The Manufacture of Shakespeare

The Manufacture of Shakespeare

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 4, 2009

We’ve seen in past articles research showing how the Jesuits and Vatican manufactured Mozart and fraudulently created a musical idol.

Other research has shown how the Vatican likes to make saints out of common thugs and propagandists like Ignatius Loyola.

Further, we have seen how Francis of Assisi was not all he was cracked up to be as there was another side of him conveniently edited out by Vatican historians.

And now researcher Frank O’Collins presents his third article in a three part series, this one entitled ‘The Manufacture of Shakespeare’.

Here is what O’Collins has to say:

The Manufacture of William Shakespeare

Shakespeare is either loved, or feared by most students of English. Such is the symbolic richness, the complex intrigue; the genius of the works attributed to playwright William Shakespeare born 1564—died 1616.

It is generally accepted that the masterly works attributed to “Shakespeare” of 36 plays, 154 sonnets and 2 narratives represent the most important body of literary work in the history of the English language and English culture. Within the some 884,000 words contained in approximately 34,896 lines almost all the key legal words and even many key legal precedents (taken from Shakespeare and Latinized to sound pre-16th Century) can be sourced from this unmatched intellectual brilliance –a brilliance no less impressive than Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Virgil.

Given the sheer diversity of historic events, people and foreign locations –including detailed knowledge of formal legal procedures, words and formalities greater even than Thomas Aquinas—it is no wonder that many books and articles have been written attributing the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare to others such as Francis Bacon or a team of Jesuits or by Christopher Marlow. However, none of these speculations have wide acceptance in academic and popular culture—in spite of significant circumstantial evidence to support various claims.

The reason why most people still believe William Shakespeare alone wrote arguably the greatest body of intellectual work for 2,000 years is that there remains little evidence to explain such a motive. For example, it is historic fact that England was at public war against the Vatican and Roman Cult. The Jesuits were to be arrested and executed on discovery—so to claim that a team of brilliant Jesuit scholars are the source seems contrary to our known understanding of the time.

Similarly, the various “conspiracies” against Shakespeare being the author fail to explain why he was picked for such immortal glory and not some other person of greater note—like Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, or Francis Bacon himself. But most importantly, most conspiracies fail to explain the fundamental question why? Why go to all the trouble of creating the greatest master works of English literature? For what purpose?

The fact that through Shakespeare we are given a complete cultural framework and full set of legal terms and precedents such as Person, Vessel, Declaration, Disclosure, Decree, Certificate, Lawyer, Merchant, Law, Crown, Justice—all of which are used by our modern legal system today is unfortunately overlooked. More importantly, the fact that this complete modern legal system did not formally exist in a body of work prior to Shakespeare is never mentioned in modern history books.

It in 1623 that the first full folio of the works of “Shakespeare” were published under James I and that England was finally recognized under international law and Charter to hold possession of key parts of North America (excluding Mexico) under the newly formed English “Crown Corporation” in competition to the Aragon “Crown Corporation” of Spain.

The Crown Corporation still exists today and is in fact the final arbiter, the final court and judge of the legal system under which you probably exist today. The fact that the Crown Corporation could not have existed in law and function without the works of William Shakespeare has never been fully explored until now.

The purpose of this article is to reveal clearly, once and for all that William Shakespeare is a Myth—created by the Jesuits and Vatican to help implement a new deal to end the war with its ancient trading partner England, through the creation of the Crown Corporation under Holy Charter—the laws and precedents brilliantly embedded in seemingly harmless plays and sonnets.

That far from just being a cultural gem in English history, the Works of Shakespeare represent a cornerstone in the way the modern world continues to be held under the control of the Holy See, the Vatican through the tricky use of words.

Who was William Shakespeare?

William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon to local merchant and tanner John Shakespeare and Mary Arden. While the house on Henry St at Stratford-upon-Avon was the home of John Shakespeare at the end of his life, there is no evidence the family held the property until the sudden family financial windfall through their son William around 1598/99.

