Lets start by ending the devastating academic long-term failure and by putting the Shakespeare Marlowe authorship thesis
to the test.
The true Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe
It is neither a possible, nor a plausible, nor a probable or a certain option, that within a few years 4 "King Edward" historical plays were composed in London in a similar diction by 4 outstanding dramatists (Peele, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Heywood) with no established evidence of a personal connection.
Lets start by ending the devastating academic long-term failure and by putting the Shakespeare Marlowe authorship thesis
to the test.
Hallo Alexander Thom
I am an old retired Professor for Neuroscience from Munich and wrote a german book (after 10 years of reading and studies) on the Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship thesis . Unfortunately I couldn’t find an english Publisher, since I was regarded (up to now) as a conspiracy ideologist. At least, I lately fabricated a short english Summary of the book.(Video youtube)
With great interest I read your contribution on „banishment as a romance“ on the website „Before Shakespeare“ . I suppose it‘s a base of your upcoming PhD „Bodies of Law: Banishment, Marriage, and Sovereign Power in Shakespeare’s Plays“.
The reason of my letter is a question:
What may be the reason, that in your essay on "Banishment in Shakespeares time" you totally neglegt (or deny?) the Marlowe / Shakespeare thesis, even though banishment, exile, disgrace , loss of identity etc. is a crucial element not only in Marlowe/Shakespeare‘s work but also in other poets or playwrights works ( best explainable as contemporary pseudonyms) such as, Drayton(1), Griffin (2) Ford (3) Shake-speare(4) and many more
Is the Marlowe/Shakespeare authorship thesis (also to you, belonging to a younger generation) total nonsense?
…so that it is advisable for you, not to answer a mentally confused one (as 99 % of all british intellectuals do)
Bastian Conrad (Prof.emeritus)
Michael Drayton (1) Bartholomew Griffin (2) John Ford (3) William Shakespeare. (4)
B.Griffin's Fidessa by Marlowe alias Shakespeare - Duration: 10 minutes.
Short Rationale why B.Griffins Sonnet Sequence "Fidessa" 1596 must have been written by Christopher Marlowe alias Shake-speare alias Barnfield alias Heywood etc. As absurd as it may sound!!
Published on 4 Jan 2018
Some 30 Arguments (a compilation of 6 videos) why Michael Drayton should belong - analogous to Shake-speare, Chapman, Davies(twice) and others - to the multiple pseudonyms of the true poet genius Christopher Marlowe.
Be warned: A complex literary-historical authorship affair!
This video contribution was consciously decelerated by the music.
(523)Why Marlowe would choose to use so many aliases, why not just stick with 'William Shakespeare' ?
:An attempt to give a short answer to a significant question, most often asked:
There are compelling reasons to assume that long before Marlowe's alleged death in 1593, from probably the very early beginnings of his writings, he must have been accustomed and was thus early prepared to write under false names, i.e. anonymously, pseudonymously, or with unidentifiable initials under a state of disguised identity. He must have wished (and was forced) to remain and write anonymously for various reason, not the least because of his (too) liberal or radical or progressive thoughts in matters of religion, social issues, ethics as well as because of his critics on public figures, opinions, books etc. - He was light years ahead of his time. -
To Marlowes early pseudo- or pennames, prior to his official death, one can safely count George Wither (e.g. "An ABC for Laymen" 1585/1588), Nicholas Breton ,William Gager ("Meleager"), William Basse , George Puttenham ..("The Arte of Poesie" and others. - Otherwise, it is literally impossible to explain why not a single literary work of Marlowe/Shakespeare was printed prior to his demise / or Shakespeare's rise in 1593, in Marlowes 30th year of life (exception: anonymous Tamburlaine 1590).
It is unthinkable and can literally be ruled out, that Marlowe/Shakespeare (of the same age!) between 1573 and 1593 have not spoken literally in many ways in their early most creative phase of life. - Consider that average life expectancy was not even 50 at that time! ......it is virtually impossible that the literary prolific creativity of the "true" Shakespeare genius within his first 30 years of life was Zero and consisted of no diversity of printed "literary Genres" at all (See: The Shakespeare Authorship : An Unsolicited Question - ref. )
Probably most people have no ideas of the dimensions, the earliness and immensity of Marlowes/ Shakespeares knowledge, of his power of comprehension, of his memory capacities, of his unimaginable speed of writing and thinking productivity, his dialogic language abilities or his elocutionary language skills, etc., i.e. his overwhelming creativity....
