Marlovian theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship holds, first, that Christopher Marlowe did not die on 30th May 1593 as the historical records show, his death having been faked; and second, that in fact he survived long enough to be the main author of the poems and plays typically attributed to William Shakespeare. These are the two things upon which all of those who subscribe to the theory ("Marlovians") would agree.
Against the suggestion that his death was faked are both the fact that it was accepted as genuine by no fewer than sixteen jurors at a coroner's inquest and that there is a complete lack of direct evidence supporting his survival beyond 1593. As for his writing Shakespeare's works, it is generally believed that Marlowe's style—and indeed his whole world-view—are too different to Shakespeare's for this to have been possible, and that all the direct evidence in any case points to Shakespeare as being the true author.[1] This means that the Marlovian theory is dismissed as nonsense by almost all professional Shakespearian scholars.
Contents |
[edit] The Theory
The first person to propose that the works of Shakespeare may have been by Marlowe was Wilbur E. Ziegler, who suggested it in the foreword to a novel in 1895,[2] and the first serious essay on the subject was written by Archie Webster in 1923. These two were published before Hotson's discovery of the inquest in 1925. Since then, there have nevertheless been several other books supporting the idea—a list is given below—but perhaps the two most influential were those by Calvin Hoffman (1955) and A.D. Wraight (1994). Hoffman's main argument centred on similarities between the styles of the two writers, particularly in the use of similar wordings or ideas—called "parallelisms". Wraight, following Webster, delved more into what she saw as the true meaning of Shakespeare's sonnets. Although many of the arguments presented in these books have been superseded or rejected by more recent proponents of the theory, there is little doubt that they are the ones most responsible for people taking an interest in the subject, and their arguments the ones which most people still think of as what Marlovians believe.
To theirs should perhaps also be added the name of Michael Rubbo, an Australian documentary film maker who, in 2001, made the TV film Much Ado About Something in which the Marlovian theory was explored in some detail. This too played a significant part in bringing it to the notice of a wider public.
[edit] Marlowe's Death
For Marlovians, the theories about his 'death' have changed over the years from (1) thinking that because he wrote 'Shakespeare' it must have been faked; to (2) challenging the details of the inquest to show that it must have been; to (3) claiming that the circumstances surrounding it suggest that the faking is the most likely scenario, whether he went on to write 'Shakespeare' or not.
[edit] The Inquest
According to the inquest on Marlowe's death, he died on 30 May 1593 as the result of a knife wound above the right eye inflicted upon him by someone with whom he had been dining, Ingram Frizer. Together with two other men, Robert Poley and Nicholas Skeres, they had spent that day together at the Deptford home of Eleanor Bull, a respectable widow who apparently offered, for payment, room and refreshment for such private meetings.
Two days later, on 1 June, the inquest was held there by no less a figure than the Coroner of The Queen's Household, William Danby, and a 16-man jury found the killing to have been in self defence. The body of this "famous gracer of tragedians", as Robert Greene had called him, was buried the same day in an unmarked grave in the churchyard of St. Nicholas, Deptford. Elizabeth sanctioned Frizer's pardon just four weeks later.
Of those books or articles written about—or including an explanation of—Marlowe's death over the past fifteen years or so, most of the authors in fact believe that the witnesses were probably lying.[3] Usually they maintain that it was in fact a murder, not self defence, but Marlovians go one step further, and argue that if Frizer, Poley and Skeres could lie about what happened, they could just as easily have been lying about the identity of the corpse itself. In other words, that although they claimed it was Marlowe's—and as far as we know they were the only ones there in a position to identify him—it was in fact someone else's body that the jury was called upon to examine. This is looked at in more detail below.
Some commentators have found details of the killing itself unconvincing.[4] There is no reason to doubt the honesty of the jury at Marlowe's inquest, however, so the witnesses' report to the jury was certainly plausible enough to satisfy them. Where Marlovians diverge from the orthodox approach is not to challenge the details of the tale apparently told by the witnesses, but to reframe the basic question from "why was Marlowe killed?" to "what was the purpose of the meeting?"
[edit] Background
An important point for Marlovians is that Marlowe was in deep trouble at the time of his death. Accusations of his having persuaded others to atheism were coming to the Privy Council thick and fast and, whether true or not, he was certainly suspected of having written an atheistic book which was being used for subversive purposes.[5] For such crimes, trial and execution would have been almost guaranteed. Within the past two months, at least three people, Henry Barrow, John Greenwood and John Penry, had gone to the scaffold for offences no worse than this.
