After its first appearance Prof. Werner von Koppenfels, Emeritus, former Professor of English of the University of Munich, savaged mercilessly the German Book "The real Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe" in a review for the german newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine" FAZ on Nov 2011! entitled: So eine Maulwurfexistenz ist doch enorm anstrengend ["Such a mole existence is nevertheless extremely demanding"].
The question remains whether the FAZ review caused the german medias afterwards to treat the book even more merciless by ignoring it completely ?
For the violence of the FAZ attack there may be some reasons:
a) either the author of the book was unable to recognize himselves as a "conspiracy theorist", as a "madman" or "paranoid", (as he was denounced elsewhere) or
b) our critic feels through the book on a sore point taken, what he's trying to cover up by that he puts it in the pillory, or
c) Koppenfels' age no longer allows him to skip the hurdles of traditional, dogmatic long fixed perspectives. -
By nature, I am inclined to the third alternative. Not simply because having never suffered before from delusions and avowedly never knitted in any conspiracy ....
All the facts, arguments, reasoning and evidences on 700 pages were not of a primary interest for solidified Prof.Koppenfels, he was interested in the motives of a "scientific outsider" who dared to shake the sacrosanct version of the Stratford dogma.
(431)Epilogue to the final last [5th.] Edition of “The True Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe” (Jan 2016)
the case for a particular individual is much weaker than the case against Shakespeare
Sir Roger Penrose (born 1931) an outstandig English mathematical physicist, and philosopher of science. Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, some years ago gave an interview (s.Video below) to the German-Amercan Institute in Heidelberg(DAI)
Asked about his father Lionel Penrose he answered .(7:28min)
He certainly had an interests in the arts, also in writing in Shakespeare …..I should make a point here … he was a great believer that the person called Shakspere was not the author of the Plays and there was a book he got his inspirations from which was by a man called Looney , a rather unfortunate name because it suggests the idea he was crazy, but he was very insistent that people did not call him loony or little like that.. - but the book has made a very strong case, and I was quite persuaded and I think I am rather persuaded that the case that Shakespeare or the person William Shakspere who had no education and no books whatsoever which is a very striking fact and no indication that - apart from a few signatures – that he ever wrote anything
asked if he think it was Bacon he replied
No ! I think the view that my father followed .. I think is the most probable one…8:26 it was Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. But i mean that the case for a particular individual is much weaker than the case against Shakespeare ….the fact that the person who had no books and was probably illiterate could write those amazing plays seem to me quite a strong case…but the case for any perticular individual was not so strong… but I thought that the case for Edward de Vere was not so bad .---May be that was the right answer, but i wouldn’t…I have no real independent… – apart from forming views I went to see the Tempest with my family not so long ago and that seemed to me very clearly a play where the author himself was revealing himself…and the person Prospero was clearly somebody who was in the aristocracy , he was not somebody who came up from nothing , so I do feel there was someting in the case...
(429) Perpetuating the Stratford myth..... for how much longer? Leahy with a regrettably small imaginative power ...
... in full contrast to this Web/Blog arguing for a "Single-Authorship / Multi-Pseudonym theory"
A common starting point of the authors Michael and Pauline Black in their new Book "Shakespeare Unravelled" (2016) with all Anti-Stratfordians is that William of Stratford cannot have been the author of the First Folio Plays attributed to him. They take, however, the view of a "Multiauthorship theory" (including Fletcher, Peele, Marlowe, Kyd, Middleton, Daniel, Massinger, A-Bacon, Greville) compared to an opposite "Multi-Pseudonymity Theory" of this Marlowe Blog who sees in Marlowe the single Genius, who has created a more extensive work than previously adopted under a variety of pennames/ aliases/ pseudonyms/ signatures
The flyer of a new book "Shakespeare Unravelled Court plays: the 1623 deception " by Michael and Pauline Black tells us it delves into the history and controversy surrounding William Shakespeare’s First Folio (1623) and sheds light on doubts about Shakespeare’s authorship .
