October 05, 2016

(464) The Shake-speare authorship deception : Marlowe did not dy on may 30th 1593!

Marlowe did not die on May 30th 1593! 

-------------------------------- 
The Non-acceptance of the "Marlowe-Shakespeare Conspiracy" led to a fatal interpretation failure of literary sources in the aftermath of "William of Stratford".-


Epitaph nr.95 in Witt's Recreations 1640.
1640, about 15 years after the appearance of the First Folio an anonymous author in "Witts Recreations"  wrote Epitaph nr.95 on "M[arlowe?]. Christopher LAWSON (="A son of the law.") [s. Faksimiles],  
Therein the author allegorically explains us that "this good-man" M. Christopher was [formally] killed, not unjustly. [because of the contemporary law on "Treason"].-  But  in reality  a "Death in Death by Death" scenario was produced that unfolded the "power" of  Christopher. -   "Christopher's"  "pious deedes and thoughts" early reached  heaven whereas his soule could stay "alive".

 Contents of "Wits Recreations" leave no doubt, that its author must have been  "True Shakespeare" alias concealed Marlowe   

VIDEO 
>100 Questions unveiling 
the Shakespeare authorship conspiracy.


-----------------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
OPEN  —>   Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts
                                                                   ->Popular

Bastian Conrad on
Labels:

(463) The Authorship Controversy: In 1640 the "true" Shakespeare (alias concealed Marlowe) was still alive !

W I T T's  R E C R E A T I O N S (4)

 The Non-acceptance of the "Marlowe-Shakespeare Conspiracy"

 led to a fatal interpretation failure  of literary sources in the aftermath of "William of Stratford".-

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




Wits Recreations 1641


Epitaph 55 in "Witts Recreations"
(1640 Anonymous Author)
1640, about 15 years after the appearance of the First Folio an anonymous author in "Witts Recreations"  wrote an Epitaph 55 about an "Inne-keeper." [s. Faksimiles,  Note the hyphenation ! SOED innkeeper, 1548: one who keeps an inn or puplic house; a taverner]

Therein the author allegorically explains the "strange" situation of his death :  It was not him who really died, [it is not I that dye],  he but left the inne [at Deptford 1593, alive], where the plot [conspiracy] with his ostensible death occured [where harbour'd was with me all filthy kind of sin!"). In truth he had not died [it is not  I that dye],  but he "newly" had to restart, . ("I doe but now begin"). For  us there would be no reason to "weep" or "lament" ("Why weepe you then my friends"): He didn't loose [his life]  but he did win it..-

In 1640 the by far most plausible interpretation of this "bizarre" epitaph 55 is that  the author of "Wits Recreations", the "true Shakespeare " (alias Marlowe, read Summary!) was still alive and revealed  his fate in a roundabout way. It clearly corresponds to the alleged Death of Marlowe 1593 May 30th in a Taverne because  of a brawl  about a reckoning.(in Deptford)- 

____________

The total of the contextual contents of "Wits Recreations" leaves no doubt, that its author must have been  the "True Shakespeare" [ alias concealed Marlowe] 




file:///I:/Engl%20summary%20marlowe%20Buch%20-%203S.%20Abstract%20engl%202.pdf



s.Engl.Summary Text (3 pages) of the Marlowe Shakespeare Authorship Thesis and German Book





s. Video Youtube Summary
 (52 min of the Marlowe Shakespeare Authorship Thesis and Book
- 


Read more »
Bastian Conrad on
Labels:

September 30, 2016

(462) The key witness of the "Shakespeare-Authorship-Cover-up" Ben Jonson

B E N  J O N S O N (4)

WI TT's  R E C R E A T I O N S (3)
                                          2 P O E M S

          a)  by the anonymous author of   W R
                  (...the True Shakespeare!)   
          b) by Ben Jonson (...?)

Witte's Recreations, 1640 Anonmous author
A) Anonymous   

Epigram 127 (1640 ) "On an houre glasse" Anonymous Author

_________________________________________________________________________

Ben Jonson The Workes 1640
            B) Ben  Jonson

Epigramm "The Hour-Glasse" in Ben Jonsons Workes (1640)










_______________________________________________________________
 
An anonymous Poet in 1640/1641/1650 wrote a Collection of Epigrammes, Epitaphs a.o. ,  entitled  "Witte's Recreations" -

Epigram nr. 147/126 ("B.J. approbation of a copy of verses." 1640/1641, in sonnet form) is ambiguous and fully understandable only when you consider the Shakespeare Authorship Secret.