.....similar to a musical genius like Mozart, who wrote his first Piano Concert at the Age of 12. - KV37 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xFmod_Aazf0 and composed the Great symphony 36 (kv425) on transit within a prolonged weekend 1783 in the austrian City of Linz, when he and his wife had to interrupt their traveling between Salzburg and Vienna because of bad wether... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t7dWkI9H9fw
At the Elisabethan age crimes that threatened the social order were considered extremely dangerous offenses. They included not only heresy, but also treason, ( "Marlowes Dutch Libels.) which challenged the legitimate government and crown. Those convicted of these crimes (or threatened, such as Marlowe...he was advised and supported by Cecil to disappear by feigning his death) since by the law they had to expect the harshest punishment. Execution methods for the most serious crimes were designed to be as gruesome as possible....
Anonymity was necessary in those times, but not easy to achieve and often fraught with. It required "unlinkability", such that an attacker's examination of the pseudonym holder's message provided no information about the holder's true name or location.
It was by no means primarily the literary anonymity of Marlowe as a poet, under which he suffered from, (he very early on was accustomed to it!) but from his total banishment from society, from court and nobility ( since June 1593) and from his permanent and complete loss of reputation and identity, from his social isolation, his living in obscurity. - His formal extinction meant that he could never hope for a pardon under an earlier identity. He felt bound by his oath to William Cecil (See Hamlet Ghost Scene) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cWWyZaUKPmw
His "crime" (treason, rebellion, sedition) was atoned for by his formal death .... It was rather his reputation murder.....the absolute necessity to exist and remain incognito in seclusion....never to be recognized under any circumstances,
There is virtually no evidence that anyone during his lifetime knew of a poet Shakspere (Stratford), or of the fact that the Stratford person was the poet of Hamlet, Romeo & Julia, or King Lear. The idea of a fusion ( conflation?) of Shakspere and Shakespeare was explicitly invented or created for posterity, a construction of (for) his poetic aftermath ...
The ingenious trick of hiding behind the name of a single living (paid) person (such as Shakspere/Stratford) or deceased persons or invented names (e.g. John Overbury, Robert Southwell, Michael Drayton, George Chapman etc.) would have had the consequence, (as soon as somebody started looking for a singular person) of detecting the deceit sooner or later. ....this could only or best be prevented by a multiplicity of pseudonyms, but also by various other (also ingenious) tricks of multi-pseudonymities, e.g. by double names ( Sir John Davies/John Davies of Hereford --- or John Fletcher/Phineas Fletcher), by double authors Beaumont/Fletcher...and so on....
Consider, that half of Shakespeares plays (18) were printed only after his death, and not known before... of the other half 50% were printed anonymously thus only a quarter known under Shakepeare / Shake-speare....
This fact alone indicates the necessity that the recognizability of his person was prevented and had to be prevented by all circumstances!
If all 36 pieces of the First Folio and many more ( attributed to other fictious poets) had been printed under the name of William Shakespeare, there could or would soon have been a growing interest in getting a hunt for this person .... Under no circumstances could that happen ....It would have revealed the plot, the real conspiracy,....( Consider: its no conspiratory theory...)
Marlowe was considered to be dead, to be extinguished, and precisely at the time of his death (1593) a dramatist mockup Shakspere was created as a new poetical implemention....
There are several impressive literary sources, that later on Marlowe/Shakespeare, after his "Invention" to create a "living pseudonym Shake-speare", was very dissatisfied with that invention ( e.g.Typographie s.argument 24, Drayton https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3nZFlC4Gy2Q )
And there is another quite different chain of (backward) reasoning or argumentation to answer the variations of the basic question....
1 Why Marlowe would choose to use so many aliases?
2 Why not just stick with 'William Shakespeare' ?
(The sheer number of alleged aliases is unlikely -)
3 Why this huge quantity of pseudonyms ?
4 Was that really necessary for Marlowe?
We only get in the situation to answer the sheer scale of unresolved questions, uninterpretable literary Texts and inconsistencies (See John Ford as an example. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRdNU6GJc4) of so many contemporary authors ( such as Shakespeare, Basse, Wither, Drayton Chapman, Heywood, Barnfield, Taylor etc.) regarding the true poetical genius, if we presuppose the assumption of a multiple pseudonymity, which alone can resolve the Shakespeare authorship controversy.
