For centuries, the question of Shakespeare's authorship has puzzled readers, scholars, and researchers.
This blog presents a comprehensive solution:
The Multi-Pseudonymity Theory (MPT).
According to my research, Christopher Marlowe — officially declared dead in 1593 — survived and continued to write under multiple pseudonyms.
The Shakespeare-Stratford-Dogma (SSD) is not allowed being questioned or doubted...
----------------------------
...and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm.
___________________________
...challenging the Dogma is academic death and the most elegant way for a scholar to commit career suicide” !
Almost any scholar would lose his job, his position or reputation in the academic world of "Shakespeare orthodoxy" if he would would engage in the least to the authorship debate and doubt.! ___________________________
One wonders how such a infinite unique global confusion could occur ?
There are significant reasons for this confusion, which can only ever be resolved with the gradual acceptance of the complex Marlowe Shakespeare authorship thesis..
(Marlowes Survival and his multiple Penname-ship).
2 high level poets with the samename (John Davies), in the same year (1602) with the sameliterary subjectmatter ( the soul) , in the same city (London) printed these
2 masterpieces of philosophical literature?
John Davies(of Hereford)
Sir John Davies
_________________
———————————
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive: (MARLOWE/Shakespeare)
I am a retired Professor for Neuroscience from Munich and wrote a german book (after 10 years of reading and studies) on the Marlowe/Shakespeare Authorship thesis . Unfortunately I couldn’t find an english Publisher, since I was regarded (up to now) as a conspiracy ideologist. At least, I lately fabricated a short english Summary of the book. (Video youtube) (=Blog 559)
exploring the trope of banishment in early commercial drama.
on the website „Before Shakespeare“ . I suppose it‘s a base of your upcoming PhD „Bodies of Law: Banishment, Marriage, and Sovereign Power in Shakespeare’s Plays“.
The reason of my letter is a question:
What may be the reason, that in your essay on "Banishment in Shakespeares time" you totally neglegt (or deny?) the Marlowe / Shakespeare thesis, even though banishment, exile, disgrace , loss of identity etc. is a crucial element
not only in Marlowe / Shakespeare‘s work but also in other poets or playwrights works ( explained as contemporary pseudonyms) such as [s.Video] --> Drayton(1), Griffin (2) Ford (3) Shake-speare(4) and many more
Is the Marlowe/Shakespeare authorship thesis (also to the younger generation) a total nonsense?
With regards
Bastian Conrad
Bastian Conrad (Prof.emeritus)
Techn.University Munich
————-
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive: (MARLOWE/Shakespeare)
An attempt to give a short answer to a significant question, most often asked....
There are compelling reasons to assume that long before Marlowesalleged death in 1593 , from probably the very early beginnings of his writings, he must have been accustomed and was thus early prepared to write under false names, i.e. anonymously, pseudonymously, or with unidentifiable initials, under a state of disguised identity-.
He must have wished ( and was forced) to remain and write anonymously for various reason, not the least because of his (too) liberal or radical or progressive thoughts in matters of religion, social issues, ethics as well as because of his critics on public figures , opinions , books etc. ... He was light years ahead of his time...
To Marlowes early pseudo- or pennames, prior to his official death (1593), one can safely count George Wither (e.g. An ABC for Laymen 1585/ 1588) , Nicholas Breton, William Gager (Meleager), William Basse , George Puttenham ("The Arte of Poesie" ) and others. - Otherwise, it is literally impossible to explain why not a single literary work of Marlowe / Shakespeare was printed prior to Marlowe's demise / or Shakespeare's rise in 1593, in both Marlowes /Shakespeares 30th year of life (one exception: anonymous Tamburlaine 1590). It is unthinkable and can literally be ruled out, that Marlowe/Shakespeare (of the same age!) between 1573 and 1593 have not spoken literally in many ways in their early most creative phase of life. - Consider that average life expectancy was not even 50 at that time., ......it seems virtually impossible that the literary prolific creativity of the true Shakespeare genius within his first 30 years of life was zero , and consisted of no diversity of printed literary genres at all.