[edit] The Witnesses
Among Marlowe's close friends was Thomas Walsingham who, being the son of Sir Francis Walsingham's first cousin, another Thomas, had worked within Sir Francis's network of secret agents and intelligencers.[6] Marlowe also seems to have been involved in this sort of work, and was probably still in the employ of Lord Burghley and Sir Robert Cecil. As Park Honan says: "One may infer that (they) were inconvenienced by Marlowe's death".[7] It is therefore interesting to Marlovians that every person involved in the incident seems to have been associated in one way or another either with his friend Walsingham (Frizer and Skeres) or with his employers the Cecils (Poley, Bull and Danby).[8] The most likely reason for the get-together, they say, would have therefore been to save him in some way from the peril facing him. Killing him would hardly serve, so, given the dead body, they claim that the faking of his death is the only scenario to fit all of the facts as known. That Poley, Frizer and Skeres all made a living from being able to lie convincingly may have been relevant too. One hypothesis has his death faked (but with permanent exile the condition) as a compromise between those who would seek his death, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, and those who wanted him silenced but still alive, such as Lord Burghley.
[edit] The Coroner
Support for the possible involvement of people in high places has recently come to light with the discovery that the inquest was probably illegal.[9] The inquest should have been supervised and enrolled by the local County Coroner, with the Queen's Coroner being brought in by him only if he happened to know that it was within 12 (Tudor) miles of where the Queen was in residence (i.e. that it was "within the verge") and, if so, for it to be run by both of them jointly. Marlovians argue that therefore the only way for Danby to have finished up doing it on his own—given that it was only just within the verge, the Court in fact some 16 of today's statute miles away by road—would be because he knew about the killing before it actually occurred, and just "happened" to be there to take charge. If there was a deception (whether it was to have Marlowe assassinated or to fake his death), Danby must have been involved in it, and thus almost certainly with the tacit approval of the Queen. This does, of course, give as much support to David Riggs's theory that the Queen ordered Marlowe's death[10] as it does to the Marlovian version.
[edit] The Body
If a death is to be faked, however, a substitute body has to be found, and it was David L. More who first identified for Marlovians a far more likely "victim" than had been suggested earlier.[11] On the evening before their 10 a.m. meeting at Deptford, at a most unusual time for a hanging, John Penry, about a year older than Marlowe, was hanged (for writing subversive literature) just two miles from Deptford, and there is no record of what happened to the body. Also of possible relevance is that the same William Danby would have been responsible for authorizing exactly what was to happen to Penry's corpse. Those who reject the theory claim that there would have been far too many obvious signs that the corpse had been hanged for it to have been used in this way, but the Marlovian response is that Danby, being solely in charge, would have been able quite easily to ensure that such evidence remained hidden from the jury.
[edit] Marlowe and Shakespeare
[edit] The "Shakespeare" Argument
Generally speaking, Marlovians base their argument far less upon the alleged unsuitability of Shakespeare as the author—the approach favoured by most other anti-Stratfordians (those who challenge the belief that the works were by William Shakespeare of Stratford)—than upon how much more suitable Marlowe would have been, had he survived, than anyone, including Shakespeare. Marlowe was a brilliant poet and dramatist already, the main creator of so-called "Shakespearian" blank verse drama, and had precisely the education, the intellectual contacts, and the access to literature that one might have expected of the author of Shakespeare's works. Furthermore—given that so many unanswered questions remain over it—if his death really had been faked, they point out that he would have had far better reasons than any other authorship "candidate" both for continuing to write plays, and for being compelled to do so under someone else's name.
A central plank in the Marlovian theory is that the first clear association of William Shakespeare with the works bearing his name was just thirteen days after Marlowe's supposed death. Shakespeare's first published work, Venus and Adonis, was registered with the Stationers' Company on 18 April, 1593, with no named author, and appears to have been on sale—now with his name included—by 12 June, when a copy is first known to have been bought.[12]
[edit] Internal Evidence
[edit] Style
The styles of Marlowe and Shakespeare differ in many ways. Some of these differences are only statistically apparent (see Stylometry), and some more immediately noticeable by the audience or reader. However, despite the fact that their ages were almost identical, there is little if any overlap of the periods when they were writing. This means that one cannot in either case be certain that these differences are because the works were written by two different people, as orthodoxy has it, or because they were written by the same person, but at different times, as Marlovians believe.
