(124) The sole alternate authorship candidate....

Why the public has been so badly informed? 

Would this knowledge influence their basic view on the authorship Problem

 

                    In →

DIO (The International Journal of Scientific History Vol.18, March 2014), →

Dennis Rawlins wrote a path-breaking "scientific" article dealing with the Shakespeare authorship question, entitled

"  MarloweCreated Shakes-pear"

Would this knowledge influence their basic view on the authorship Problem?

(123) Dennis Rawlins: If Marlowe did survive, "Oxfordianism" did not and so is "Stratfordianism".

In a basic and fundamental article (March 2014) entitled: "Marlowe Created Shakespeare"


--> in DIO, ( The International Journal of Scientific History Vol.18, March 2014 ),

dealing with the Shakespeare authorship question,

Dennis Rawlins, wrote (L30):

"The rejection of Marlowe must be 100,00%, leaving no room whatever for doubt of Marlowe's elimination. 

Why? Because: if Marlowe wasn't dead, "Oxfordiniasm" is !!, and so is "Stratfordianism".

Unfortunately, the whole story is more complicated. ....
(Summary of the Marlowe Book -->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7VeQ7OER14&t=1s

(122) Dennis Rawlins' "pathbreaking" thoughts on the "Stratford and Oxford Myth" ..

Rawlins, unfortunately, has not given any thoughts  or considerations to  details of Marlowe's continued existence

In its latest issue of  →DIO, (The  International Journal of Scientific History Vol.18, March 2014), Founder and publisher of the journal, →Dennis Rawlins, a critic of orthodox history of science, wrote  a groundbreaking paper (70 pages) dealing with the Shakespeare authorship question, entitled :

                           →"Marlowe Created   Shakespeare"                               

(please forward this article)

                                                                                                    http://www.dioi.org/vols/wi0.pdf

From →DIO it is said that it has already successfully detected and undone more historical science hoaxes than any journal ever. Even it will take time until the amount of the arguments and facts will be infiltrated by greater public awareness since the vast amount of indisputable facts can no longer be swept permanently under the rug, future will show that  Rawlins work may be called a  milestone in the gradual and necessary abandoning of the Stratford myth.

No one, in the end, will be able to ignore the wealth of arguments of a man with an exemplary scientific attitude.

Rawlins, however, has not brought 

the problem to an end,

 because he has - unfortunately- not done any investigation or consideration of specific →details of Marlowe's continued existence

("his afterlife", "his second life"),

 including his stays, his literary and political activities, his correspondence, specific events of his life and death in the anonymity, & concealment etc.. 

(121) Shakespeare authorship: The difficulties for Brame/Popova how to interprete their remarkable results.

Brame/Popova:   "Whoever wrote Edward de Vere’s poetry also wrote Shakespeare’s plays and poems.”

Galina Popova 

Michael Brame  [deceased 2010] , professor at the University of Washington for more than three decades, author of several books and founder of "→Linguistic Analysis" and Galina Popova, a professional linguist and affiliate professor at the University of Washington,

 published 2002

→"Shakespeare's Finger-prints". 

After 10 years of research into the Shakespeare authorship controversy by exploring Shakespeare's language, the two professional linguists uncovered a vast number of traits specific to the author, ("his Fingerprints") taking the investigation beyond riddles to show that the true Poet Genius adopted a range of pseudonyms (including Lily, Greene, Golding, Peele, Petowe Shakespeare, Weever, Whetstone and many others..) during his prodigious lifetime in literature, the name William Shakespeare being but one.

Up to this point, provided you accept reasonable doubts (that with the best will of the world the Stratford man cannot have been the poet genius of Hamlet or Othello), Brame/Popova's view (Shakespeare’s Fingerprints, p. 30) seems to be plausible, possible, and logic: "Once the man behind the Shakespeare pseudonym is identified, all the pieces of the larger puzzle will be seen to fall together to reveal a coherent and revealing whole:  this all makes sense!
(–p.30, Shakespeare’s Fingerprints).

