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
The true Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe
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 true "Shakespeare" (alias Marlowe) at the age of 25 used the pseudonym Jane "Anger expressing his "Anger" about the attitude towards the women...
Scholars know virtually nothing about Jane Anger’s life. She is known only as the author of the writing "Protection for Women" (- about 10 pages- 1589 - s.Faksimile). Some scholars have suggested that "Jane Anger" was the peudonym of a male writer. Enzyclopedias tell us that she was an English author of the sixteenth century and the first woman to publish a full-length defense of her gender in English. -
In the late sixteenth century, it must be regarded as exceptional or revolutionary for a women to write and publish on secular, or non-religious, themes and to argue against male supremacy. Anger’s Pamphlet is seen as a response to the male-authored text of Thomas Orwin, "Book His Surfeit in Love." Only one copy of the original pamphlet still exists.
Text parallels between her "Pamphlet" and Breton's "Praise of Vertuous Ladies" have been noted: Comparing parallel passages, it was concluded that Breton copied from Jane Anger and that her texts was Bretons invisible source....
...what applies to Breton [German Subchapter p.548-565 recognizes in Breton a Pseudonym of Shakespeare] applies even more to Shakespeare! The early short text of Jane Anger (J.A.) contains strikingly many parallels to idioms in Shakespeares plays and poems. (read the few subequent examples).
J.A. My rashness deserveth no lesse
Ant & Cleo II/2 …well deserved of rashness
J.A. I will not urge reasons
Richard III… Thou knowst our reason urged upon the war
J.A. For my presumption I crave pardon
Henry VI/3 …Let my presumption not provoke thy wrath, for I am sorry
J.A: the judgment of the cause…
Pericles I/0 the judgment on your eye I give, my cause
Caesar III/2: What cause withhold you then, to mourn for him? Oh judgment
Cymbeline IV/2 for the effect of judgment is oft the cause of fear…
J.A. ..whose tongues can not so soone be wagging
Henry VIII V/3 …and think with wagging of your tongue
J.A. was there ever any so abused
Twelft night IV/2 …there was never a man so notoriously abused
J.A. every blast a whirl-wind puffes
King Lear III/4 …Bless thee from whirlwinds, star-blasting,
J.A. let the stones be as ice
Coriolanus I/1 …coal of fire upon the ice, hailstone in the sun
J.A. …and our honest bashfulness
Midsummer NDr III/2 no modesty no maiden shame, no touch of bashfullness
J.A. dare reprove their (…) false reproaches
Henry V III/6 With edge of penny cord and vile reproach:
J.A. their slanderous tongues are so short
Much Ado V/1 Done to death by slanderous tongues
Lucrece To slanderous tongues and wretched hateful days?
Richard III I/2 To slanderous tongues and wretched hateful days?
MfM III/2 Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue?
King Lear III/2 ….When slanders do not live in tongues,
JA. …and men of dull conceite
Henry VI V/5 …Able to ravish any dull conceit:
J.A. ...we allure their hearts to us …
Cymbeline II/4 Look through a casement to allure false hearts
Passionate Pilgrime…..to allure his eyes; to win his heart
J.A. she loveth justice and hate iniquity
MfM II/1 Which is the wiser here? Justice or Iniquity?
Lucrece For sparing justice feeds iniquity.
J.A. …earnest in reprooving mens filthy vices
MfM II/4 Ha! fie, these filthy vices!
MfM III/2 From such a filthy vice: say to thyself,
J.A. the lion rageth when he is hungry
Henry VI /II V/3 That winter lion, who in rage forgets
J.A. the jade will winch
Hamlet III/2 Let the gall'd jade winch;
J.A. the shamefull lust…
Hamlet I/5 So to seduce!- won to his shameful lust
J.A. …and they railing tongues
As you like it I/1 Thy tongue for saying so. Thou hast rail'd on thyself.
J.A. there is no wisdome but it comes by grace
LLL V/2 Hath wisdom's warrant and the help of school
And wit's own grace to grace a learned fool.
