Was Marlowe Shakespeare? Much Ado About Something

[WilliamGarland]

My main problem with the idea that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's plays, beyond all the evidence that points to the two being different men, is that the two bodies of work seem to show significantly different themes and philosophical outlooks on the part of their respective authors. Marlowe's works seems more skeptical, cynical, and subversive while Shakespeare is more optimistic.

[BlueOrbit1000]

There's no snobbery behind doubting the Stratfordian. No one cares that he was a glover's son. Marlowe himself was the son of a cobbler. Those who support his authorship obviously don't hold that against him.

The facts are what cause the doubts. We don't even know if Shaksper attended grammar school. Meanwhile it's certain Marlowe went to Cambridge. He was also a creative prodigy and a natural. He wrote Tamburlaine when he was about 23. Shaksper was likely still bumming around Stratford then.

[Dabhach1]

Whoever wrote the plays simply had to be present at the theatre when they were being produced. That let's Marlowe out. Ditto Oxford and effectively Bacon too. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare and he was a glover's son from Stratford.  He was a hick and he did it anyway. Get over yourselves.

[fitzjamie1]

My take is this: My evidence is the work. Why is it so hard to accept that a creative mind, immersed in a creative atmosphere, cannot be creative? Why a conspiracy? What to gain? And to hide for so many generations? have you ever met a playwrite? Even as a ghostwriter, you cannot keep that a secret. What conspiracy? Please change my mind-I would love to see the evidence, not the lack of evidence.

[defiantwon33]

again back to evidence. i would say, i'll show you mine if, you show me yours, but i've never claimed to really have any....just questions and doubts. HOWEVER you have asserted that more is known of marlowe than shakespeare which is pretty much the same as saying 'you have none either.' but i see you making for the exit and i won't get in your way. i'm a little tired myself. it has, sincerely, been fun chatting about this.

[MikeRubbo]

@defiantwon33 No, a lot is known about Marlowe. His schools, his spying activities , his writing, his troubles with the the star chamber, his quarrels, and many curious facts surrounding his supposed death in 1593.

I offer my complete film, here excerpted, to anyone who's sincerely interested.

[defiantwon33]

@MikeRubbo

yes, i agree. that was the point of my argument. there is much more that is known about marlowe, particularly that he was in fact a writer. someone has stated that no one in shakespeare's circle knew of him as a writer, which, for someone like shakespeare, who supposedly churned out this immense collection of plays and poems, is extremely odd. i write as a 'hobby', and there's no mystery about it amongst anyone that has ever conversed with me long enough to know my name.

[fitzjamie1]

@defiantwon33 What we have are the plays. Compare M to S. A very differnt style. If the hypothosis is right-M faked his death and wrote the plays- I think that it is up to that camp to show the similarities as well as the evidence that M was not killed, that he escaped somehow, and continued to live and content to disappear. The 'I faked my death' is only as good as when we find the evidence that he did not die. Otherwise, he died. !

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

naturally, comparisons have been made and the findings are there for you to see. so go see.

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

as is usually the case when someone tries to convince people that 1 + 1 = 3, questions and theories arise. the 2 greatest examples i can think of, being an american, are the 'magic bullet theory' (JFK) and the official report of 9/11 - i apologize for changing the subject, but these two examples clearly do not 'add up' when applied to logic. (back to the topic) when applied to logic, it does not make sense that shakespeare wrote shakespeare.

[defiantwon33]

.....yet people continue to believe it for the simple fact that it's already believed - when you see someone's name on something, why question it? well i don't believe it. so i do question it. and one of the first questions that comes to mind is, if shakespeare didn't write shakespeare, who did? secondly, if someone else did, why would they need to cover it up? there are 4 major candidates(that i'm familiar with) for authorship, shakespeare being one, and the least likely at that.

[defiantwon33]

....the other 3 are oxford (edward deveer), francis bacon and christopher marlowe. edward deveer, in my opinion, easily cancels himself out for 3 reasons: 1. being that he was notorious for 'airing his dirty laundry in public', it doesn't fit with the need to hide his name. 2. the writing's of shakespeare don't show a knowledge of court that deveer would've had, being in the house of lords. 3. his poems weren't, in my opinion, all that good....

