The 4 King LEIR / LEAR Editions between 1594 and 1623 must have sprung from
a singular brain
......writing under one of his many Pseudonyms:
such as Shake-speare
___________________
Observations and reflections of Shakespeare's famous Tragedy of "King Lear" make it seem plausible and logical...
1)... that the 4 King L E I R / L E A R editions between 1594 and 1623 must have sprung from a single brain
2)... that this 'single' brain cannot have been identical with that of William Shakspere from Stratford
3)... that it belonged to the poet and dramatist-genius Christopher Marlowe, who tried to link his complex, tragic life situation in 1605/06 with the ancient historic King Lear as well as with his loss of identity (Edgar / Kent), his exile, the death of his parents, a general depressive melancholy and senselessness...
The 'True' Shake-speare (and not the false! Shakspere) as the Author of
"Titus Andronicus".
C O N C L U S I O N S :
There are numerous plausible and logical reasons to agree that Shakespeare ("William from Stratford) was not the author of Titus Andronicus:
1.) A no longer comprehensible number of renowned literary Experts (although largely
forgotten and negated today) early doubted Shakespeare's authorship of "Titus Andronicus" such
as:
Lewis Theobald, Samuel Johnson, George Steevens, Edmond Malone, William Guthrie, John Upton,
Benjamin Heath, Richard Farmer, John Pinkerton, John Monck Mason, William Hazlitt and
Samuel Taylor Coleridge a.o.
2.) Quarto1 (printed 1594) entered the Stationer's register late 1593 only month after Marlowe's fatal twist of fate
3.) Specifictext analogies between Shakespeare’s "Titus Andronicus", "History plays" and the "Sonnets" suggest a common poet and author:
Demetrius, Tamara's son, speaks in “Titus” about
Lavinia (II/1)
"She is a woman, therefore to be woo’d"
"She is a woman, therefore to be won";
"She is Lavinia, therefore to be lov'd",
This sounds strikingly similar in Shakespeare's
Sonnet 41:
"Gentle thou art, and therefore to be won",
"Beauteous thou art, therefore to be assailed"
«The same applies to» Henry VI/ I « (V / 3):
"She's beautiful, and therefore to be woo'd"
"She is a woman, therefore to be won"
4.) The late insertion and content of scene III/2 in Titus Andronicusof the First Folio reveal unnoticed allegoric (autobiographic) parallels to the true authors senseless death..
(Titus):
"a deed of death done on the innocent";
as well as allegoric legacies, to posterity, to his
daughter (Lavinia):
"...go with me Lavinia, I'll to thy closet; and go
read with you sad stories chanced in the times of old"
and to his nephew (boy)
" Go with me: thy sight is young and thou shalt
read, when mine begins to dazzle
[---> ! End of the newly inserted scene! ]
5. In Marlowe's play "The Jew of Malta" the villain "Barabas" definitely influenced the Villain
("Aaron" ) in "Titus Andronicus".
6. There are logical and plausible arguments that not only the authors of the history plays "Edward
II" [Marlowe[ and anonymous "Edward I" [Peele ??]) were identical, but also the authors of the anony-mous plays "Edward III" [Shakespeare?] and "Edward IV" [Heywood?] belonged to pennames of
Where does "Oxfordianism" actually get the hope from,
of ever gaining general acceptance of its theory?
(a C e n t u r y after L o o n e y!)?
I suppose
A dead end story!?
An infinite way to an unavailing success!?
_________
SOF should define the Criteria
for final success!
Is the probability of success for Edward de Verereally
so much better than for the only poetic, dramatic and universal- Genius of its time,
the singular former Superstar of the London Theater, Christopher Marlowe?
There are a thousand of PRO- Arguments FOR Marlowe
but only a singular essential CONTRA-Argument
( His alleged death ! due to his early assassination)
Shouldn't a Global Collective and Academe begin to reverse and correct a singular false fatal CONTRA-Argument in favour of thousands of logical and plausible PRO-Arguments for Christopher Marlowe's Survival as the "true" Shakespeare?
f
An open , honest and fair S O F community would at least have to invalidate all logical and plausible arguments in favour of Marlowe, which, given the facts, can hardly succeed...
When will SOF begin with the necessary steps?
100 VIDEO-Contribution
Collected Video-Contributions (Arguments) to support
the Marlowe/Shakespeare authorship thesis (oct. 2020)
I became aware of "Langton lite", with 2 posts on the Authorship issue.-
What a surprise, a new Marlowian efforts at the horizon ?
, …my key question to Dr.Christian Taylor. : what is his main reason to rehash (at this moment)
a century old terribly stale taboo discussion on all the damn old topics (spelling,
correspondence, biographical contents, the will, illiterate family etc. etc.
etc.
What does he expect? Another hundred years of an
obviously unfruitful unproductive "Oxfordianism" (they just now celebrate Looney’s
centennial (!) anniversary)
Where is the solution supposed to come from, if not
from a radical turnaround in traditional views?