But 

from here on unfortunately Brame/Popova seem to have gone in the wrong direction and came to a dead end. - They extended their conclusions extracted from their results ("Whoever wrote Edward de Vere’s poetry also wrote Shakespeare’s plays and poems.” ) to an interpretation, that De Vere must have been the poet Genius. You have to take into consideration, that it is by no means certain whether de Vere' was the author of most of the small corpus of poetrie described to him.

Brame/Popova's motives for Edward de Veres multitude of noms de plume, in many respects remain unconvincing, yet, →Motives for Marlowe's multitude of noms de plume seem more plausible, realistic and not as fantastical as most people imagine. 

→Summary (3pages,doc file)

(120) The folly of Shakespeare as a collaborateur ! Vicker's predicament !

Does anybody really believe that the ingenious, hyperdynamic, self-confident and highly superior poet Genius and Playwright who wrote Hamlet,  was a „team player“ and willing or able to collaborate with "inferiors" ? 

 this does not make enough sense.

                                                              

It is said from →Brian Vickers Professor (Emeritus,2003) at  →ETH Zurich to have brought clarity to the old question of Shakespeare's work with co-authors.
In Vicker‘s " →Shakespeare, Co-Author" (Oxford University Press, 2002), with numerous tests by many generations of scholars (examining factors like rhetorical devices, polysyllabic words, metrical habits etc), Vickers claims that he has been able to identify reliably a substantial contribution or collaboration by other playwrights in five Shakespeare plays, even when the early editions did not give credit to them. 



George Peele,              a third of "Titus Andronicus";
Thomas Middleton    about two-fifths of "Timon of Athens";
George Wilkins,         two of the five acts of "Pericles" ; 
John  Fletcher,            more than half of "Henry VIII."
                                                                                  two-fifths of "The Two Noble Kinsmen,"

A reasonable opposition is likely not going to disappear, ridiculing Vickers efforts and denying the presence of any other hand than Shakespeare’s in the Canon. 
Vickers seems to have noticed that he navigated between Skylla and Charybdis,  between  Stratfordian tradition and new thinking, approaching the authorship territory, when he wrote: " The issue of simultaneous collaboration or not is hard to settle,…But, I’d be very unhappy to think that my exposure of Shakespeareans‘ Shilly-Shallying on the coauthorship issue were to be exploited by the so called Anti-Stratfordians“.

→Niederkorn  ( New York Times  Sept.2nd 2003

Vickers seems halfway to have lost his intuition and deviated from the right track. Primarily there are no objections against his remarkable discoveries of "contextual and linguistic blocks" in Shakespeare‘s plays also appearing in texts of authors named Peele, Middleton(Thomas), Wilkins and Fletcher(John). His elaborate observations are correct, yet his interpretations seem to be inadequate.

The significant and non-coincidental results only at a first glance indicate, that Shakespeare collaborated with these authors. But at a second glance, the basic assumption ("premiss") that the true Poet-Genius impossibly can have been the man from Stratford, but concealed his identity and wrote behind obscure initials, masking names of living [like Shakespeare,] or deceased persons or pseudonyms like Middleton Peele Wilkins and Fletcher  leads to a more plausible interpretation:


Does anybody really believe that the ingenious, hyperdynamic, self-confident and highly superior poet Genius and Playwright who wrote Hamlet was a „team player“ and willing or able to collaborate with "inferiors" ? 
Because of very many reasons this will not make enough sense.

Vickers seems to anticipate implicitly that on the long run his results will only be accepted by accepting and solving the authorship problem.  The "True Shakespeare [→Marlowe]", forced to fake his death and to abandon  identity and name, for safety reasons wrote under a multiplicity of obscured initials, pseudonymous or names of real subjects (living or deceased)

(→, [3 pages, doc file]) Summary 

---------------------------------------------

Summary

(119) Stanley Wells: Why these emotions in the Shakespeare authorship debate? part 2

Stanley Wells circular argument: 

"Even wise and clever people are just plain crazy!"

__________________________

______________________________________________

Elderly British Shakespeare Professor →Stanley Wells in a →Swiss TV Interview (starting at min: 17.00) on the Shakespeare authorship issue replyed to the question

 Why these emotions? 


Sir Stanley Wells (Excerpt): 

That’s the only interesting thing about it, to me, about the whole controversy; what is it?

what form does this madness take? why do people go off in this weird strange direction? 

