(492) The Shakespeare Authorship: an unsolicited question

All 12 Jurors of George Wither's  „Great Assises“(1635) 

are "Alias" or "Pseudo-nyms" of the true Shakespeare 

Exemplary book titles of the 12 literary Jurors in "The great Assises" of an anonymous Poet (The "true" Shakespeare, alias Marlowe)

12 alleged Jurors alias Pseudo-Author-names of the true (anonymous) author of the "Great Assises"
Marlowe) including Shakespeare, Drayton, Heywood, Wither,Sylvester,Fletcher etc)

The artistically written anonymous essay, "The Great Assises", [Experts assume the pseudonymous  author George Wither] served the true Poet Genius  (Marlowe/Shakespeare , alias his multiple pseudonyms) as a metaphorical "general reckoning" with the society, with his life situation and wih his fate.
The author gives the reader some broad hints, that "his"  jurours of "his Great Assises" in reality represent additional identities of himself, who was forced to write under many pennames inclusive Shakespeere (…as mimicke).

As absurd and ridiculous this may sound, the truth of a historical „Multi-Pseudonymous Reality“ of Shakespeare  can only be understood, if you delve deeper into the contextual matters of  contemporary authors (or „jurours“) , in this case  of  "The Great Assises". (For details s.Video)

---

(491) William Shakspeare: 10 dishonest tricks to discredit Non Stratfordians

10 criteria (principles) how Stratfordians discredit Non-Stratfordians and their Arguments...

 ...that someone other than William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him.

This Youtube (published) 13-Dec.2016) was an attempt to put a digital english speaker (digital "Harry) under an ad-hoc picture-text creation using a text-to-speech Software.

THE 10 TRICKS

1  The Spelling ( Distinction)

2  Number of Candidates

3  Logical fallacies (Circular reasoning)

4  Common Sense

5  Conspiracy Theorists

6  Plausibilities , Systems of Meaning

7  Inequation

8  Obligation to enter the Second Phase

9  Antistratfordian Trolls

10 Reality / Myth? 

_____________________________________

(490) J.Shapiro: behind each Shakespeare controversy is a more interesting story! - (But of course no authorship issue!)

Shapiro: „The announcement that Marlowe was a co-author of Shakespeare in Henry VI. smells more of sale techniques than scholarship.“

_____________

James Shapiro

Nov.21, 2016 on the occasion of  James Shapiro visit and speech in Louisville, KY  I read in "Insider Louisville“ that for Shapiro  it is unquestioned that :  "early and late Shakespeare are co-authored plays with other writers!"
Shapiro, however  doesn't buy the Marlowe-Shakespeare Co-Author-Story.: "Spending   years and years and invest hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a new Oxford University Press -( OUP) edition of Shakespeare” OUP  had to come out with some splashy announcement  that Marlowe was a co-author  of Shakespeare in Henry VI.: 
This  announcement smells more of sale techniques than scholarship.


Is the Shapiro "Sales technique-theory"  really the bigger  and more interesting story  behind the Marlowe/Shakespeare Co-authorship?....."a lot of that noise will be questioned by the scholarly community when we actually get our hands on the evidence.

Shapiro reveals another "interesting story". He received an advanced copy of the new OUP  edition, says there is another bombshell awaiting readers. “This new edition   pretty radically re-orders the ways Shakespeare’s plays were written.”
Shapiro claims that “behind each of these favorite Shakespeare controversies“   is a bigger and more interesting story,”  

---

For Shapiro I predict that the upcoming next Shakespeare controversy  also doesn 't relate in any way to a non existent authorship issue.

---

 James Shapiro , read  other contribution on this BLOGS
(76) Shapiro's  fatal neglect and ignorance of Marlowe!
(350) Shapiro, King Lear and the Shakespeare Authorship
(374) Shapiro's personal highligths of William Shakespere(Stratford): was William really the author of King Lear?
(376) James Shapiro, Shakespeare's authorship and the Marlowe case.
(377) Shapiro's Shakespeare authorship "proxy war" for the poor high school teachers!
(381) The Chronicle sees  Christopher Marlowe's star on the rise! in spite of Shapiro?
----
173,   189  ,   305

(489) Whats the difference between Stratfordians and Anti-Anti-Stratfordians (i.e. Oxfrauds)?