It is without doubt that the Shakespeares were ardent Catholics. Although the family had lost its great status, it remained one of the single most influential names in English Catholic history thanks to the of William Sheakespear whose name was Nicholas Sheakespear or Pope Adrian IV (1154-1164)–the only English Pope in history. To hide the connection, the name of Pope Adrian is frequently misquoted as Breakspear instead of Sheakspear.

It is generally believed that William was educated at the King Edward VI School in Stratford-upon-Avon from the age of 9 to 14. However, no documentary evidence exists to support this theory, including the questionable date of 1553 for the school–with limited archeological evidence from the site supporting the school being established in the 17th Century –well after the death of William Shakespeare and backdated to the claim of it being founded by King Edward VI ” a few days before his death”.

In contrast, the only evidence of handwriting by William Shakespeare testifies to an inability to spell his own name–an anomoly that has never been properly explained and normally not discussed by academics.

At 18, William married Anne Hathaway in 1582. After the birth of his twin sons in 1585, there exists no historic references nor evidence of William Shakespeare until 1594 when –at the age of 30– William Shakespeare is mentioned not as a playright, nor a proprietor, but an actor.

In 1594, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men–a playing company–was first formed under Lord Chamberlain Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon and official in charge of court entertainments. It was to this company that William Shakespeare first gained the attention of nobles as an actor earning the typical actors salary of three to five pounds a year.

On the death of Henry Carey in 1596, his son George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon became its new patron and changed the name to Lord Hunsdon’s Men until March 1597 when it reverted to the name Lord Chamberlain’s Men–coinciding with the appointment of George Carey as Lord Chamberlain.

Contrary to historic revisionism, there is no hard and credible physical evidence to suggest any play allegedly written by William Shakespeare was performed, or existed prior to 1598–when Shakespeare was 34.

Then in 1598, a number of fortunate events occured virtually overrnight for William Shakespeare–the first being him becoming the major shareholder in the largest Elizabethan Theatre ever created–the Globe.

At the time, only two official play theatres existed in Elizabethan England–the Red Lion founded in 1567 at Whitechapel by William Sylvester and John Reynolds with a capacity of a few hundred patrons for a cost of around £400 (US $1.8 million in 1990 dollars)–and The Theatre founded in 1576 by Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and managed by James Burbage at Shoreditch, London with a capacity for 1,200 at a cost of £700 (US $3.2 million in 1990 dollars).

Contrary to the many myths that continue today concerning the origin of The Globe Theatre, undeniable archeological evidence and historical accounts testify to a permanent, purpose built three storey state-of-the-art theatre approximately 100 to 120 feet in diameter, circular (20 sided polygon) with an astounding capacity of just over 3,000 patrons. Based on the architectural design, layout and quality workmanship, the cost alone for this project could not possibly have been less than £3,000 (US $13.5 million in 1990 dollars)–an impossible sum for any private building without some significant wealthy noble benefactor.

Most controversially, it appears that the historic claims that James Burbage and his brother Cuthbert Burbage were major shareholders is an absurd lie, with William Shakespeare in fact being the major owner. The Burbages were merely the managers of The Theatre — home to a rival playgroup The Leicester’s Men and contracted to the 1st Earl. That the Lord Chamberlain’s Men ever conducted a play at The Theatre is highly unlikely.

How Shakespeare went from earning a few pounds a year as an actor to one of the wealthiest of the merchant class in England overnight has never been properly explained. Nor has it ever been credibly explained how a man of limited education came to possess intimate knowledge of Papal laws, Italy, Venice, Europe, law in general, advanced medicine, advanced science, politics, and history, including an unheralded knowledge of the English language, Italian, French and especially Latin.

After the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, the company was awarded a Royal letters patent by the new Catholic King James I–subsequently changing its name to the King’s Men.

By 1606, William Shakespeare spent more and more time away from London, rarely visiting his growing list of properties and investments–spending more time at Stratford–Upon-Avon. As a result, historians are traditionally forced to concede that Shakespeare could not physically have written as prodigiously during this period. From 1613, it is agreed that Shakespeare did not write any plays on his own–dying in 1616.

Shakespeare and the creation of a whole new legal language

William Shakespeare is credited with writing 37 plays, 154 sonnets and 2 narrative poems from no earlier than 1598 to no later than 1613–the first folio of “his” works being published in 1623.