[defiantwon33]

..........and definitely not laden with the level of wordplay that shakespeare is famous for.

[defiantwon33]

the reason we're here is to question shakespeare's authorship so that dwindles us down to bacon and marlowe. bacon would have necessity to hide his name, and many of the philosophical ideas expressed in both 'shakespeare's' and bacon's writing are similar, if not the same; however, bacon, to my knowledge, was neither a poet or a playwright.  this leaves us with just marlowe, the least likely candidate for the sole reason that he died two weeks before shakespeare showed up....

[defiantwon33]

....but that in itself is interesting enough to raise eyebrows.

[defiantwon33]

my take is this. i don't believe these words could've came from that mind. in truth, what really matters is the words....but the mystery is still exciting.

[defiantwon33]

....my writing teacher was a professional playwright. i'm just a meager, unpublished poet.

[MikeRubbo]

@fitzjamie1 Such secrets were kept very effectively during the McCarthy witch hunt era when Hollywood writers who were blacklisted , put out screen plays under other real person's names. Those conspiracies were not exposed even with the modern press which existed . See Daryl Pinksen's book, Marlowe's ghost.

[defiantwon33]

apparently thomas watson's poem that was shown in the essay must be unlocked by reorganizing the text. the essay then goes on to pick the line "that every word doth almost tell my name." when the letters in that line were rearranged, with some adjustments in spelling that were used in the 1609 quarto (i believe), it read something like, "Hott wrote henrie v and tam am tt"

[defiantwon33]

this is definitely not conclusive proof, but it does show elements of writing that also don't make sense with shakespeare, but, in the context of marlowe, fit like a glove (perhaps made by shakespeare's father).

[fitzjamie1]

I have read the sonnets, yes. Yes , questions abound! But my conundrum remains-why is it seemingly unacceptible that a man, an individual mind, create?

Without 'secret knowledge', not knowing about the "inner workings" of the court--all of that---why is a conspiracy theory required? Can it not just be that the spark be (Like an Einstein-ian moment) just admired and awed at? The debate is fine-and should be encouraged-but it is tha work that matters.

[fitzjamie1]

I ask again: reading the plays-what is the inference that this man did not write them?

You mention Italy. His references are wrong. (Lions in the forestof Arden, for example) place names, yes. But nothing else. What is the anti-thought that an actor/playwrite could not have written these plays?

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

my 'weed/watson' remark was refference to sonnet 76. sonnet 76 is a very remarkable sonnet.

[defiantwon33]

are you familiar with it?

[defiantwon33]

there was an essay on john baker's website a while back that dealt specifically with sonnet 76. i don't know exactly how accurate the findings were -- i once read a very convincing theory that bob dylan was the zodiac killer....-- but they were very interesting. one of the themes of the sonnet was that the writer was hiding something, another one of his many pervading themes, along with exile. there is an acrostic in the poem.....

[defiantwon33]

'twatso(and)' which is believed to stand for thomas watson, a poet and friend of christopher marlowe's. the essay states that it's obvious that the writer didn't want to make the acrostic too obvious, but the chances of those letters occurring in that order are slim - it was intended....even the (and) fits enough to finish out the (near) proper pronunciation of 'watson', particularly when you consider the 'd' in 'and' is rarely pronounced.

[defiantwon33]

...the essay then went on to show a poem by thomas watson, which was....wow.....i really don't know how to explain it. i couldn't even quote it. but the essay continues to state that the use of Twatsoand could've been an urging by the writer to - this is where i get a little foggy....if anyone else has better information please chime in - it was an urging by the writer to play around with the order of the text.

[MikeRubbo]

To to continue the crtiticism that SW never claoimed his works. youc n argue of course that i9t's a long time ago and such claims, letters conversations, could have been lost.

Yes, but Diana Price makes up a grid, a checklist of all the things one might expect to survive as evidence. Then she compared WS, his residue, with all the other writers of the era. Time winnows everyone but the others all leave more. Indeed, only WS scores zero.