Stratfordians believe in God , 

Anti-Anti-Stratfordians  try to prove  the existence of God

Niall McDevitt

In 2014 the Marlowe Society (MS) published in its Newsletter 43 an article from Niall McDevitt entitled       
                     "Of Anti-Stratfordism and Anti-Anti-Stratfordism" .-

Via  Oxfraud Facebook (an informative but ultra-neocon Anti-Anti-Stratfordian Web Source) I became aware lately  of a  reply letter by  Niall  McDevitt to the former Editor of  MS Michael McEvoy, defending himself against heavy critics of his article (Darley: " Disturbing right wing Fundamentalist rant", Yorick: Mr.Cantankerous goes ranting , MS Newsletter 44, 2015)
Side issue question: What may have been  the reason that the Marlowe Society agreed with the publication of his article  in the first place?
                              ----------------------------------------------------------

Devitts foreseeing a schism of the ‘Marlowe Society Policy’ because two incompatible factions [the „pure Marlowe Believer“  and the „Marlowe=Shakespeare Believer“] are an embarrassment / insult to each other, is as absurd as it can be and without any logic.  

The Marlowe = Shakespeare thesis  (a historical conspiracy -  no theory!) is neither an embarrasment nor an insult  to anyone but poses an intellectual challenge, at least to those, who feel the need to answer countless unanswered questions and resolve countless inconsistencies such as (some examples click links)
https://youtu.be/oHlCLMPK0zw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fdgR2OubvM
https://youtu.be/zG-yB1yiw3o?t=3     

The difference between Stratfordians (S) and Anti-Anti-Stratordians (AAS such as Oxfraudians*1) is that AAS are no religious believers like S but more knowledgable people, who try  -  on a superficial level - to fight for the existence of God, without being able to accept that they will loose the game on the long run since they do not hold enough Trump Cards.

---

*1     A nano microcosmos of ca. 4 green berets (UAASF United Anti-Anti-Shakespeare  Forces)

(488) Shakespeare experts have left their brains at the cloakroam of the authorship "theatre of the Absurd!"

A.C. Swinborne: Marlowe as the "one and only" precursor ...of Shakespeare . -

Why not a word of homage had been offered by Shakespeare?

Excerpt  1  of A.C. Swinborne's Essay on Marlowe Excerpts 2 of A.C. Swinborne's Essay on Marlowe

Algernon C.Swinborne

In his book "Shakespeare's Contemporaries"(1919)    the english Poet, playwright, novelist and critic   Algernon Charles Swinborne wrote an essay  (the last prose composition he completed before his death) on "Christopher  Marlowe in relation to Greene, Peele, and Lodge".

He highlighted not only the greatness of Marlowe "who began his career by a double and incomparable achievement: the Invention of English blank verse and the creation of English tragedy" but also the fact that Marlowe is the one and only precursor (?) of that veritable king of kings, lord of lords, among all writers and all thinkers of all time.[Shakespeare]

Swinborne's  strange remark at the end of his essay (s.Faksimile)  why Shakespeare didn't offer a word  of homage, why he didn't vouchsafe  a token of regard to Marlowe should be complemented with the question, why on earth he called the poet Marlowe (of the same age than Shakspere, born only 2 month apart)  the one and only precursor  [How would you define a precursor?] and why Shakspere started only to publish under his name in his thirtiest year of life after Marlowes death,  thus why Marlowe's and Shakspere's literary activities didn't overlap a single day of their life ?..-

---

Stratfordian Shakespeare experts who have no problems  accepting such fine absurdities seem to have left  their brains at the cloakroam of the "Authorship Theatre of the Absurd"!