The book looks into the reasons which prompted the concealed authorship, principally the fear of Spanish domination at the time because of the impending royal marriage of Crown Prince Charles and a Spanish Princess.
According to the author's Shakespeare's dramas were written by well-educated writers – certainly not by the attributed author, Shakespeare.”
The book makes the astonishing claim that the well known life and career of Shakespeare - poet, playwright and Swan of Avon - was largely invented after his death. The real authors of the 1623 First Folio used the dead Shakespeare’s name to shield themselves from the censorship of the time. Until then, even in his home town, Shakespeare had been honoured as a businessman who invested in the theatre and occasionally acted
A major objection to the multi-author theory (among others) is that it is not possible or extremely unlikely that within in a narrow time frame of a few years simultaneously so many exceptional unrivaled poetic genius (a la Mozart) did exist and were able to compose such incomparable oustanding "literary" sonatas, symphonies etc. .
(427) Alexander Waugh is not aware of the "true" vulgar scandal of the "true" Shakespeare [Christopher Marlowe]!
What a shame! Alexander Waugh not able to remove his "Oxfordian" blinkers!
^The "orthodox" Oxfordian Alexander Waugh, Honorary President of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, Co-editor of „Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? Exposing an Industry in Denial“ (2013) gave a long talk [s.Video below] at the 2015 Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship Conference in Ashland, Oregon .-
Waugh dealt with the problem that in Shake-speare Sonnets the poet reveals that he is embroiled in a ‘vulgar scandal’ that has made him ‘a motley to the view’ and a ‘disgrace in men’s eyes. ’Even though at the beginning he warns the audience that there are high risks involved in interpreting the sonnets bioagraphically he does exactly that..
In looking for any literary evidence of such a scandal, he selected early literary references to Shakespeare such as Venus § Adonis (Shakespeare), Avisa (H.W.), s.Blogs 414,, 415, 416, 417 , 418 , Polimanteia s.Blogs 403, 404, 405, 406, 407 , 408 W.C.), Delia (S.Daniel) , Epigrams (Weever) , Pygmalion (Marston.,).
How could it happen that Waugh completely ignored Marlowe who suffered the most dramatic vulgar life scandal of all english poets?
Almost 100 years ago, in 1923, 2 years prior (!!) to Hotson's discovery of the "Latin" Coroner's Report Archie Webster concluded that not Shakespeare, but Marlowe must have been the author of the sonnets. He found the extraordinary life of Marlowe and...
... his tragic "vulgar scandal" fully reflected in the sonnets
Can anyone explain who - unlike Marlowe -the subsequent contextual extracts of the sonnets of Shakespeare could biographically represent?
Fear, Anxiety, Threat of life, Imprisonment, Faked death
»Anon permit the basest cloudes to ride,
With ougly rack on his celestiall face«
»To live a second live on second head«
»A few do hange upon those boughs [Gallow]
which shake against the could«
»So then thou hast but lost the dregs of life,
The prey of worms, my body being dead,
The coward conquest of a wretch’s knife,
Too base of thee to be remembered (…)
But be contented when that fell arrest
Without all bail shall carry me away«
»Aboue a mortall pitch, that struck me dead?«
»Not mine own fears nor the prophetic soul
Of the wide world dreaming on things to come
Can yet the lease of my true love control,
Supposed as forfeit to a confined doom.«
»That all the world besides me thinkes y’are dead.«
Living in Exile, Banishment,, Flight, Concealment,
Travels, Trennung, Separation
»Til then, not show my head«
»The one by toil, the other to complain
How far I toil, still farther off from thee«
»I all alone beweepe my out-cast state«
»For precious friends hid in deaths dateles night,«
»And from the forlorne world his visage hide«
»Stealing vnseene to west with this disgrace:«
»Even for this let us divided live,
And our dear love lose name of single one,
That by this separation I may give
That due to thee which thou deserv’st alone
And that thou teachest how to make one twain,
By praising him here who doth hence remain.«
»For then, despite of space, I would be brought,
From limits far remote, where thou dost stay.«
»Is it thy spirit that thou send’st from thee
So far from home into my deeds to pry«
»Give warning to the world that I am fled
From this vile world with vildest wormes to dwell:«
»How like a winter hath my absence been
From thee, the pleasure of the fleeting year!«
»From you have I been absent in the spring«
»Though absence seem’d my flame to quallifie,
As easie might I from my selfe depart, (…)
Like him that trauels I returne againe,
Iust to the time, not with the time exchang’d,«
Scandal, Disgrace, Stigmatisation, Blemish, Paralysis, Accusation, Extinction,
»is from the booke of honour rased quite,
And all the rest forgot for which he toild:«
»And in them-selues their pride lies buried,
For at a frowne they in their glory die.«
»When in disgrace with Fortune and mens eyes,
I all alone beweepe my out-cast state«
»Stealing vnseene to west with this disgrace:«
»That heales the wound, and cures not the disgrace
Nor can thy shame give phisicke to my griefe
Though thou repent, yet I have still the losse«
»So shall those blots that do with me remain,
Without thy help, by me be borne alone.