With stylometric approaches, for example, it is possible to identify certain characteristics which are very typical of Shakespeare, such as the use of particular poetic techniques or the frequency with which various common words are used, and these have been used to argue that Marlowe could not have written Shakespeare's works.[13] In every case so far where these data have been plotted over time, however, Marlowe's corpus has been found to fit just where Shakespeare's would have been, had he written anything before the early 1590s as all of Marlowe's were.[14] On the other hand, whereas stylometry might be useful in discerning where two sets of work are not by the same person, it can be used with less confidence to show that they are. This was something that T.C. Mendenhall, whose work some Marlovians nevertheless think proves their theory, was at pains to point out.
As for the less quantifiable differences—mainly to do with the content, and of which there are quite a lot—Marlovians suggest that they are all quite predictable, given that under their scenario Marlowe would have undergone a significant transformation of his life—with new locations, new experiences, new learning, new interests, new friends and acquaintances, possibly a new political agenda, new paymasters, new performance spaces, new actors,[15] and maybe (not all agree on this) a new collaborator, Shakespeare himself.
Much has been made—particularly by Calvin Hoffman—of so-called "parallelisms" between the two authors. For example, when Marlowe's "Jew of Malta", Barabas, sees Abigail on a balcony above him, he says
But stay! What star shines yonder in the east?
The lodestar of my life, if Abigail!
Most people would immediately recognize how similar this is to Romeo's famous
But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!
when she appears on the balcony above. There are many such examples, but the problem with using them as an argument is that it really is not possible to be sure whether they happened because they were by the same author, or because they were—whether consciously or unconsciously—simply copied by Shakespeare from Marlowe.
[edit] Shakespeare's Sonnets
The current preference among Shakespearian scholars is to deny that the Sonnets are autobiographical.[16] Marlovians say that this is because—other than the references to his name "Will" and a possible pun on "Hathaway"—there is no connection between what is said in the Sonnets and anything that is known about Shakespeare's life. In contrast, assuming that Marlowe did survive and was exiled in disgrace, Marlovians claim that the Sonnets reflect what must have happened to him after that.[17]
In Sonnet 25, for instance, a Marlovian interpretation would note that something unforeseen ("unlooked for") has happened to the poet, which will deny him the chance to boast of "public honour and proud titles", and which seems to have led to some enforced travel far away, possibly even overseas (26-28, 34, 50-51, 61). They would note that this going away seems to be a one-off event (48), and whatever it was, it is clearly also associated with his being "in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes", his "outcast state" (29), and his "blots" and "bewailed guilt" (36). The poet also says that he has been "made lame by fortune's dearest spite" (37). Each one of these segments, along with many other throughout the Sonnets, might be seen by a Marlovian as reflecting some aspect of Marlowe's alleged faked death and subsequent life.
Marlovians also claim that their interpretation allows more of Shakespeare's actual words to be interpreted as meaning literally what they say than is otherwise possible. For example, they can take "a wretch's knife" (74) to mean a wretch's knife, rather than assume that he must have really meant Old Father Time's scythe, take an "outcast state"(29) to mean an outcast state, not just a feeling that nobody likes him, and accept that when he says his "name receives a brand" (111) it means that his reputation has been permanently damaged, and not simply that acting is considered a somewhat disreputable profession.
Unlike some supporters of the Baconian theory, Marlovians in general do not spend much time searching the works for hidden messages in the form of acrostics or other transposition ciphers. Peter Bull, however, does claim to have found just such a message deeply concealed in the Sonnets.[18]
[edit] Clues in the Plays
Faked (or wrongly presumed) death (for example in Romeo and Juliet, Friar Lawrence gives Juliet a potion which makes her appear dead) disgrace, banishment (similarly, in Romeo and Juliet, Romeo was banished from Verona to Mantua when he killed Tybalt), and changed identity are of course major ingredients in Shakespeare's plays. Unlike adherents of the Oxfordian theory, however, Marlovians have little time for seeking parallels between Marlowe's known or predicted life and these stories, since one can find whatever one wants to find in them if one looks hard enough. On the other hand there are some places where they point out how difficult it is to know just why something was included if it were not some sort of in-joke for those who were privy to something unknown to most of us.
