(366) The advantages of the uncertainty principle in Shakespeare’s Authorship.

For inner-tactical reasons, Ros Barber seems to have mutated  from a "hard  Marlowian" to a "soft Agnostic".-

Ros Barber Modified from a Cartoon of S.Harris

Towards the end of 2013 I was convinced that "Marlowian" Ros Barber (PhD) had begun to  courageously resist the academic Shakespeare authorship Taboo sustained for centuries (s. Blog 65 )
But 2 years (2015) later  I had to change my mind (s.Blog 343.) I assume she only got his new position as a Lecturer in Creative and Life Writing at Goldsmiths, University London on condition that she was mutating from a "hard  Marlowian" to a "soft Agnostic".- This would make sense, having read the Abstract of her speech at this years (2015) Oxford-Shakespeare Authorship Conference  September 24-27 in Ashland.-

According to her abstract and an interview to a local radio Station (s.Blog 343.Listen!) she must have given up her earlier opinion and is now favoring 

the value or benefits of  the  uncertainty principle. - 

The abstract tells us that it will explore the benefits of uncertainty of the Shakespeare authorship:

1. „it not only allows us to be collegial, (s. "The unfaire Lady...." Blog 322)  reducing the likelihood of stressful and energy-sapping personal battles, but by opening our minds to evidence and counter-arguments which undermine our position it allows us to discard weak arguments and concentrate on those which extend and deepen the challenge to orthodox thinking „
2. „…it  also offers non-Stratfordians the possibility of gaining academic legitimacy for the Shakespeare authorship question. Using concrete examples of arguments and counter-arguments derived from researching and writing Shakespeare: 
3. The Evidence, this paper will demonstrate why the apparently ‘weak’ position of uncertainty is actually the strongest, most beneficial position a non-Stratfordian can adopt.“

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of properties [of a particle], known as complementary variables, such as (Academic) position x and (Marlowian) momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

                                     

 Ros Barbers Praise  of Uncertainty

(365) The multiple Co-authorships of Shakespeare: A great literary hoax ...

 ‘Co-Authorship

or the nature of C O L L A B O R A T I O N 

Antistratfordian Prof. Bill Leahy
 favorizes the Co-Authorship-Theory

For over two centuries scholars have discussed the possibility that Shakespeare worked with Co-authors on several plays, because certain plays showed significant signs of a putative collaboration with other writers. 

Shakespere experts such as Brian Vickers believe that Shakespeare wrote

"Titus Andronicus" together with George Peele,
"Timon of Athens" with Thomas Middleton,
"Pericles" with George Wilkins, and
"Henry VIII" and "The Two Noble Kinsmen" with John Fletcher. --

Also other  plays such as "Sir Thomas More"(Primary Author A.Munday)  or "The Spanisch Tragedy"(Thomas Kyd) contain additions indicating a collaboration with Shakespeare. What type and nature  of collaboration  was this between the dramatists?

Was it an interactive collaboration  or an ex-post-facto revision?

The plays that have been suggested as being co-authored are largely at the beginning and end of the canon and are  viewed as apprentice pieces (early plays) and unfinished works (late plays).

            

Has anyone ever thought about the ways how such a collaboration with the outstanding extraordinary Shakespeare could have taken place and why there does not exist a single independent historical source for personal connections between one of those alleged collaborators and Shakespeare?
Isn't the inverse idea and theory  more likely and logical, that  Shakespeare's co-authorship did not result  from a collaboration with different authors but from his "own" singular unique authorship, being forced to write and invent under different pennames or pseudonyms throughout his life, as proposed and developed in the         book

Multiple Co-authorship versus Multiple Pseudonymity

"The true Shakespeare:  Christopher Marlowe.

(engl. Summary of the book)

(364) A metaphoric Blueprint of the the Shakespeare Authorship

A variation on a recurrent pressing problem 

s. also Blog 214 ,   ->Blog 260    ,  -> Blog 348 

_______________

„The Funeral Elegy“ (1612 with 578 lines [abab], printed by Thomas Torpe (T.T.), who edited »Shake-speares Sonnets«[1609])  obviously must be recognized as a poetic [allegoric] blueprint of the hidden destiny of the "true Shakespeare" (W.S.), Christopher Marlowe.-

Nobody can expect us to believe, as postulated, that W.S. (William Shakspere) or John Ford dedicated these lines (in print 19 days  after the murder) to the brother of unknown William Peter, deadly stabbed into the head
 (!! corresponding to Marlowe's alleged fate .)
See also authorship debate William Niederkorn NYT 2002).-

 The Elegy can (and must?) be interpreted as a continuous allegoric self-presentation or self-portrayal of the fate of the author.- I see no alternative other than  to interprete the subsequent remarkable lines as an allegory to Marlowe's concealed destiny: they seem to need no further explanation or interpretation.-.