---

Time table of William Shakspere (Stratford) and Christopher Marlowe (alias Shake-speare and other pennames)

(487)The metaphor of Marlowe's life: From his [feigned] death grew a harvest of [pseudonymous] ghost writers

  Necessity of a reversal of the Shakespeare authorship approach

George Wither Emblem XXI /Book1 - Mors Vitae initium (Death the beginning of life)

Excerpt of Withers Verses belonging to .-  Embl.XXI/Book 1

________________________________________

Sooner or later future generations will no longer follow the
      Dogma:     Shakspere  ("Will of the record")  equals Shake-speare ("Will of the works")

In the 21st Century, the only  unshakeable counterargument ("Marlowe came to death in 1593") must  no longer stand in the way to those facts and evidence, that support Marlowe's survival. The present assumption, that " Marlowes death [1593] is established", must be false!. It should be reversed today to a non-contradictory new scientific...

     ...Paradigm:  " Marlowe  (Dr. Faustus) equals  Shakespeare (Hamlet/Othello/Macbeth)

since 1000 Arguments pro Marlowe and contra Shakspere do exist. The powerful historical plot of the tragic fate of Marlowe was applied to remain undetected.

George Wither [apart from Shake-speare]: the single most significant penname of Christopher Marlowe  (s. Blogs  -472-,   -473-  ,   -474-  

(486) Marlowe co-author of Shakespeare: A bizarre conspiracy theory of the "Stratfordians scholars"?

Shakespeare the Team-player: 

An unmatched theory which cannot be surpassed when it comes to absurdity!

Christopher Marlowe

A broad consensus with no divergent voices could be found in the media worldwide in these weeks:
Because of new computerized textual "big data" analysis Christopher Marlowe  now belongs to the ever growing number of  Shakespeare's co-authors. 

Within the last decade 18 of  meanwhile 44(!) works of Shakespeare have  been  associated  with textual  inputs from contemporary collaborateurs. And Marlowe explicitly will now  be printed  as Shakespeare's co-author of the trilogy of the Henry VI plays in the New Oxford-Shakespeare.-

Also other plays  like "Mucedorus" or "Arden of Feversham," are now finally recognized as a collaborative play  between Shakespeare and an unknown author (who else but Marlowe? )

The fact that Marlowe is now confirmed as a collaborator is highly ironic! Since the early 19th century   Shakespeare researchers  have suggested that  Marlowe was in fact Shakespeare and the Shakespeare-Marlowe Theory has not only survived up to these days but is gaining ground as a concealed "real"  historical conspiracy.- Of course this assumption is only valid:

a) if  - for countless reasons - you accept  that Marlowe (of the same age than Shakespeare, born only 2 month apart) did not die in May 30th 1593 and

b) if you do not accept the absurdity, that Marlowe and Shakespeare did not timely overlap in their literary activity for a single day  (the first work, op.1,  of Shakespeare  "Venus and Adonis" 1593)  printed only after Marlowe's alleged official death.

Already in his detailed analysis, "The influence of Christopher Marlowe on Shakespeare's earlier style" (1886) Shakespeare expert A.M. Verity  explicitly wrote :

"Among the plays assigned to Shakspere there are four of which it is practically certain that Marlowe was a part author; they are, of course, Henry VI., i., ii. and iii and  Titus Andronicus."

_____________
How could it happen that a robust Marlowe-Shakespeare authorship theory seems to have been disposed for ever at the landfill of Shakespeare's concealed bizarre collaborative abilities?

(485) Loughnane's warning to disabuse the notion of Shakespeare as an always-solitary Genius.

Loughnane's strange opinion: …..

"wishing" [i.e. more of Marlowes work would have survived] has no place in modern [Shakespeare] attribution research.

_________________________

Dr.Rory Loughnane

On the occasion of the official Press release of  Marlowes Contribution to Shakespeare’s "Henry VI"  Dr Rory Loughnane, contributor of „The New Oxford Shakespeare“(Oxford University Press, 2016  with Gary Taylor and others)  wrote an article …

                       Marlowe, not Shakespeare—so what?

