Marlowe, exposed -
The absurd Myth of the Stratford
——————
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
OPEN —> Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
About Me
January 23, 2025
(699) the greatest literary hoax: Shakespeare & the STRATFORD MYTH
The greatest LITERARY HOAX :
Shakespeare & the
STRATFORD MYTH
The Video argues
that the traditional attribution of Shakespeare's works to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is the greatest literary hoax in history, asserting instead that Marlowe (who allegedly feigned his death) wrote under the SHAKE-SPEARE pseudonym and others.
It critiques alternative candidates like Oxford and Bacon as poor fits while positioning Marlowe as the ideal match, tying into the blog's multi-pseudonymity theory.
--------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
Open Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
(698) Why MARLOWE does not dominate the SHAKESPEARE authorship debate?
Why MARLOWE
does not dominate the
SHAKESPEARE authorship debate?
................
The V I D E O questions why Marlowe's theory ranks third in popularity, behind Edward de Vere (Earl of Oxford) and Francis Bacon, despite their weaker claims.
Oxford's candidacy is critiqued for chronological issues: he died in 1604, nine years before plays like The Tempest, Macbeth, and Cymbeline were published, requiring convoluted rationalizations.- This persistence stems from classist biases assuming only an aristocrat could produce such masterpieces.
Bacon's theory appeals to seekers of esoteric wisdom and hidden ciphers, but his impersonal, scientific style contrasts sharply with Shakespeare's emotional, dramatic genius.
The dominance of these alternatives is blamed on cultural inertia, blind reverence for the Shakespeare myth, scholarly complacency, and the allure of aristocratic or conspiratorial narratives.
Marlowe's theory is dismissed not for lack of plausibility but because it demands questioning cherished myths and confronting centuries of misattribution.
The Video argues that Marlowe's documented genius, genre mastery, and mysterious "death" make him the only logical contender.
Accepting this would honor the true author and exemplify the pursuit of inconvenient truth in intellectual inquiry. The video urges laying the Stratford myth to rest and giving credit to Marlowe, ending with a call for historical revisionism.
------------------------------------
Overall, it's a advocacy for reevaluating Shakespearean authorship through rational evidence rather than entrenched biases.
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
Open Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
January 16, 2025
(697) TOP 10 Arguments for MARLOWE as the only plausible 'TRUE' Shakespeare
TOP 10
Arguments for MARLOWE
as the only plausible 'TRUE' Shakespeare
---------------
---------------------------------
-1- Marlowe’s “death” of 1593 is highly suspicious
The Deptford (Coroners) inquest reads like a staged legal fiction, consistent with a feigned death arranged by powerful patrons.(W.Cecil)
-2- Immediate continuation of Marlowe’s literary voice AFTER 1593
Shakespeare's printed Works begins precisely where Marlowe’s known work ends—without any stylistic rupture.
-3- Striking Stylistic and Linguistic continuity
Vocabulary, imagery, rhetoric, blank-verse & other techniques, and dramatic construction link Marlowe directly to Shakespeare.
-4- Superior education and classical learning
Marlowe’s Cambridge training and humanist learning fit the plays perfectly; Stratford Shakespeare’s education does not.
-5- Insider knowledge of court, diplomacy, and Europe
The plays display detailed familiarity with aristocratic life, law, Italy, France, and intelligence work—areas Marlowe knew firsthand.
-6- Obsession with exile, disguise, and double identity
Central Shakespearean themes (autobiographically) mirror the psychology of a writer forced to live under assumed names.
-7- The sudden SILENCE of Marlowe, the sudden RISE of “Shakespeare”
No other Elizabethan case shows such a perfect transfer of genius from one “dead” author to a new yet unknown poet name.
- 8 - Absence of personal literary traces for Stratford Shakespeare
Not a single letter ever discovered !!!, No manuscripts, books, or contemporary testimony link him directly to authorship.
-9- Use of Multiple Pseudonyms in the period
Marlowe has written under a multiplicity of Pseudo-names, with “Shakespeare” as the most obvious one.
-10- Only Marlowe explains the Totality of the Evidence
The Marlovian hypothesis uniquely accounts for stylistic continuity, historical anomalies, psychological depth, and documentary silence.
------------------------------------
for details study this VIDEO
-----------------------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
Open Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
January 15, 2025
(696) top 10 arguments against the BACON SHAKESPEARE authorship thesis
TOP 10 arguments against
the B A C O N - SHAKESPEARE
authorship thesis
.................
1. Lack of Direct Documentary Evidence
There is no contemporaneous historical record showing that Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare —
2. Mainstream Scholars Reject the Baconian Theory
Almost all professional Shakespeare scholars and literary historians do not accept Bacon as the author, citing the speculative nature of the arguments and lack of solid proof.
3. Bacon’s Known Works Are Different in Style and Genre
Bacon’s surviving works arelargely philosophical essays, scientific treatises, and legal writings, unlike Shakespeare’s dramatic and poetic compositions. This stylistic and thematic difference suggests differentauthorship.
4. Bacon Was Too Busy with Public Duties
Bacon’s career as a statesman, lawyer, and philosopher would have left him little time to produce the full Shakespeare canon —
5. Shakespeare’s Contemporaries Knew Shakespeare, Not Bacon
Writers of the era —including Ben Jonson and others in the First Folio — celebrated the true/real Shakespeare as the author’s name, and they did not credit Bacon with the plays. That directattestation is absent for Bacon.
6. Stylometric and Linguistic Analysis Distinguishes the Two
Comparative analysis of writing styles shows that Shakespeare’s works form a coherent authorship group,distinct from Bacon’s known style, undermining the idea that Bacon was thehidden author.