"Stratfordians" ("Oxfordians" or even  worse:"Oxfraudians") will, however, never reach any conclusion, since they are not  ready to accept the  Marlowe/Shakespeare theory , at least as a working hypothesis with the assumption that ...-

Marlowe survived and wrote under multiple pseudonyms such as Shakespeare or Ford.-

For details s.Video!

____________________

Each of the following  single  lines elected  (numerated) more or less are indicative for a singular

 "autobiographical evidence (correspondence)" of Marlowe's destiny, life, thoughts or philosophy.- 

Who else, in 1612, could be meant or could fit with the stuning textual contents of  these  lines?

Excerpt of a Funeral Elegy«  

of  W.S.(1612) 

[Line Numbers correspond to lines of the funeral elegy]

  5  What memorable monument can last
      whereon to bild his never-bleemished Name
  8  oblivion in the darkest day to come
10  cannot rase out the lamentable tomb  
101 for his becoming silence gave such grace
139 my country's thankless misconstruction cast
      upon my name and credit,both unloved
145 yet time, the father of unblushing truth
      may one day lay ope malice which hath crossed it
159 For should he lie obscur'd without a tomb,
195 What can we leave behind us but a name,
  Which, by a life well led, may honor have?
      Such honor, O thou youth untimely lost,
207 My love to thee, which I could not set forth
     In any other habit of disguise.
210 To speak the language of a servile breath,
     My truth stole from my tongue into my heart,
    Which shall not thence be sund'red but in death.
215 But that mine error was, as yet it is,
    To think love best in silence: for I siz'd thee
223T' enlarge my thoughts was hindered at first,
    While thou hadst life; I took this task upon me,
    To register with mine unhappy pen
    Such duties as it owes to thy desert,
     And set thee as a president to men,
     And limn  thee to the world but as thou wert-
     Not hir'd, as heaven can witness in my soul,
231 Nor servile to be lik'd, free from control,
     Which, pain to many men, I do not owe it.
 237 But that no merit strong enough of mine
     Had yielded store to thy well-abled quill
     Whereby t'enroll my name, as this of thine,
240 How s'ere enriched by thy plenteous skill.
     Here, then, I offer up to memory
     The value of my talent, precious man,
     Whereby if thou live to posterity,
     Though't be not as I would, 'tis as I can:

293  He was not so: but in a serious awe,
      Ruling the little ordered common-wealth
      Of his own self, with honor to the law
341 Most unjust choler, which untimely Drew
      Destruction on itself; and most unjust,
     Robb'd virtue of a follower so true
369 to conquer death by death, and loose the traps
       He thus, for that his guiltless life was spilt
       by death, which was made subject to the course
423 T Grave-that in his ever-empty wombhe

       Forever closes up the unrespected
      Who, when they die, die all-shall not entomb
      His pleading best perfections as neglected
483   Look hither then, you that enjoy the youth
       Of your best days, and see how unexpected
        Death can betray your jollity to ruth
        When death you think is least to be respected!
        The person of this model here set out
492  Of his humanity, but could not touch
       His flourishing and fair long-liv'd deserts,
       Above fate's reach, his singleness was such-
       So that he dies but once, but doubly lives,
       Once in his proper self, then in his name;
499 And had the Genius which attended on him
   Been possibilited to keep him safe
   Against the rigor that hath overgone him,
   He had been to the public use a staff,     [speare or shaft of a spear]
   Leading by his example in the path
 535 His due deserts, this sentence on him gives,
    "He died in life, yet in his death he lives."
564 Before it may enjoy his better part;
    From which detain'd, and banish'd in th' Exile

                        ________________
A variation on a recurrent pressing problem 
________________________________________________
The Marlowe Authorship Theory  recognizes the name „William Shakespeare“ (W.S.) as a pseudonym, deadly threatened  Marlowe borrowed (for safety reasons) from the living Stratford business man in 1593.

(363) the Shakespeare authorship and circumstantial evidence

The validity of circumstantial evidence

________________

Tom Regnier
1950-2020

One can be almost certain that the Shakespeare authorship question ["Was Shakespeare of Stratford a front to shield the identity of the real author?“] has not been resolved once and for all  -

Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship (SOF) president  Tom Regnier discussed the general problem of direct and circumstantial evidence  at this year’s SOF conference in Ashland, Oregon .(->.Video see below!)

---

“On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.


Wikipedia: “A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. Direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful.


Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. 

University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, and many other examples of contextual evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict.