I may not evermore acknowledge thee,
Lest my bewailed guilt should do thee shame
Though in our liues a seperable spight«
»So I, made lame by Fortune’s dearest spite
So then I am not lame, poor, nor despised«
»And right perfection wrongfully disgrac'd
»and Art made tongue-tied by Authority
»My name be buried where my body is,
And liue no more to shame nor me, nor you
For I am shamd by that which I bring forth,«
»Now while the world is bent my deeds to cross
O, for my sake do you with Fortune chide,«
»So that my selfe bring water for my staine,
Neuer beleeue though in my nature raign’d,
All frailties that besiege all kindes of blood,
That it could so preposterouslie be stain’d,
To leaue for nothing all thy summe of good:«
»The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds
Thence comes it that my name receives a brand
Your love and pity doth th’ impression fill«
»Which vulgar scandal stamped upon my brow«
»When not to be, receives reproach of being (…)
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies (…)
At my abuses, reckon vp their owne(…)
My deedes must not be shown«
»Hence, thou suborned Informer, a true soul
When most impeached, stands least in thy control.«
Anonymity and Namelessness
»Let those who are in favour with their stars,
Of public honour and proud titles boast,
Whilst I whom fortune of such triumph bars
Unlooked for joy in that I honour most«
»O if (I say) you looke vpon this verse,
When I (perhaps) compounded am with clay,
Do not so much as my poore name reherse;«
»My name be buried where my body is,
And live no more to shame nor me nor you«
»Why write I still all one, ever the same,
And keep invention in a noted weed,
That every word doth almost tell my name,
Showing their birth and where they did proceed?«
»Your name from hence immortal life shall have,
Though I, once gone, to all the world must die«
»Thence comes it that my name receives a brand«
Complaint, Sorrow, Suffering, Grief, Sadness, Melancholy, Distress, Failure, Weeping
»But day doth daily draw my sorrows longer,
And night doth nightly make grief’s length seem stronger.«
»Then can I drown an eye, unused to flow,
Then can I grieve at grievances foregone,
And heavily from woe to woe tell o’er
The sad account of fore-bemoaned moan,
Which I new pay as if not paid before.«
»Nor can thy shame give phisicke to my griefe«
»The beast that bears me, tired with my woe,
Plods dully on, to bear that weight in me,
For that same groan doth put this in my mind:
My grief lies onward, and my joy behind.«
»When I haue seene such interchange of state,
Or state it selfe confounded, to decay,
Ruine hath taught me thus to ruminate«
Marlowe's Life smotto
»In me thou seest the glowing of such fire
That on the ashes of his youth doth lie,
As the death-bed whereon it must expire,
Consumed with that which it was nourished by.«
(426) The handwriting of Sir Thomas More's play and of the Will of Shakspere (Stratford) is by the same author !
(Who was it? Christopher Marlowe!
A poet who had to give up his identity and name
to conceal himself and write under pseudonyms...