[MikeRubbo]

@MikeRubbo To continue on the theme of what we could expect to find, given time's erasing power. A law studeny John Manningham reported in his diary for march 13th 1601. ""Upon the time when Burbage played Richard 111, there was a citizen grew so far in liking him, that before she went from the play, she appointed him to come to her that night under the name of Richard 111. Shakespeare, overhearing their conclusion, went before and was entertained and at his game ere Burbage came (contd)

[MikeRubbo]

Burbage story contd. "Then message being brought that Richard 111 was at the door (of the woman) Shakespeare cause return to be made that William the Conqueror was before Richard 111. Shakespeare's name, William" What does this tell us. Anecdotes do come down through time. That Mannignham does not know that WS is the author of the play. That surely would have added to his story. Finally, WS is not well known, and to make the joke work, he has to tell us his first name, William.

[MikeRubbo]

The great mystery about WS is that whilst others did claim he was the author, mainly by putting his names on published plays, he made no such claims himself. if he had, there would be no controversy. If he'd had one recoded conversation with Ben Johnson, for example or anyone else about his output, that would be enough. But no one reports such nan exchange, nor did he write to anyone about his works, his needs, his, perhaps struggles with a plot or characters. Silence, only silence.

[fitzjamie1]

Burroughs never went to Mars, HG Welles never went to the places he 'imagined". The burden of of proof is on you to provide that this individual had no imagination, no resources, no theatrical saavey to write.

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

quia que absurdum est

[defiantwon33]

why do i need to prove it to you? "the evidence is extant..." it became apparent that the world was round, but people continued to be skeptical; it became obvious that the sun was not the center of the universe, but the church continued to refute it. evidence, sometimes small but leading to a bigger picture, is only known by those who 'see' it. why must i be the one to point it out to you when it's already staring you in the face?

[defiantwon33]

....all you have to do is open your eyes. or not, naturally.

[defiantwon33]

it's not the plays, in particular that give him away.

[fitzjamie1]

flat schat. nothing to to with anything.  What in the plays-are so exclusive-that it could only be written by someone other than the author stated

[defiantwon33]

it's the knowledge of the places in the plays, and his lack of knowledge with languages. it's the sonnets that get most people questioning, or at least me -- i can speak for me -- because those are him. his heart. his thoughts. his life.....? hmmm.

[defiantwon33]

again*correction: "it's NOT..."* i seem to have a problem with 'not' tonight. 

[defiantwon33]

...oh no....wait....i was right. ignore that correction.

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

flat schat? is that another language? im semi-sensing you're not a native speaker....

[fitzjamie1]

Again, respectfully, it is you that have to produce the evidence that the man (S) did not write what folks say he wrote. "Oh, he could not have written that!" Well, why not?

You say he was not educated. Well, he attended school. He could not have known about the court. Everyone did (like the other playwrites of the period.

[defiantwon33]

....and, again, it's you that must produce evidence that he did.

[MikeRubbo]

@fitzjamie1 It's not that easy to defend WS. If it was, this controversy would have been put to rest long ago and we would not have had a distinguished line of legal people, uses to arguing fine points persuasively, contininuing to doubt.. You say he way to school for example. No evidence that he did. And if he had, would he not have been a memorable student about whom his teachers would have boasted in the years ahead.

[MikeRubbo]

Respond to this video... @fitzjamie1 To continue. Park Honan, a respected SW biographer and not a doubter, admits that it strange that WS, if at the school did not get one of the scholarships apparently avail. to promising pupils. Marlowe on the same sort of path from similar humble origins, did get a a vital scholarship.

[fitzjamie1]

To ask again, what is the stuff-what is the 'secret knowledge' what is the info that S could not have access to?

[defiantwon33]

it's not secret knowledge, but knowledge not afforded shakespeare in regards to italy. shakespeare never left the country.