Probably most people have not the slightest ideas of the dimensions, the earliness and immensity of Marlowes/ =Shakespeares knowledge, of his power of comprehension, of his memory capacities, of his unimaginable speed of writing and thinking , his productivity, his dialogic language abilities or his elocutionary language skills, etc. , i.e. his overwhelmig creativity....
.....similar to a Musical Genius like Mozart, who wrote his first Piano Concert at the Age of 12. - KV37 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xFmod_Aazf0 and composed the Great symphony 36 (kv425) on transit within a prolonged weekend 1783 in the austrian City of Linz, when he and his wife had to interrupt their traveling between Salzburg and Vienna because of bad wether... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t7dWkI9H9fw
My own experience with such types of Genius is the pianist Kit Armstrong whom I learnt to know, years ago who speaks 8 languages fluently, who wrote his mathematical dissertation at the age of 14 who is a fine composer and high ranking world pianist . I asked him in a conversation if he was familiar with a fugue composed by Chopin.. Since he was not, I showed him the score on an iPad , he memorized the page for a minute and went to the piano and played the piece by heart at Concert Level. ...unimaginable... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2-KIwpJPPzs ------------ At the Elisabethan age crimes that threatened the social order were considered extremely dangerous offenses. They included not only heresy, but also treason, ( "Marlowes Dutch Libels.) which challenged the legitimate government and crown.. Those convicted of these crimes (or threatened such as Marlowe...he was advised and supported by William Cecil to disappear by feigning his death) since by the law they had to expect the harshest punishment. Execution methods for the most serious crimes were designed to be as gruesome as possible....
Anonymity was necessary in those times, but not easy to achieve and often fraught with. It required "unlinkability", such that an attacker's examination of the pseudonym holder's message provided no information about the holder's true name or location.
It was by no means primarily the literary anonymity of Marlowe as a poet, under which he suffered from, (he very early on was accustomed to it) but from his total banishment from society, from court and nobility ( since June 1593) and from his permanent and complete loss of reputation and identity, from his social isolation, his living in obscurity ....His formal extinction meant that he could never hope for a pardon under an earlier identity.
He felt bound by his oath to William Cecil (See Hamlet Ghost Scene)
His "crime" (treason , rebellion , sedition ) was atoned for by his formal death .... It was rather his reputation murder.....the absolute necessity to exist and remain incognito in seclusion....he was never to be recognized under any circumstances,
There is virtually no evidence that anyone during his lifetime knew of a poet Shakspere (Stratford), or of the fact that the Stratford person was the poet of Hamlet, Romeo & Julia, or King Lear ...The idea of a fusion ( conflation?) of Shakspere and Shakespeare was explicitly invented or created for posterity, a construction of (for) his poetic aftermath ...
The ingenious trick of hiding behind the name of a single living (paid) person (such as Shakspere/Stratford) or deceased persons or invented names (e.g. John Overbury...Michael Drayton George Chap,manetc.) would have had the consequence,( as soon as somebody started looking for a singular person) of detecting the living person sooner or later....this could only or best be prevented by a multiplicity of pseudonyms, but also by various other ( also ingenious) tricks of multi-pseudonymities, e.g. by double names ( Sir John Davies, or , John Davies of Hereford --- or John Fletcher or Phineas Fletcher), by double authors Beaumont&Fletcher...and so on....
Consider, that half of Shakespeares plays (18) were printed only after his death, and not known before... of the other half 50% were printed anonymously thus only a quarter known under Shakepeare / Shake-speare.... This fact alone indicates the necessity that
the recognizability of his person was prevented and had to be prevented by all circumstances!
If all 36 pieces of the First Folio and many more ( attributed to other fictious poets) had been printed under the name of William Shakespeare, there could or would soon have been a growing interest in getting a hunt for this person .... Under no circumstances could that happen ....It would have revealed the plot, the real conspiracy,....( Stay aware: its not a conspiratory theory...)
