Kent, as both Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare were born in the same year, 1564, I presume when you refer to one of them as "the youngster", you're suggesting that Marlowe was born earlier in the year than Shakespeare?

I'm convinced!  Boy, am I ever convinced ...

Robin

On 24 October 2016 at 21:33 Kent Johnson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Assuming the computerized analysis is correct and won't go the way of the Funeral Elegy, it does seem that with this the Doubt may grow ever more Reasonable...

For why would Marlowe, in 1591, a man, it seems, of not a little arrogance and vanity, then at the height of his powers and fame, not only deign to collaborate with an unknown and lowly 26 year-old actor in the writing of a weighty history play, but then let the youngster take all the "Shakespearian" credit for it? (Granting the stretch, that is, that young Will of Stratford, at 26 years, was then deeply into the writing of learned history plays.)

It pushes at the edges of logic.

Much more sense to posit a collaboration between the great Marlowe and someone older and better positioned, cloaked in the wings.

>>> Pierre Joris <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/16 1:36 AM >>>
Well, this morning's Gruniad has this:

Christopher Marlowe credited as one of Shakespeare's co-writers

Dramatists to appear jointly on title pages of Henry VI, Parts One, Two and Three in the New Oxford Shakespeare after analysis by team of 23 academics

The long-held suggestion that Christopher Marlowe was William Shakespeare is now widely dismissed, along with other authorship theories. But Marlowe is enjoying the next best thing – taking centre stage alongside his great Elizabethan rival with a credit as co-writer of the three Henry VI plays.