A complete new "Marlowianism"?
It seems not likely that a more logic
and more plausible „conspiracy authorship thesis“ (than the Multi-pseudonymity
thesisof poet genius and former Superstar of the London Theater ) will arise.It may even well be, that a global intelligence
will never be able or ready to understand and resolve the complexity of the authorship problem, let alone the singular virtually
inconceivable mental capacity of the singular „true“ Shakespeare [Marlowe].
... decoding the dedicatory text of Shakespeare‘s Sonnets
————————-
Alexander Waugh recommended to read the Journal of Scientific Exploration (SSE) vol.34 no.2.pp268-350 (15 June 2020) by answering : „ Decoding the dedication of Shakespeare‘s Sonnets. by Prof. Peter Sturrocks , Stanford which demonstrates that the combined statistical significance of the cryptograms is overwhelming.„
click Prof. Peter Sturrocks LECTURE
____________________
The opinion of the Marlowian Pal Faklen (Budapest) on Sturrocks case, is,
„that even a sophisticated method (combined statistical significance etc.) can not prove a statement which is based on a wrong premise.-
Behind The Mask: Decoding the Dedication of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (Peter A. Sturrock, Kathleen E. Erickson)
— my opinion is that
it's a hanky-panky.
Today's computer technology can conjure from almost any text some desirable hidden messages, can create anagrams, can search all kind of equidistant letter sequencing (ELS), can arrange patters from the letters etc. Themethod is neutral,the usage, the content, the message qualifies.
Otherwise, the name of Henry Wriothesley is much stronger connected to Marlowe than to de Vere.
De Vere died 1604, the Sonnets were published in 1609, the Shakespeare monument was erected around 1620. Dear Oxfordians!
The (MSA)Marlowe Society of America held its 8th International Conference from 10–13 July, 2018 in Wittenberg, Germany, an important historic center of both religion and culture in sixteenth-century Germany….its university (now known as the "Leucorea") was made the alma mater of Shakespeare's Hamlet ("Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet: / I pray thee, stay with us; go not to Wittenberg."). The town also served as backdrop for the B-Text Doctor Faustus, the locale where Faustus first "surfeits upon cursed necromancy" and where his life ends "All torn asunder by the hand of death!"
Could MSA organize a conference with 70 lecturers without sponsorship? No....it is obvious that sponsorship depended on the INTANGIBILITY Of THE STRATFORD DOGMA . Crossing this sacred frontier, (by dealing with the Marlowe / Shakespeare authorship) the conference and MSA would have had no chance to get institutional financial support.
The International Marlowe Conference featured keynote presentations by all the ultra-dogmatic Stratfordian scholars such as Lukas Erne (University of Geneva), Kristen Poole (University of Delaware), Holger Syme (University of Toronto) , and Meghan C. Andrews [ unfortunately recently deceased!] and many more.
Be aware, Marlowe ( if he is not Shakespeare) is licensed for research (only) but not for the prohibited zone of plausible theories , the entrance is advisable only for those who are really independent and free, who have nothing to lose , who are no longer hurt when the official exorcist supervisors of literature signify that "doubting is mental illness " (J. D. Dixon) and these who disobey the blind „Stratfordian or Oxfordian“ faith " are just crazy" (Stanley Wells). And they call themselves scholars?!
Look at the long Marlowe resources bibliography on the MSA home page. And look at the much longer Shakespeare bibliographies anywhere in the world. An army of researchers will have to face that their work (sometimes life work) is a pile of scientific garbage. As long as this consacrated legend reigns, it's a better choice for them to accept benefits, job, professional advancement, prestige, reputation instead of risking „Career Suicide“.- Their price is to accept also the rules of silence (omerta), and put the common sense in the wardrobe — or even better in the safe.
——————————
In Wittenberg Megan C.Andrews (unfortunately deceased in June 2023)
gave a speech on Michael Drayton ,
earlier she had published an interesting article entitled
For reasons mentioned above (“Career suicide“), in her article (and at the conference) she didn‘t even dare to discuss a plausible possible Marlowe / Shakspere connection, which assumes, that (surviving) Marlowe wrote under a multiplicity of pennames including Michael Drayton ...
I am always fascinated by the imaginative power of the human brain in general and of Alexander Waugh in particular, what a fantastic obsession in a neve-never land, encrypted beyond recognition, decrypted after 400 years, by an 'unleashed' brain.
Video
Alexander Waugh‘s message (3.8.2020):Thomas Edwards in 1595 knew that Shakespeare was the pseudonym of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford! ....
Can that be true at all?
This time Alexander Waugh in his Video series used Thomas Edwards (TE) a contemporary of William Shakspere „trying to prove that his (TE) witness knew, that Shakespeare was a pseudonym being used by the poeticall 17th Earl of Oxford (Edward de Vere)".
As the decisive piece of evidence
selected TE's" Narcissus".
