tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post9045388875724478147..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: Nor Oxford Either! by Isabel GortázarUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-51159680227667350482009-12-15T07:52:34.853-05:002009-12-15T07:52:34.853-05:00Thank you, HectorMartel and Drea.
This is uphill...Thank you, HectorMartel and Drea. <br /><br />This is uphill work and encouragement from readers helps a lot!Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-83736621638333639152009-12-14T19:00:30.220-05:002009-12-14T19:00:30.220-05:00Wonderful article. Another strike against Devere....Wonderful article. Another strike against Devere. There are MANY against him!Dreanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-35041348611423446802009-12-11T13:52:06.301-05:002009-12-11T13:52:06.301-05:00very nicely said, Ms. Gortazar.very nicely said, Ms. Gortazar.HectorMartelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-10791873814933748512009-12-08T13:55:54.894-05:002009-12-08T13:55:54.894-05:00Hi Dave:
Thanks for your comments, and particular...Hi Dave: <br />Thanks for your comments, and particularly for the Sabie information which I find very interesting.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-72275326851568959872009-12-08T13:51:56.981-05:002009-12-08T13:51:56.981-05:00This is a reply to Mark (I think Anderson) which I...This is a reply to Mark (I think Anderson) which I have been unable to post in his blog. In reply to Peter Farey's arguments (or rather in non-reply) he says: <br /><br />"I don't think it's a controversial statement to claim that whoever wrote these works was one of the most innovative poetic and dramatic minds of all time. He (whoever one thinks "he" was) was perfectly capable of evolving and maturing out of the more slavish devotion to strict iambic pentameter and into a more comfortable form that broke the rules from time to time. He didn't need coaxing from peers, colleagues or others to do that."<br /><br />ABSOLUTELY, Mark. And that is why I believe Marlowe wrote those extraordinary plays, because we know that he was a genius before 1593, and, of course, he was capable of evolving and maturing. At least with him we know what he was evolving and maturing from, which is more than we know of Oxford, Bacon or even Shakespeare.<br /><br />I can't remember who it was that said that if one needs to chose between what is illogical and what is impossible, one should chose what is impossible. Oxford is an illogical candidate in every respect; Marlowe, while being a totally logical candidate, is only impossible IF he died in 1593. <br /><br />If you are honestly looking for the truth in this matter, as I assume you are, and after reading the many documents and reports written about the episode in Deptford, you must be aware of the inconsistencies in such reports, which encourage us to continue looking optimistically for a needle in a haystack, vg: a man who could have been anywhere in the Continent using any name other than his own. <br /><br />Isn't the very difficulty of our research what encourages Oxfordians, for example, to continue defending the absurd claim that an Elizabethan Earl would be writing plays for the plebs in the Rose theatre?<br /><br />If we were to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Marlowe did not die in 1593, would you, Mark, continue to be so sure of the Oxfordian claim? Because if you wouldn't it means you've chosen Oxford as "the least improbable" of the candidates, barring Marlowe. Is that good enough for you?Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-21175069205984591412009-12-07T15:53:00.886-05:002009-12-07T15:53:00.886-05:00RRaymo said "Shake-scene" as Shakespeare...RRaymo said "Shake-scene" as Shakespeare is one of the most absurd arguments made by Stratfordians. It's really bad scholarship."<br /><br />This is my point, perhaps not conveyed as clearly as it could have been. If you accept the assumption that the "Shake-scene" comment is a reference to Shakespeare, as Stratfordians do, it opens up further questions. Henry VI is an extremely complex play, especially for a man unknown at the time. If the Stratfordian character displayed such talent at this time, why was he not as well known as dozens of other dramatists at that particular time? By accepting "Shake-scene", Stratfordians are recognizing Greene's criticism of Shakespeare as a talentless man. How can they accept Greene's comments (and Greene was a well respected dramatist at the time by comparison) that Shakespeare was indeed a fraud, yet point to Henry VI as his work contemporary to that period?<br /><br />I believe even Greene would have recognized talent when he saw it, after all he plagiarized Marlowe earlier in his career.Dave Herberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08713144967995521051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-89336010225967526342009-12-07T14:12:55.868-05:002009-12-07T14:12:55.868-05:00"Shake-scene," if that's what you..."Shake-scene," if that's what you're referring to, Mr. Herber, is clearly Edward Alleyn. "Shake-scene" as Shakespeare is one of the most absurd arguments made by Stratfordians. It's really bad scholarship.<br /><br />I think this website has answered that question quite well.<br />http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2008/11/shake-scene-and-shattering-shakespeare.htmlRRaymonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-81467288333729602362009-12-07T13:06:30.218-05:002009-12-07T13:06:30.218-05:00There are some interesting post-scripts to all of ...There are some interesting post-scripts to all of this. <br /><br />The Winter’s Tale was based not only on Robert Greene’s Pandosto, but also Flora’s Fortune, the second part of The Fisherman’s Tale by a little known writer called Francis Sabie. Sabie interestingly dedicated Flora’s Fortune to the future gunpowder plotter Francis Tresham (he and his family owed much to the Tresham’s).<br /><br />Greene we know (who died in September 1592) had as his patron none other than Ferdinando Strange, as did Marlowe. In the mid to late 1580’s Francis Tresham also formed part of the Earls circle of friends or associates. One of Greene’s most famous works is his apparent deathbed missive known as Greene’s Groats-Worth of Witte, a disparaging comment on Shakespeare being a mere actor who attempts to write plays.<br /><br />Some claim that Shakespeare at this time was also part of the Stanley retinue. I find it interesting that a man such as Stanley who had patronized many fine poets and dramatists would take on a man whom Greene called basically incompetent as a dramatist. <br /><br />Some claim further that a man called Henry Chettle, a printer, member of the Stationer’s Company, and connected some believe to the Martin Marprelate tracts actually wrote Groate’s-Worth of witte. Chettle was himself a minor dramatist of the period and may well have written the missive out of personal spite, using the recently deceased Greene as his proxy. We have to ask the question then, why point the finger at Shakespeare? Surely in an attempt to be seen as someone of note, either Greene or Chettle would have directed the work toward someone of note, such as Marlowe, for at this time Shakespeare was an unknown.<br /><br />Already we can see this whole episode sliding toward the shadowy world and characters associated with Marlowe, rather than Shakespeare.<br /><br />Lastly, Meres also includes Chettle in Palladis Tamia as one of the ‘best for comedy’, so I have never given much credence to it identifying the Earl of Oxford as anyone of note.Dave Herberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08713144967995521051noreply@blogger.com