[fitzjamie1]

Again, I respectfully ask, (because we do not know as much about S as M(Who came frome the same class, who came from the same backround-should I be asking 'how'd he learn so much in a few years at University-to write that!' And who is hardly ever performed-comparatively- because he is so dense with references, so laden with scholarship-see Faust- that it is almost undecipherable what is the evidence that S did not, or was not capable?

[defiantwon33]

if M can why not s?.....i've answered this question. read back.

[fitzjamie1]

Two comments ! Sweet! The salt is in the tasting-I am not familiar with the phrase. Could you enlighten me?

*....your first statement doesn't make any sense: if you believed the world was flat that means you are not privy to the evidence that disproves it. *

Evidence is extant and provable that the earth is round. 'Belief' does not change that evidence.

[defiantwon33]

lol. your logic is flawed when compared with my thoughts on the 'world being flat' example. to argue it is futile. but i'm a sucker. evidence is extant BUT if you are not aware of it, it means nothing. do you see the universe as hawking?

[defiantwon33]

books were extant and passed or copied. copied i can believe. passed? would you mind passing me your 5 year old car? if you had a brand new SUV (for instance), just how many people would you let take it for a trip to the beach...around the block....(without you)?

[fitzjamie1]

Evidently we was wealthy enough (due to his father's status as a merchant and member of the town council) to attend school. Libraries were not public but private. Books were extant-where did the others (other students) get them--they were passed and copied.

[defiantwon33]

evidently means evidence. you have none. there is none. there is no evidence that shakespeare had access to a private library. this is where stratfordians become hypocrites because then they (e tu?) begin venturing on in conjecture.

[fitzjamie1]

Further,( if I may) It is, in a way, like asserting that Einstein could not have conceived his theory of relativity because he was a poor student and worked as a lower clerk for so many years.

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

lol...wasn't expecting you to respond so quickly.  i was over here pecking away and zoning out and pecking away some more. let me read your replies.

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

your last assertion shows that you're really not considering the time of shakespeare. he was not a wealthy man. he dropped out of school young. there were no public libraries at the time and his family's social standing could gain him access to books, which were extremely expensive due to the laborious process of printing them.

[defiantwon33]

*correction: "could NOT gain him access to books..."*

[defiantwon33]

furthermore, on that same vein, the knowledge and wit required to have written the plays and poems accredited to shakespeare would have stood out long before the age at which shakespeare popped on the stage; it would've been recognized about the time shakespeare was dropping out of school as a prepubescent son of an alderman -- a decent position, sure, but still not high-ranking enough to consider purchasing books over food or other necessities -- who was also a glover (not danny).

[fitzjamie1]

As a side note: Marlowe-for someone that popular, that acclaimed-why no sure portrait? Why no will? All the arguments can apply here.

[fitzjamie1]

It is not about belief. I can believe the world is flat. The evidence does not bear it out. Education in the grammer schools of Shakespeare included Latin and Greek and history. What, in the plays, singularly demand a 'special knowledge' that could not be gleaned from other sources as opposed to 'going there'? Did the writers of 'Dallas' have special knowlege of the inner workings of a rich, powerful, oil-rich family?

[fitzjamie1]

It is not about belief. I can believe the world is flat. The evidence does not bear it out. Education in the grammer schools of Shakespeare included Latin and Greek and history. What, in the plays, singularly demand a 'special knowledge' that could not be gleaned from other sources as opposed to 'going there'?

[defiantwon33]

....your first statement doesn't make any sense: if you believed the world was flat that means you are not privy to the evidence that disproves it.

[defiantwon33]

sure the schools may have taught grammar, history, greek and latin, but 1 there was no standardized grammar book for english until after shakespeare had dropped out and 2 shakespeare dropped out around the age of 10.

[fitzjamie1]

Marlowe faked his death? And what proof (other than fantasy) is extant? So the depositions and all mean--nothing? Nuts! The greatest cover-up?  Stupid.

[fitzjamie1]

Marlowe faked his death? And what proof (other than fantasy) is extant? So the depositions and all mean--nothing? Nuts!

