(351) How do you recognize the scandal of the Shakespeare Authorship debate?

T H E  R E A L.  S C A N D A L  

is to denote all "doubters" of  the Shakespeare's authorship 

 conspiracy theorists. 

____________________

"Academia" and  "Mainstream Media"  do not acknowledge a Shakespeare authorship problem! 

They  have succeeded in supressing  endless significant questions involved (- that have never been adequately researched .--  s.Video below!  .)


A long standing authorship dispute (resulting from a real historical conspiracy) has been disposed at the landfill of a conspiracy theory from the very beginning.- 

It is of fundamental importance to differentiate the terms "conspiracy"[plot] and "conspiracy theory".

Real proven conspiracies have often occurred in Shakespeare's time, such as 

(Babington Plot, The Main Plot, The Gunpowder Plot, The Bye-Plot and so on) as well as in Shakespeare plays 

The term "conspiracy-theorist" is always used in a derogatory or disparaging manner, as a figment of imagination.

 It has been invented deliberately for that purpose,

>100 Key Q u e s t i o n s 

The Stratford- Shakpere Conspiracy 

Engl. Book Summary

URL Einbau

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUv87BoDGY

> 100 unanswered Questions

(350) Did Shakespeare expert Shapiro omitt Marlowe deliberately ?.

J A M E S   S H A P I R O  ( 2) 

What the barbarous Scythian has to do with King Lear  (Q2  vs FF) ? 

_____________

King LEAR Q2 King Lear Q 2 King Lear   First Folio 1623  (Act I Scene1)

               J,Shapiro

J

Comparing King Lear Q1/Q2 (1608/1619) with the First Folio (FF1623) serious questions arise.- Unfortunately in his books „Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?“(2011) and in  „The Year of Lear, Shakespeare in 1606 (2015)“  James  Shapiro did not deal with such essential problems like: 1).Who corrected the lines in King Lear,  from „mistresse of Heccat“ ( Q2 1619)    to    „miseries of Heccat“ (FF 1623) or „shall be“ to „shall to my bosome be“ (s.Example Faksimile.)      2.) Who was interested in (and responsible for) many of such crucial text changes between 1619 and 1623? 3.) Why King Lear (and his author)  in Q1/Q2/FF does express that "the barbarous Scythian" [Tamburlaine alias Marlowe] shall be as well neighbour‘d, pittied and releeved as his Daughter [Cordelia] 4.)Why in 1623 the passage of „The barbarous Scythian“  was clarified  by „shall to my bosome be as well neighbor’d, pittied and releev’d as my (some-time) daughter [Cordelia]                                                       ------------------ "King Lear" is a gloomy tragedy with a sense of deep general pessismism,  likely written in 1605. Consider that both, Marlowe's mother and legal  father "John Marlowe" died in  1605. Robert Ayres and others assume that Marlowe was a bastard.- his biological father -->Roger Manwood?) ( s. also previous  Blog 349) _____________ What may be  the reason that Shapiro omitted  deliberately Marlowe in his "Contested Will"?. - His ignorance forced him to ignore  such  great allusions to Marlowe  in King Lear illustrated here . Without  -->a plausible theory you will not get any sensible interpretation!

(349): King Le i r and King Le a r.! The common sense has been totally lost !

AN ANONYMOUS DRAMATIST ??

 [of King L e i r] 

never merged from a position of obscurity ?

A literary-historical grotesque!

True Chronicle History of KingLEIR 1605

True Chronicle History of...KingLEAR 1608

The author of  the anonymous (!) Play "The True Chronicle History of King Le i r, and his three daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella.", (s.Faksimile,left) registered in 1594, the year after Marlowe's alleged death, (but printed only a decade later, 1605 after it was re-registered 

  is said  to be unknown !!!!

A comparative textual analysis does not leave any doubt that Shakespeare's "King L e a r "(Q1,1608 (Faksimile right) is based on this early play "King L e i r".  -- It has attracted critical attention principally for its relationship with "King Lear".

It seems preposterous to conceive that Shakespeare could have borrowed (stolen) essential ideas [for his King LEAR] from an anonymous contemporary author.[with his King LEIR] 

In the search for the alleged author, Greene, Peele, Kyd, Lodge, Drayton and others have been considered but not Marlowe since →Sidney Lee (1909) concluded in a strange and bizarre way:

Sidney Lee: «Marlowe's genius entitles him to a better fate. It is fatuous to associate his name with an effort which no point rises to any fulnes of poetic utterance«…»[their] characteristic merits are far inferior to those of Marlowe. They walk on a the lower slope of the Elisabethan Parnassus…their dramatic work…lacks for the most part indutible marks of exalted individuality«......»and to have withheld all key to the dramatist’s name from the title page. The absence of the author’s name [ of LEIR], or his initials, suggests that he the poet [of LEIR] never merged from a position of obscurity«);

 (What a weak conclusion )  What could  have been the cause that the "unnamed dramatist" [of King Le i r] never merged from a position of obscurity? Why no consistent explanation of Shakespeare experts has been elaborated?

The "monkey business" would have been completely unnecessary, of course, if the Marlowe-Shakespeare authorship thesis had been considered more seriously!


Shakespeare's Q1-Lear ("History"-1608) and FF-Lear ("Tragedy"-1623) differ by about 400 lines: 3oo lines from Q1 disappeared in FF, whereas 100 new lines were added in FF.

Who may have made these late changes in FF?

(348) Foster stunningly recanted on his Shakespeare discovery . That was not necessary!

