<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Shakespeare Identified</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/shakespeare-identified--7086265</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This show includes AI-generated content.]]></description><atom:link href="https://www.spreaker.com/show/7086265/episodes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><language>en</language><category>Books</category><copyright>Copyright Literary Collections Genre</copyright><lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 14:06:01 +0000</lastBuildDate><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:owner><itunes:name>Literary Collections Genre</itunes:name><itunes:email>spreaker63@podcastlibrary.org</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This show includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:category text="Arts"><itunes:category text="Books"/></itunes:category><itunes:category text="Science"/><itunes:category text="Science"><itunes:category text="Nature"/></itunes:category><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><podcast:guid>29c0a3dc-ea04-5b43-b237-ed06117e1a1d</podcast:guid><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type><item><title>Introduction to The Philosophy of History-Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-history-georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel--74132338</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/74132338</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:01:44 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/74132338/introduction_to_the_philosophy_of_history_georg_wilhelm_friedrich_hegel.mp3" length="132379077" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>16530</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Word Portraits of Famous Writers-Mabel E. Wotton</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/word-portraits-of-famous-writers-mabel-e-wotton--74078314</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/74078314</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:03:40 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/74078314/word_portraits_of_famous_writers_mabel_e_wotton.mp3" length="214373654" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>26770</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Fevers and Physicians in Space (Ed Reads Short Sci-fi, vol. II)-Various</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/fevers-and-physicians-in-space-ed-reads-short-sci-fi-vol-ii-various--74050627</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/74050627</guid><pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2026 09:03:19 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/74050627/fevers_and_physicians_in_space_ed_reads_short_sci_fi_vol_ii_various.mp3" length="240349143" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>30013</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Letter Concerning Toleration-John Locke</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/letter-concerning-toleration-john-locke--74024715</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/74024715</guid><pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:02:47 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/74024715/letter_concerning_toleration_john_locke.mp3" length="71299891" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>8903</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Short Nonfiction Collection, Vol. 092-Various</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/short-nonfiction-collection-vol-092-various--73999407</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73999407</guid><pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:03:14 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73999407/short_nonfiction_collection_vol_092_various.mp3" length="204418141" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>25527</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Essays on Modern Novelists-William Lyon Phelps</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/essays-on-modern-novelists-william-lyon-phelps--73972887</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73972887</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 09:03:21 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73972887/essays_on_modern_novelists_william_lyon_phelps.mp3" length="191611689" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>23928</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Mary Frances Story Book-Jane Eayre Fryer</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/mary-frances-story-book-jane-eayre-fryer--73947482</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73947482</guid><pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:03:08 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73947482/mary_frances_story_book_jane_eayre_fryer.mp3" length="285553106" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>35658</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Minstrel Weather-Marian Storm</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/minstrel-weather-marian-storm--73920582</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73920582</guid><pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:03:26 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73920582/minstrel_weather_marian_storm.mp3" length="57805244" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>7219</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>From Pillar to Post-John Kendrick Bangs</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/from-pillar-to-post-john-kendrick-bangs--73893509</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73893509</guid><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:03:32 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73893509/from_pillar_to_post_john_kendrick_bangs.mp3" length="184280339" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>23012</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Short Nonfiction Collection, Vol. 079-Various</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/short-nonfiction-collection-vol-079-various--73867789</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73867789</guid><pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2026 09:03:08 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73867789/short_nonfiction_collection_vol_079_various.mp3" length="163897640" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>20467</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Stories of the Lifeboat-Frank Mundell</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/stories-of-the-lifeboat-frank-mundell--73844898</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73844898</guid><pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2026 09:03:43 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73844898/stories_of_the_lifeboat_frank_mundell.mp3" length="98917508" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>12352</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Further Foolishness-Stephen Leacock</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/further-foolishness-stephen-leacock--73796674</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73796674</guid><pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 04:07:37 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73796674/further_foolishness_stephen_leacock.mp3" length="162006879" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>20231</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Woman and the War-Frances Evelyn (Daisy) Greville</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/woman-and-the-war-frances-evelyn-daisy-greville--73341425</link><description><![CDATA["Woman and the War" by Frances Evelyn (Daisy) Greville offers a poignant exploration of women's roles during wartime, shedding light on their contributions and sacrifices. This compelling narrative captures the resilience and strength of women as they navigate the challenges brought on by conflict. Hearing this audiobook now serves as a reminder of the enduring spirit of women in times of crisis, a theme that remains relevant as we continue to witness the vital impact of women in various spheres of society today. Greville's insights into the complexities of war and the female experience resonate across generations, making this work a timeless tribute to courage and perseverance.<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73341425</guid><pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:11:48 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73341425/woman_and_the_war_frances_evelyn_daisy_greville.mp3" length="199118835" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>"Woman and the War" by Frances Evelyn (Daisy) Greville offers a poignant exploration of women's roles during wartime, shedding light on their contributions and sacrifices. This compelling narrative captures the resilience and strength of women as they...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA["Woman and the War" by Frances Evelyn (Daisy) Greville offers a poignant exploration of women's roles during wartime, shedding light on their contributions and sacrifices. This compelling narrative captures the resilience and strength of women as they navigate the challenges brought on by conflict. Hearing this audiobook now serves as a reminder of the enduring spirit of women in times of crisis, a theme that remains relevant as we continue to witness the vital impact of women in various spheres of society today. Greville's insights into the complexities of war and the female experience resonate across generations, making this work a timeless tribute to courage and perseverance.<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>24864</itunes:duration><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Shakespeare Identified - J Thomas Looney - Part 2</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/shakespeare-identified-j-thomas-looney-part-2--72371835</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/72371835</guid><pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 09:00:22 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/72371835/shakespeare_identified_j_thomas_looney_part_2.mp3" length="201421880" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>25178</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>criticism,facie,glaring,hallucination,identified,literary,looney,presumption,shakespeare,whilst</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Shakespeare Identified - J Thomas Looney - Part 1</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/shakespeare-identified-j-thomas-looney-part-1--72371832</link><description><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/72371832</guid><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 15:47:11 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/72371832/shakespeare_identified_j_thomas_looney_part_1.mp3" length="285929458" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:txt purpose="ai-content">true</podcast:txt><itunes:author>J. Thomas Looney</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[That one who is not a recognized authority or an expert in literature should attempt the solution of a problem which has so far baffled specialists must doubtless appear to many as a glaring act of over- boldness; whilst to pretend to have actually solved this most momentous of literary puzzles will seem to some like sheer hallucination. What I have to propose, however, is not an accidental discovery, but one resulting from a systematic search. And it is to the nature of the method, combined with a happy inspiration and a fortunate chance, that the results here described were reached. These convinced me that the opponents of the orthodox view had made good their case to this extent, that there was no sufficient evidence that the man William Shakspere had written the works with which he was credited, whilst there was a very strong prima facie presumption that he had not. Everything seemed to point to his being but a mask, behind which some great genius, for inscrutable reasons, had elected to work out his own destiny. (Summary by ToddHW, from Introduction)<br /><br />This episode includes AI-generated content.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>35742</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>criticism,facie,glaring,hallucination,identified,literary,looney,presumption,shakespeare,whilst</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/911ec52ab571bbd2557c65162c9a26f9.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item></channel></rss>