[defiantwon33]

@fitzjamie1

you do realize, however, that this argument does go both ways. it's like an atheism/god argument: no one's going to win, in the end, it all boils down to what you believe. if you compare the content of the writing's attributed to shakespeare to what we know of his life, they don't necessarily fit....education -- the inability to have acquired the intimate knowledge of the places, people, languages and ideas needed to have adapted these plays, because, if memory serves...

[defiantwon33]

....they are all adaptations of previously published stories (of varying origin and language), but of which shakespeare wrote with the knowledge he could not have acquired without having been to the places described, being that that information was not available to him through books (even if he had access to them).

[defiantwon33]

.....i'd say there's more of a case AGAINST shakespeare than anything else. and anything else is just preference. mine is marlowe. but what do i know? i mostly just get 'weeded with watson' (and if you're worth your salt, you'll know what that means).

[Marlin0865]

I was told many years ago about Christopher Marlowe, That he Was my Way Great Grand Father on My Mothers Side . Which was My grandmother. Still have one question ?

[GCmediacourse]

I Believe that shakespeare wrote most of the plays but I believe some were written by other people and later published with his name

[amaxamon]

I love conspiracy nuts!

[rockhammer85]

Jonson doesn't even come across as ever having known Shakespeare. Instead, he almost seems to be writing about an abstraction - a mere name.

No wonder then that a lot of people are not won over by it.

[rockhammer85]

Whether it's touching, genuinely idolatrous, etc., is a matter of opinion. For me the eulogy reads as hollow and extravagant; it seems the equivalent of today's gushing blurbs printed on the backs of novels to hype the author and the work. Not a line of Johnson's poem humanizes Shakespeare, intimates some quality of his personality, or gives the slightest glimpse of his lifestyle.

[daver852]

Furthermore, it is not just that "Marlowe was more renowned as a writer than Shakespeare by age thirty." Shakespeare as a writer did not exist while Marlowe was alive; not a single line had been published under that name. Then, two weeks after Marlowe's supposed death, "Venus and Adonis" appears out of nowhere, with the name William Shake-Speare on the title page. The evidence pointing to Marlowe is circumstantial, but it is overwhelming.

[daver852]

It is not just his signature (in fact, I believe that only one of the alleged Shakespeare signatures is genuine: the third signature on his will, preceeded by the words "by me"), but the fact that not a single scrap of writing by the Stratford man exists anywhere. And it is not just that so many of the plays are set in Italy; they contain an intimate knowledge of Italian customs of the day that could only have been learned by someone who had lived in that country.

[marlboroman1985]

Yeah, you oughta see my signature, looks like a third grader peeing his name in the snow. And yet I have a BA.

Marlowe was more renowned as a writer than Shakespeare by age thirty. So?

Some of his plays had to written by a traveling exile. Really? Shakespeare adapted others' stories all the time. Julius Caesar is essentially copied from a single chapter in Plutarch's biographies, to give one example. So much for the exiled theory.

Is this the great evidence that convinces so many?

[LunaRosa6]

@marlboroman1985

Mark Twain, in "Is Shakespeare Dead?", summarized all the known facts regarding Shakespeare in something like two pages. Quite incredible. The known, hardcore facts. For me, I have never known a serious artist who wasn't self-absorbed to a degree (or who hasn't done the Gladwell 10,000 hours of practice!). And yet, the evidence that Shakespeare had a literary life? Please show me the facts. Not speculation. Facts. Your logic re: exile theory is a non sequitur.

[marlboroman1985]

@LunaRosa6 The writer of Shakespeare's plays need not be a globetrotting aristocrat or an Oxford-educated spy if he simply had access to the most basic classics, like Ovid, Plutarch, or the original versions of Romeo and Juliet, King Lear etc. (King Lear is 1500 yr old myth.)

Do I have to spell it out? He wasn't a very original writer, he ripped off a lot of existing stories and added better sounding dialouge because he was a stage actor/owner. That's the conspiracy.

