PDA

View Full Version : Marlowe and Shakespeare: one and the same


Majo
Jan 1st, 2004, 01:28 PM
I'm writing this "sort of" thesis about Shakespeare, and the intention was to write a part on Christopher Marlowe as well, because he kind of influenced Shakespeare in writing his drama's.

But then I suddenly bumped on this site that had all kinds of "evidence" of why Marlowe had never died in 1593, but instead went on to live his life as Shakespeare... (and thus: William Shakespeare has never really existed)

Not only does this cause a problem for any of my further writings about Shakespeare, it also is very hard to write "scientific founded" material when I have all kinds of sources that are contradictional.

I assume that none of you have answers for me, but I'd still like to ask you:

What do you think about this? Do you think there really was a William Shakespeare, who wrote all the plays and sonnets that are now attributed to him? Or do you believe that Christopher Marlowe was the real genius behind all these works?

Tratree
Jan 1st, 2004, 07:08 PM
How about some links to those sites. It sounds fascinating.

saki
Jan 1st, 2004, 07:22 PM
Honestly, I don't think that Marlowe and Shakespeare are the same person. There are lots of strange theories around, but just going on writing style I think it's clear that Marlowe has a much more 'cerebral' style and structure than Shakespeare and a much more intellectual way of writing and structuring his plays. Don't worry about the controversies too much when writing your thesis - it'll be enough to just say that you're following convention by assuming that they're separate people and footnoting one of the people who argues that they aren't.

Majo
Jan 1st, 2004, 08:55 PM
How about some links to those sites. It sounds fascinating.

here you go ;)

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

Majo
Jan 1st, 2004, 08:55 PM
Honestly, I don't think that Marlowe and Shakespeare are the same person. There are lots of strange theories around, but just going on writing style I think it's clear that Marlowe has a much more 'cerebral' style and structure than Shakespeare and a much more intellectual way of writing and structuring his plays. Don't worry about the controversies too much when writing your thesis - it'll be enough to just say that you're following convention by assuming that they're separate people and footnoting one of the people who argues that they aren't.

thanks! this is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for :kiss:

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 1st, 2004, 11:00 PM
There are all kinds of theories about who Shakespeare "really" was. Marlowe is one favourite. Francis Bacon is another. And there are others, such as the lord who was supposed to have been his patron.

Saki rules this thread. :worship:

Unless you specifically want to write a thesis on these theories, I think you should largely ignore them. Maybe a footnote, as Saki says.

Majo
Jan 2nd, 2004, 10:43 AM
thx guys :)

:kiss:

Halardfan
Jan 2nd, 2004, 11:22 AM
Wish I knew who Shakesspeare really was...

So Id know who to blame for all those endlessly dreary hours studying his plays at school! :) ;)

Majo
Jan 2nd, 2004, 11:30 AM
Wish I knew who Shakesspeare really was...

So Id know who to blame for all those endlessly dreary hours studying his plays at school! :) ;)

I wish we did that in Belgium... they'll prolly only mention him a couple of times during "history of theatre"... :rolleyes:

Experimentee
Jan 2nd, 2004, 01:17 PM
You'll find a whole lot of conspiracy theories about anything, but none of them are probably true.
I dont know how you can argue that Shakespeare never existed because theres a whole lot of info about his life, his family and kids and everything, they couldnt have made all that up if it was actually Marlowe in disguise or whatever they're proposing. I dont know how Marlowe could fake his death when he died in a pub brawl with presumably a room full of witnesses. I'm not really well read on Marlowe, however I've read a lot of Shakespeare and Marlowe's work doesnt look very similar. So I'd say I dont believe a word of this theory.

Experimentee
Jan 2nd, 2004, 01:23 PM
The site seems to be very anti-Shakespeare, i read some of the arguments and they dont seem very convincing, there could be other explanations for the things they mention.

Majo
Jan 2nd, 2004, 01:32 PM
good, I'll write in that way then;
that there are a lot people who try to prove that Marlowe wrote shakespeare's plays, but that the proof isn't too convincing... :)

if only we had more sources in dutch, that would be convenient... (not that my english is that bad, but I don't understand everything, plus I don't know enough about Shakespeare myself to know if a source is correct or not :rolleyes: )

thx again everyone, I appreciate your answers :) :kiss:

karma
Jan 2nd, 2004, 01:38 PM
I think that if there was any really convincing prove, it would have been made public and the press would definately have picked it up.
Last year, in my first year of English at uni, we studied Shakespear and our professor also mentioned the different theories but she said none of them are really convincing and Shakespeare is simply one of those geniuses mankind sometimes produce (like Einstein, e.g.)

Now, I really need to go study Oscar Wilde...
Good luck to all studying students out there

Experimentee
Jan 2nd, 2004, 01:50 PM
In those days most playwrights and poets were rich and well educated, and a lot were very snobbish too. Apparently they (and people today as well)resented Shakespeare because they didnt believe he could write such good plays without having a rich education like them, so they come up with theories about him not writing them himself, which I think are a load of crap.