...on the blog of Oxford University Press‘ s (OUP - Academic Insights for the Thinking World ).
There Loughnane  is informing us of at least three camps of commentators about the recent official acceptance of Marlowe as a contributor and coworker of Shakespeare in the Henry VI Plays:  

The camp of ...
1. Stratfordians  
2. Non-Stratfordians ( …“those who care about "the true" ‘Shakespeare’, the imagined mastermind of conspiracy theorists who ‘really’ wrote the plays (De Vere, Bacon, et. al. omitting  box-office Marlowe!!)  and  
3. Ignorants


Loughnane’s  adresses explicitly only the first and third camp, to outline what is new and to suggest why it  matters.  Astonishingly he confesses that Marlowe's "creative genius, and his murder at the age of twenty-nine, makes us wish that more of his work survived. 

But such  wishing would /should (?) have no place in modern attribution research.

Loughnane’s  seems aware of the fact, "that  the new attribution of scenes and passages to Marlowe may not convince everyone, but that the case for his hand in these plays has been built slowly, cumulatively, and cautiously. Moreover, he claims, that Marlowe was raised in nearby Canterbury and is likely to have had the knowledge of the near  area of Faversham  evidenced by the play "Arden of Feversham".-

For Loughnane most of all, the new findings matter because they disabuse the notion of Shakespeare as an always-solitary genius.

[Shakespeare as a "sometimes-team-minded Genius"]

(484) Gary Taylor's impressive conspiracy theory: Shakespeare the eminent teamplayer !

The weird Conspiracy Theory 

of an endless succession of Shakespeare's secret collaborators  

Prof. Gary Taylor

In Nov.5th 2016 Gary Taylor, General Editor of The New Oxford Shakespeare, English Professor at Florida State University, printed an extract
              „Who were Shakespeare’s collaborators?“

 from the General Introduction to the „New Oxford Shakespeare“, looking  at the many different playwrights, actors, and poets that collaborated with Shakespeare.

There he pointed out, that all Shakespeare’s „ plays were written to be co-created by a team. But that team also changed over time, as actors like the star comedian William Kemp left, and new talents like Robert Armin and John Lowin arrived. Even if the actors remained the same, the spectators did not, in part because they were being influenced by other playwrights. Early in his career Shakespeare was competing with better-educated playwrights, most of them older than him, (…): Watson, Kyd, Greene, Peele, Lodge and Marlowe.

According to Taylor

Shakespeare „outlived them all, but by the late 1590s he was challenged, and new audience tastes were being shaped, by fashionable younger playwrights, beginning with Ben Jonson, George Chapman, and John Marston, soon followed by Thomas Middleton (our second Shakespeare), then by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher.
Shakespeare’s plays have continued to do for centuries what they did in his own lifetime: adapt to connect to  an endless succession of new collaborators, new venues, and new audiences.

The  implausible  weird situation of Shakespeare's  collaboration in a team  is that beyond computerized textual coherence there are neither  historical or biographical evidences of any personal encounter between Shakespeare and so many authors  nor is there a consistent motiv for the absolute concealment of that collaboration.

Myth which are believed intend to become true. 

George  Orwell

---

(483) Anthony Munday / Lazarus Pyott (L.P.): early "pseudo-nymous identities" of the "true" Shakespeare ?

Connections between Shakespeare‘s ,"The Merchant of Venice" and Pyott‘s „The Orator“.