---

Within  the Marlowe-Shakespeare Book a thousand(!) of circumstantial] evidences ["contextual evidences" by the majority,  but many other evidences as well] will be dealt with  that the name of a  real existing human businessman William Shakspere  (Stratford)  has been taken as a nom de plume (pseudonym) for deadly threatened Poet Genius and Superstar Christopher Marlowe in 1593 in order he could survive, change identity, live incognito  und write  under a multiplicity of pseudonyms (besides Shake-speare).-Read impressive example of 


 Circumstantial [contextual] Evidence in the SUBSEQUENT BLOG 364 

                                                     _______________

(362) Thomas Beard and the Shakespeare Autorship controversy.

Circumstantial Evidence:

Thomas Beard about Marlowe: 

"men of greatest name, ...be quite extinguished......smothered  and kept under ....not show it head anymore in the worlds eye...) 

_________________

4 years after Marlowe’s supposed death (May 30 1593) a highly educated „Thomas Beard“ with an incredible large "World Knowledge“ wrote in his »The Theatre of God’s Judgments (1597)

    for the first time a report on Marlowe‘s death!:   

»Not inferior to any of the former in Atheisme & impiety, and equall to all in maner of punishment was one of our own nation, of fresh and late memory, called Marlin, by profession a scholar, brought up from his youth in the Universitie of Cambridge, but by practice a play-maker, and a Poet of Scurrilitie, who by giving too large a swinge to his own wit, and suffering his lust to have the full raines, fell (not without just desert) to that outrage and extremitie, that he denied God and his sonne Christ, and not only in word blasphemed the Trinitie, but also (as is credibly reported) wrote books against it, affirming our Savior to be but a deceiver, and Moses to be but a conjurer and seducer of the people, and the holy Bible to be but vain and idle stories, and all religion but a device of policie. 
But see what a hooke the Lord put in the nostrils of this barking dogge: It so fell out, that in London streets [erased in the Edition 1612) as he purposed to stab one whome hee ought a grudge unto with his dagger; the other party perceiving so avoided the stroke, that withall catching hold of his wrist, he stabbed his own dagger into his own head, in such sort, that notwith­standing all the means of surgery that could be wrought, he shortly died thereof.«

There is hardly ever taken into account that Thomas Beard  explicitly concluded his reflections (in Booke 1, Chap. XXIII. Of Epicures, and Atheists on Marlowe) by referring to Marlowe's extinction of his identity

(men of greatest name, ...be quite extinguished......smothered  and kept under ....not show it head anymore in the worlds eye...) 

In subsequent editions (1612, 1618, 1631, 1642, 1648) Beard‘s striking "insider knowledge" about Marlowe was complemented by significant contents ("... having been in high places of favor in former times, are falling like Lucifer from Their heaven, that is, their wordly felicitie, and live like him in chaines of imprisonments.

"These arguments, together with poetic verses and other texts of Thomas  Beard must make us think about who Thomas Beard may in reality have been  and how he may have known of an enforced anonymity of  "a yet living" Marlowe“ .?

Thomas Beard  belonged (most logically, considering the content of the total of his Book) to the Pseudonyms of Marlowe.

(361)The Shakespeare Authorship controversy:

How to prove a possible cover-up of a false-flag Operation of the English Crown?

In the Marlowe-Shakespeare Book it was not too difficult to present a thousand(!) of [circumstantial] evidences, that the name of a real existing human beeing William Shakspere (Stratford) has been taken as a nom de plume (pseudonym) for deadly threatened Poet Genius and Superstar Christopher Marlowe in 1593 in order he could survive, live incognito  und write  under a multiplicity of pseudonyms (besides Shake-speare).-

Everything, however  depends upon what you accept as reasonable circumstantial evidence?

Could you accept next Blog (Nr.362) as a [circumstantial] evidence that Marlowe could have survived?

---

(360) Shakespeare‘s weird outfit and look.

Once you have understood the "absurdity" of the "Droeshout Engraving"

 it is no more possible to see it the "old" way.

                                                         ________for Details click Video below.________________

The numerous particular features --- (different hair length, a missing colar starched (stiffening?) line, the double chin line, the satorial absurdities [2 left arms, different shapes and sizes of the front panel, the different patterns in the embroidery [stripes], different shoulder wings] , no neck, disproportionate head-body size relation. etc..) --- show beyond doubt, that the engraving was carefully designed to consist of the left half of the front and the left half of the back side of the body and garment..--

No engraver could ever commit such a gross error unless it was expressly required. The remarkable oddities represent a skillfull executed carricature and were evidently intentional, required by the publishers (and/or by the yet living concealed poet himself: Christopher Marlowe)

