I wonder how folks would get around Marlowe's death date of 1593...

For some Marlovians, it's an article of faith that Marlowe didn't didn't really die in that knife fight, that Walsingham or Raleigh or some other heavy hitter(s) engineered a fraudulent inquest.

i may give it a go.

9000 good reasons are enough for anyone.

In response to dismissive and uninformed comments re Shakespeare
 

Mr. Whitworth saw fit to dismiss the authorship issue with a few quips and me along with it. I would recommend a more informed approach. For example, his remark that Jonson mattered regarding "Shakespeare", not Emerson. True, and be certain to read "On Poet-Ape" for his view of the Shakspere figure whom you identify as "Shakespeare". They were two different individuals, one a low-life knave and the other a pseudonymous Renaissance man. There is a hell of a difference.

In response to the view that the play is the thing, could I remind the author of it that the sentence quoted in part was "The play's the thing to catch the conscience of the king." A play does not exist in a vacuum and knowing the context, the author, the conditions and pressures of the times, all contribute to understanding and appreciation. Where this may fit the present topic is that believing a fable, in essence a lie, undercuts a true appreciation of the artistic work one reads or views.

There is little point in discussing the matter further if the truth of history and literature is of no importance. I would wish it otherwise for your sake and that of our trusting children. We should reward their trust with responsibly seeking that truth.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" ... the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

The cadence, the relevance of the enjambment, the sheer "playability" of the perfect exit line is what "William" wrote and, and William missed.

There are different kinds of truth and the tub where history and literature swim round and round lke a pair of goldfishes reflects the face of the honest peerer-in with more accuracy than the truth of either.

This may be the stuffiest paragraph I have ever read on Eratosphere.

No one dismissed the "truth of history and literature." And if they did, here on an intelligent, yet fairly innocuous Internet forum, I'm quite certain that truth, history, and literature will get over it, as will our trusting children (after they eat their broccoli, of course).

And so long as they are not accidentally drowned in a tub of goldfishes...

Based on Mr. Ray's post, I'm starting to think John Whitworth has a lot more power than we give him credit for.

Poetry is always a bigger tent than anyone imagines. I went to a poetry gathering at our church the other night. One lady, after telling a somewhat contemptuous but partly inspiring story about an oral performance of the Odyssey she'd seen, proceeded to read her favorite sections from Spoon River Anthology as quickly as if she were skimming a newspaper story. She seemed completely deaf to the weight and pacing of words. Yet she'd come there to share her favorite poems. The author Mary likes so much on Mary Sidney brings impressive, exhaustive erudition to bear on the authorship question without a word on the characteristic handling of language in the many, many facets that make up the writer's complex and inimitable fingerprint. Poets don't own poetry, and it is a little shocking to see how much it can mean to people who see it from such a different perspective. To some extent the poet's perspective can be demonstrated, laboriously, but to some extent it's untransmittable intuition.

PS. Hi Ann. I was at a funeral the other day. We were singing a very nice hymn, so I looked down at the bottom of the page to see who wrote it. Your pal, Jan Struther!

Speaking of fingerprints, did you know that there is no hard evidence of William Shakespeare's handwriting, except for a couple of barely legible and inconsistent signatures on legal documents?