  

The Second Booke of Amadis de Gaule (1595)

The Orator: Handling of hundred severall discourses(1596)

​In 1963 C.T.Wright presented the case that Anthony Munday has to be identified with  his pseudonym "Lazarus Pyott," (L.P.) whom most scholars regard as a separate unknown writer.-
From Encyclopedias  you learn that highly prolific Munday (born 1560!! [not 1553]) seminary student, actor, nobleman's page, government spy, poet, playwright, translator, traveller,  hereditary member of the Drapers' guild, "servant to the City,"  wrote ballads, dialogues, moral treatises, a Mirrour, pamphlets, pastorals, a travel book, plays, pageants, a chronicle, additions to the Survey of London, chivalric romances etc..
In 1596 a highly interesting book "​The Orator" translated from the French Book "Epitomes de Cent Histoires..."(1581) of Alexandre Sylvain (van den Busshe) "englished by L.P." appeared with 100 "legal" discourses "in forme of Declamations: Some  of the Arguments (...) of the Authors own invention: part of which are of matters happened in our [his] age.

Declamation Nr.95 interestingly deals with the Trial Scene of  Shakespeare's "The Merchant [The Jew] of Venice" 

For several reasons Shakespeare scholars agree that "The Merchant of Venice"  has been written in 1596, at the  time when  the translation of  the "Declamation nr 95"
by Lazarus Pyott was published,

 Wouldn't it be too much of a coincidence if there were no intrinsic connections between Shakespeare, the author of "The Merchant of Venice"  and Lazarus Pyott [seen as a penname of Anthony Munday]?

 .

---

(482) Anthony Munday: Another Shakespeare Candidate? An early pseudonymous (borrowed?) identity or penname? (2)

Anthony Munday is often done down by being constantly referred to a “lesser playwright”.

 If you  realise that this  is not the case, many things change

 Paradoxes against common opinion 1593

 The defence of Contrarities  -Declamation title 6  The defence of Contrarities  -Declamation title 9

 If these epithets had not been constantly applied to Munday, he would have been revealed as Shake-Speare over a hundred years ago, when the only handwritten Shake-Speare play "Sir Thomas More" discovered so far was analysed and found to be in Munday’s handwriting.

One of Marlowes most significant  life Mottos are "Paradoxes" or  "Contrarities"  (Quod me nutrit me destruit) s.Blog

It cannot be  purely coincidental that in the year of Marlowe's disappearance 1593 a booklet entitled 

"The Defence of Contrarities. Paradoxes against common opinion" [Marlowe's Life Motto or Philosophy, on his Portrait)]  

 appeared,  in wich an unidentifiable translator  A.M.  (Experts recognized  Anthony  Munday )  declaims…




... that for him that has lost his wordly honours and preferments he ought not to be greeved…
in nr.6 (of his 12 declamations s. Faksimile) or

  that for  the Exiled  it is better to be banished than to continue in liberty!
  in nr.9, (s-Faksimile)

(481) Anthony Munday: Another Shakespeare Candidate? An early pseudonymous identity or (borrowed?) penname [1]

2 poets of  the same age,  Munday - Shakespeare - 

 For the first 3 decades the one (M) could not put his quill pen down for a moment  

                     and the other (S) didn't yet write anything .

Anthony R. Munday's "Anonimus" 2016

In 2016 Anthony R. Munday [A.R.M] (claiming that the English poet Anthony Munday [A.M.] born in London in 1560(!) is an ancestor of him) wrote a fine intelligent book  "Anonimus - Anthony Munday's Shakespeare"  proving on the balance of probability that AM is the author of the works written under the pen name Will Shake-Speare.

I agree with A.R.M that highly prolific A.M. could not stop writing, could not put his quill pen down for more than a moment. His recorded output is astounding, at almost 100 works (excluding the Shake-Speare canon), and that he may have written much more under ever changing pennames [...think about N.Breton, W.Gager, G.Wither. W.Webbe, J.Clapham, L.Wright a.o.]





He was only 16 years old when he first appeared in print. He must have been well read, known  many thing about other countries – particularly Italy  – and would need some knowledge of the royal courts and foreign languages, including Latin and Greek, French, Italian, Spanish. He would also need a history of written works prior to the appearance of the Shakespeare canon. (A.M.)


Anthony Munday possessed all these qualifications. You may ask yourself: “How has A.R.M. found evidence that everyone else has missed for nearly 400 years?”"