This assumption is in strong contrast to the bizarre fact that more and more Shakespeare experts are now absurdly assuming that Shakespeare wrote in a team with co-authors.https://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/shakespeares-plays/shakespeares-collaborations/
Otherwise, we drown into a swamp of „unscientificness", or myth and stagnation....why a global collective intelligence up to now (>400 years) was not able to reach some progress to resolve a clearly existent authorship problem?
This YouTube contribution continues to argue (part 5 Arguments 21 to 25 ) why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 21 RA Robert Allot Robert Armin
Argument 22 Frederick Fleay
Argument 23 Thomas Vicars
Argument 24 George Wither
Argument 25 Peter Heylin
This YouTube contribution continues to argue (part 4 Arguments 16 to 20 ) why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 16 The Owle
Argument 17 Matilda
Argument 18 Henry Chettle
Argument 19 Wits recreations
Argument 20 John Weever
This YouTube contribution continues to argue (part 3 Arguments 11 to 15) why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 11 Sweet Swan of Avon
Argument 12 Drayton is Outing himself
Argument 13 Draytons Marigold
Argument 14 The obscure Francis Meres
Argument 15 Paymemts only to Drayton
This YouTube contribution continues to argue (part 2 Arguments 6 to10 ) why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 6 Endimion the perpetual sleeper
Argument 7 Drayton meets Shaksper
Argument 8 The scribe of Shakspers will
Argument 9 Shakspers Son in Law
Argument 10 Marginal poets pseudonyms.
Dishonest Frank Günther meets most criteria to discredit Non-Stratfordians and their arguments that someone other than William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him.
On August 12, 2017, the German cultural journalist and freelance author Bernd Noack interviewed the German Shakespeare translator Frank Günther in the Neue Züricher Zeitung (NZZ) on the occasion of the completion of his last translation "Perikles", entitled "The Happiness of the Conquest of the Texts" of his complete translations of all Shakespeare's Plays.I am referring to 2 questions only
Noack:[Translation] There is little information about Shakespeare's life, and there is still a doubt that he wrote the huge work of his own. Have you approached him, and perhaps see through Shakespeares game?
Günther:[ Translation] The Thesis "Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare" is an absurd conspiracy theory, one of the oldest, there is, and that does not interest me at all. Because it's nonsense.
But Shakespeare is as strange to me today and as far away and unrecognizable as it was. He withdraws completely behind his plays, and that is actually the ideal attitude for an author: He is not at all present. He lets his staff act and construct the conflicts between the characters so that one has the impression that the whole is generated by itself. As in the real world. It is never thought that someone takes an instruction and carries it out, but the characters tell the story itself by talking to each other. That is why the author, the Demiurg, completely disappears behind his texts and persons, and one never gets to know him. Unlike Brecht's: after the second piece, you think you already have a good understanding. Shakespeare, on the other hand, is a fog.
Noack: Is not that frustrating?
Günther: No, not at all. You do not have to worry about biographical nonsense: that's what he wrote for that reason, out of that mood. It is said that the author's life can be read in the plays, and that they can only be understood if one knows what he had in the year for a disease - all this plays no role.!
Why, for Gods sake , Günther hadn't the slightest idea of a need to question his own observations. What may be the reason, that the poet and human being "Shakespeare" is to him as strange and far away and unrecognizable as ever? Is Shakespeare really retreating behind his plays? Why is William not present ? Why does not Günther get to know Shakespeare? and so on and so on ....
Could not Günthers fatal attitude "without any scientific curiosity" be related to his total lack of imagination of an authorship problem?
Original German text
Noack: Über Shakespeares Leben gibt es wenig Informationen, und es bestehen nach wie vor Zweifel daran, dass er das riesige Werk selber geschrieben hat. Sind Sie ihm näher und vielleicht sogar auf die Schliche gekommen?
Günther: Die «Shakespeare schrieb nicht Shakespeare»-Behauptung ist eine absurde Verschwörungstheorie, eine der ältesten, die es gibt, und das interessiert mich überhaupt nicht. Weil's Quatsch ist.