In this Epigram the author is complaining about Ben Jonson. The author describes himself as a witty "gentleman" who once showed Ben Jonson some of his own verses of "a tragick sense".-


Epigramm Nr 147 in "Wittes Recreations (1640) by an anonymous poet (The true Shakespeare- in Sonnet form)




He calls Jonson a tacit accomplice in the handling of his partaker") since he [Jonson] clearly knew who wrote the lines ("he needs must know the maker"), but Jonson was unfair ("What unjust man he was") because he "advanced his rime" (Madrigal) as his own.-  NO[Nay]! says the author, to gentle BEN, this poem was his, it belonged to the one who's held a pretty wit.

A.) What do we know about these "verses of a tragick sense"?

B.) Why was Jonson a "kind partaker of the sad lines"?

The author most likely refers to the poem ("Madrigal", "On a Lovers dust made sand for an hour-glass). Ben Jonson at the very day of his departure January 19th-1619 after his visit in Edinburgh presented to the Poet William Drummond together with a hand-written dedication " ....I Ben Jonson (....) have with mine own Hand, to satisfy his request, written this Imperfect song." (Reference).
______________

The "Houre-glass" Madrigal can best be explained as a veiled poetic Metaphor of the actual fate of Marlowe (alias Shake-speare). I see no other convincing interpretation .




.-






Read more »
Bastian Conrad on
Labels:

September 29, 2016

461 The true Shakespeare (having survived Ben Jonson) wrote e debunking Epitaph on him

B E N   J O N S ON  (3)

W I T T S   R E C R E A T I O N S (2)


Ben Jonson: The star witness of the Shakespeare authorship riddle. 

Who is the anonymous author of  "Wits recreations".?


Epitaph 174 of an anonymous author in

"Recreations for Ingenious Head-peeces" (1650)

Ben Jonson
               The english Poet Ben Jonson died in 1637.  

The anonymous author of "Wits recreation" ("1640 /  enlarged 1641/ 1650 renamed "Recreations for ingenious Head-peeces")  wrote  a short  Epitaph nr.174 (s. Faksimile  in 1650 "Recreations") on Ben Jonson.

The self-assured author [most likely Marlowe, still alive] reveals that Jonson and the rest of the poets haven't been the best and he asks us if we would like to know more about his , the best authors "Story" (not about this, Jonsons grave-"Stone"). If we would know the [true] Story, it would speak  about the glory of the "true" Poet.

              Who may be the anonymous author of  "Wits recreation".?
The contextual contents of "Wits Recreations" leave no doubt, that is has been written by the concealed "true Shakespeare" alias Marlowe. - Why ? 
Video Summary  (52 min.of the Marlowe Shakespeare Authorship thesis

 Text Summary ( 3 pages) of the Marlowe Shakespeare Authorship thesis


 see other indications in following Blogs (467)
Read more »
Bastian Conrad on
Labels: ,

September 28, 2016

(460)The Shakespeare authorship issue can be recognized in Marlowe's "Faustus' monologue" 1616 (example 2)

CHRISTOPHER  M A R L O W E 

The "B-Text"(1616 )  of Marlowe's play Dr. Faustus supports the idea that concealed Marlowe in 1616 was alive .

                                     A Variation of Blog 380

Title page Quarto-1 (1604  A-Text)
of Marlowe's Play Dr.Faustus
 
Title page Quarto-2 (1616- B-Text)
of  Marlowe's Play Dr.Faustus
 
Excerpt of a Monologue of Dr.Faustus (B-Text 1616)


The „Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus“1604, commonly referred to „Doctor Faustus“ [based on a German source]  is an Elizabethan tragedy by Christopher Marlowe, that was first performed around 1592, a year Prior to Marlowe's official death in 1593. 




Two clearly different printed versions of Marlowe's play of DR.FAUSTUS exist (s.Faksimiles - an 
A-Text[Quarto 1604] and a 
B-Text[Quarto 1616]. -  

The 1616 (B-Text) version omits 36 lines but adds 676 new lines, 
making it a third longer than the 1604 A-text.

Wikipedia makes us believe, that Christopher Marlowe had nothing to do with both publications since he  had no control over the play in performance [he died in 1593],....” so it was possible for scenes to be dropped or shortened, or for new scenes to be added, so that the resulting publications may be modified versions of the original script.-

On 22 November 1602, the diary of Philip Henslowe recorded a £4 payment to Samuel Rowley and William Bird for additions to the play, which suggests a revival at that time.

How could it happen that the popular Marlowe play staged prior to his death 1593 was printed only 10 years (A-text Q1) and 20 years (B-text Q2)  a f t e r  his death. - Who may have made such significant additions to the play in 1602 and who wrote ( when ?) the B-Text, published in 1616, the year of Shakspere death?
 
The most plausible explanation is, that the author himself was alive  in 1616!  Via himself in the figure of Dr.Faustus he reveals  his biographical secret (s.Monologue Faksimile above!) that he himself 

"was limited for four and twenty yeares, to breathe on earth?"