(e.g. alias Shak-spere, alias Drayton? alias many others....)
unimaginable, unbelievable, ridiculous... yes! for ignorants.....
Charles Hamilton (1914–1996) paleographer, handwriting expert and author of historical works in his book "In Search of Shakespeare" (1985) fashioned a "handwriting composition" by alternating lines from a) "Hand-D"(yellow) with lines from b) Shake-speare's "Will". (green).(s.also Blog 273)
He concluded that "beyond any reasonable doubts", both hands resulted from the same author. - s.Faksimile)
How can that be?
...Be aware, that there is evidence from John Ward's Notebook that
1 month prior to Shakspear's death 1616 "Shakspear, Drayton and Ben Jonson had a merry meeting and, it seems drank too hard for Shakespear died of a feavour there contracted.".....(s.Faksimile)
What on earth Drayton had do in Stratford ?
1 month prior to his death Shakspere (Stratford) signed the draft of his will. Someone else [not William of Stratford] must have written it down.
Since the handwriting of "Shakspere's" will is identical to the hand D of the anonymous play "Sir Thomas More" (compare green and yellow lines, ) you may come to the conclusion that the assumed writer of Hand D ("Shake-speare") was the writer of the will , but it was not William of´Stratford.- - (Drayton must be discussed as early penname of the true poet. (study a bunch of plausible arguments blog 324, 323, 274).-
The physician John Hall, son-in-law of Shakespear (Stratford) made notes in his case books (Latin) on his patients, and so when treating Drayton, (an excellent poet!) , why did he mention Drayton but never ever his father-in-law ?
For some strange reasons not a single written letter, note, manuscript, correspondence does exist for William Shakespeare (Stratford). Judging his motor handwriting skill we are dependent on 6 existing signatures.
Shouldn't these few examples of a lack of motor writing skill be sufficient to establish - at least - a reasonable doubt that William of Stratford could have written all the works of Shakespeare.
Why do Shakespeare experts think this argument is negligable?
To whom did Shakespeare leave his "best bed"?
The fact that William Shakspere (Stratford) in his will left his wife nothing else than a bed seems to be a greater problem than the problem why only the "second best" bed. -
And an even bigger problem is why "the second best bed" as well as the rings to "Heminges & Condell" (s.next blog) were inserted so belatedly in a finished text.
As long as a Shakspere authorship problem is generally denied very likely a more profound background of the true scribe of Shakspere's will (s. Blog 426) and the (allegoric) meaning of the strange belated insertions will never be discussed let alone be discovered.
(423)Redat(shap)ing Shakespeare’s will ....inserted text with connections to the theater, why so late and so little ?
The head of legal records of The National Archives (TNA- the UK government's official archive, containing 1,000 years of history") has reinvestigated Shakespeare’s original will and came to the conclusion that parts of Shakespeare's will had to be redated .- Page two has been identified as a page reused from a previously unknown will, written earlier, the other two pages were rewritten in January 25, 1616, and that all three pages were slightly amended in darker ink in late March 1616.
The three-page will is dated 25 January 1616, with January crossed out and replaced by March.
Due to new technical analysis of infrared rays and multispectral analysis, it has been concluded that the paper and ink of the three folio pages are not uniform, and page 2 (click details) were written with different paper and ink.-
In late March a small number of additions in a darker ink were squeezed (!) into the will at this point in time, including the change from January to March including the bequests of mourning rings to his friends [Heminge, Burbage & Condell s.Faksimile], and the [second-best] bed to his wife.
Why did it never surprise Shakespeare experts that the "ingenious superbrain" Shakespere at first completely forgot in his will to leave even a single legacy for the theater and only belatedly squeezed between two lines an additional line bequeathing fellows (Heminge, Condell) with a ring without considering more formative figures such as Ben Jonson or Henry Wriothesley?
(422) Tom Regnier traveling in matters of the Oxford / Shakespeare authorship. Any progress in almost 100 years?