Marlowe was considered to be dead, extinguished, and precisely at the time of his death (1593) a dramatist mockup Shakspere was created as a new poetical implemention....
There are several impressive literary sources, that later on Marlowe/Shakespeare, after his "Invention" to create a "living pseudonym Shake-speare", was very dissatisfied with that invention ( e.g.Typographie s.argument 24, Drayton . https://youtu.be/57LKIFQTkFo?t=8295
FULL. VIDEO MIchael Drayton (almost 3 hours)
And there is another quite different chain of (backward) reasoning or argumentation to answer the variations of the basic question....
1 Why Marlowe would choose to use so many aliases? 2 Why not just stick with 'William Shakespeare' ? (The sheer number of alleged aliases is unlikely -) 3 Why this huge quantity of pseudonyms ? 4 Was that really necessary for Marlowe?
We only get in the situation to answer the sheer scale of unresolved questions, uninterpretable literary texts (See John Ford as an example. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRdNU6GJc4)
and +of so many contemporary authors ( such as Shakespeare, Basse, Wither, Drayton Chapman, Heywood, Barnfield, Taylor etc.) regarding the true poetical genius, if we presuppose the assumption of a multple pseudonymity, which alone can help to resolve the Shakespeare authorship controversy.
Otherwise, we drown into a swamp of „unscientificness", or myth and stagnation....why a global collective intelligence up to now (>400 years) was not able to reach some progress to resolve a clearly existent authorship problem?
If somebody has better explanation or a more plausible solution to this nightmare of inconsistencies of a factual problem , we should be delighted to listen to it....
——————
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive: (MARLOWE/Shakespeare)
This YouTube contribution continues to argue why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 21 (RA) Robert Allot - Robert Armin Argument 22 Frederick Fleay Argument 23 Thomas Vicars Argument 24 George Wither Argument 25 Peter Heylin
.
______________________
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive: (MARLOWE/Shakespeare)
This YouTube contribution continues to argue why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "Poetical Pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 16 The Owle Argument 17 Matilda Argument 18 Henry Chettle Argument 19 Wits recreations Argument 20John Weever
——————————————
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive: (MARLOWE/Shakespeare)
This YouTube contribution continues to argue why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe).
Argument 11 Sweet Swan of Avon Argument 12 Drayton is coming out himself Argument 13 Draytons Marigold Argument 14 The "obscure" Francis Meres Argument 15 Payments only to Drayton.
————————-ß
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive: (MARLOWE/Shakespeare)
This YouTube contribution continues to argue ( why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlowe)..
This YouTube contribution continues to argue (part 2 : Arguments 6 to 10) why Michael Drayton must belong to the early "poetical pseudonyms" of the "true" Shakespeare (alias Marlo
Argument 6 Endimion the perpetual sleeper Argument 7 Drayton meets Shaksper Argument 8 The scribe of Shakspers will Argument 9 Shakspers Son in Law Argument 10 Marginal poets pseudonyms.
(1947–2020) was one of the important German translators of William Shakespeare. His life’s work was a complete new translation of all Shakespeare’s plays into modern German, intended for the stage.
Frank Günther meets most criteria to discredit Non-Stratfordians and their arguments that someone other than William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him.
On August 12, 2017, the German cultural journalist and freelance author Bernd Noack interviewed the GermanShakespeare translator Frank Günther in the Neue Züricher Zeitung (NZZ) on the occasion of the completion of his last translation "Perikles", entitled "The Happiness of the Conquest of the Texts" of his complete translations of all Shakespeare's Plays.
I am referring to 2 questions only
Noack:[Translation] There is little information about Shakespeare's life, and there is still a doubt that he wrote the huge work of his own. Have you approached him, and perhaps see through Shakespeares game? Günther:[Translation] The Thesis "Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare" is an absurd conspiracytheory, one of the oldest, there is, and that does not interest me at all.
Because it's nonsense.
But Shakespeare isas strange to me today and as far away and unrecognizable as it was. He withdraws completely behind his plays, and that is actually the ideal attitude for an author:
He is not at all present. He lets his staff act and construct the conflicts between the characters so that one has the impression that the whole is generated by itself. As in the real world. It is never thought that someone takes an instruction and carries it out, but the characters tell the story itself by talking to each other.