Aber Shakespeare ist mir heute tatsächlich genauso fremd und fern und unerkennbar, wie er es war. Er zieht sich völlig hinter seine Stücke zurück, und das ist eigentlich die ideale Haltung für einen Autor: Er ist gar nicht vorhanden. Er lässt sein Personal agieren und konstruiert die Konflikte zwischen den Figuren so, dass man den Eindruck hat, das Ganze generiere sich aus sich selbst. Wie in der wirklichen Welt eigentlich. Nie meint man, dass einen da einer belehrend an die Hand nimmt und durchführt, sondern die Figuren erzählen die Geschichte selber, indem sie miteinander reden. Deswegen verschwindet der Autor, der Demiurg, gänzlich hinter seinen Texten und Personen, und man lernt ihn niemals kennen. Anders als etwa bei Brecht: Den meint man nach dem zweiten Stück doch schon gut begriffen zu haben. Shakespeare dagegen ist ein Nebel.
Noack: Ist das nicht frustrierend?
Günther: Nein, überhaupt nicht. Man muss sich nicht um biografischen Unsinn kümmern: Das hat er aus diesem Grund, aus jener Stimmung heraus geschrieben. Man meint ja, das Leben des Autors könne man in den Stücken lesen und diese verstehe man erst, wenn man wisse, was er in dem Jahr für eine Krankheit hatte – das fällt hier alles flach!
Early on, the poet Michael Drayton, has been considered a pioneer of the sonneteering obsession in Elisabethan England, with significant influences on Shake-speare’s(!) Sonnets.
This own YouTube contribution argues (first 5 Arguments - part 1/of 6) why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 1 The missing Overlap
Argument 2 The Authors Sacrifice
Argument 3 His first Death
Argument 4 Marlowes Gaveston
Argument 5 Eloquent GHaveston
(516) Kastans refreshing, but unimaginative interests in the well-known grotesque facts about Shakespeare's will...
It does not need any age, it requires only
an inner arch-conservative (Stratfordian) unscientific attitude!
(515) Why the most renowned contempory writers didn't start their literary career in Shakespeare's first 3 decades of life (1563-1593) but only after Marlowes death?
The poets William Shakspeare, George Chapman, Michael Drayton, Thomas Heywood, Gervase Markham, Richard Barnfield and the "strange double" of John Davies started their literary career only after Londons greatest poet Genius and dramatist Marlowe had disappeared in 1593!
Is this pure coincidence or is there any plausible explanation?
Be aware that you cannot expect a reasonable answer from the "Stratfordian" Shakespeare Academe.
This Video contribution highlights some arguments why the first two alleged printed literary works of William Shakspeare (Stratford) "Venus & Adonis" (op.1 - 1593) and "Lucrece" (op.2 - 1594) have been written by Christopher Marlowe.
Conclusive Arguments of the Video:
There is no plausible motive for Shakspere (Stratford), to announce the beginning of his literary career (op.1)
"Venus&Adonis" with the last lines of´ Ovid's Elegy 15, dealing with the last things, the death, and the immortality
of the deceased Poet, - It fits, however, perfectly, with Christopher Marlowes literary restartafter his disappearance in 1593
Similar in "Lucrece", there is no identifiable motive for Shakspere (Stratford), to start his literary career with the parable of Tarquins misconduct against mythical "Lucrece" (op.2) matching however, with Christopher Marlowe's literary restart after his disappearance in 1593.
(513) Unnoticed handwriting / signature of Christopher Marlowe, 18 days prior to his alleged murder?
In the Collection items of the British Library you may read some interesting handwritten material related to the well known accusations against Christopher Marlowe by Richard Baines and others. (The Harley Manuscript 6484)
On a paper sheet between two pages numbered by pencil 189/190, you detect a short handwritten "2-part note" dated 12 May 1593, [ 18 days prior to Marlowe’s alleged murther]
The first part of this note (Black ink) dealing with the contents of Thomas Kyds heretical conceits………….
The second part (Brown ink, added later) deals with the possible origin of the conceits by Marlowe, the total notes ressembling Marlowes handwriting and his single existing signature.