Tom Regnier, president at the Shakespeare Oxford Felleowship (SOF), an appellate lawyer in South Florida gave (besides earlier speeches) a fine presentation April 11 2016 at GableStage in Coral Gables Florida
Did Shakespeare Really Write Shakespeare? –
The basic knowledge and insight that Regnier reports has now circulated for almost 100 years . It has - remarkably - not led to a paradigm shift. - Whence he derives his expectations and hopes, that in another 100 years the Oxfordian case (Shakespeare was the penname of the Earl of Oxford) will be accepted general knowledge ?
Conclusion: Whereas Tom Regnier's question is fully justified (provided it is formulated more inocuous: Did Shakspere [of Stratford] really write Shakespeare [of the works] ?) his answer is not sufficiently justified.-
A paradigm shift is overdue and necessary ! It's highly regrettable, that Oxfordians have comitted themselves so definetely!
Alexander Dyce (1798 – 1869) Dramatic editor and literary historian, an early biographer of Christopher Marlowe in 1850 published "The Works of Marlowe with some account of the author, and notes". In his chapter "Some account of Marlowe and his Writings" he concluded with 2 amazing prospects:
1.) It has been objectured that both "Locrine" and "Titus Andronicus" are by him: but, if every old tragedy of more than usual merit, whose author is either doubtful or unknown, must be fathered' upon Marlowe, the catalogue of his dramas will presently be swollen to a size, not easily reconcilable with the shortness of his life.
2,) ...that he displays the vast richness and vigour of his genius. But we can hardly doubt that if death had not so suddenly arrested his career, he would have produced tragedies of more uniform excellence; nor is it too much to suppose that he would also have given still grander manifestations of dramatic power. Indeed for my own part, I feel a strong persuasion, that, with added years and well-directed efforts, he would have made much nearer approach in tragedy to Shakespeare than has yet been made by any of his countreymen.
In 1850 Marlowe expert Alexander Dyce seems to have been clearly ahead of his time! But yet there was an insurmountable barrier to recognize "Shake-speare" as a pseudonym/ penname of the incomparably productive Marlowe who unfortunately was murdered in a dispute over the payment of a bill exactly at the time of his greatest threat to life by the church and state.
Marlowe: ...he lost the fame, which he had gain'd before;
On the occasion of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death a Website “Shakespeare Documented" recently has been launched offering a great collection of primary-source materials documenting the life and work of William Shakespeare (1564-1616).
There you find a newly digitised First Folio (s.Faksimile). The opposite page to the title page (the famous Droeshout engraving) is missing. Normally it exhibits Ben Jonsons Poem “To the Reader”, instead you find a handwritten copy of Ben Jonson poem together with a handwritten poem directly above it, of which the headline has torn out.
Ros Barber has pointed out on her web-site that one will not be able to understand or interprete the poem unless one considers the Marlowe/alias Shakespeare authorship thesis. The meaning of the poem is deliberately veiled. The most revealing lines 4-6 tell us that the shepheard [Marlowe] lost his fame which he had gained before, he was permanently forced to surrender and strove in vain – and (emphasised in italics!) he had excelled himself (sounds a bit like had „exiled himself“).
The shepheards [Marlowe’s] "lucky leap" was his permission to escape the death penalty by immersing into a pseudonym Shakespeare of a real person . The Marlowe theory: For reasons of life saving and safety the deadly threatened playwright and poetgenius Marlowe obeyed the crown to feign his death, to abandon his identity and name and accept the penname Shakspeare from the paid businessman William Shakspere (Stratford) as his future poet- and dramatist pseudonym yet using many other pseudonyms from the very beginning.
Yet I am still the same but made another
Concealed Christopher Marlowe wrote under multiple pennames/pseudonyms (such as B.Griffin or W.Shake-speare). Sonnet 53 of Griffins "Fidessa" is a blue print of Marlowes destiny
It’s a damning verdict for English Literature, that it never succeeded to identify an author B.Griffin having written the distinguished sequence of sonnets „Fidessa“ 1596 at the peak time of Elisabethan sonnetiers. - The main reason for this failure was, among others, the fact, that is was not possible to fit highly specific contexts of an outstandig poet to the poets biographical situation. For 1596 this would only have been possible if the Marlowe theory would have been contemplated .- Fidessa in all respects literally provides the authentic blueprint of Christopher Marlowe‘s destiny.(alias name: Shake-speare)
Is there any other poet (besides Marlowe) in 1596 who could have described himself in such a concise way ? Of course, it couldn't be Marlowe, because he was dead!
