that J.F. belongs to the Pseudo-Initials of MARLOWE, only then it becomes understandable and logical, that he did not collaborate, but - alone - was the true poet-genius SHAKESPEARE who wrote
the' King HENRY VIII play'.
It is more plausible that a single dramatist genius was the author of the King HENRY VIII play!
.a hidden author revealing himself in the play as Ambassador Capucius...
a) "....Hermeticisms survived as the philosophical and theological Epicenter
of Freemasonry.- ..." in England
b) "....that one of the Key messages of Hermes (Trismegistos) is that he writes: "The greatest evil
in mankind is ignorance...seek then a guide to take you by the hand and
lead you to the portals of knowledge that(?) te the light cleansed of all darkness..."
c) " who better to that than William Shakespeare who stands in LeicesterSquare carved
in marble pointing to his own words : ä0pTHERE IS NO DARKNESS BUT IGNORANCE"
Shakespeare carved in Marble at Leicester Square (London)
d) Waugh: " Shakespeare thus very close to the Hermetic philosophers and to Hermes..(Trismegistos)
e) NOTE: it is more appropriate to associate this Marble" phrase to Marlowe's
famous sentence in
"The Jew of Malta" : I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance.
or Doktor Faustus and the Ignorance in knowledge
one can take this as another logical and plausible evidence that Marlowe
The name Shake-speare is dealt with a list of the top 10 most significant Pseudonyms of a singular Poet and dramatist Genius
Christopher Marlowe.
-------------
That Marlowe (aka Shake-speare) survived can only become conceivable when his incredibly great spirit was incredibly productive, writing under many pseudonyms, over a long period of life!
Literally, with all Marlowian I miss some fundamental reflections and research.
A Marlowian Theory cannot exist, i.e. doesn’t make any sense, as long as one does not assume that Marlowe survived.
If Marlowe (alias Shakespeare) survived, however, he must have had a specific biography for his surviving time. (up to 1655?) And these life data & experiences must have been reflected in some (many?) ways in texts of himself as of concealed pseudonymous poets, and by no means only in play texts of Shakespeare.
Can anybody even remotely accept that there is no need for any contextual autobiographical (poetical) evidence and (re)search?
These contextual massive autobiographical evidence in fact are and must be the cornerstones of the evidence, of circumstantial evidence and reasoning.
And Marlowian Daryl Pinksen (mirabile dictu!) doesn’t either have heard or ever listened to any line of all Youtube presentations or ever asked the crucial question what Marlowe might have done & written in all his surviving time? What a depressing confession of failure!
As a longtime Marlowian, I recently discovered a more detailed article of the hungarianpublisher and editor Pal Faklen (Budapest) on the Marlowe Shakespeare authorship issue(entitled "The Delayed Resurrection of Marlowe) which I naturally liked very much.
I very much hope that Pal Faklens essential and amazing arguments will receive (slowly, but at least) a gradual recognitionworld wide.
Lately, I became aware of the wonderful Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of the OXFRAUDS. Their belief or expectation about the
Shakespeare Authorship is, that the game is over.
At no time the OXFRAUDS had any real interest in
finding out what about the centuries-old doubt is justified and what is not.
The Marlowe Theory, despite Peter Farey, had no chance with them. They
haven't even started, to reflect the Marlowe issue.
At no time the Oxfraud community had any real interest
in finding out what about the centuries-old doubt is justified and what is not.
And how to explain the unimaginable amount of inconsistencies. The Marlowe
Theory, despite Peter Farey, did not have the slightest chance in their group.
Wherever they could they made a fool of him and Marlowians like me , and even declared me as deceased(!). : a rather pitiable, ridiculous
bunch when compared to the great minds of the Non-Stratfordians.
Since I have long noticed that Shakespeare Admirersare not particularly interested in the real person of the poet and they consider the authorship problem as troublesome and as solved at the same time and do not estimate long discourses on the problem at all, I fabricated for a change a short highlight to alert and entertain most of the bored Stratfordians.