7. Bacon’s Alleged Cryptographic Evidence Is Unconvincing
Baconian claims often relyon hidden ciphers or symbolic codes in the plays. These supposed ciphers have never been accepted by mainstreamcryptologists or literary scholars as valid proof.
8. Bacon’s Poetic Ability Is Disputed
Many critics argue that authentic examples of Bacon’s own poetry and literary style do not match the poetic genius displayed in the Shakespeare canon.
9. Occam’s Razor doesn’t Favor Bacon
Scholars note that the simplest explanation — that the real/true Shakespeare was a tricky invented mask of the living Stratfordman Shakspere — requires specific assumptions, whereas Baconian theories rely on complex conspiracies or hidden identities.
10. Baconians Often Rely on Conspiracy
Many objections to Bacon’sauthorship focus on the need for a coordinated conspiracy to conceal his role — yet there is no evidence such a conspiracy actually existed. Critics note that attributing the works to Bacon often requires dismissing straight forward historical documentation.
------------------
-------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
Open Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
January 12, 2025
(695) Debunking the Oxford - Shakespeare Authorship Thesis
Debunking
the Oxford - Shakespeare Authorship
Thesis
12 A R G U M E N T S
------------
12 Arguments Against Edward de Vere as Shakespeare
1. Oxford Died Too Early
Edward de Vere died in 1604, yet many plays attributed to Shakespeare were
written (or first published) after 1604 —
which Oxford could not have written.
2.
No Direct
Documentary Evidence
There exists no contemporary manuscript,
signed draft, or direct attribution tying Oxford’s hand to the works
published under the name “Shakespeare.”
3.
Lack of Signed
or Manuscript Material
No surviving manuscripts of plays exist in Oxford’s handwriting, and none were
definitively linked to him during his lifetime.
4. Stylistic and Literary Mismatch
The known poetry and writings of Oxford do
not match the depth, style, and technical features of the Shakespeare
canon—especially dramatic structure and linguistic richness.
5.
Oxford’s Limited
Theatre Experience
Oxfordians claim he was connected to theatre, but mainstream evidence shows no firm proof of sustained involvement withLondon’s professional stage where Shakespeare worked.
6.
Chronology of
Specific Texts
Some works attributed to Shakespeare show development and revision long after
1604, which a dead author could not convincingly account for without invoking
unlikely posthumous completion conspiracies.
7.
Lack of
Publication Records
Oxford’s name never appears as playwright on any original quartos or title
pages; “William Shakespeare” does. This absence is problematic for de Vere’sproponents.
8.
Dependence on
Conspiracy‑Like Mechanisms
The Oxfordian case frequently requires elaborate explanations (e.g., secret
pseudonyms, deliberate concealment by printers/authors) that appear implausible given the evidence.
9.
Misuse of
Anagrams and Cryptography
Many Oxfordian claims rely on back‑solved anagrams, numerology, or hidden
messages which are not regarded as credible evidence in serious scholarship.
10.
Biographical
Overreach
Oxfordians often interpret episodes from Oxford’s life as direct parallels to
play content. Such subjective connections are considered speculative rather
than evidentiary.
11.
Problematic
Redating of Plays
To keep Oxford viable as the author, Oxfordians often must redate plays earlier than established scholarly chronology —a method that runs counter to most textual and historical evidence.
12. Scholarly
Consensus and Documentary Tradition
The overwhelming consensus of textual scholars, editors, and historians
attributes the works to “William Shakespeare of Stratford‑upon‑Avon” on the
strength of publishing records, title pages, and
contemporary references — evidence Oxfordian theory fails to overturn.
-----------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
OPEN —> Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
-----------------------------------
January 04, 2025
(694) Top 10 ARGUMENST against William Shakspere (Stratford) , as the author of HAMLET
Top 10 ARGUMENTS
against William Shakspere (Stratford) ,
as the author of HAMLET
----------------------------------
This YouTube transcript argues against the traditional authorship of William Shakespeare, highlighting the lack of evidence (TOP 10 arguments) linking the Stratford man to the works attributed to him.
The video claims that Shakespeare's supposed lack of education, absence of personal writings, and the inconsistencies within his works point to another author.
It proposes Christopher Marlowe as a more likely candidate, possessing the necessary education and connections.
The video calls for a reassessment of the Shakespearean canon based on historical evidence rather than entrenched myths.
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
Open Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
January 02, 2025
(693) Dialog about Richard Niccols , " the editor (1610) of the Mirror of Magistrates
Dialog about Richard N I C C O L S,
last editor (1610) of "the Mirror of Magistrates".
----------------
the largely unknown Richard Niccols, who edited the 1610 edition of A Mirror for Magistrates, must have been a Pseudonym for "true"Shakespeare (= Marlowe). The argument hinges on stylistic similarities between Nichols’s works and Shakespeare’s, as well as biographical details within Niccols’s poems that align with events in Shakespeare’s life, suggesting a concealed autobiographical connection.
--------
The video uses textual analysis of Nichols's poems, including "A Winter Night's Vision", "The Three Sisters' Tears", and Sir "Thomas Overbury's Vision", to support this claim.
The Video-author analyses the use of allegory, recurring motifs, and personal confessions to build their case. The overall thesis suggests that the 'obscure' Niccols was a carefully constructed literary persona used by 'true' Shakespeare (Concealed Marlowe) to publish works under a different identity.
ai Video Dialog on the original Video (below)
-----------------
Original Video (40 min.)
It makes no plausible or logical sense to attribute the authorship of pseudonymous Richard NICCOLS' works to anyone else than the
"TRUE" SHAKESPEARE (aka Marlowe)
------------------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
Open Heading--> Home -->Videos -- Shorts -- Posts
->Popular
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)