It remains difficult to understand why Waugh didn‘t give the full (significant!) title and picture! of TE’s book „Cephalus and Procris“ (1595) and why in 1595 in the dedication entitled „To the Honorable Gentlemen & true favorites of Poetrie" the author openly confesses :
" O what is honor without the complement of Fame?"
"...my soul darkened with the terror of oblivion"
Who other than Marlowe in 1595 could have had a motif to explicitly write and reflect such perspective of life.- . I see no motif for Edward de Vere.
How can we understand, that a completely unknown Thomas Edwards was the first author to mention Shakespeare’s op.1 "Venus and Adonis (1593) in his "Cephalus and Procris" which entered the Stationers' Register , October 22 1593 -
How can it be that at that early time (1595), TE in Narcissus is already quoting Marlowes "Hero & Leander ",!?? How could he have known from this poem that early, which appeared in print only years later (1598)?
Isn't the authorship thesis ...
A.) that the only existing poet and playwright genius of his time,
surviving Christopher Marlowe was the author of "Venus & Adonis" (1593 Shakespeare's op.1) and "Lucrece" (1594 Shakespeare's op.2) far more logic and plausible ...than
B ) that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, with no documented capabilities of a playwright genius whatsoever, was the "true" Shakespeare?
Oxfraudians unfortunately handed over their common sense to the cloakroom of the authorship theater...
The Oxfraud community (with about 250 members) stated on their Website that they launched the site, five years ago to a chorus of jeers from Oxfordians everywhere, many of whom wrote to them explaining their insignificance and pointing out that they would be swamped by the onslaught of the new ‘post-stratfordian' paradigm. With an inner joy they express that they „survived that onslaught, and every other one since including "The Stritmatterian Big Fist", the Declaration of Reasonable Unreason, the Wavian Teflon Fortress“ and here they „are still doing business.“
... and „the business end of this argument would [now] be over and Oxfordians rarely would now emerge in public.“
___________________ We learn ...
A) about 102 reasons to dismiss Oxford's candidacy. We learn that since the group first launched the site, the big (authorship) questions have been getting smaller. They ask themselves („strangely!“) „why there is anyone left at all believing in alternative authorship, is the biggest question today.“..but stunningly they also state ....
B) that „there are better candidates ...and alternative candidates.... Most of them better than the Earl of Oxford. „. A heavily commented part of the site.
Christopher Marlowe
Strangely enough you find a chapter about Christopher Marlowe's candidacy …claiming that it „has a great deal going for it“.... You learn from Oxfrauds website:
„There would be {only} one major hurdle to overcome. If De Vere was dead before a third of the {Shakespeare} plays were written, Marlowe was dead before almost any {? None!} of them were written. Marlowe died in a pub { ?...it was „a house“, owned by Eleanor Bull .....) in Deptford on 30 May 1593 There was a body, there were witnesses, there was an inquest, there were 16 jurors, there was a verdict and there was a funeral.{ really? everything discovered not even 100 years ago}„
„However, the historical sleight of hand required to turn the man from Canterbury into the man from Stratford {would be} only a fraction of what is needed to turn the 17th Earl into Shakespeare. And Marlovians are up to the task. They have an explanation for the witnesses, an alternative body and a host of reasons why Marlowe would want to play dead and could have pulled off a fake killing successfully.
We read..“..If Marlowe didn't die in 1593 and became Shakespeare then there is no need for the preposterous Oxfordian redating scheme. The plays,say Marlovians, were written and performed in an order which follows the rules of history, scholarship and common sense....“
...the rules of Common Sense:
Formulated and written by Oxfraud !
UnlikeOxford, Marlowe was a gifted writer, a pioneering playwright, a superb poet and a consummate craftsman. Stylometry even places his vocabulary nearest to the vocabulary used in the canon (Oxford's is out by from here to Venus).
UnlikeOxford, Marlowe was a commoner, a rare visitor to court with no rights or personal experience of courtoisie and matters of detailed hierarchy. His English history plays show shortcomings in knowledge of the court that are almost identical to the gaps in Shakespeare's knowledge.
Unlike Oxford, Marlowe was a graduate—an intellectual even. The so-called 'missing academic hinterland' need not be improvised from fable as the evidence is all solid.
UnlikeOxford, there are plausible reasons for the switch with no need for feeble pseudonymy or the invention of claptrap like 'the stigma of print'.
UnlikeOxford, the use of a pseudonym in the publication of —>Venus and Adonis
supports the argument instead of blasting it to smithereens.
UnlikeOxford, the cover up as Marlowe assumed his new identity in a milieu which already knew him as Marlowe does not require the incredible invention of a second Shakespeare to explain away topical references. ——————————
Original Oxfraud text:
"If only Will had made zero impact before the publication of—>Venus and Adonis, (a fantastic nonsense!)Marlowe's could be a very strong case.!!!!!!!!"