More than 80% of Stratfordians have no precise knowledge of Marlowe.
The name SHAKE-SPEARE was a Penname for the 'true', prolific 'absolute' polymath and poet-genius called Christopher Marlowe, whose death was feigned with the help of the crown, he survived, but a long-life long lived incognito and was forced to write under a barely imaginable number of pseudonyms and initials (of invented and/or really existing) persons (such as William S. from Stratford, a merchant, and shareholder)
award winning journalist, author and lecturer Martin Sieff
introduces a series of often overlooked questions, paradoxes and facts that indicate a secret world of political intelligence that point towards the possibility that
Observations and reflections of Shakespeare's famous Tragedy of "King Lear" make it seem plausible and
logical...
1)... that the 4 King LEIR / LEAR editions between 1594 and 1623 must have sprung from a single brain 2)... that this brain cannot have been identical with that of William Shakspere from Stratford 3)... that it belonged to the poet and dramatist-genius Christopher Marlowe, who tried to link his complex, tragic life situation in 1605/06 with the ancient historic King Lear as well as with his loss of identity (Edgar / Kent), his exile, the death of his parents, a general depressive melancholy and senselessness...
The true Shakespeare (and not the false! Shakspere ) as the Author of "Titus Andronicus".
C O N C L U S I O N S :
There are numerous plausible and logical reasons to agree that Shakespeare ("William from Stratford) was not the author of Titus Andronicus:
1.) A no longer comprehensible number of renowned literary Experts (although largely
forgotten and negated today) early doubted Shakespeare's authorship of "Titus Andronicus" such
as:
Lewis Theobald, Samuel Johnson, George Steevens, Edmond Malone, William Guthrie, John Upton,
Benjamin Heath, Richard Farmer, John Pinkerton, and John Monck Mason, William Hazlitt and
Samuel Taylor Coleridge a.o.
2.) Q1 printed 1594 entered the Stationer's register late 1593 only month after Marlowe's fatal twist of
fate
3.) Specific text analogies between Shakespeare’s "Titus Andronicus", "History plays" and the "Sonnets" suggest a common poet and author:
Demetrius, Tamara's son, speaks in “Titus” about
Lavinia (II/1)
"She is a woman, therefore to be woo’d"
"She is a woman, therefore to be won";
"She is Lavinia, therefore to be lov'd",
This sounds strikingly similar in Shakespeare's
Sonnet 41:
"Gentle thou art, and therefore to be won",
"Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed"
«The same applies to» Henry VI/ I « (V / 3):
"She's beautiful, and therefore to be woo'd"
"She is a woman, therefore to be won"
4.) The late insertion and content of scene III/2 in Titus Andronicus of the First Folio reveal unnoticed
allegoric (autobiographic) parallels to the true authors senseless death..
(Titus):
"a deed of death done on the innocent";
as well as allegoric legacies, to posterity, to his
daughter (Lavinia):
"...go with me Lavinia, I'll to thy closet; and go
read with you sad stories chanced in the times of old"
and to his nephew (boy)
" Go with me: thy sight is young and thou shalt
read, when mine begins to dazzle
[---> ! End of the newly inserted scene! ]
5. In Marlowe's play "The Jew of Malta" the villain "Barabas" definitely influenced the Villain
("Aaron" ) in "Titus Andronicus".
6. There are logical and plausible arguments that not only the authors of the history plays "Edward
II" [Marlowe[ and anonymous "Edward I" [Peele ??]) were identical, but also the authors of the anony-mous plays "Edward III" [Shakespeare?] and "Edward IV" [Heywood?] belonged to pennames of
Where does "Oxfordianism" actually get the hope from, of ever gaining general acceptance of its theory? (a century after Looney!)
I suppose
A dead end story!?
An infinite way to an unavailing success!?
_________
SOF should define the Criteria
for final success!
Is the probability of success for Edward de Vere really
so much better than for the only poetic and dramatic genius of its time,
the singular former Superstar of the London Theater, Christopher Marlowe?