Of the works attributed to Shakespeare–comprising of some 884,000 words contained in 34,896 lines and spoken by 1,211 characters–33% were histories of immense and unprecedented historical research, 32% were comedies, 29% were tragedies, 4% were poems and 2% were sonnets.

If Shakespeare truly was the author, then he had to have handwritten every last word–as typewriters did not exist. To put this massive undertaking into perspective–if Shakespeare made not one single mistake on any page, nor re-wrote a single line of dialogue, nor scene, then he would have to had written a minimum of one page per day for fifteen years (1598-1613) to complete this body of work. Given, no author in history has written even half as much without making mistakes, Shakespeare then must have written well over 15,000 hand written pages –yet not one single page has ever been found–an unbelievable and unprecedented anomaly that defies all logic.

Yet what is rarely discussed by scholars is the incredible fact that the works attributed to Shakespeare contain no less than 28,829 unique word forms–of which over 2,500 were new words to the English language for the first time (The Oxford English Dictionary attributes only around 2,000 new words to Shakespeare). These were not weird and strange words, but incredibly over 1,700 of our most common words today, including such fundamental legal words as accused, addiction, assassination, bandit, bar, case, contract, courtship, crown, employer, investments, law, bond, lawyer, majestic, negotiate, secure, submit, understand.

Again to put this in perspective, King James or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, published in 1611 makes use of a mere 8,000 words; the playright Christopher Marlowe used around 7,000; the poet John Milton 6,000, Charles Dickens 8,000.

It appears that Shakespeare went out of his way to create new and unusual words. Given the plays were supposed to be aimed at commercial venture, it would have been a huge commercial risk to introduce so many new words to a paying audience — and must have alienated 99% of them given they could not possibly have understood what they were hearing. So how could The Globe and the plays of Shakespeare possibly have been a financial success? The answer is simply, that from the time of James I, the Crown (of England) treated Shakespeare as if it were an extension of its own legal statutes–required reading for all judges, lawyers and men involved in trade. Why? Because it was common knowledge up until the 20th Century that Shakespeare remained the most comprehensive reference of legal statutes and procedures for English and common law for nearly 400 years.

The real College of Shakespeare

Few may have heard of the College of English in Rome —originally formed by Englishman Nicholas Sheakspear (Pope Adrian IV) in the middle of the 12th Century to manipulate and take control of the language of Anglaisé first formed by the Franks under Charles Martel, his son Pepin the Short and later Charlemagne. By the 16th Century, the college had become nothing more than a hospice—a boarding house for priests and students. However, the religious persecutions of Elizabeth I of England changed all that forever.

By the 1578, the “college” had become the refuge for over many dozens of the best and brightest English Catholic minds ever in one place in history—all because Elizabeth refused to permit Catholics to hold senior academic positions and Catholic priests, especially Jesuits were to be arrested and executed.

Sensing an opportunity, Jesuit Superior General Everard de Marcour (1572-1580) petitioned Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) to reconstitute the College of English, which he did under Papal Charter (Bull) on 23 April 1579, appointing Jesuit Fr. Alphonsus Agazzari S.J. as its rector. Thus, the first education institution in Rome of the Jesuits was in fact the English College- a body of Jesuits, dedicated to helping regain England back into the control of the Papacy.

The problem at first was what to do with such a valuable of at least 75 talented Jesuits skilled in all manner of knowledge from advanced science, mathematics, languages, politics, poetry and law. Initially, the plan would almost certainly have been to train more Jesuit coadjucators for the dangerous mission into Elizabethan England.

But the death of Jesuit legend Edmund Campion S.J. in 1581 along with several other leading Jesuits (including Thomas Cottam S.J. in 1582) halted that plan by the new Superior General Claudius Acquiviva S.J. (1581 – 1615). Instead, a far more devious and brilliant plan was hatched—to wrest control of England back by stealth, using the very plays and culture that Elizabeth and her Protestant nobles as the vehicle.

