Before presuming to have an opinion about the accuracy of Peter Zenner's fascinating and creative work/research, I intend to familiarize myself with it. I would say, however, the obvious, which is that even *if* it turns out that Zenner's claims about Marlowe are true or even partly true, such "truth" would not mean that Marlowe's texts are to be read *exclusively* from a biographical perspective. On the contrary, if the "Zenner hypothesis" is correct, that would lend support to our general sense that sixteenth and seventeenth-century identity is not nearly so rigid or egoically "fixed" as we twentieth and twenty-first century critics are accustomed to think of it as being. Certainly any attentive close reading of the poetic forms of *many* canonical and non-canonical Renaissance texts will discover just such an understanding of identity as fluid and/or intersubjective.
Stephen Whitworth
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|