[LunaRosa6]

@marlboroman1985 You make it seem like anyone could write these plays! Please. Ok, then try writing a play like Lear (or Edward II) in blank verse. Report back to us re: degree of difficulty. Remember: in blank verse. That's iambic pentameter w/o rhyme. And write at least 30 plays. And I beg to differ: the author had to be a very talented poet/writer. And it's not about the plots (we all know many of the comedy plots came from the commedia dell'arte, for example); it's technique.

[LunaRosa6]

@LunaRosa6 And let's remember, blank verse as pioneered by Marlowe (that's a fact, by the way, whether you think he died in 1593 or not) via Tamburlaine, et al. was a new technique. It was innovative. Really good poetry, Marlboroman, is very tough to write (which is why very few poets make $ . . . not everyone could write Eliot's The Waste Land or Hamlet, for that matter!).  You obviously don't appreciate the skill of the Shakespeare plays. Hemingway looks easy, too.

[marlboroman1985]

@LunaRosa6 "You make it seem like anyone could write these plays!"

You mean "rewrite."

I find it ironic that of the two examples you used to illustrate literary excellence, both also were partially inspired by pre-existing works, albeit they were improvements. I hate to sound like a dick, but you just proved my point. It's common to lift ideas from other authors. Two authors are better than one. And I do like Shakespeare, I even liked Timon of Athens. But we digress from the debate...

[daver852]

To me one of the most powerful agruments against the Stratford man's authorship is one I have never seen mentioned anywhere. Thomas Nashe, a man after my own heart, wrote extensively about his contemporaries, praising them, attacking them, defending them and mocking them. There is scarcely a figure in all of Elizabethan literature he doesn't have something to say about. So what does he say about William Shakespeare of Stratford? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Not a single word. This is remarkable.

[LunaRosa6]

Marlowe didn't have the same experiences as DeVere? True, Capt777, so what's your point? Marlowe's experiences (from academic prodigy, to spy, to pioneer of blank verse, to writing on a Shakespearean level) make him a far more likely author of many Shakespeare works than your man DeVere (whose published material under his own name is quite weak, I must say!).

[Capt777harris]

Marlowe was probably a casual collaborator, but he didn't have the same experiences as DeVere.

[boogerie]

I believe that the Shakespeare plays were written by a Knight Templars centuries before his birth and "the Stratford man" was merely an upstart literary agent and mediocre actor.

Prove me wrong! Nyah!

[RasMajnouni]

How dare you name me, born salt of the earth as being the snob pompous fool having written that quibling drivel?

[verynicelookingguy]

Shakes-speare may have been a woman. Shaker of the spear..or Pallus Athena, the goddess of literature and the "patron of the arts" the main clue is in the name. Who was considered the "patron of the arts" in the 16th century?

[lennhart]

Both men are enigmas... clearly, Marlowe had gotten on Walshingham's 'hit list'. What bothers me is why three men (who probably had widely varying interests and rival 'patrons') would make common cause to help Marlow fakes his death.

It's a mystery !!

[doubtingT911]

I believe Marlow was one of the Knights of the Helmet, which was led by Sir Francis Bacon.

See "Secrets of Americas Beginnings-The New Atlantis". Halfway into the film there is an excellent case that Bacon was the real Shakespeare, and Sir Walter Raleigh, Christopher Barlow and others contributed.

[frezzingaces]

6:26 OWNED

[LunaRosa6]

6:26 is precious!!!!!  owned is right!

[Dudlow]

I can't see how the issue of Venus & Adonis being registered anonymously shortly before Marlowe's death, but published with Shakespeare's name shortly after, is significant at all. The example of Marlowe's Hero & Leander, registered on 28 September 1593 & published 1598, show that Elizabethans had no problem with posthuomus publication or registration. There would have been no reason to shy away from putting Marlowe's name on the published text if he had written.

[ChristineA67]

To quote Daryl Pinksen in "Who Wrote Venus and Adonis and Why?" : "Between April 18, when Venus and Adonis was registered, and June of 1593, when the poem was published, much had changed for Marlowes once good name. He had been arrested on suspicion of heresy...Whether Marlowe was alive or dead in June 1593, publishing Venus and Adonis with Christopher Marlowe's name on it was no longer an option. "

[ChristineA67]

And Archbishop Whitgift didn't mess around. Just ask Thomas Kyd!