Thus was born the plan to use plays and sonnets as the vehicle to create new words and a legal apparatus that itself would restore the Holy See as supreme. Assisted by the scholars of the College of Abbreviators in Rome–the most prodigious legal word creators in history –the Jesuit College of English set about writing all kinds of plays and sonnets and embedding within them the legal framework of the Vatican.

By 1594, the first works were ready and began to be shipped to England, using trusted Jesuits such as Robert Southwell, S.J. , Robert Persons, S.J. and Francis Page, S.J. The success of early plays written by the Jesuits encouraged the college to become more ambitious with their plans—hence The Globe and William Shakespeare as proprietor.

The death of Elizabeth I and the arrival of Catholic James I to the throne of England, made the process only slightly easier as it remained a public capital offence to be a Jesuit priest in England.

While the Vatican Archives are almost certainly the final resting place of however many of the thousands of manuscript pages of plays and sonnets written at the Jesuit College of English survived. But we will probably never see a single page in our lifetime.

This begs the final question—could the 10 year absence of William Shakespeare from 1585 to 1594 be accounted for him also being a student at the Jesuit College of English in Rome? Certainly, there is no evidence that he once denied himself as the author the works displaying his name—in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Such discipline to a “greater mission” has always been a hallmark of the Jesuits in the war of Counter-Reformation. Could it be that Shakespeare himself was a Jesuit? Whatever the truth of this, the Jesuits succeeded and much of the western world remains unwitting subjects of the Holy See thanks to the works of William Shakespeare.

One thought on “The Manufacture of Shakespeare

  1. Catholics like Joseph don’t care about freedom at all.
    One of the most devout among the devout ones, Joe Fromm, went through the Ignatian Exercises and now he’s convinved that freedom would be something that Judas stands with his life for … as “antithesis”, of course, antithesis. In other words, thoughts about living free, which means living without the murderous as well as soapy and slimy (spiritual and political) wardship of the priestly “fathers” including all of their wannabe followers, are considered by him as anti. When “free” equals “anti” “devout” behaviour appears to be “normal”. Matching the norm is what Loyal Joe wishes for the most as the best way of life he seems to be able of thinking of. This particular characteristic makes him in my eyes to a shining prototype of what conspiracy theorists call “sheeple” (in doing so almost all of them sadly not seeing the glaring sheep-shepherd connection and therefore unfortunately not being aware of this second false flag public-opinion mainstream, intentionally and very skillfully misdirected by leading “9/11” truth protagonists like Jones/Tarpley/Griffin). From a piety-theoretical viewpoint there is nothing that will ever unsettle this kind of faith in his god represented by the Roman brotherhoods, because in such a thoroughgoing, total collectivist mind set where freedom is equivalent to treason, Mr. Fromm just loves being incorporated by “God” in form of a dogmatic society of Jesus-like conformists. And incorporated according to his theory mostly for a happy afterlife! What does it matter that his real life proceeds in its social dimension as a (legal) fiction? Nothing! Not. A. Bit. That’s where the frontline goes, I believe. Exactly at this point.
    Therefore the main methods and principles of how the Roman brotherhoods under the Catholic fold (in its 3 meanings) succeed in generating devoutness with a romantic semblance across the board have to be found and formulated. And this specific knowledge about the corresponding manufactures of “holy” celebrities within and outside of the Church, “icons for the masses to illumining them”, cultural saints or simply gods of culture, so to speak, could become a key for a deeper understanding of the ongoing process of mental enslavement, called Inculturation by the Jesuits, of which “9/11” is a considerable part.

    “Hallo, das ist ganz schön starker Tobak, wie man so sagt. Wem soll ich jetzt glauben? Dir oder den Zeugnissen (in Wort und Leben) von Maximilian Kolbe, Theresa von Kalkutta, Bernadette Soubirous, Giovanni Bosco bis zu Simon Petrus und Paulus von Tarsus?
    Heyhey, this is, as the saying goes, pretty strong stuff. Whom shall I believe now? You or the testimonies (in words and deeds) of Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa, Bernadette Soubirous, John Bosco right up to Simon Peter and Paul of Tarsus?”
    You see? Canonized individuals can counterbalance whole crusades, wars, genocides, conquests, simply every single cardinal crime. Like Jesus himself.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s