(160) Bill Leahy's sad lack of imagination for Marlowe as the true Shakespeare

Does the Shakespeare authorship matter? (part 1) 

There is nothing in front of  Prof. Leahy, what's going to happen,  He got stuck in the mud of his multi-author idea ....No imagination for a possible multi-pseudonymity"...what a shame

On April 30th, 2014 there was a debate: "→Does the Authorship Question Matter?" at Ye Olde Cock Tavern, Fleet Street, London, organised by the Central London Debating Society,  [Chair: Alain English. Speakers: Professor William Leahy, Dr Rosalind Barber, Alexander Waugh, Professor Emeritus Alan Nelson, Dr Duncan Salkeld.]

Prof.William Leahy (Brunel University, London) when asked about the conclusive evidence ("Smoking gun") for the authorship, answered literally...

The "Smoking gun" is not going to happen as a new piece of evidence that convinces everybody that it was Marlowe, who wrote this. This is not going to happen! There is something very attractive about that and that draws us all to that idea and I think sometimes it gives rises to us wanting it to be another single author, but that's not going to happen.....we have to deal with what's in front of us...

What a shame that there is nothing in front of  Prof. Leahy, what's going to happen, except his total lack of imagination (or knowledge ? →  1,  →  2 ), it seems to entice him to such a  statement.  It leads nowhere!

Leahy did never even dare to advocate an alternative author – neither Oxford, Bacon, Marlowe or whoever. He got stuck in the mud of his multi-author theory...

---

___________________________

(159) Goethe and the Shakespeare authorship (part 3)

„A new truth may wait a long time before it can make its way...“

____________________________

→J.P. Eckermanns wrote in his "→Conversations with Goethe"  
                →Translated by  John Oxenford    (Emphasis added)

„However,“ continued Goethe, „ in the sciences, that also is looked upon as property which has been handed down or taught at the universities. And if anyone advances anything new which contradicts, perhaps threatens to overturn, the creed which we have for years repeated, and have handed down to others, all passions are raised against him, and every effort is made to crush him. People resist with all their might; they act as if they neither heard nor could comprehend; they speak of the new view with contempt as if it were not worth the trouble of even so much as an investigation or regard, and thus a new truth may wait a long time before it can make its way.

One gets the impression to recognize Goethe's wide and world view. His insights can be easily transferred to the Shakespeare authorship problem...

   Shakespeare als Theaterdichter - 
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 ( Hörbuch German)

(158) Goethe and the Shakespeare Authorship Problem (part 2) ,

Goethe's understanding  of Shakespeare 

______________

                                                          Shakespeare greatness and his gigantic neighbours

J.W.  Goethe     and     J.P. Eckermann

→J.P. Eckermanns wrote in his "→Conversations with Goethe"  about Goethe's view on Shakespeare

→Translated by  John Oxenford                   


I [Eckermann turned the conversation back to Shakspeare. ]" When one, to some degree, disengages him from English literature," said I, " and considers him transformed into a German, one cannot fail to look upon his gigantic greatness as a miracle. But if one seeks him in his home, transplants oneself to the soil of his country, and to the atmosphere of the century in which he lived; further, if one studies his contemporaries, and his immediate successors, and inhales the force wafted to us from Ben Jonson, Massinger, Marlow, and Beaumont and Fletcher, Shakspeare still, indeed, appears a being of the most exalted magnitude; but still, one arrives at the conviction, that many of the wonders of his genius are, in some measure, accessible, and that much is due to the powerfully productive atmosphere of his age and time."

"You are perfectly right," [returned Goethe]." It is with Shakspeare as with the mountains of Switzerland. Transplant Mont Blanc at once into the large plain of Luneburg Heath, and we should find no words to express our wonder at its magnitude. Seek it, however, in its gigantic home, go to it over its immense neighbours, the Jungfrau, the Finsteraarhorn, the Eiger, the Wetterhorn, St. Gothard, and Monte Rosa, Mont Blanc will, indeed, still remain a giant, but it will no longer produce in us such amazement." " Besides, let him who will not believe," continued Goethe, " that much of Shakspeare's greatness appertains to his great vigorous time, only ask himself the question, whether a phenomenon so astounding would be possible in the present England of 1824, in these evil days of criticising and hair-splitting journals?

   Goethe must have intuitively felt and recognized that the strength of contemporary literary authors (such as Marlowe, Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger and others) was an integral part of Shakespeare without understanding  that the true poet-genius represented almost the total  Group of "mountains" himself, the total mountains of "names", "initials" and "pseudonyms" (incl Shakespeare)  

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

Shakespeare als Dichter 

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 ( Hörbuch German )

(157) Goethe and the Shakespeare authorship Problem (part 1) -

Academia has failed all along the line... 

