Despite years of controversy about the authorship of some of Shakespeare's work, this is the first time a major publishing house has formally named Marlowe as a co-author.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Shakespeare's 'Henry VI': Christopher Marlowe Officially Credited As Co-Author
Despite years of controversy about the authorship of some of Shakespeare's work, this is the first time a major publishing house has formally named Marlowe as a co-author.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Numerous research papers later, I am painfully familiar with the Authorship Question and it's implications for Shakespeare as this kind of untouchable historical figure. Though the Question has been around for quite some time now, well documented for at least a century, this is the first it has ever been given major credence. Sure, there is a great deal of scholarly publications out there offering up purported answers, but this is the first publication that actually stands a genuine chance of entering the public collective consciousness. Oxford University publications are favorites among the academic world, and serve as a standard text even amongst high school students. This choice to include Marlowe could have hitherto unseen ramifications on how younger generations perceive Shakespeare, and approach his work as a whole. In a way, this move is comforting. Not even the Bard, with his massive body of work and seemingly unbeatable ability to create, was above help.
I have heard some people say that if Marlowe had not died so young he would be as well known a playwright as Shakespeare himself. No one can say for certain whether or not that is true but it does help put in perspective the ridiculousness of the pedestal that we put Shakespeare on. If a simple question of how long Shakespeare got to be alive helped decide that he is the author we remember all these years later, then he is not the irreplaceable figure we paint him as. It doesn’t surprise me that this discovery is such big news, but if you think about it for more than a moment you begin to question whether or not it should be. There are very few playwrights for whom finding out that they collaborated with other writers would be such a big deal. But we have elevated Shakespeare and his plays beyond being just the works of a person and so the idea that his plays were not only written by the great Shakespeare calls that all into question. Perhaps as we learn more about the life of Shakespeare, it will help to humanize him and we will be able to analyze his works objectively and critically instead of treating them as these untouchable pieces of perfection.
Sometimes in theater, I think we put Shakespeare on such a high pedestal that when articles like these come up, you get a lot of surprise that Shakespeare wrote all of these plays himself. He probably had so much help- collaboration is one of the most important parts in creating new work. On the other hand, I had no idea that they went through the entire works of Shakespeare looking for patterns and clues within the work. Where do you even begin? Do you have a set vernacular that they know was used by only Christopher Marlowe? Personally, I am a fan of Shakespeare and I don't think that him having a collaborator sullies the work that went into writing the show. Plenty of shows today are written by more than one person. I highly doubt Andrew Lloyd Webber is the sole person that works on his shows. Shakespeare put his name on so many works that finding out that he had help only makes him more human, and less god.
Post a Comment