James Mabbe, Hugh Holland, William Basse, Nicholas Okes, Thomas Freeman, Robert Dugdale, and Ben Jonson.
And those are just the ones who identified the poet in a manner which can only refer to the actor and gentleman from Stratford. Many more referred to the poet by his bleeding name, including calling him "Shaksper" (Edward Alleyn), "Shake-Speare" (Ben Jonson), and "Shakespeare" too many to count.
Soon after he died, his home town erected a monument to him which declared him to be a great poet. What were you expecting? A tweet from King James? Which contemporary poet got the elaborate outpouring of public grief you think a retired theater poet should have received?
And he could write his name just fine. That you can't read 16th Century handwriting is your problem, not his.
3
-
@australianmade2659 And yet every last one of them identified the poet as the gentleman and actor from Stratford. Every one of them, save Robert Greene, did so after De Vere was dead. Thomas Heywood even said the poet was still alive in 1613. This list excludes the many others who identified the poet just by his bleedin name.
The whole "Prince Tudor" nonsense that Oxfordians stole from Baconians was invented to try to explain why do many people would fall all over themselves to hide the authorship of some public entertainments. Without that, the notion that anyone would care to hide the truth, even going so far as to maintain the ruse decades later, even in private notes, and erecting a monument to the front man, is patently absurd.
So how about it? Was everyone secretly hiding the fact that Edward De Vere, and then his son Henry, were the rightful heirs, but simply stood by and watched as the crown passed to a Scotsman? Did they love danger so much that, there being no motorcycles, parachutes, or puffer fish, they instead risked their necks by encoding treason in their publications?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@roberts3784 Interesting, considering that the only such lawsuits are from Stratford when he was living in London, and none involved the charging of interest. Maybe you should look up the term "loan shark".
There are no lawsuits involving the hoarding of grain. His household shows up in a survey of the amounts of grain held, in which he tied for 17th place in Stratford despite having the second largest house. He barely had enough malt to last his own household until the next harvest.
I'm sure you think it's plausible that he was a pimp, because what you think is more important to you than what the evidenced says. What the evidence says is that after the writ was taken out against Shakespeare together with the owner of a local theater named Francis Langley by William Wayte, and William Gardiner, Shakespeare created Shallow, a foolish and corrupt justice of the peace (like Gardiner was), whose coat of arms bore three pike fish, just as Gatdiner's did. Strange coincidence, no? The writ says nothing about Shakespeare threatening violence. It includes stock restraining order verbiage, just as the counter-suit by Langley against Gardiner did.
And Bellot v. Mountjoy involved human trafficking? Seriously? I can't imagine how desperate you must be to square things in your head to come up with that one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rob-vs8ye Depends. Does every documentary hire actors to pretend to be experts and then make false claims? If so, then yes, all docs are fake. If, on the other hand, a doc on astrophysics is hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is an actual astrophysicist, and he stating things which are factually correct, then that would not be fake.
I don't think you're getting the part where Crumpton is not a Shakespeare PhD, and what he is saying is not true. If he were, he would know that Isaac Jaggard's print shop was using type cast in France, where the language has no W. Hence he used two Vs to make uppercase Ws and ran out of those, hence his use of lowercase Vs to make the rest of the Ws in the poem opposite the engraving of Shakespeare. He would not make the claim that printers circa 1623 rarely made typographical errors, when in fact they would make corrections mid print run, but would still use the misprints, which were too valuable to toss. Books printed in the early 17th Century are typically RIDDLED with errors, and were typeset by teams of compositors who often spelled words different ways.
This whole program is faked, right down to Crumpton getting on his flight at Gate 53.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@avlasting3507 "For if any propounde the immortalitie of soules vnto men, not as if it were a true matter, but as a fayned and false thing, which yet they would haue them beleeue as true, to the ende that through the feare of Gods iudgement they might bee kept backe from euill, and lead vnto goodnesse, euerie one may guesse easily, howe men will dispence with themselues, when they once knowe, that whatsoeuer is spoken and propounded vnto them, is but as a scarre-crowe to make them afraide, as wee vse to deale with little children and with birdes by puppets and strawe-men, and such like things."
-- Pierre La Primaudaye, The Academy, Thomas Bowes, translator, 1594
This refers to an actual figure made of straw, as opposed to the rhetorical device (1886), or the front man (1620s).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1