Henry VIII Your grace has given a precedent of wisdom
J.A. out losse creede their gaines
Merchant of Venice II/3 laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains,
J.A. till they never see the death of honestie
Alls well that IV/4…….Let death and honesty go with your impositions,
J.A. serves suspition of the serpents lurking
Henry VI III II/2 Who 'scapes the lurking serpent's mortal sting?
Can anyone really assume that these parallels of idioms happened purely accidental or that Shakespeare borrowed from an unknown woman Jane Anger, to such an extent?
The Shakespeare Authorship controversy has long since reached the Comics literature
The author Yves Sente tells us a strange story that in 1616 Shakespeare didn`t die but faked his death with a false corps laid in his Stratford tomb leaving England to Italy changing his name to Guildo Tremati.-
(500)There is nothing more absurd and devious than to recognize in William Shakspeare (Stratford) the poet who wrote Hamlet.
Conclusion in the end: There is nothing more questionable than an alleged authorship expertise of an academic Shakespeare expert.
It would not have been difficult to add 500 further contributions to this blog. - Because of my advanced age, however, I will [must] now close my activities on the Shakespeare Authorship problem.
In principle it contains 2 separate questions of different difficulty: The first question: "Was it the Stratfordman ?" seems incomparably easier to be answered in the negative than the second question "If not, Who was it then ?"
After 20 years of intensive reading and understanding, doubts about "William Shakspere (Stratford)" as the author of "Hamlet" have never abated but steadily increased. He cannot have been little more than a front for a literary historical conspiracy. It is, under no circumstances, a "conspiracy theory".
There is a genius at work in the "true Shakespeare", but it's not the Stratfordman! It seems not difficult to predict that the Stratford Dogma is not tenable on the long run. The Dogma will become history, sooner or later. It will make room for a paradigm shift as soon as the answer to the second more difficult unthinkable question will prevail: Christopher Marlowe as the single, most plausible solution to the myriad of historical, literary and contextual, pschological, social, forensic, religious, judicial and other inconsistencies.
The authorship issue results from the compelling logic of a complex literary-historical conspiracy problem of an endangered poet-genius, artistically and intellectually [too] far ahead of his time!
Nr.500 !... the Blog to be closed in the near future...
.....by one and the same single concealed author: C.Marlowe alias W.Shakespeare
There are compelling reasons (not described in any more detail) to argue that the male authors (Thomas Tel-troth/ Joseph Swetnam /Anonymous) as well as the three untraceable learned female writers (Speght, Sowernam, Munda) were pseudonyms of a single "concealed" writer Christopher Marlowe (Alias Heywood /Shakespeare a.o.)
The most plausible solution of the genuine Shakespeare authorship controversy is that the true author of "Hamlet" , poet genius Christopher Marlowe, throughout his life (1564-1655) wrote under a multitude of pseudonyms of an unprecedented scale.
Pseudonyms, i.e. fictitious or assumed names (Synonyms: alias, nom de guerre, nom de plume,) are most usually adopted to hide an individual's real identity for various reasons:
a) in Shakespeare’s case perhaps the most important was „fear of persecution“: Any author in the Elisabethan era who committed secret betrayal or confessed confidential state or religious interests or secrets had to fear for his life, faced with a lawsuit and imprisonment and had to expect prison or torture. With such risks it was almost obvious and mandatory not to appear under the civil name. - But there were additional reasons why the true poet genius throughout his life was bearing false names, because
b) a single pen name (such as "Shake-speare") wouldn't have kept the "true" author sufficiently protected or secret. - „Fans“ gradually would have learned who wrote what, under which name, considering a gigantic literary output of the true "author", of a hitherto unkown extent.
c) multiple pen names must had have a business necessity based on such things as contracts with different publishers, etc. -
d) multiple pennames for divergent book genres (...having a different audience) have also been used as a matter of a sales point:
e) the author could use greater freedom of language by hiding under different names of translators
(e.g. Joshua Sylvester......