[acegirl148]

i have to write an essay on this documentary in school...

[ChristineA67]

Hey, Shakespeare doubters! Let's all "digg" this site and spread the word!

[MSCblogspot]

Daisy,

Daryl Pinksen's Marlowe's Ghost has an excellent chapter on the curious case of Ben Jonson . . .

[MikeRubbo]

Yes, it does sound improbable, I know. But then what we know about WS does not fit the image of an author genius and that is why these theories have arisen.

Don't blame us, blame the history for not leaving him a more persuasive record.

We know he dealt in real estate, grain and was a money lender. Seems that he was stingy, did not educate his daughter i, and left no books no play manuscripts.

And now Stanley Wells would have us believe he looked like an aristocrat, dressed in finery

[angerdux8]

@MikeRubbo Not educating his daughter--that says it all. It is inconceivable that the man who was Shakespeare would allow his child to live in the ignorant dark.

[ketmaniac]

@MikeRubbo Is 3 recorded loans in a lifetime enough to brand someone a money-lender?

[daisy34]

I cannot under-stand how the dissenters can completely ignore Ben Jonsons touching, idolatrous, posthumous tribute to his friend, competitor and fellow-playwright in the First Folio. Was HE part of a conspiracy?

Were Hemings and Condell, in publishing thier friend, William Shakespeares Complete works, part of this conspiracy too. Have these people ever READ Bens complete paen to the soul of an age whom he loved this side idolatry.

[MikeRubbo]

I've sent Daisy34 a response too long to post here. Yes, Ben is the best witness for Shakespeare. But I point out that he's very ambiguous about WS so that one one can think something's going on. In his play, Every man out of His humor, Ben Mock Ws mercilessly.

In the first folio Ben says many strange things, and much is over the top. And in calling him Sweet swan of Avon, he links him to a voiceless bird whose quills were best for writing. A helper of writers but not a writer?

[Nacha255]

I want to see this whole movie. I find Christopher Marlowe to be a fascinating figure and a great writer whether he wrote Shakespeare's works or not. I am a Stratfordian, because when in doubt, the simplest theory is the most likely one, i.e. Shakespeare was Shakespeare, and no one in Shakespeare's time seemed to be in any doubt that Shakespeare wrote his plays; no one came up with any of these theories until over 100 year later. However, the Marlovian theory is the most plausible and appealing.

[MikeRubbo]

Hi Nacha, you can get the whole movie, Much Ado About Something, from PBS or Amazon.

The doubts coincide with the beginning of biographical interest in Shakespeare, some 200 yrs ago.

Since the movie was made, a good book, by Daryl Pinkson called Marlowe's Ghost, takes the theory further.

There is also a good blog/website run by Carlo Dinota, The Marlowe - Shakespeare Connection

Cheers, Mike Rubbo, the director

[MikeRubbo]

I'm glad to see viewer numbers are picking up, but it would also be so nice to get some more reactions.

Does this theory seem plausible to you? Do you find it upsetting to question Shakespeare? Had you heard about this film before? Cheers, Mike Rubbo, Director

[MSCblogspot]

Visit marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot for some neat commentary by Mike Rubbo on Daryl Pinksen's Marlowe's Ghost and Samuel Blumenfeld's The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection.

[CThomD]

if this is a duplicate, forgive me . . problem posting. Cheers to Mike Rubbo, Daryl Pinksen, Sam Blumenfeld, and the folks at Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection blogspot!

[JackintheGreen89]

a great intro to those who are not up on the authorship issue; the whole movie makes a great (and fun) case for Marlowe.

[MarloweShakespeare]

Absolutely fascinating!

[MikeRubbo]

Thanks so much for the approval. Do you know how to digg the clip? Thanks, Mike the film maker

[MarloweShakespeare]

Mike,

I see that your flick has already been dugg!

[MikeRubbo]

Indeed, that would be nice,Mike