What is it? 

It is very strange because a lot of the books that are written try to show that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare, a lot of them are quite intelligent books in the sense they are written by people who know a lot and who are genuine scholars, not of Shakespeare but scholars of other things, and the trouble with them, with these books is not that they show a lot of knowledge and reasoning but that they are written on a wrong foundation of reasoning, they are just crazy!

Stanley Wells circular argument: "Even wise and clever people are just plain crazy!"

---

---

(118) Stanley Wells: Why these emotions in the Shakespeare authorship debate? (part 1)

… an agreement (on the authorship issue) will probably not be possible. -  

   Comfort can only be found in the insight of the great Max Planck who made a great confession  at the end of his life:

Elderly British Shakespeare Expert and professor Emeritus Sir Stanley Wells in a →Swiss TV Interview (lately erased) on the Shakespeare authorship issue replyed to the Question


Why these emotions? 
Stanley Wells: ....it’s emotional because it is irrational! there is no reason behind the thought that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare.

 So all the people who put forward that idea, in my opinion, are fanatics. They are not scholars. I don’t know of any serious Shakespeare scholar, who believes that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare; the people who didn't [or do not] believe that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare are amateurs, they are actors, or they are „literateurs“, they are men of letters, they are not the real scholars. 
Nobody who really knows about the Elizabethan period has ever suggested, that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare.      (s.also  Blog 25, 102)
____________________

Here, an agreement will probably not be possible. -     Comfort can only be found in the insight of the great Max Planck who confessed at the end of his life:

Max Planck Quote 1947  

(German theoretical Physicist who originated quantum theory, 1858-1947)


“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” 

(116) How to approach Anti-Stratfordians:

 „...do not feed the Trolls!....or  :  “Do not even ignore them! 

→Denis Scheck, a feared german literary TV critic, [His trademark is the TV spectacular merciless waste disposal - execution of the author of books from → Spiegel-Bestseller List]

at the                 

→Leipzig Book Fair March 16th 2014

emphasized →Frank Günthers (renown German Shake-speare translator) new german book "Our Shakespeare (April first 2014)"

In this book Frank Günther advises Shakespeare experts (orthodox Stratfor-dians)  how to respond to Anti-Stratfordians:

Quote [Translated] Do not feed the trolls. Do not even ignore them, when the Anti-Shakespeareans knock loudly at the door, seeing themselves as heroic Davids against Goliath and when they call "on an equal footing" for a debate about "Nonsense" .

(115) Only(!) Posthumous Evidence is patently absurd! i..

and insufficient to prove that Shakespeare the writer was the man from Stratford ...

Stanley Wells on →his home page commented on Diana Price’s response to his blog about her book "→Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography.

"Wells: ...Diana Price writes that ‘Shakespeare is the only alleged writer of consequence from the period for whom he [we?] must rely on posthumous evidence to prove that Shakespeare the writer was the man from Stratford.’ So far as documentary evidence goes this is true, but as I have said I see no justification for discounting posthumous evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence.

In a  Swiss-TV Interview Stanley Wells Nov.11th 2009 underlined this position: `...to dismiss all posthumous evidence out of hand, as some of the Deniers [AntiStratfordians] do, is patently absurd.'

Comment: Doubters do not `dismiss all posthumous evidence out of hand.'    There are, however, significant reasons to question the validity of the posthumous evidence in the Shakespeare case, starting with the fact that it is uncorroborated by the kind of contemporaneous evidence found for other writers of the time. 
This oddity led doubters to scrutinize the posthumous evidence and see that it is problematic.

(112) Shakespeare 450 - Is the Stratford doctrine really final? How awfull!

The "Shakespeare academic expert world" is not willing to face an abundance of new or unresolved facts, i.e. to deal with the "irrefutable" dogma from Stratford!

The French Shakespeare Society from April 21 to 27, 2014  in Paris on the occasion of the celebrations of the 450th Birthday helds a mammoth conference →"Shakespeare 450" with numerous parallel sessions, plenary lectures, roundtables, workshops, seminars, panels on a wide comprehensive range of Shakespeare's consequences.