There are thousands of PRO- Arguments
but only a singular essential CONTRA-Argument for Marlowe
( His death because of his early assassination)
Shouldn't a Global Collective and Academe begin to reverse and correct a singular false fatal Conclusion in favour of thousands of logical and plausible Pro-Arguments for Christopher Marlowe's Survival as the "true" Shakespeare?
An open , honest and fair S O F community would at least have to invalidate all logical and plausible arguments in favour of Marlowe, which, given the facts, can hardly succeed...
When will SOF begin with the necessary steps?
Collected Video-Contributions (arguments) to support
the Marlowe/Shakespeare authorship thesis (oct. 2020)
It remains utterly inexplicable why generations of literary scholars have not even attempted to enlighten and understand
a) what autobiographical and deeper meaningful contents lay behind the complex texts, the poetry and philosophy of the prolific genius Nicholas Breton,
b) who this productive, witty contemporary of Shakespeare actually was and
c) why Breton does not even belong to the devious list of todays discussed Shakspeare authorship candidates?
I became aware of "Langton lite", with 2 posts on the Authorship issue.- What a surprise,new Marlowian efforts at the horizon ?
, …my key question to Dr.Christian Taylor. : what is his main reason to rehash (at this moment)
a century old terribly stale taboo discussion on all the damn old topics (spelling,
correspondence, biographical contents, the will, illiterate family etc. etc.
etc.
What does he expect? Another hundred years of an
obviously unfruitful unproductive "Oxfordianism" (they just now celebrate Looney’s
centennial (!) anniversary)
Where is the solution supposed to come from, if not
from a radical turnaround in traditional views?
A complete new "Marlowianism"?
It seems not likely that a more logic
and more plausible „conspiracy authorship thesis“ (than the Multi-pseudonymity
thesisof poet genius and former Superstar of the London Theater ) will arise.It may even well be, that a global intelligence
will never be able or ready to understand and resolve the complexity of the authorship problem, let alone the singular virtually
inconceivable mental capacity of the singular „true“ Shakespeare [Marlowe].
... decoding the dedicatory text of Shakespeare‘s Sonnets
————————-
Alexander Waugh recommended to read the Journal of Scientific Exploration (SSE) vol.34 no.2.pp268-350 (15 June 2020) by answering : „ Decoding the dedication of Shakespeare‘s Sonnets. by Prof. Peter Sturrocks , Stanford which demonstrates that the combined statistical significance of the cryptograms is overwhelming.„
See als Prof. Peter Sturrocks LECTURE
____________________
The opinion of the Marlowian Pal Faklen (Budapest) on Sturrocks case, is, „that even a sophisticated method (combined statistical significance etc.) can not prove a statement which is based on a wrong premise.- Faklen concised his view in a chart (s. below)
„As for the research article Behind The Mask: Decoding the Dedication of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (Peter A. Sturrock, Kathleen E. Erickson)
— my opinion is that
it's a hanky-panky.
Today's computer technology can conjure from almost any text some desirable hidden messages, can create anagrams, can search all kind of equidistant letter sequencing (ELS), can arrange patters from the letters etc. Themethod is neutral,the usage, the content, the message qualifies.
Otherwise, the name of Henry Wriothesley is much stronger connected to Marlowe than to de Vere. De Vere died 1604, the Sonnets were published in 1609, the Shakespeare monument was erected around 1620. Dear Oxfordians! Who wrote Shakespeare and who encrypted de Vere's name after his death?“
The (MSA) Marlowe Society of America held its 8th International Conference from 10–13 July, 2018 in Wittenberg, Germany, an important historic center of both religion and culture in sixteenth-century Germany….its university (now known as the "Leucorea") was made the alma mater of Shakespeare's Hamlet ("Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet: / I pray thee, stay with us; go not to Wittenberg."). The town also served as backdrop for the B-Text Doctor Faustus, the locale where Faustus first "surfeits upon cursed necromancy" and where his life ends "All torn asunder by the hand of death!"