The elucidation of legitimate doubt as to the authorship of Shakespeare (Stratford

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

It is striking that the vast majority of original questions and investigative efforts to the Shakespeare authorship problem have not been developed by academia or literary experts, but by writers or outsiders, i.e. by dilettantes and amateurs, or - as Goethe would have argued, by "Business and World people" (see examples! Blogs  Nrs.   →148 , →149 , → 150, →151, →156)

 Goethe  wrote (translat.) 

As, indeed, I have always remarked that with men of business and the world, who require to have many things laid before them extempore, and consequently are always on their guard to prevent they're being deceived, it is much better to have to do even in scientific matters, because they keep their minds free, and listen to the person speaking without other interest than a desire to get information; whereas learned people, on the contrary, generally hear nothing but what they have learnt and taught, and about which they have come to some agreement with their brethren. The place of the object is usurped by some word-credo, by which it is perhaps as well to abide as by any other. Johann Wolfgang Goethe 1792, aus →KAMPAGNE IN FRANKREICH 1792

Does it really make sense to leave the field of scientific authorship inquiry and thinking up to the scholars of Academia ?

There can be little doubt: The elucidation of legitimate doubt as to the authorship of Shakespeare (Stratford), Academia has failed all along the line.

_____________________

(156) Carl O.Nordling: Consensus of Shakespeare's authorship achieved ....

CONSENSUS either by a superior expert or by group pressure ... 

Nordling  The play characters and Shakspere have very few points in common, as far as the ordinary observer is able to recognize. ..."

→Carl O. Nordling (1919-2007) must have been an impressive man with a wide range of interests. A Finnish born architect, urban planner and amateur historian.  His most notable work is in scientific disciplines outside his professional expertise. - In his later years he contributed to the →debate on Shakespeare's identity. He favoured the theory of William Stanley, Lord Derby as the true Shakespeare"


2 small excerpts of Nordlings mind

1   "...the few biographical facts about the Stratfordian Shakspere are rather unsatisfactory as an aid to understanding the plays. For instance, why should he make Juliet 13 years old, i.e. much younger than Romeo when his own bride was so much older than himself? That leaves the extremely low age of Juliet unexplained. The play characters and Shakspere have very few points in common, as far as the ordinary observer is able to recognize. ..."

2    "...means that the notion of the actor’s authorship has ever since been a starting point for the research, not something that might eventually be the result of thorough study. Such postulates (or axioms) are not uncommon in various disciplines. Five hundred years ago the thesis claiming the earth as the solid centre of the universe was a matter of course. It was not to be proven or called into question. The cosmology of today similarly postulates the Big Bang as the origin of everything--again without any real proof. In order to be maintained the postulates need consensus, which can be achieved either by superior authority or by group pressure. A Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) or a Hannes Alfvén (1908-1994) who questions cosmological dogmas gets house arrest or is reduced to silence. - The same practice applies to literary history as well....!"

A small selection of Shakspere Doubters [Anti-Stratfordians]:[In case of interest click corresponding Wikipedia entry)→1,   →2,   →3,   →4,   →5 ,  →6,   →7,   →8,   →9, 
→10,  →11,  →12,  →13,  →14,   →15,  →16,  →17,  →18,
→19,  →20,   →21,  →22,  →23,  →24,  →25,  →26, →27,
→28, →29,  →30,   →31,  →32,  →33,   →34,  →35, →36
→37,  →38,  →39,  →40,  →41,  →42,  →43,  →44, →45,→46,  →47,  →48,  →49,  →50,  →51,  →52,  →53,  →54,
→55,  →56,  →57,  →58,  →59,  →60,  →61,  →62,  →63,
→64,  →65, →66,  →67,  →68 .- 

(155) "Skeptic" magazine as grotesquely unskeptical, as it can not be worse

The Shakespeare authorship dilemma incessantly propagates itself

 (through an unrecognizable paradox...). 

_________________

Michael Shermer, non-sceptical Founding Publisher of the "Sceptic" Magazine, July 2009  in →Scientific American wrote an

→Essay

("Skeptics take on the life and argued works of Shakespeare")

on the problem of the Antistratfordians, who question the genius of Shakspere (Stratford).