No-one can seriously assume, that the Plays of Prince Hamlet and Dr. Faustus are pure literary fiction: They contain significant autobiographical connections to the "true" Shakespeare [alias Marlowe] which could never even partially be established between Hamlet and Shakspeare(Stratford)
"Doktor Faustus" (The play, by C.Marlowe ) ....was performed in London prior to 1593 and staged successfully 25 times between 1594 and 1597. A modified textual revival after 1602 was printed for the first time in 1604.
"Hamlet"(The play, by W.Shakespeare) . There are no references to early performances of Hamlet in London. Surviving texts suggest that the author added passages, after the play had been in performance for a while, prior to 1600.It was first printed in 1603(Q1) and a second time in 1604(Q2) after a considerable revision of the text.
The conclusion of the Video : Marlowe in 1616 "officially" dead for almost 25 years, was alive!
There are no reason or motives why the B-Text (Faustus) was kept under lock for a quarter of a century and who else but the author himself coulrd have added such late significant "biographical" information in view of the proximate death of his "literary dummy" "Shakspeare" from Stratford.
Denying the [virtually unimaginable] possibility of Shakespeare having been a [Pen]Name of Marlowe as taken from a "real" provincial Stratford frontman will for ever prevent a plausible solution of the century old unspeakable Shakespeareauthorship controversy.
Prof. Bate fulfills all criteria (s.Video1) for an orthodox academic Stratfordian Grandmaster
or horrendous ham actor to discredit a serious authorship problem.
He deals with authorship key questions (s.Video2) as if they were non-existent!
A paid stirrup holder of the SBT?
Jennifer Reid (introducing Prof.Jonathan Bate at the beginning of the Video by saying...)
Quote: "I am here today with Jonathan to talk about the authorship question. So we'd like to adress the question about the authorship in Person ....-
....and put it to bed once and for all "
Jonathan Bate concluded the Q&A game by saying:
Quote: "so in a way the authorship controversy emerged out of a kind of disappointment that the hard evidence of the documents didn't quite have the colour and the glamour to go with the idea that Shakespeare as the quintessential Genius
I think by the later 20th century the phenomenon, the controversy was dying away..- But then of course, with the advent of the Internet, it came back in a big way, because marvellous thing that the Internet is, the problem is, that there isn't a sort of a system of independent verification where you can discover which websites are actually based on evidence and which are based on conspiracy theory. So I am afraid it's not going to go away. But from our point of view, from the point we feel on the basis of the evidence we have laid out, other evidence thats available in a nummber of books [that we'll be listing on the Course site] the matter is settled.-
(510)American theologian Peter Leithart and his antique, outdated(?) knowledge on Shakespeare's authorship!
In 21.03.2017 Wesley Callihan discussed with Peter Leithart the question: Did Shakespeare actually write the great Shakespeare plays?
Does Peter J. Leithart (born 1959) American author, minister, theologian and president of Theopolis Institute for Biblical, Liturgical, & Cultural Studies in Birmingham, Alabama have an own substantiated opinion on the Shakespeare authorship problem ?
Is it significant that he doesn't mention Marlowe once?
the debate is only just beginning
Baconian Rick Wagner's second Episode......arguing strongly against William of Stratford.-
How strongly will he argue for Francis Bacon in the 3rd or 4th Episode?
Click here to edit.
At the 2014 Shakespeare Authorship Trust (SAT) conference Ros Barber gave a lecture on the background sources Shakespeare probably used when writing "Measure for Measure!, based on arguments and counterarguments of Georges Lampin and H.N.Gibson.
Astounding informations (similarities of names and data ) support the idea that the true Shakespeare knew about events 1582 in Paris (The Claude Tonart Case) but under no circumstances William of Stratford.-
It is astonishing, that the former Marlowian seems more interested in some literary sources of the play than in more impressive intrinsic contextual evidences of autobiographical aspects of Marlowes feigned death.
(506) Shakespeare crackpot: How Keir Cutler came to learn of Mark Twains book:"Is Shakespeare dead?"
Feel free to form your own opinion!!
Keir Cutler, a Canadian actor, writer, director and scholar is taking a look back at his long period of being a believer in the "crackpot" conspiracy theory that Shakspeare (Stratford) did not write the Plays of Shakespeare
Unfortunaly he does not take a firm view about the "true" Shakespeare
and rejects the Marlowe/Shakespeare Idea.