f) the author could choose names from the outset, for a novel playing in a foreign country or to spread transnational knowledge by using french (e.g. Abraham Fraunce, Everard Guilpin) , italian (e.g. John Florio, Guicciardin) or spanish (e.g. Aleman) author names
g) pseudonym improved the market chances of some works. E.g female gender domination in the genre belonging to the other sex, (e.g. Jane Anger, Elisabeth Grymestone, Rachel Speght, Ester Sowernam, Constantia Munda, Aemilia Lanier) or using only the initials or the initials of the first names so that the author's gender can not be identified
h) the author choose easy-to-relate pseudonyms or existing names of known deceased or living people that readers - as a recognition effect - might reference or remember more easily. (e.g. T.Overbury , R.Southwell, W.Shakespeare)
j) in order to avoid a conflict of "shame", writing putative "trifling", commonplace or „minor“ literature might like to prevent from learning with a pseudonym. ( ...such as Bartholomew Griffin, William Clarke, Nicholas Breton, William Basse, Richard Barnfield ,William Warner...etc.)..
K) many more
This solution, which may seem absurd to many, will only open up to those who are fully acquainted with the immense, contemporary literature of the Shakespeare period (->Video) and who consider the Marlowe Thesis.
(497)Shakespeare's Authorship: Subplot in J.Shirleys Comedy "The wittie Faire one"(1628) exhibits the Blueprint of Marlowe's and Shakspere's (Stratford) destinies .
James Shirley: Another penname of Marlowe (alias Shakespeare) ?
"The Witty Fair One" is a stage play, licensed for performance 5 years after the release of the First Folio, on 3 October 1628, first published in quarto in 1633.
In a subplot, Violetta's cousin Penelope (Mr.Worthy's daughter) is in love with Master Fowler, (A wild young Gentleman [Marlowe?]): even though she knows him to be a libertine who will use her and abandon her if he can. Penelope schemes to lead him to the altar instead. She manipulates Fowler into attending his own false funeral, where he hears his sordid life recounted; and he imagines how it would be if the funeral were real. Penelope confronts him, as a man "dead" to his nobler nature; as she seems about to renounce him, Fowler repents and promises to reform if she will accept him as her husband.
There can be litte doubt that act V / Scene I- III is not purely fictional but reveals something very authentical: The hearse of Mr Fowler and Fowler himself alive enter the little room [in Deptford], where by report, he dyed, reflecting he [officially] is dead.- No reckonings to be paid with it, no Taverne bills and many more signicant details such as the false servants [Poley, Frizer, Skeres] of some great man [W.Cecil] etc. etc.- But not only the faked death of Marlowe but also the death (departure) of his deare brother [Shakspere] who died shorthly after making his will  and had a Monument in a conspicious place of the Church [Stratford] where we can see him but not knowing him...etc.etc.---
It can hardly be a coincidence that only 5 years after the erection of the Shakespeare Monument in Stratford and the release of the First Folio (1623) we find a contemporary clarification regarding the situation "of a personal "Monument at a conspicious place of the church"
(496) Shakespeare Authorship: Griffin revisited T. Watsons poetical idea: Coincidence? Plagiarism? Identical Author?
..... the soundest arguments still shatter at the cliffs of the orthodox Stratfordian narrow-mindedness.
Thomas Watson in "Ekatompathia" (1582 - sonnet 48) and 14 years later Bartholomew Griffin in "Fidessa" (1596 Sonnet 26) wrote a metaphorical sonnet with a rather similar topic of a bird and a fly "risking" their lives. In order to explain this remarkable observation one would have to test at least 3 hypothesis
1.) It happened pureley accidental,- 2 authors invented these ideas independently !
2.) B.Griffin 14 years later plagiarized from T.Watson
3.) Both authors were identical, the author using different pennames or pseudonyms at different times
There would be very very many powerful arguments to accept thesis nr.3 that "Ekatompathia" and "Fidessa" must have been poetical works written under pennames by the same poet genius at the age of 18 and 32 years (Marlowe alias Shakespeare) but even the strongest arguments would shatter at the cliffs of the fatal orthodox Stratfordian narrow-mindedness. Its at present not worth the effort! One inevitably would be disposed at the landfill of conspiracy theorists.
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.