Shouldn't literature rethink the matter?
" ...I die to live in care..."
Sonnets 13 and 26 have nothing to do with "Amatory sonnets". They both deal identically with the same autobiographic theme of its author who did expose himself with lethal risks he had not foreseen. He defends himself against the accusation of his lack of fidelity /loyalty.
He ambigously argues with his inner opposite, his virtue /his Queen. One can assume with considerable plausibility, that the author (Marlowe/alias Shakespeare) sees himself metaphorically in the mirror...
13 the foolish Boy that did aspire to touch the glory of high heaven's frame, compare me to Leander struggling in the waves, not able to attain his safety's shore
26 the proud aspiring Boy that needs would pry into the secrets of the highest seats, had some conceit to gain content thereby or else his folly sure was wondrous great
Superficially the last 2 lines ("Couplet") in these "Shakespearean Sonnets" 13 and 26 differ, they disclose the matured art of Marlowe's (alias Shakespeare's) remarkable verbal dexterity, his incomparable astute use of ambiguity and ambivalence ..(13 I die [not really but] to live in care..... 26 though I know it [that these did die] even so do I [ at the end]
(416) The stepwise disclosure of the multiple pennames of the true Shakespeare : B. Griffin, " Fidessa" part 3
Fidessa" as a prime example of how devastating the academic Stratford dogma has misguided literary studies ..
The 62 sonnets of Fidessa by B.Griffin (1596) represent a remarkable rare piece of poesie. Apparently at present only a single exemplar in the Bodleian Library does exist! It is not certain, that the prename "B." of "Griffin" was „Bartolomew“. Alexander Grossart in 1876 published a first reprint (50 private copies ). He regretted he could add nothing to the poets empty life and biography, since every probable source of information has been explored without success. All information we have is Fidessa, a small volume of "Amatory Sonnets" as Grossart called it.
All 62 sonetts of the poem cycle "Fidessa" can and must be seen as a continuous poetic confrontation between the author himself (concealed Marlowe/ alias Shakespeare) and his destiny.
Various sonnets of "Fidessa" have been identified as putative "plagiarisms" of other authors: The third sonnet in Fidessa, beginning "Venus and yong Adonis sitting by her", was reproduced in 1599 in "The Passionate Pilgrime" (by W. Shakespeare), the Sonnet 35/39 in "Delia" (Samuel Daniel) .
Sonnet 33 (s.Faksimile !) clearly illustrates the situation of the author (Christopher Marlowe/alias Shakespeare). As in Shakespeare's sonnets the author uses the method of repetition (doubling) of specific word to highlight the contextual importance: He has to hide(1) his head (2) and live (3) alone as if he were dead, with no identity, no face(4)
The poem of "Fidessa" clearly needs a theory of who was the author providing us with an explanatory framework for its interpretation.
The "Stratford dogma" had catastrophic consequences, since it blocked all ideas to approach any authorship solution.
(415) The stepwise disclosure of the multiple Pennames of the true Shakespeare: B. Griffin. Fidessa Part.2
A certain B.Griffin wrote a“ little volume of Sonnnets”, a series of 62 poems entitled “Fidessa, more chaste than kinde, London”, 1596. No trace of a poet B.Griffin has ever been discovered over centuries.
To obtain biographical information of Griffin, we are dependent on the contextual information extractable from Fidessa..
What conclusions can we derive from Fidessa?