For example, when in The Merry Wives of Windsor (3.2) Evans is singing Marlowe's famous song "Come live with me..." to keep his spirits up, why does he mix it up with words based upon Psalm 137, perhaps the best known song of exile ever written?
And in As You Like It (3.3), they wonder how Touchstone's words "When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child, understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room" can be a "tribute" to Marlowe, as most commentators suggest. As Agnes Latham puts it,[19] "nobody explains why Shakespeare should think that Marlowe's death by violence was material for a stage jester."
[edit] External Evidence
The main case against the 'faked death' theory is that, whilst there is evidence for Marlowe's death, there is no equally unequivocal counter-evidence that he survived, or did anything more than exert a considerable influence on Shakespeare.[20] So far the only external evidence offered has been in the form of claiming that someone who was alive after 1593 must have been Marlowe, or finding concealed messages on Shakespeare's grave, etc.
[edit] Identity After 1593
Various people have been suggested as having really been the Christopher Marlowe who was supposed to have died in 1593. There is little point in going into the details of all of them here, but some examples are a Hugh Sanford, who was based with the Earl of Pembroke at Wilton House in Wiltshire,[21] a Christopher Marlowe (alias John Matthews, or vice versa) who surfaced in Valladolid in 1602,[22] and a Monsieur Le Doux, a spy for Essex, but working as a "French tutor" in Rutland in 1595.[23] There was also apparently an Englishman who died in Padua in 1627, and said by the family he lived with to be Marlowe (even if this was not necessarily the name by which he was generally known), but no search has as yet come up with any confirmation of this,[24] and if Don Foster's so far unrefuted argument is correct that the "begetter" of the Sonnets must according to convention have meant the poet himself,[25] then it would seem to Marlovians that "Mr. W.H." was not a misprint, as he suggests, but showed that the identity being used by Marlowe in 1609 (including the name "Will"?) most probably had those initials too.
[edit] Hidden Messages
At least two Marlovians—William Honey[26] and Roberta Ballantine[27]—have taken the famous four-line "curse" on Shakespeare's grave to be an anagram. Unfortunately, the fact that they came up with different messages demonstrates the weakness of this approach. Anagrams as such are useful for conveying hidden messages, including claims of priority and authorship, having been used in this way, for example, by Galileo and Huygens,[28] but—given the number of possible answers—are really of use only if there can be some confirmation from the originator that this was the one he meant.
Many anti-Stratfordians have spent their time in search of letter-based ciphers for the hidden messages which they are sure must be there. On the other hand, a favourite technique of the poet/dramatists of the time was irony, the double meaning or double entendre—i.e. playing with words.
To combat those who claim that Shakespeare was not the real author of the works, orthodox scholars cite the First Folio—such things as Jonson's saying that the engraved portrait "hath hit his face" well, that he called Shakespeare "sweet Swan of Avon", and that it refers to when "Time dissolves thy Stratford monument". Yet according to Marlovians it is possible to interpret each of these in a quite different way too. The "face", according to the Oxford English Dictionary (10.a) could mean an "outward show; assumed or factitious appearance; disguise, pretence". When he writes of "Swan of Avon" we may choose to take it as meaning the Avon that runs through Stratford, or we may think of Daniel's Delia, addressed to the mother of the First Folio's two dedicatees, in which he refers to the Wiltshire one where they all lived:
But Avon rich in fame, though poor in waters,
Shall have my song, where Delia hath her seat.