A.R.M. claims this his book is not an academic tome., but a story of Munday's life: 

     Some content  - he writes- is true, some is speculative truth and some is [unfortunately] honest fictional interpretation. 

                        The author believes it is as near to the truth as he can make it.
                A.R.M seems to be on the right track ! There is, however, still a long way to go!  
                                                                     (read next blogs !)

---

(480) Shakespeare the adorable teamplayer? The inability of "Stratfordian Experts“ to imagine unimaginable solutions!

 Is absurdity even possible to increase?

___________________

Gary Taylor

The Guardian  on October 23 reported , that  Shakespeare’s collaborative work is even greater than  estimated over the last decades. - Using computerised text tool analysis 23 US/english academic Shakespeare scholars have contended that Shakespeare‘s collaboration with other playwrights  was far more extensive than has been realized before.

Shakespeare expert Gary Taylor told the Guardian that they underestimated the amount of Shakespeare’s collaborative work: In 1986  8 (>20%) of 39 plays were identified on their title pages as collaborative, in 2016 it were 17 of 44 Plays (>38%)

Henry VI parts 1, 2 and 3 are among those  plays that they now believe contain writing by Christopher Marlowe: 

They had been able to verify Marlowe’s presence strongly  and clearly enough.- Gary Taylor:  We can now be confident that they [Marlowe & Shakespeare] didn’t just influence each other, but that they worked with each  other. "Rivals sometime collaborate“
We have added   evidence from  phrases that occur in the passage being tested. Marlowe’s works contain many more such parallels than any other playwright,” Taylor added.

How could such an absurd/ bizarre assumption of  "Shakespeare as a teamplayer"(s.Blog 448)  arise, derived exclusively on statistical contextual analysis.  - Is absurdity even possible to increase?

No one to this day can imagine and has systematically checked, wether most of  the supposed co-authors (such as Peele, Munday, Heywood, Dekker, Middleton, Fletcher , Wilkins, Chettle   [and others]) were pseudonyms or taken as pennames from living or deceased figures by the true author, alias Marlowe [read Summary]

Gary Taylor Professor of English Florida State University

(479) In 1645 the"true" Shakespeare, still alive, disclosed the authorship conspiracy and his "false"frontman

The poetical satiric-allegoricall law-suit "The Great Assises (1645)" 

can only be understood when accepting a Shakespeare/Marlowe Authorship conspiracy!
___________________________

In  1645 the "true" author wished that the "Typographie", an instrument of art, had never been used! [i.e. that his "artificial" penname Shakespeare had been adapted "typografically"  from the real William Shaksper, Stratford] who possessed ..... [s.below 

... a pernicious head                           ... who has in Art no interest                           ... an employed  Paper-waster                           ... a Mercenary soule                           ... a Poetaster                           ... a Mercinary pen-men of the Stage                           ... a Delinquent  here: Shakespear       ... a Mimicke                            ... an Errour of the Muses                            ... an Abortive Witt                                                  ... a foule fountain of abuse                            ... a reptile equivocally bred                                         under   some  hedge Characterisation of the  "false Shakespeare" from Stratford.

It indicates that from the early beginning  there were advocates of the Shakespeare authorship plot claiming that 

it was a “matter of Typography”. -   

Different spelling implied, as R.C. Churchill ["Shakespeare and his betters" 1958) puts it, "that there must have been two men: one, the Stratford man whom they mostly call 'Shaksper' or 'Shakspere', the other the real author  whom they call 'Shakespeare' or 'Shake-speare' (with the hyphen)."  