“Fidessa” is an artifial word derived from
a) “fides” (faith, confidence , trust in a person or thing – or an obligation of loyality, or fidelity to a person, a promise, tor an engagement) and
b)"...essa", a female ending thus transformed into
a metapher of his (female) inner virtue / godess, with which the poet enters a dialogue .-
This is reminiscent of the philosophy of Shakespeare e.g. in "The Twelfth Night" (II / 5), ("Put thyself into the trick of singularity. She [as his virtue] ran thus advise thee that [she] sighs for thee").
The situation of the author clearly indicates that the author is and has been in a most dangerous, vexing and conflicting life situation of loyalty and confidence.
The poems surpass Shakespeare's sonnets in some places in its poetic brilliance and contain substantial biographical notes on the authors specific situation: Significant biographical informations in Fidessa can hardly lead to any other conclusion than that the name “Griffin” (a fabulous animal having the head and wings of an eagle) was used as Marlowe/alias Shakespeare's pseudonym. This can be recognised in virtual all sonnets :(s.examples subsequent blogs)
(414) The stepwise disclosure of the multiple pennames of the true Shakespeare: B.Griffin, "Fidessa" part 1
A coherent interpretation of the sonnets "Fidessa" will not be possible as long as the Marlowe / alias Shakespeare Theory is not considered
Diana Price, author of the book "Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem", gave a lecture (s.Video) on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare of Stratford’s death, at the Berkeley Street Theatre in Toronto.
Historically the Shakespeare authorship problem clearly proceeded in 2 separate steps. - The first stage intended to resolve the doubt whether William Shakspere from Stratford was identical with William Shakespeare (Author of Hamlet). Since a final solution of the first stage has never been reached the academic scientific community never felt obliged to proceed to the second stage researching the question: ”Who did it, if not William of Stratford ?
Only a minor community of intellectuals, sceptics, lateral entrants, scholars (Antistratfordians), artists, scientists etc. entered the second stage. One of todays most quoted „Antistratfordian“ scholars is Diana Price. Her research confirms and adds to a century of contributions that William Shakspere of Stratford by no means can have been identical with William Shakespeare, the creator of "Hamlet". - Interestingly she has never aligned herself with any one other possible candidate, even though she got this far into the authorship issue she nevertheless did never privilege one candidate over another.
Frontline tells us that she has been invited to all oxford conferences, but she doesn’t go because she does‘ t want to be perceived as favoring one particular candidate over another. She generally doesn’t take questions on the case for or against Oxford or Bacon or any of them. When she is asked „Was it Shakespeare or was it Oxford?" she frames the question differently "Was it Shakespeare or was it not Shakespeare?" Thus she never left the territory of the first stage. - That is remarkable. One wonders, why at her absolute certainty that William of Stratford was not the creator of Hamlet, she doesn’t feel the slightest need to proceed to the second stage? She cannot suppose that a still unknown poet will be discovered from oblivion? What is she afraid of? ....... of her lack of imagination?
She seems to understand that the first stage is an easy more simple task compared to the second. – The problem would have been solved long ago if the academic community had (re)searched more intensively for a coherent solution to the "real problem" of the second stage ...It obviously requires a much larger scale of imagination !
The real authorship problem does not realate to the first stage, but the second.
(412) Baconian Rick Wagner exposes the Shakespeare conspiracy, once again! (Professionally made Video , part 1)
Based on his book “The Lost Secret of William Shakespeare” [ freely available online] Richard Allan Wagner has started to produce a 4-part TV series which delves into the Shakespeare Authorship Issue .
The professionally made part 1 now available , exposes well known facts and arguments why there is not enough evidence to support the traditional claim that William from Stratford was involved with the authorship of the plays and poems attributed to the name "William Shakespeare".
I can fully agree with the arguments of Video Part 1 “Exposing the Shakespeare conspiracy“ which enlightens us who the author was not.- - Wagner summarizes all the evidence (developed over a century), that William of Stratford can not have been the author of Othello or Hamlet. .
Since Rick Wagner is a „Baconian“ and a Freemason , I am afraid, that the upcoming parts are not as easy to digest, …but already now its certain to me that - beyond all cypherology - the "true Shake-speare" was a very influential forerunner ("predecessor") of Masonic philosophy.
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.