Could MSA organize a conference with 70 lecturers without sponsorship? No....it is obvious that sponsorship depended on the INTANGIBILITY Of THE STRATFORD DOGMA . Crossing this sacred frontier, (by dealing with the Marlowe / Shakespeare authorship) the conference and MSA would have had no chance to get institutional financial support.
The International Marlowe Conference featured keynote presentations by all the ultra-dogmatic Stratfordian scholars such as Lukas Erne (University of Geneva), Kristen Poole (University of Delaware), Holger Syme (University of Toronto) , and Meghan C. Andrews (s.below!) and many more.
Be aware, Marlowe ( if he is not Shakespeare) is licensed for research (only) but not for the prohibited zone of plausible theories , the entrance is advisable only for those who are really independent and free, who have nothing to lose , who are no longer hurt when the official exorcist supervisors of literature signify that "doubting is mental illness " (J. D. Dixon) and these who disobey the blind „Stratfordian or Oxfordian“ faith " are just crazy" (Stanley Wells). And they call themselves scholars?!
Look at the long Marlowe resources bibliography on the MSA home page. And look at the much longer Shakespeare bibliographies anywhere in the world. An army of researchers will have to face that their work (sometimes life work) is a pile of scientific garbage. As long as this consacrated legend reigns, it's a better choice for them to accept benefits, job, professional advancement, prestige, reputation instead of risking „Career Suicide“.- Their price is to accept also the rules of silence (omerta), and put the common sense in the wardrobe — or even better in the safe.
——————————
In Wittenberg Megan C.Andrews gave a speech on Michael Drayton ,
earlier she had published an interesting article entitled
For the reasons mentioned above (“Career suicide“), in her article (and at the conference) she didn‘t even dare to discuss a plausible possible Marlowe / Shakspere connection, which assumes, that (surviving) Marlowe wrote under a multiplicity of pennames including Michael Drayton ...
I am always fascinated by the imaginative power of the human brain in general and of Alexander Waugh in particular, what a fantastic obsession in a neve-never land, encrypted beyond recognition, decrypted after 400 years, by an unleashed brain.
Video
Alexander Waugh‘s message (3.8.2020): Thomas Edwards in 1595 knew that Shakespeare was the pseudonym of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford! ....
Can that be true at all?
This time Alexander Waugh in his Video series used Thomas Edwards (TE) a contemporary of William Shakspere „trying to prove that his witness (TE) knew, that Shakespeare was a pseudonym being used by the poeticall 17th Earl of Oxford (Edward de Vere)". As the decisive piece of evidence
Waugh selected TE's" Narcissus".
It remains difficult to understand why Waugh didn‘t give the full (significant!) title and picture! of TE’s book „Cephalus and Procris“ (1595) and why in 1595 in the dedication entitled „To the Honorable Gentlemen & true favorites of Poetrie" the author openly confesses :
" O what is honor without the complement of Fame?"
"...my soul darkened with the terror of oblivion"
Who other than Marlowe in 1595 could have had a motif to explicitly write and reflect such perspective of life.- . I see no motif for Edward de Vere.
How can we understand, that a completely unknown Thomas Edwards was the first author to mention Shakespeare’s op.1 "Venus and Adonis (1593) in his "Cephalus and Procris" which entered the Stationers' Register , October 22 1593 -
How can it be that at that early time (1595), TE in Narcissus is already quoting Marlowes "Hero & Leander ",!?? How could he have known from this poem that early, which appeared in print only years later (1598)?
Isn't the authorship thesis ...
A.) that the only existing poet and playwright genius of his time,
surviving Christopher Marlowe was the author of "Venus & Adonis" (1593 Shakespeare's op.1) and "Lucrece" (1594 Shakespeare's op.2) far more logic and plausible ...than
B ) that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, with no documented capabilities of a playwright genius whatsoever, was the "true" Shakespeare?