_____________________________________________________________________________

The german non-fiction book: "->The True Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe.- Towards a solution of the century old Authorship Problem"  discusses the problem of the->Multiple Oddities of the Droeshout engraving (p.67-71) of  "William Shakespeare" in the First Folio.  Early publications of the 20th century proposed, that the publishers of Shakespeare's "First Folio" were indicating that the person ostensibly depicted, Shakspere of Stratford, was  not the author of the plays that follow.-

---

"Shakspere" from Stratford 

was not

 "Shake-speare", the  dramatist of  the First Folio Plays.-

But this does not automatically lead to the understanding (s. Shahan's Video of the Shakespeare-Oxford Fellowship) ), that the Publishers (amongst others Edward Blount, William Aspley, William Jaggard) of the Folio (1623) had the intention to conceal the Earl of Oxford, who had died almost 20 years earlier (!! 1604)

(359) The fatal missing link: Shakespeare never ever has written any letter!

Shakspeare (from Stratford) never ever has written any letter! 

_____________________

This needs an explanation!!



                                                   The English secretary,

                                                           or Methode of writing

                                                            of epistles and letters

                                                               1599

The goal of language is communication. Shakespeare probably possessed the most powerful communicative competence of all time, becoming one of the most influential writer.

The craft of his writing and language is unprecedented. Since at his time there was no telegraph, no radio, no newspaper etc., letters were the outstanding means of communication and a method of gaining feedback, privately and for “official” communication. -

Consider that at Elisabethan times there were extremely popular writing manuals on how to compose letters: e.g. Angel Day’s “The English Secretary” with numerous editions (1586, 1592, 1595, 1599, 1607, 1614, 1621, 1625, and 1635) dedicated – by the way – to Edward de Vere.

For William Shakspere (Stratford) having lived for a quarter of a century in London not a single sign of written communication, (letters, notices, messages, accountings etc). has remained or ever been discovered?

Any written message, given away, is forever out of the control of the sender, the most logical and only plausible conclusion of the missing correspondence is:

Shakspere never ever has written any letter! 

As long as so-called Shakespeare experts (incl.Oxfrauds) and Academia do not provide us a rational explanation for this bizarre and impossible  situation, they cannot expect that the public will ever be willing to close the chapter of Shakspeare’s invisible communicative competence and to end the authorship debate!

Compare Shakspere with his contemporous Tobie Mathew and his impressive correspondence especially with Francis Bacon (written at Shakespeare's time between 1600 and 1630)

Why as early as 1660 an impressive "Collection of letters made by Tobie Mathew" could appear in print, but never ever a single letter of Shakspere?




! You should not use the Argument ("That’s not unusual: there were  of similar contemporary cases (such as Breton, Chapman, Drayton, Heywood, Markham, Mathew etc.)
as long as you are not familiar with  their IDENTITY & vast writings!!

(358) Shakespeare‘s obvious lack of autobiographical information.

The predominant disguise motif (= Loss of identity) of Shakespeare's plays 

clearly had autobiographical roots!

_________________________

K.A:Quarmby

Kevin A. Quarmby , Assistant Professor of English at Oxford College of Emory University, investigates in his book " The Disguised Ruler in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries (Ashgate, 2012) the "disguised ruler motif" . In single chapters his analysis  includes Shakespeare's “Measure for Measure”, Marston's“The Malcontent”/“The Fawn”, Middleton's “The Phoenix” and Sharpham's “The Fleire”.

Web reviews of Quarmby's book tell us that  (whereas "disguised ruler plays are typically interpreted as synchronic political commentaries about King James") "Quarmby destabilizes some idée fixes of the Shakespeare field – for instance, the idea, often promulgated, that the Friar in "Measure for Measure" is a reflection of James I."

It has long been known that no plot device is more constantly recurrent in Shakespearean drama than is disguise.- Shakespeare injects masquerade into 25 of his comedies, tragedies and chronicle plays.- His intent in bringing a disguised figure onto stage is always to conceal the identity of one ore more characters from other persons in the play.-

To those "Non-Stratfordians" accepting the enlarged authorship Thesis of Marlowe's life catastrophy'

(In brief: after a state-supported "false flag" life rescue operation  feigning his death, May 1593 , Marlowe was permanently forced to change identity and name and write  under many Pseudonyms throughout his longlasting life).

 ......it becomes evident that a) not only the  disguise motif itself, but  b) also the motif of constantly alternating "pseudo-author-names" has belonged to the predominant autobiographical literary influences and topics  of an author, who permanently  had lost his identity and name.-

What may Quarmby have led to  his escapist results? Is he aware of the complex problems of Marston's/ Webster's, Middleton's and Sharpham's authenticity and of the missing "disguise motifs" of Shakspere, the Stratford  business man ?

Will anybody make us really believe that the predominant disguise motif (loss of identity) of Shakespeare's plays had no autobiographical roots?