And when Digges writes "And Time dissolves thy Stratford monument", one Marlovian argument says that it is quite reasonable to assume that he is really saying that Time will eventually "solve, resolve or explain" it (O.E.D. 12), which becomes very relevant when we see that—whether the author intended it or not—it is possible to re-interpret the whole poem on Shakespeare's monument ("Stay Passenger...") as in fact inviting us to solve a puzzle revealing who is "in" the monument "with" Shakespeare. The apparent answer turns out to be "Christofer Marley"—as Marlowe is known to have spelt his own name—who, it says, with Shakespeare's death no longer has a "page" to dish up his wit.[29]
[edit] The Hoffman Prize
Calvin Hoffman, author of The Murder of the Man who was Shakespeare (1955), died in 1987, still absolutely convinced that Marlowe was the true author of Shakespeare's works. Anxious that the theory should not die with him, he left a substantial sum of money with the King's School, Canterbury—where Marlowe went as a boy—for them to administer an annual essay competition on this subject. The Trust Deed stipulated that the winning essay should be the one:
...which in the opinion of the King's School most convincingly authoritatively and informatively examines and discusses in depth the life and works of Christopher Marlowe and the authorship of the plays and poems now commonly attributed to William Shakespeare with particular regard to the possibility that Christopher Marlowe wrote some or all of those poems and plays or made some inspirational creative or compositional contributions towards the authorship of them. (Emphasis added)
The adjudication of the prize has always been delegated to an eminent professional Shakespearian scholar, and despite Hoffman's clear intentions, the winning essay has very seldom espoused the Marlovian cause,[30] the prize usually going to essays along entirely orthodox lines. The prize is of several thousand pounds (UK).
A further stipulation of the initial Trust Deed was that:
If in any year the person adjudged to have won the Prize has in the opinion of The King's School furnished irrefutable and incontrovertible proof and evidence required to satisfy the world of Shakespearian scholarship that all the plays and poems now commonly attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact written by Christopher Marlowe then the amount of the Prize for that year shall be increased by assigning to the winner absolutely one half of the capital or corpus of the entire Trust Fund...
The amount in this case would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The original hopes of Hoffman himself may have been largely ignored, but the benefit of this has undoubtedly been that far more research into Christopher Marlowe has resulted, and several books about him produced which would probably not have been written otherwise. The less helpful side of this is the proliferation of people eagerly trying to prove the theory right, rather than taking the rather more scientific approach of seeing if they can prove it wrong—and failing.
[edit] 'Marlovian' Publications (in chronological order)
Wilbur G. Ziegler, It was Marlowe: a story of the secret of three centuries (1895). (Fiction, but with a foreword first proposing the idea)
Archie Webster, Was Marlowe the Man?, The National Review (1923) Vol.82, pp.81-86.
Calvin Hoffman, The Man who was Shakespeare (1955).
Calvin Hoffman, The Murder of the Man who was Shakespeare (1960).
David Rhys Williams, Shakespeare, Thy Name is Marlowe (1966).
Lewis J.M. Grant, Christopher Marlowe, the ghost writer of all the plays, poems and Sonnets of Shakespeare, from 1593 to 1613 (1967).
William Honey, The Shakespeare Epitaph Deciphered (1969).
William Honey, The Life, Loves and Achievements of Christopher Marlowe, alias Shakespeare (1982).
Louis Ule, Christopher Marlowe (1564-1609): A Biography (1992).
A.D. Wraight, The Story that the Sonnets Tell (1994).
A.D. Wraight, Shakespeare: New Evidence (1996).
Peter Zenner, The Shakespeare Invention (1999).
Alex Jack, Hamlet, by Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare - 2 vols. (2005) (related website)
Rodney Bolt, History Play (novel) (2005)
Samuel Blumenfeld, The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: A New Study of the Authorship Question, (McFarland, 2008). ISBN 978-0786439027
[edit] Other 'Marlovian' Links
The Marlowe Society. (Although not officially endorsing the theory, they do not reject it either, and have several items related to it on their website.)
Michael Rubbo's Much Ado About Something.
Peter Farey's Marlowe Page.
John Baker's The Case for the (sic) Christopher Marlowe's Authorship of the Works attributed to William Shakespeare.
Peter Bull's Shakespeare's Sonnets written by Kit Marlowe.
Dave More's The Marlovian newsletter. (Did have some interesting items, but has been rather neglected over the past year or two because of Dave's involvement in other projects).
Roberta Ballantine's A Christopher Marlowe Notebook.
The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection and Other Mostly Literary Things (a Marlovian blog on the web) [marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com]
[edit] Other Theories About Marlowe's Death (since 1992)
Charles Nicholl, The Reckoning: the Murder of Christopher Marlowe (1992) pp. 327-9.
Curtis C. Breight, Surveillance, Militarism and Drama in the Elizabethan Era (1996) p.114.
