Christopher Marlowe

[JC]

Could he really be the real Shakespear? Fact or Folly?


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Texts/Mmarl.gif

[Sponsored Links]

[John Bridge]

You must read the same newspaper I do. ;) I don't believe it.

[JC]

They do have some compelling reasonings though don't they.

Why many of the plays happened in Italy, Shakepears lack of education, The sudden change and popularity of Shakepear right after Marlow died...theres enough stuff there to give the theory a second look thats for sure.

I saw a documentary on TV that got me interested...did ya see that too John?

[John Bridge]

No, I didn't see the thing on TV, but there have been stories circulating for as long as I can remember. Don't know what to think. Just can't believe the old bard isn't really the old bard. :D

[cx]

Is there supposed to be a link to what you guys are reading? Something I can't see from over here maybe?


I, too, can remember arguments from at least 30 years ago about Willy not really having written his plays.

Me? I'm gonna like'em anyway. :)

[JC]

I guess that would be appropriate huh?

I think this is what i watched says it aired on Jan 2 2003...My birthday BTW too(35 yrs. thx).

The more I read about it , the more I am leaning to beleiving the story or parts of it....there are just too many things that don't add up if Shakespeare really wrote those plays...If nothing else someone else had to have helped Shakespeare(common practice of that time to have multiple authors of plays)..he just could'nt have had enough education or travel experience to write them himself...or the time for that matter.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/

http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/

http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/marlowestory.htm

http://www.muchadoaboutsomething.com/

http://www.marlowe-society.org/

[John Bridge]

CX,

You did ask for a link, right? And you do know JC, right? :D

[jjwq8]

Shows how busy I am that I should resurrect this.

I read the thread and my thoughts are:

Lack of formal education is no hindrance to the blossoming of genius. More often than not, formal education only serves to stifle genius. Just look at Newton. Went totally doolally when placed back into the hallowed halls of academia. How are you feeling Howard? :D.

Marlowe as Shakespeare?

Amati made outstanding violins. Stradivari, his student, made better ones.

Too many diarists, educated and otherwise, existed for the subterfuge to have gone undetected or even uncommented.

Why was there not a discernable decline in the quality of Shakespeare's output subsequent to Marlowes demise?

It is the nature of the beast to want to deny true genius or demean their achievements. I have to deal with it on a daily basis :D

Why such an Italian bent? Simple. The wealth of Latin texts, and populist demand. At the time Merry England enjoyed less than cordial relations with almost everyone other than Italy and the Scandanavians. Wills was anything if not smart. He surely knew what would play and what would not. What he could get away with and what he could not. Anything remotely critical of the Crown or the ruling class, who were afterall his benefactors, would go down like a cup of cold puke.

His indigenous orientation was largely limited to farce.

His epic dramas, dealt with characters and monarchs already established in the light in which he coloured them.

Were each and everyone of his plays original thought. Certainly not. His own writings and diaries state so. What playwright or other wordsmith can claim original thought? Tolkein? Steven King? Possible but what were they reading as children?

No, simple fact is that entertainment is invariably a reflection or a rehash of the daily grind or myth, repackaged for content and audience appeal.

Gloriously and joyously, Wills was the master repackager. Perhaps one day homo bowdarkus will witness another of his ilk. Like as not he will not be recognized until too late.

[Hobbit]

Just fine...Thank you for asking......;):)

I accept the premise of all rational thought and native intelligence not being the product of academia. I believe, however, that great thinkers are made, not born.

The "science" or the "craft" of a thing must be separated from the "art." The former being a learned experience. The latter can come about through many avenues.

Writing is one of those things that require some education. It is possible to have an excellent understanding of a thing and be able to put that understanding into action without being able to communicate those ideas and feelings to others. It takes study and years of practice to write coherently and communicate effectively through the written medium.

Tolkein?? Stephen King?? I suspect that few others could achieve what these two have in a normal lifetime. Some of it is "art" and they come by it quite naturally. The rest of it is learned ("science" or "craft"), with the end result being a product of the two, and therefore affected in large part by the environments in which they found themselves.

Original thought?? There is very little new these days and I suspect the same was true with William S. J.R.R. Tolkein was first with the "middle earth" or "other world" epic stories. A lot of his ideas, characters, and story lines were probably original thought (although we don't know with whom he discussed his ideas). Stephen King is a master story teller and the worlds best selling novelist. Amazing plots and characters? Yes! Twists and subterfuge abound! Original thought?? Probably some, although many of his works are just retellings of other story lines with his own characteristic style. Stephen King has taken the "science" and "craft" of writing to new levels.