Twenty years after the appearance ot the "First Folio" in 1644 the anonymous author of "The Great Assises" [the true Shakespeare alias Torquato Tasso, alias Marlowe, alias  alias alias ...] wished that an instrument of art (the "Typographie") had never been used! [Shakspeare versus Shak e speare] which characterized  "the false Shakspeare" as a mercinary pen-men of the Stage, as a delinquent , a Mimicke , as an errour of the Muses, as an abortive witt, as  foul fountain of abuses, as a Reptile bred under some hedge,, not in geniall bed, where lovely art  with a brave wit conjoyn'd engenders poets of the noblest Kind  [the "true Shakespeare"]

---

________________________

 __________________________

(478) The "Great Assises" can only be understood when accepting a Shakespeare/Marlowe Authorship conspiracy!

A late, highly allegorical disclosure and self defense of the yet living "true Poet Genius"[Shakespeare  alias Marlowe]

and his arguments, activities, idols and writings, 

(incognito Marlowe alias Shakespeere / Drayton / Heywood, /Wither , /Sandys, /Taylor etc ..)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The Great Assises"  has long been attributed to George Wither as the author, but this is by no means certain. (Joseph Haslewood 1810 discussed the identity of the author and stated that he "must leave it attributed to anon." )

Content:
In an allegorical  lawsuit of a divine "supreme"  Court ("The great Assises) of Apollo  the italian Poet Torquato Tasso (1544 – 1595)  is ordered to execute Apollos just commands,... to bring in alive or dead each one that... had defiled the presse with Pamphlets scarrilous, and vile, traduced with malignant Spirits and Person of honorable worth and merits.

Tasso [alias dead Marlowe]  has to disclose  12 malefectors, his own substitues or sub-identities  which are tried and hauled before a jury of poets (12 of his own pseudonymous substitutes, his poetical identities, William Shakespeare (s.Blogs ...),  George Wither (s.Blog 257/258, Blogs 352-356, Blogs 469-474) , Thomas Heywood  (s.Blogs 331,471).)  Michael Drayton  (s.Blogs 274, 322-323,) Thomas  May (Blog   xxx)  George Sandes (Blogs 223, 238...)   Josuah Sylvester, (Blogs 451- 455) Beaumont / Fletcher etc.

Both the Delinquents (Malefactors) and   the Poets (Jurors , persons of honorable worth ), the critics, accuse one another; Apollo almost invariably defends the poets.

(477) David Kathmans insipid denial of a Shakespeare authorhip controversy

 For David Kathman the  Marlowe /Shakespeare idea has not even a fringe status 

within the  field of Shakespeare authorship studies -  What an Arrogance!

David Kathmans Chapter 110 in Vol.2



David Kathman at present  is a chartered Financial Analyst who makes his living as a mutual fund analyst for Morningstar in Chicago.



David Kathman

He has a PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago.- The majority of his scholarly and media work  over the past decade deals with Shakespeare, especially  the Authorship controversy.- 

He is an ultraconservative orthodox Shakespearean / Stratfordian who  believes that doubt about the authorship  is not justified and that 

            an authorship question does not exist in reality.. -

In Volume 2 of the   Handbook "A Cambridge Guide to the Worlds of Shakespeare" Kathman with his "longstanding expertise as a denier" of a Shakespeare authorship problem obviously was commisioned to write the 

Chapter 110  "The Authorship Controversy".-

His chapter argues against Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and neither  discuss nor  mention even once  the authorship candidate Christopher Marlowe, even though recent monographies (e.g. C.Hoffman, S.Blumenfeldt, D.Pinksen, B.Conrad a.o.) and media contributions on  the Marlowe issue are worth discussing.
​
Kathmans attitude reminds on the 9/11 Commission Report (2004 Chief Editor Philip D. Zelikow) which analyzed the cause of the rapid  symmetric fall of the twin towers hit by 2 planes but didnt even mention the symmetrical vertical free fall of a third skyscraper (WTC-7) with no plane hitting the building. 

       An inexcusable trend-setting inner attitude...

David Kathman belongs to the so-called  "industry in denial".- 

Compare his preconceived opinion below (expressed in the last sentence of his chapter)  with  the "Rebuttals to the Industry “

---

 

Last sentence (conclusion) of Kathmans chapter 110.