Drayton, as Shakespeare, belong to the many pennames of Marlowe
Unbelievable, ridiculous ! - I know, but the most plausible solution !
Francis Meres "Palladis Tamia" (1598) Michael Draytons Poly-Olbion (1612)
Francis Meres in Palladis Tamia, in 1598 gave details (Geographical and Hydrographicall of all the forests, woods, mountaines, fountaines, rivers, lakes flouds, bathes and springs that be in England) of an enlish Poem in Verse called Polu-olbion by Michael Drayton.
How can it be that Meres knew 14 years in advance about details of the Project of Michael Drayton?
Poly-Olbion appeared for the first time in 1612.
Michael Drayton belongs to the many pennames of Marlowe alias the true Shakespeare!
For a detailed understanding, see Video .-
"There is a closer, fuller, more vital and more detailed connexion between the work of Lyly and Shakespeare than has hitherto been shown" (RW Bond)
Similar to Shakspere (Stratford) it is by no means certain that a John Lyly is identical with the author (John Lylie) of Campaspe, Sapho, Endymion, Midas Galathea "Woman in the moon , (written in the 15eighties, a period, when Marlowe/ Shakespeare were grown-up, but literary silent....)
Richard W.Bond- "called attention not only to some general points of practice, wherin Lyly set the example to Shakespeare, but also to great many Shakespeare parallels of phrase or idea" ...He made "no doubt that the great majority of such are cases of imitation, adaptation, or unconscious reminiscence by Shakespeare," which were not of "mere coincidence".-
Euphism (expression invented by Harvey, 1589), defines a literary phenomenon or style of very peculiar character which had a great influence on the literature and the conversation language of the Elizabethan period in the 1580s..
The means used by Euphism basically are to increase the emphasis. At first among them is the use of Antithesis (alternate hypothesis, dialectics, contraries, opposite)
K.Kneile concluded in his studies on John Lyly that he perfected the distinctive rhetorical devices on which the style was based. His “Euphues, the anatomy of wyt"” you may name a constant great forth ongoing Antithesis. It includes all forms, from the simplest to the most complicated. One, and more often two, three, or more words in the same sentences are parallel in position and grammatical function .
It can be stated, that Marlowe was the greatest master of the antithesis ,
Oxfordian Richard Malim wrote in Brief Chronicles VII (2016) an article „Oxford and The Arte of English Poesie“. One can agree that the anonymous author of the „The Arte of English Poesie" [s.Faksimile, 1589] cannot have been a certain George Puttenham !
(s. Blogs - 254 - / - 333 -).
Malim points to interesting parallels of similar wordings and idioms between „The Arte“ and „Shakespeare‘s work“, which – I agree - by no means can have occured purely accidental. - But how to explain the contextual connections between both ? Malims bizarre conclusion is that the dating of Shakespeare’s works must have been prior to 1589, because Puttenham already quoted Shakespeare (1589) , and that this rules out the Stratfordman as the author of the plays.
Malims final conclusion: „These examples [of wordings] are a small fraction of those available whereby Puttenham’s quotations can be seen to be taken from works (…) written and in circulation before Puttenham’s publication date of 1589. Puttenham therefore provides vital pieces of evidence for the dating of works, and these rule out William Shakspere of Stratford-Upon-Avon as the author.“ [thus .... are in favor of the Earl of Oxford]
Should'nt Malim last sentence be: "The parallels of some wordings and idioms in the "Arte" 1589 compared to Shakespeares later works manifest the early genuine inner richness of the "conceptual literary" brain of the "true" poet Genius Shakespeare", whoever he was.
Is it conceivable that at the literary climax of Shakespeare/Marlowe [see--> Marlowe/ alias Shakespeare Thesis] both in his 25th year of life (1589), an unknown author Puttenham wrote nothing else [-->one exception] than this high profile essay on "The Arte of English Poesie?"
If the "The Arte", is exhibiting such powerful parallels with the language displayed in Shakespeare's plays, is'nt it much more likely, that its anonymous author must be identified as the greatest english poet Genius? Is there any reason that speaks against it?
The english Blog (first 220 entries) available as kindle E-Book
Marlowe equals Shakespeare
Buchkritik im Internet
Peter von Becker
→Zeitzeichen WDR / NDR/ SR.
Zum Bearbeiten hier klicken.