He concluded that in the end, it would not be enough merely to plant doubts about Will, since the number of references to Shakespeare from his own time could only be accounted for by a playwright of that name unless the playwright [such as de Vere] used Shakespeare as a nom de plume, for which there is zero evidence. And although Shakespeare’s sceptics note that there are no manuscripts, receipts, diaries or letters from him, they would

          "neglect to mention that we have none of these for Marlowe, either."

Shermer thus concluded: →Reasonable Doubt would not be enough to dethrone the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, and to date, no overwhelming case has been made for any other author.  (click →1,  →2)  He added..

."... in contrast, hundreds of examples of historical and literary consilience have been compiled by Purchase College theatre professor and playwright Scott McCrea in his aptly titled book →"The Case for Shakespeare" (Praeger, 2008), which demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that,(...), Shakespeare was not just a man but the man..."

  Shermer's viewpoint clearly shows that the Shakespeare Authorship Dilemma incessantly propagates itself through an (unrecognizable) paradox.

 There is by no means zero but compelling evidence, that the author name "Shake-speare" must have been a nom de plume. Without the insights of that starting point the unique, "bizarre" authorship debate would never have arisen.

 But by accepting that the ingenious author (whoever he was) had to conceal name and identity and write-behind the camouflage of an outlandish amount of pseudonyms (Shakespeare included) you apparently start to contradict yourself and your statements,  which yet might be true.

This is an unsurmountable paradox, why  essential facts (like manuscripts, letters, diaries, etc.) for so →many contemporous authors*1) next to Shakespeare/alias Marlowe could never be discovered:  

this was not the cause of the authorship problem but 

(exactly the opposite) their consequence.

*1) out of " →Der wahre Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe"

(154) A devastating historical characterization of the Earl of Oxford's personality

The labelling of Gervase Markham*1) (1941) 

corresponds to a Universal Genius.

___________________________

We do not possess a single contemporaneous description of the personality of Shakespeare.

That's not so in the case of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford"; there is, for example, a contemporous ambiguous, and - at a closer look - devastating verdict on de Vere's personality by the author Gervase Markham's in his book

"Honour in His perfection (1624)." (→ Faksimile page 16/17)

                                                                    Click to enlarge!

Who was Markham? (see a few examples of his extensive work

→1, →2, →3, 1600, 1601).

Markham's "Sions Muse"(1596) is mentioned in Meres "Palladis Tamia"(1598) and he must have known the Earl. Some new points and a series of irrefutable arguments were put forward for the Marlowe /Shakespeare authorship thesis (→1), and that the author Markham must have belonged to the multiplicity of pseudonyms of surviving, concealed Marlowe(→2.)

Charles Mullet's labelling of Gervase Markham*1) (1941) corresponds to the one of a Universal Genius.

….the ubiquitous character will immediately appear. His protean manifestations are almost baffling, for how can one label a man who wrote familiarly and often learnedly on domestic animals, sports, soils, housewifery, soldiering, and manners, who collected tags and old saws, and who had a considerable literary output in the artistic sense….…his scholarly equipment included knowledge of Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and probably Dutch...


Did an unknown universal Genius (J.M., G.M.?) really live next to Shakespeare in 1600?

*1)Mullet, C.F. Gervase Markham:Scientific Amateur,Isis 35,106-118(1940)

(153) An irrational bizarre perspective on Shakespeare, how could this happen?

                   Robert Logan was not even willing  to reflect the 

                                            Marlowe/Shakespeare Thesis?    

                                                       A grotesque mental supression?      

___________________

Robert Logan &" Shakespeare's Marlowe"

→Robert Logan,   Professor of English at the University of Hartford, USA wrote a book →"Shakespeare's Marlowe" on Marlowe's influence on Shakespeare's artistry (2007).The  cover claims that Logan makes plain how
 "Shakespeare incorporated into his own work the dramaturgical  and literary devices that resulted in Marlowe's artistic and commercial success, and how the mechanics of Marlowe's artistry led him [Shakespeare] to absorb and develop 3 powerful influences of Marlowe"

a) his remarkable dexterity

b) his imaginative flexibilty in reconfiguring Standard notions of dramatic Genres

c) his astute use of ambivalence and ambiguity

Shakspere and Marlowe, (born two months apart in 1564), never met. Marlowe, through an early artistic development phase (1578-1593), established himself as a precocious poet and theatrical genius (having written famous plays such as Tamburlaine, Doctor Faustus, Edward II) and a superstar of London theatre. His instant ‘death’, following a stabbing above the right eye, rolled seamlessly and within weeks into a new biography of the hitherto unknown writer, Shakespeare, who arrived 1593 with his successful opus.1 (Venus and Adonis) at a peak of literary mastery. Marlowe and Shakspere did not overlap in their creative activity for a single day. Their ignorance of each other is not even theoretically conceivable.