There are plenty of writers out there capable of writing a technically sound piece. There are others who are capable of exciting dramatization or characterization. But there are precious few who can combine the "art" of mental devisement with the "science" of technically sound writing. Wiliam S. was one of those...and happily, so is Stephen King...and Tolkein...and Donaldson...and a few others.

:):)

[flatfloor]

Gloriously and joyously, Wills was the master repackager. Perhaps one day homo bowdarkus will witness another of his ilk. Like as not he will not be recognized until too late.

Neil Simon comes to mind.

[Hobbit]

Hmmm....

Neil Simon is certainly respected (even revered), but I fear Q8 may be correct.

To be considered in the same league with William S. your work must stand the test of time.....unfortunately that's something all of us don't have a lot of. :(

Oh well, ..............

:):)

[jjwq8]

A snippet of minor interest, perhaps to none other than myself.

Years back when Pop was researching one of his numerous learned works we had occasion to scour the church registers of the surrounding villages and out popped the name Shakespeare.

I cannot recall the names but the marriage was recorded and the loss of first child. A later entry recorded that the family left the parish of Snettisham in Norfolk and relocated to Stratford-on-Avon. Now could there have been two Shakespeares in Stratford?

And Howard, given your cogent argument about environment, would we still have had the Bard had the family, if it was indeed them, not moved?

Snettisham, possess one of the most magnificent Parish Churches in the land. The entrance is a deliberate copy of Peterborough Cathedral and was paid for by the wool wealth of the local blue bloods. When wool was king, East Anglia in general and Norfolk in particular was the center of Britains economic world, which is why there is such a preponderance of magnificent stately piles in the county.

So had the family stayed, assuming it is them, the wealth existed for young Wills to have had considerable patronage to pursue his art.

[smee]

howdie all -

But what of the Earl of Oxford? If we are going to argue who wrote Shakespeare, he must be include?

So, there are three camps - The purists, the marlowe people, and those that strongly believe the Earl wrote the plays - using Will as a middleman - hhmm. Well, for me, I am a purist. I have read the arguments for both....it's curious, and they sure do try to make a good argument, but I guess the only reason they can is because we don't have "proof" or enough facts.


Now, the real intense fight is whether Richard III is evil or not ;)
how about that one - there is a group that is arguably against Richard III having been a villian. They are vehement of his having been 'framed', the 'victim' of history - and thier mission is to promote his 'gentle nature'

..................jeremy?
you have the floor....................;)

[smee]

howdie all -

But what of the Earl of Oxford? If we are going to argue who wrote Shakespeare, he must be include?

So, there are three camps - The purists, the marlowe people, and those that strongly believe the Earl wrote the plays - using Will as a middleman - hhmm. Well, for me, I am a purist. I have read the arguments for both....it's curious, and they sure do try to make a good argument, but I guess the only reason they can is because we don't have "proof" or enough facts.

oh, yeah, also there is an argument that Marlowe was in the service of the government at the time. One of Walsingham's(forgive me Jeremy, Howard - is it Walsingham?) spy's and THAT was why he was killed, not in a pub row, but was taken out.....


Now, the real intense fight is whether Richard III is evil or not ;)
how about that one - there is a group that is arguably against Richard III having been a villian. They are vehement of his having been 'framed', the 'victim' of history - and thier mission is to promote his 'gentle nature'

..................jeremy?
you have the floor....................;)

[jjwq8]

that post is deja vu all over again:D let me collect my thoughts or the trash that passes for them and i'll get back to you. :nod:

[Hobbit]

Great historical stuff, Jeremy! I would be terribly interested in knowing the dates in those church archives, and some more substance about the family involved; earlier lineage and what their reason was for leaving Norfolk, etc. It would be very interesting if the entries you mentioned turned out to be the Shakespeare family. Is there not a valid, reasonably well accepted, historical piece on Shakespeare's line that could corroborate (or disprove) your findings???

Supposition, of course, is a fun thing in which to engage. I believe that William S had enough "art" and originality in his being that he probably would have made a mark in literature without regard to his surroundings. It would have been different, of that I'm certain, but that kind of drive and talent cannot long be denied. That is, of course, an easy thing to say without province to back it up.....and especially disconcerting to me because I firmly believe that environment plays such a disproportionately large role in our becoming who and what we are.