That is why the author, the Demiurg, completely disappears behind his texts and persons, andone never gets to know him.
Unlike Brecht's: after the second piece, you think you already have a good understanding. Shakespeare, on the other hand, is a fog.
Noack: Is not that frustrating?
Günther: No, not at all. You do not have to worry about biographical nonsense: that's what he wrote for that reason, out of that mood. It is said that the author's life can be read in the plays, and that they can only be understood if one knows what he had in the year for a disease - all this plays no role.!
--------------------------------------------
Why, for Gods sake , Günther hadn't the slightest idea of a need to question his own observations.
What may be the reason, that the poet and human being "Shakespeare" is to him as strange and far away and unrecognizable as ever? Is Shakespeare really retreating behind his plays?
Why is William not present ? Why does not Günther get to know Shakespeare? and so on and so on ....Günthers fatal attitude ("without any scientific curiosity") must be related to his total lack of imagination of an actual authorship problem?
Noack: Über Shakespeares Leben gibt es wenig Informationen, und es bestehen nach wie vor Zweifel daran, dass er das riesige Werk selber geschrieben hat. Sind Sie ihm näher und vielleicht sogar auf die Schliche gekommen? Günther: Die «Shakespeare schrieb nicht Shakespeare»-Behauptung ist eine absurde Verschwörungstheorie, eine der ältesten, die es gibt, und das interessiert mich überhaupt nicht.
Weil's Quatsch ist!
Aber Shakespeare ist mir heute tatsächlich genauso fremd und fern und unerkennbar, wie er es war. Er zieht sich völlig hinter seine Stücke zurück,
und das ist eigentlich die ideale Haltung für einen Autor: Er ist gar nicht vorhanden. Er lässt sein Personal agieren und konstruiert die Konflikte zwischen den Figuren so, dass man den Eindruck hat, das Ganze generiere sich aus sich selbst. Wie in der wirklichen Welt eigentlich. Nie meint man, dass einen da einer belehrend an die Hand nimmt und durchführt, sondern die Figuren erzählen die Geschichte selber, indem sie miteinander reden. Deswegen verschwindet der Autor, der Demiurg, gänzlich hinter seinen Texten und Personen, und man lernt ihn niemals kennen. Anders als etwa bei Brecht: Den meint man nach dem zweiten Stück doch schon gut begriffen zu haben. Shakespeare dagegen ist ein Nebel.
Noack:Ist das nicht frustrierend? Günther: Nein, überhaupt nicht. Man muss sich nicht um biografischen Unsinn kümmern: Das hat er aus diesem Grund, aus jener Stimmung heraus geschrieben. Man meint ja, das Leben des Autors könne man in den Stücken lesen und diese verstehe man erst, wenn man wisse, was er in dem Jahr für eine Krankheit hatte – das fällt hier alles flach!
Professor of English at Yale University, one of the General Editors of the Arden Shakespeare,
in a recent refreshing lecture
reflected on the absurdities of Shaksperes Will!
____________
From what age onwards, scientist are no longer interested in searching for better or more plausible own solutions to grotesque, non comprehensible (i.e. unexplained) facts ?
It does not need any age, it requires only an inner arch-conservative (Stratfordian) attitude!-
There is no plausible motive for Shakspere (Stratford), to announce the beginning of his new literary career (op.1) "Venus&Adonis" with the latin Title lines of´ Ovid's Elegy 15, dealing with the last things, the death, and the immortality of the deceased Poet. -
It fits, however, perfectly, with Christopher Marlowes literary restart, after his enforced disappearance in 1593.
Similar in "Lucrece", there is no identifiable motive for Shakspere (Stratford), to start his literary career with the parable of .
—————————————— ——
V I D E O (30 min)
Marlowe's literary RESTART in 1593
------------------------------
VIDEOS – Complete Video Archive(Marlowe/Shakespeare)