How could it happen that Robert Logan developed such an irrational  bizarre perspective on Shakespeare and that he obviously was not willing  to test the long proposed hypothesis o

of the  Marlowe  Shakespeare authorship theory ( at least as a working hypothesis) ?

(152) Greenblatt:"Denial of Shakespeare's Authorship a simple mistake, the Holocaust comparison an inexcusable moral mistake

Stephen Greenblatt's apology in a published letter

 (April 11th, 2014)   in the →New York Times,

_________________

Stephen Greenblatt 

To the →request of Anti-Stratfordian [Oxfordian] Dr Richard Waugaman  Stephen Greenblatt, one of the best known Shakespeare scholars apologized in a published letter (April11th,2014)  for his statements in the →New York Times, 9 years ago. There he argued that there would be an overwhelming scholarly consensus for the Stratford authorship, based on a serious assessment of hard evidence. This shouldn't be challenged by passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time.


These demands would seem harmless enough until one reflects on their implications. Should claims that the Holocaust did not occur also be made part of the standard curriculum?

Greenblatt apologized (Excerpt)

"... I very much regret my Holocaust example, I had meant it only to call into question in the sharpest terms the apparent difference between the NY Times' treatment of scientific consensus and its treatment of historical consensus. But I had not reflected — as I should have — that Oxfordians might draw the implication that I was likening THEM to a, particularly abhorrent group. 

As I say, that was not at all my intention. It would never have occurred to me in fact because I regard the denial of Shakespeare's authorship as a simple mistake, while I regard the denial of the Holocaust as an instance of moral bankruptcy and intellectual bad faith. I apologize for any distress I may have inadvertently caused.

click Blog Nrs.  →9, →10, →12, →37, →39

(151) Jim Jarmusch about the Stratfordian conspiracy:

Jarmush: I just put Marlowe in there 

because another great conspiracy for me is Marlowe’s death. I don’t buy his death. It seems completely absurd ......

one of the greatest conspiracies ever perpetrated on humans. 

nr 38 Jim Jarmusch

In an interview of Online →"Vulture" of New York Magazine  American independent film director, screenwriter, actor, producer, editor and Composer. ->Jim Jarmusch was asked about the Shakespeare Authorship controversy?
            Vulture: Do you believe in the so-called Stratfordian Conspiracy?

Jim Jarmusch:

Yeah, I’m a definite total anti-Stratfordian completely. (...) But I do think it’s one of the biggest conspiracies, at least literary, perpetrated. And one of the greatest conspiracies ever perpetrated on humans. I think it’s ridiculous. I’m not alone. (...). 

I just put Marlowe in there because another great conspiracy for me is Marlowe’s death. I don’t buy his death. It seems completely absurd also. (...) the man William Shakespeare, I believe, was illiterate and couldn’t even write his own name from what we can see. 
There’s not a single manuscript in his hand that has anything to do with literature. Come on — how could that possibly be true? (...) They needed some kind of frontman. He got rich; we’re not quite sure why. He probably got paid off..... I’ve had Stratfordians get so upset I thought they were gonna burst into tears. I understand because they’ve invested their whole being into the mythology of this man. 
But the truth is that everything we know about the man William Shakespeare fits on four pages of text — that’s it. Anyone who writes anything longer, they’re making shit up. That’s just the way it is, no matter what they say. I’m not buying it. I never will. I don’t know if it’ll ever come to light or be proven. They did a pretty damn good job of covering it up.

A small selection of Shakspere Doubters [Anti-Stratfordians]:[In case of interest click corresponding Wikipedia entry)→1,   →2,   →3,   →4,   →5 ,  →6,   →7,   →8,   →9, 
→10,  →11,  →12,  →13,  →14,   →15,  →16,  →17,  →18,
→19,  →20,   →21,  →22,  →23,  →24,  →25,  →26, →27,
→28, →29,  →30,   →31,  →32,  →33,   →34,  →35, →36
→37,  →38,  →39,  →40,  →41,  →42,  →43,  →44, →45,→46,  →47,  →48,  →49,  →50,  →51,  →52,  →53,  →54,
→55,  →56,  →57,  →58,  →59,  →60,  →61,  →62,  →63,
→64,  →65, →66,  →67,  →68 .-  
____________________

John Hurt and Christopher Marlowe - Interview