A FUNERAL  E LE G Y  (3)

A BIZARRE MONKEY  BUSINESS

 between Donald Foster and Gilles Monsarrat 

1995 Donald Foster, a professor of English at Vassar College, using stylometric computer analyis, made the case for  William Shakespeare being the author of the 578-line poem called '

'A Funeral Elegy.'(by W.S.)'.

(for details  click Youtube Video!)

- 

The elegy had been dated by the death of its subject, William Peter, on Jan. 25, 1612. Since the Earl of Oxford died in 1604,  assigning this elegy to Shakespeare (W.S.) was a strong argument for the Stratford  case and against the Oxford case.

In a stunning development  2002 (-->New York Times, june 20, 2002)  Professor Donald Foster  recanted on his Shakespeare discovery and admitted he was wrong and that - because of linguistic evidence - John Ford, another poet and dramatist was the more likely author of the Poem.  

An  analysis by Gilles Monsarrat showed Fosters attribution to be premature and that the true author must have been John Ford....
Professor Abrams said on Shaksper, ''.... the linguistic evidence for Ford is   stronger than for Shakespeare.''

_______________

Already at a first glance of Ford's works (s.Faksimile titles 1-3, to the left)  one could have recognized excessive similarities with the autobiographical fate of the true W.S: William Shakespeare [ Marlowe]

▷ 1. Christes [Christophers] Bloody Sweat, or the Sonne of God in his Agonie«.

(»For whiles incompast in a fleshly frame, a cloude of darke mortality I liv’d:«,»I liv’d the subject both of scorne and shame, banisht from mirth, of comfortes all depriv’d«, »And ever as I liv’d, I died alive.«.….»division in my heart, disgrace  upon my name, plaintes in my breast« »uncertaine, where to lead me to my bed« »poore forsaken ever day in daunger«... »of all abhor’d, even to mine owne a stranger« »no men my friend, in any friend no trust.«)

 - Similar authentic biographical revelations arising from another  Essay of Ford of the same year (1613):

▷»2. The Golden Meane«
(If a ...wise man after disfavour of his prince, neglect of his Countrey, forfeiture of his estates, banishments from his friends, imprisonment of his Person, or any other esteemed extremes be threatened with the losse of his head or execution in any manner...)...did fitly faine death [s.Faksimile] to be the childe of the night, and Sleepe to bee the Sister of death 
    

Excerpt p117   John Ford  The Golden Meane

▷ 3. A Line of Life« (1620)

(Two Waies had been proposed before him; the one leading to the Tribunall [Star Chamber] of Authoritie, the other to his grave.)

All 3 Essays (seen as  Ford's workes) may be  regarded as highly specific metaphors or allegories on Marlowe's fate.- 

 And the same is true for  »A Funerall Elegy« »W.S.«.  a complete methaphor and absolute blueprint for the fate of Marlowe. 

The bizarre "monkey business" between Donald Foster and Gilles Monsarrat would have been completely unnecessary, of course, if the
                   Marlowe-Shakespeare authorship thesis 
had been taken seriously!  W.S. and J.F.  ...initials of concealed Marlowe.-

For details see Video!

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

——-

VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:

https://www.youtube.com/@bastianconrad2550

Open Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts

                                                       ->Popular

(347) Claire Asquith: her incomplete, partly false insights into Shakespeare due to a total neglect of the authorship problem ..

C L A I R E   A S Q U I T H  ( )

 

                                 

                                    Claire Asquith                                                                                     

In 2006 Claire Asquith  (an orthodox Stratfordian and Catholic) published  a remarkable  [highly recommendable] book: 

“Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare. 

Her reasonable assumption is that there are  subtexts (underlined stories) within Shakespeare's play dealing with religious conflicts of its time.

She found  and analyzed clues ("hidden meanings" or code words and phrases) clearly enriching our understanding in Shakespeare’s works and life.- Strangely and unfortunately   however, she poses the critical syllogism for a true analysis of the work of William Shakespeare without giving a single critical thought on the issue of whether Shakespeare was the Stratford man. In stucking  Exclusively on one subject, i.e. reinterpreting literally everything as being explained in the  light her „revisionist history“ thesis, she goes astray.

  An example :

She expresses (see Video-speech -at minute 50:00) that one should know that Shakespeare had certain insistent preoccupations [...parallels of  a deeper "second" meaning compared  to a superficial "first"  one) for topics like
     
   Exile
      Sympathy with Failure
              Oath Taking
                     The Murder of Innocence
                             The unquiet Conscience
                                      Disguise 
                                              Divided Loyalty

  

She concludes that „these parallels“  are all precisely the concerns of the English audience of the  time. (...really true?) But Shakespeare biographers like Peter Ackroyd, deprived of Asquith's background, had to look into Shakspere's own life  and came to similar  conclusions but   seeing them unfounded  biographical.-  (Video at time 50:00 min). Ackroyd didn’t look at Asquith „revisionist history“  which  [Asquith states...] "mysteriouly stays in the history department and not in the English one."-

Consider that both, othodox historian Claire Asquith as well as orthodox  Peter Ackroyd, most likely are wrong  .- 

These "insistent [conceptual] preoccupations" of  Shakespeare  clearly represent  highly specific  (auto)biographical aspects of the concealed Author [Marlowe], the true Poet Genius[ ...not to be confused with the Stratford Business man]  with  a multiplicity of Initials,  Alias- or Pseudo-names  and identities  - (such as George Chapman, Henry Petowe, s.Blog 332, John Davies etc...) . He lived....
  

 ...in a inner and outer Exile, [banishment]
                in sympathy with his Failure (his life catastrophy) ,
                         could not accept  to take the Oath of Supremacy, [of James I]
                                    was  Innocently  "Murdered", [unsubstantial death]
                                          who had to Disguise with other identities and names,

_____________

Claire Asquith