(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 !)

---