Paul E.J. Hammer, 'A Reckoning Reframed: the "Murder" of Christopher Marlowe Revisited', in English Literary Renaissance (1996) pp.225-242
J.A. Downie, 'Marlowe, facts and fictions', in Constructing Christopher Marlowe, eds. J.A. Downie and J.T. Parnell (2000) pp.26-27
M.J. Trow, Who Killed Kit Marlowe? A contract to murder in Elizabethan England (2001) p.250.
Charles Nicholl, The Reckoning: the Murder of Christopher Marlowe (2nd edition, 2002) pp.415-7.
Constance Brown Kuriyama, Christopher Marlowe, A Renaissance Life (2002) p.136.
Alan Haynes, The Elizabethan Secret Services (1952), (2004) pp.121-2.
David Riggs, The World of Christopher Marlowe (2004) p.334.
Park Honan, Christopher Marlowe, Poet & Spy (2005) p.354.
[edit] Notes
- ^ For example, see Tom Reedy and David Kathman's How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts and chapters 3 and 4 of Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare (1997, Picador, pp.65-132).
- ^ Earlier than this it had in fact been posited that "Christopher Marlowe" was a pseudonym adopted by Shakespeare when he first arrived in London. This suggestion first appeared anonymously in an edition of The Monthly Review in 1819, the writer subsequently being identified as a William Taylor of Norwich.
- ^ See the list immediately above these notes. Downie and Kuriyama are the only ones not to doubt the truth of the inquest.
- ^ For example, Park Honan, in his Christopher Marlowe, Poet & Spy (p.352) cites forensic reasons for doubting that the wound would have killed him instantly.
- ^ See the 'The Atheist Lecture' section in Peter Farey's Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End
- ^ Charles Nicholl, The Reckoning (2002), pp.138-144.
- ^ Honan, op. cit., p.355
- ^ Nicholl op. cit., passim.
- ^ Honan, op. cit., p.354 and Farey's Was Marlowe's Inquest Void?
- ^ David Riggs, The World of Christopher Marlowe, p.1
- ^ See More's Drunken Sailor or Imprisoned Writer?
- ^ Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, (1976), p.131.
- ^ See, for example, Gary Taylor's 'The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare's Plays', p.83, in his (with Stanley Wells et al.) A Textual Companion to their Oxford Complete Works (1983)
- ^ The graphs (given as Appendices VII and VIII) in Chapter 8 of Farey's A Deception in Deptford illustrate this.
- ^ Having Richard Burbage instead of Edward Alleyn as his lead actor, for example, in much the same way that Shakespeare's material for the 'Clown' changed with the departure of William Kempe and the arrival of Robert Armin.
- ^ For example, see John Kerrigan's The Sonnets and A Lover's Complaint (1986), p.11. For a discussion of how such approaches have changed over time, see Daryl Pinksen's article The Origins of the Shakespeare Authorship Debate in the Marlowe Society's Research Journal 1, December 2004, pp.14-27.
- ^ Archie Webster, The National Review Vol.82, (1923), Was Marlowe the Man?,
- ^ See Peter Bull's Shakespeare's Sonnets written by Kit Marlowe.
- ^ In the Arden (second series) edition of As You Like It, p.xxxiii.
- ^ See, for example, the 'Marlowe's Ghost' chapter in Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare (1997) pp.101-132.
- ^ Louis Ule, Christopher Marlowe: 1564-1609: A Biography, (1992).
- ^ See John Baker's Marlowe Alive in 1599, 1602 and 1603???!!!
- ^ A.D. Wraight, Shakespeare: New Evidence (1996) and Farey's A Deception in Deptford, chapters 2 and 3.
- ^ See John Hunt's Christopher Marlowe.
- ^ Donald W. Foster, 'Master W.H., R.I.P.', Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 102 (1987), 42-54.
- ^ William Honey, The Shakespeare Epitaph Deciphered (1969)
- ^ Roberta Ballantine, The Shakespeare Epitaphs [1]
- ^ William Friedman and Elizebeth Friedman, The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined (Cambridge University Press, 1957), pp.16-17.
- ^ The Stratford Monument: A Riddle and its Solution.
- ^ Only twice in twenty years in fact. Michael Rubbo's film had a share of the prize in 2002, and in 2007 Peter Farey's "Hoffman and the Authorship", an out-and-out Marlovian essay, was selected as a joint winner.
[edit] See also
|
|||||||||||