I wish I had the time and energy to do some research on some of these things. Oh well.........

:):)

[John Bridge]

Howard,

It's not the energy, it's the time. I still haven't started that book on Lewis and Clark. :)

Before I dropped out of high school I was required to memorize nearly a hundred lines of Julius Caesar. I thought at the time it was the dumbest thing that had ever happened to me. And then I actually started enjoying the experience. The rhythm of the Bard became apparent. I've loved Shakespear ever since. :)

I don't believe any of the alternative theories. I prefer to believe my friend Bill S. wrote all the plays and sonnets and other "scribblings." ;)

That's not to say I won't entertain actual first hand proof to the contrary, of course. Primary sources and all that. :)

[Hobbit]

Smee...

Gosh, you ask tough questions.;)

Edward Earl of Oxford may have legitimate claim to at least having the "blue" or royal lines to which a young Thomas Edwards referred. But all attempts to firmly place him at the pen of Shakespeare lack credibility. The same can be said of Marlowe. I think it is important to remember that at this period of time (at or about the time of Elizabeth I) Britain was undergoing tremendous change (the Secret Service and the office of propaganda were first established during this general time frame). Britain (and Elizabeth) was encouraging the expansion of the theatre arts and many works were written with "borrowed" ideas, words, and phrases.

It becomes almost an impossible task to say with any sort of certainity who wrote many of the classic works variously ascribed to Shakespeare and others!!

Richard III???....Richard III...Evil???? Say it isn't so!! There you go maligning my favorite Shakespearean work!;) Actually, I do believe that Richard III is probably my all time favorite.

Hold forth Jeremy..tell us what you know...or better yet, what you think.;)

:):)

[Hobbit]

JB....

A hundred lines...memorized...That makes you our resident Shakespeare (Julius Caesar) expert!;):D

I have never given thought to attempting to commit that much Shakespeare to memory. The language can be hard enough without trying to make it your own! But, I love the words and the very distinct and complex phraseology. I really enjoy watching good actors pull it off!:) And I'll admit to reading it myself as well.;)

You really need to get on that book about Lewis and Clark. I've been waiting with bated breath to hear your glowing report....I guess this means I'm going to have to continue waiting......or find it and read it myself!

Tell me how far you are into the trilogy. If I remember correctly, you finished The Hobbit and were starting the trilogy. What do you think??

:):)

[John Bridge]

and that's another issue. :)

Shakespeare does it in five sequences of words or syllables: da duh, da duh, da duh, da duh, da duh -- always five. I forget what that's called. I'm sure someone here knows. But it's the cadence of the lines that keeps things on the move. Otherwise, I'm afraid a lot of it would come off as rather dreary. :D

[jjwq8]

We buried a very dear friend two days ago. 43, very fit (apparently) non-smoker, assidous eater of only that which was right. Survived by two wives and nine children. Dropped stone dead on the jogging track from a massive coronary.
It is trite but the words of Marc Anthony are always there for me at such times. I come not to bury Caesar but to praise him.

And a few more might easily be paraphrased in respect of JB with a playful twist on Roman Politics.

Lo he bestrides the Forum like a colossus and we petty men creep about beneath his mighty legs to find ourselves dishonourable posts:D

Dick 3 still under consideration.

As to Wills provenance, at least non of the local zealots have claimed him as a closet moslem. You would be amazed at the lengths these ying yangs will go to to promote their version of the faith. Did you know that hovercraft are detailed in the Quran? It's true, really, honestly, they have devoted an entire half hour tv programme to it. And test tube babies!

Howard, to check out the records on the Shakespeare family would require more time than I possess right now. The reference we found semi-excited Pop, and he was not prone to shows of semi-excitement. the dates were about right and the name rare enough to jump out at you from the pages of the archives. Pop had cupboards filled with school notebooks of his scribblings. I am ashamed to admit that I did not fight hard enough for possession of them and I doubt that my phillistine sister bothered to keep them. Criminal stupidity on my part.

[smee]

da duh, da duh, da duh - that's the iambic pentameter.

If any of you really enjoy the 'idea' of Shakespear and are ever interested in it's theory check out the book "Invention of the Human" - Harold Bloom.
I can't say enough about it.

http://www.frontlist.com/detail/1573221201

It will add so much to the plays and characters and Shakespeare the creative genius himself.


:D

[John Bridge]

Iambic pentameter, eh? Not so sure I'm gonna remember that. ;)