( first performances of Dr.Faustus 1592 ) and that they had cut his Body with their swords, or hew'd this flesh and bones as small as sand, yet rapidly, in a minute had his spirite return'd. - ( under  pen-names such as Shakespeare) . 

I see no reason or motifs why the B-Text was kept under lock for 20 years and who other then the author  himself [Marlowe] could have added such significant "biographical" information!


The "B-Text"(1616 ) strongly supports the idea that concealed Marlowe in 1616 [the death year of William of Stratford] was alive !





---------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
OPEN  —>   Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts
                                                                   ->Popular

Bastian Conrad on
Labels:

(459)The Marlowe/Shakespeare authorship thesis resolves inconsistencies of Dr.Faustus play(Example1)

CHRISTOPHER   M A R L O W E 

False or missing hypotheses concerning  the Shakespeare authorship controversy

 resulted in fatal fallacies of Marlowes Faust Versions A and B  !

________________________________

First Report [1592] of Dr.Faustus "The Historie of the damnable life,
"by P.F.Gent
 
Second Report [1594] of Dr.Faustus by a Friend of the same Gentleman 
 

 
Excerpt (emblem) of the second report of Dr.Faustus 1594
2 reports of Dr. Faustus: one prior (1592) and one after (1594) Marlowes death

Quarto-1 of Marlowe's Play Dr.Faustus (1604)  
 The play „The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus“, commonly referred to „Doctor Faustus“ [based on a German source] is an Elizabethan tragedy by Christopher Marlowe, that was first performed around 1592, a year before  Marlowe's official death 1593. - It was printed for the first time only 10 years later [Quarto-1 1604 A-text s.Faksimile] . Read also next Blog!

Surprisingly 2 english prose works of the play Dr.FAUSTUS exist

1. 1592: "The Historie of the damnable life, and deserved death of Doktor John Faustus", by P.F.gent -

2. 1594: "The second Report of Doktor John Faustus,

containing his appearances and the deedes of Wagner"
by a frend of the same gentleman.: elaborating  the Story
of the magican (s. Title-Faksimiles)

         of an anonymous author  provides the backgrounds of Doktor Faustus.


At first there can be no doubt that both Prosa works on Dr,Faustus (A & B)  were written by the same author, Christopher Marlowe, the author of the Faustus play "The tragicall Historie..." of the same year, 1592. -
 There is no room here to discuss in detail the many Arguments. But notice that in the preface of the „Second work 1594“  the anonymous author  clearly  admits that even most of the text 1592 “certainely is most credible and out of all question" the text contained  many free inventions of the author:  “…..but I have talked with the man that first wrote them [the words], having them from Wagners very friend, wherin he saith many things are corrupted,  some added de novo, some canceld and taken away, &  many were augmented.“ 

Reading the text of "the first report"(1592) undoubtedly the figure of Dr.Faustus is a metaphor for the exceptional nature of the author  himself [Marlowe/alias Shakespeare]   .

Nobody will make us believe that exactly at the time when Marlowe was heavily involved in the literary approach to the historical "Dr.Faustus", 2 independent authors („P.F.Gent“ Prior to Marlowe‘s death and „the frend of the same Gentleman“ after Marlowe’s death) have dealt with the subject of Dr.Faustus.

The "Second Report" (1594) strongly supports the idea that concealed Marlowe was  alive!









----------------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
OPEN  —>   Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts
                                                                   ->Popular

Bastian Conrad on
Labels:

September 25, 2016

(458) Shakespeare's Firewall in 1640 was in danger! The "true" author gave us a warning about his hidden existence!

 W I T T 's   R E C R E A T I O Ns  (1)    
Shakespeare's Firewall in 1640 was in danger! 

Wits Recreations 1640

Wits Recreations 1641

Recreation for Ingenious Head-peece´s 1650
-------------------------------------------
       3 Issues of Wits Recreations (1640, 1641,                                                                                                                            1650)  of an anonymous author. Each Issue                                                                           represented  a modified ,  enlarged Version
1640, about 15 years after the appearance of the First Folio  and 14 Years after Francis Bacon's death an unidentified anonymous author in a book "Wits Recreations" with Epigrams, Epitaphs and others [s.Faksimiles] dedicated Epigramm 25 (, in the 1640 Edition only . s.Faksimile ) to William Shake-speare (Note his hyphenated name!): 

 Therein he gave a striking warning how to deal with the famous poet Shake-speare: We [Pluralis majestatis, the author himself] should be silent in the praise of the "real" poet" , otherwise we would harm him by  blasting  "the authors protective Firewall" ("thy Bayes") [SOED  bay 1581: an embankment or damn]
_________________

There is no  reasonable explanation which fits with "William from Stratford" or "Francis Bacon" 

. Why in 1640 Shake-speare should not be praised , had he really been the author?