No significant space is given to the problem of who was the true poet, and that he may not have been identical with the man from Stratford. 

Will the "Shakespeare academic expert world" ever begin to face an abundance of new or unresolved facts and deal with the "irrefutable" dogma*1 ) from Stratford?

*1)→defined as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

----------------------------------------------------

(111) There are no reliable lifetime images of Shakespeare, yet so many, biographers used faked portaits ,Honest experts?

 Shakespeare biographers and all their faked portraits

 of (pseudo)-images of Shakespeare! 

_________________________

We have no proof that Shakespeare himself ever had a portrait done of himself, and there is no written description of his physical appearance. So our knowledge of his appearance is fairly limited.

Because of his fame and the lack of accurate images, countless fake Shakespeare images cropped up and portraits of others were often mislabeled as Shakespeare. 

It’s hard to determine exactly how all these fake portraits impacted the image we now have of Shakespeare.

The most accurate but posthumous  (pseudo)images of Shakespeare are considered to come from 

a) the Droeshout engravement and b) the Stratford monument. (First 2 Portraits 1623)


One has to call  

 most Shakespeare biographers are "dishonest  experts", since they all used faked portraits !! 

(apart from the first 2)  as title covers ?

(110) Don Rubin: The Shakespeare authorship issue (without any doubt) will not goe away...

„ ....if we get the identity of the greatest writer of all time wrong, surely there’s a problem somewhere that needs to be solved.    „

Don Rubin, President of the Canadian Theatre Critics Association,  Professor of Theatre at Toronto’s York University, in →Critical Stages  (A Web journal of the International Association of Theatre Critics - IATC) wrote a review in

→"Shakespeare beyond Doubt?     Exposing an Industry in Denial.


Some final quotations from this review:

...It took authority 500 years to admit it was wrong about the sun moving around the earth. During those centuries, those who kept trying to show people the facts were ridiculed into oblivion. And no doubt, those who today want to open the authorship debate in academe find themselves under similar attack.

...the authorship issue, without any doubt, remains and seems  (if the remarkable number of books pouring out on this subject is any indication) to be getting even hotter. 

Does it ultimately matter? The plays still remain whoever wrote them. Certainly, that’s true. But if we get the identity of the greatest writer of all time wrong, surely there’s a problem somewhere that needs to be solved.    

---

(109) Shakespeare authorship issue: Robert Detobel's open conclusions ....?

Translation results

Translation result

WHY is the Oxfordian Derobel keeping quiet on the authorship question?

Robert Detobel (1939-2018) the doubters ...will have to present an alternative candidate ....whoever he will be, they will have to find a plausible answer to the question why an illiterate or almost illiterate man was chosen as a front...

Robert Detobel,  since decades most active "Oxfordian" in Germany, wrote a  →Review (Engl.)  in the german Web portal  →"Theaterforschung" about the book "Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? Exposing an Industry in Denial"

Last paragraph of the Review [Quotation]

But the job of the doubters cannot be considered final either. They will have to present an alternative candidate. And whoever he will be, they will have to find a plausible answer to the question of why an illiterate or almost illiterate man was chosen as the front. But that understanding a little further than “nescience” is possible — this the book has made plausibly clear. 

What may have driven Robert Detobel not to mention his favourite candidate "Edward de Vere", even once? Did he change his mind [to Marlowe?] ?

That's highly unlikely. I suppose it may be of a diplomatic nature....

(108) All Shakespeare experts declare in unison: there were no Shakespeare doubters before 1850? That's wrong!

 A terrific SHAKESPEARE Myth: 

There  were no authorship doubters before 1850!

 

Whenever so-called orthodox Shakespeare experts (→ "Stratfordians") are asked about their opinion on the "true" Shake-speare, they declare with certainty 

that until the middle of the nineteenth century nobody doubted the authorship of the person from Stratford.

That's totally wrong!!

While it is true that the modern-day authorship controversy and related →"doubts" began then, experts ignore many examples of writers who have expressed their doubt about Shakespeare's identity already during Shakespeare's own time.

Doubts were expressed soon after the initial appearance of the name Shakespeare on two published Poems "Venus &Adonis" (1593) and "Lucrece" (1594).