The most plausible explanation must be that 

the true Shakespeare (alias Marlowe ) was still alive!

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


VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
OPEN  —>   Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts
                                                                   ->Popular


Read more »
Bastian Conrad on
Labels:

September 23, 2016

(457)Two irreconcilable steps prevent the solution of the "bizarre" historical Shakespeare Authorship controversy

2 C O N S E C U T I V E   S T E P S

The authorship Problem consists of  2 separate   steps of solution approach.. 

________________

First Illustration (left - click link below!) of Shakespeare "
 In William Dugdale's: The Antiquities of Warwickshire illustrated
1656 compared to the Stratford monument today   

- Step 1: Why it was not (or could not possibly have been)  William of Stratford? 

 [..,  some reasons.e.g.Video 1/Video2
 the Author of "Hamlet" or "Venus and Adonis" . ]

I assume Step 1 would be accepted by a majority of farsighted critical and rationally thinking people, (...not to be confused with  Shakespeare Academics, their acceptance of step1  would mean  "Career Suicide")  if  for  the consecutive second Step a rationale answer would or could  have been found  

- Step 2:  Since  William of Stratford was not the author, then  W H O  w a s   i t? - 

Why  no logic and  definite solution of this crucial step and question could be achieved for 2 centuries: Why instead a factual problem  was endlessly  ridiculed by discussing 75 candidates and disposing it at the landfill of conspiracy theories?
There seems to be  a clear dilemma: 
First Step  and Second Step cancel each other out:   they are mutually dependent!

Some famous Non-Stratfordians
To repeat myself:  after a century of  arguments assembled there is no longer a logical compelling necessity to accept  the First Step,  (i.e. to recognize William from  Stratford as the true author of Hamlet, Romeo &Juliet etc.) :  there are definitely not sufficient plausible arguments that William of Stratford was a literary Polymath!  

Otherwise  over centuries a community of "Non-Stratfordians"  would never have been formed.

But even today Non-Stratfordians (such as Diana Price,  a.o.  ) committing the deplorable error to concentrate on Step 1...and seem to fear the second step as the devil the holy water.
Thus the more complex Second Step has not even begun to be analysed,  discussed or understood---and that's why the solution of the  unique authorship issue meanwhile   stagnates for a century!...

A breakthrough in solving the fundamental  authorship issue will only be possible, when  we definitely close [for a while] the trail 1[step1], concentrate on trail 2[step2] and  study the consequences of  thoughts which have not been thought through.- 

Only by finding Trail 2  we will be able  to find the Exit.

The Thesis of a Marlowe /Shakespeare Authorship plot is by far the most plausible one ! 

Lets follow 

the Trail of MARLOWES survival that actually happened! 

(at the expense of the change of  HIS Name and Identity)





-----------------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive:
OPEN  —>   Heading-->  Home -->Videos -- Shorts  -- Posts
                                                                   ->Popular

Bastian Conrad on
Labels:

September 19, 2016

(456) Anti-Stratfordians(1), Anti-Shakespeareans(2)! What's the difference? 2 is a personal attack: You are dishonorable!


Picture
Ignoring the "Shakespeare Doubters" 
will not make them go away.(s.Video below).

Increasingly Shakespeare Academics have started to employ the term "Anti-Shakespearean" (=NON-Stratfordians) for those who harbor  doubts about  the rationale, that the author of Hamlet                                                             is not the Author of HAMLET

Clearly the term "Anti-Shakespeareans" is misleading and suggests that doubters dislike Shakespeare. Quite the opposite is true: they are higly interested in  the works and their writer. But also the traditional term 
    "Anti-Stratfordian" is unnecessarily contentious.... 

....the more neutral term "Non-Stratfordian" is preferred-
PictureFrank Günther
Frank Guenther,(1947-2020) todays most renowned German translator of Shakespeare's works in his book "Our Shakespeare" (2014) calls  those who do not recognize the Stratford-Man as the author of Shakespeare's plays "Anti-Shakespeareans".- 

One can assume with some certainty that our linguistically most proficient german translator has done this deliberately to disguise its baroque falsifying polemics. 
By the term "Anti-Shakespeareans" someone is defamed in the first place, 
because he takes a stand against  Shakespeare. -

To speak out against a business man from Stratford, which had to be chosen as a masking person for life rescue of  the great poet, Günther well knows to put to a stop. He clearly uses  this "language imprecision"  strategically:  

Only a philistine can have something against Shakespeare! Who would want to be a philistine? The clarifying term "Anti-Stratfordian" Günther fears  like the devil  the holy water in order to disguise or getting around the legitimate authorship problem, he has never tried to understand. -
We should   reject attempts to reframe “Non-Stratfordians” as “Anti-Shakespeareans.”  




Read more »
Bastian Conrad on
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)