They continued during his lifetime and for decades after the publication of the First Folio, summarized in →"The true Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe?' (Chapter 4)

You have to be aware, that contrary to widely held beliefs the names of quite a number of contemporary doubters were no real persons but Pseudonyms of the poet Genius (like →Barnfield, →Basse , →Breton, →Bodenham, John Davies→ 1 → 2, →Drayton, →Griffin, →Markham, →Wither and many more), sometimes they were masking names of living or deceased persons like Shakespeare [Stratford], →Tobie Matthew, →→Robert Southwell, →Thomas Overbury. Often they signed on a title page or sheet with "Ignoto", "Anonymous" or "Initials of his Name(s)" [like C.M. ,W.K. ,W.C. ,W.S. etc.etc.]

This seems far-fetched and utopian  at first glance, but the →number of arguments -[Summary-]) is overwhelming and unsurmountable.     see Wildenthal's Video!

______________________________

Bryan H. Wildenthal – Early Shakespeare

 Debunking the Central Stratfordian Claim

----------------------------------------

(107) Gelferts aberrant conclusions

Gelfert:  "Anti-Stratfordianism" can only be explained on the basic human need to construct conspiracy theories!

German English and "orthodox" Shakespeare expert Professor (Emeritus) →Hans -Dieter Gelfert, Berlin in the prologue of entitled "Who created the works of Shakespeare?" of his new book →"William Shakespeare in his time " (Jan.2014 Beck Verlag) felt compelled, to counteract the ongoing global authorship debates, e.g. of the Marlowe Thesis of B.Conrad "→The true Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe " (2nd Edition, December 2013 ) and of the Oxford Thesis of K. Kreiler.

At the end of his short prologue, he emphasizes that the strong efforts of the "Anti-Stratfordians", mentioned above, can only be explained on the basic human need to construct conspiracy theories (see also →Blog Nr.15, and →Blog Nr.50) which suggest, that someone else wrote the plays.

Gelferts resume on Conrad's Marlowe Theory (German): His broad interest in conspiracy theories, his belief system is immune against doubts. He does not trust secured scientific knowledge.

What a totally topsy turvy World!!

----------------------------------------------------

(106) Wolfgang Schneider: Gelferts response to his authorship question....

fatal] human inclination to conspiracy theories ..

Schneider's commentary reinforced his "deadlocked prejudice" rather than his "own critical point of view."

Hans-Dieter Gelfert                                                            Wolfgang Schneider

Wolfgang Schneider was interviewed  at the " Deutschlandradio Kultur broadcast "  on his review  of Hans-Dieter Gelfert's (left) new Shakespeare's book "Shakespeare in his time
"
The moderator initially addressed  Gelfert's view on Shakespeare's authorship problem.

          Schneider expressed that  Gelfert "quite elegantly" scraped off all the candidates for the true Shakespeare. This is difficult to understand.

Consider that Gelfert wipes aside  a single of 2  Shakespeare candidates (Christopher Marlowe) in  the prologue of his book (under "Who wrote Shakespeare's works?")

With 5 "abstruse" arguments (→ for details, see Blog 77, 78, 79, 80 ), who testify that Gelfert can never even  have opened the book Mr Schneider seems to agree with Gelfert's opinion, who concludes by dismissing the whole Shakespeare speculation that this is based on the [fatal] human inclination to conspiracy theories ... (See the problem of this term see → Blog 15 and → Blog 50)

Schneider's commentary reinforced his "deadlocked prejudice" rather than his "own critical point of view."  It is not logical to dismiss Shakespeare's "world knowledge" (according to Gelfert) claiming a university education did not impart world knowledge at that time, nor to point out Thomas Mann's two-time "repetitions of school classes"   and his missing high school diploma (Abitur).

Obviously, the complex problem of the authorship question had soon to be silenced with a single [often-used] lethal anecdotal Injection ("Circumstantial Evidence") ....

And when Schneider follows Gelfert  that Shakespeare even went to an exquisite Latin school and lived in an "intellectually very stimulating city" [Stratford], he may well know that these sentences are not substantiated by any reliable source ...

It is not even proven whether Shakespeare ever attended a school.