Equal Time For Marlowe - Message Board

Topic List

Replies | Active | Stats

Post New

General Chat

Chain Games

Author Lounge

Help & Feedback

Movies & TV

Arts & Recreation

People & Celebs

Our World

Literature

Music

Sports

Virtual Blogs

Tributes

Recruiting

Subject: Equal Time For Marlowe

Posted by: daver852
Date: Jun 13 12

I will confine my postings to a topic near and dear to my heart, i.e., that the works now attributed to William Shakespeare were actually written by Christopher Marlowe. My intent is to enlighten and inform, and not to disparage anyone holding a contrary opinion. Rabid Stratfordians are invited to shower me with abuse, and I will gladly answer any questions to the best of my ability.

2346 replies. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 118

daver852

Before we leave the First Folio and move on to other topics, we must examine what Strafordians often point to as the best evidence for Shakespeare's authorship: the famous poem by Ben Jonson, "To the memory of my beloved, The Author Mr. William Shakespeare: And what he hath left us."

http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/Folio1.htm#Beloved

Next to Shakespeare, Ben Jonson is probably the most famous writer of the Elizabethan era. There is absolutely no doubt that he knew the Stratford man personally. Shakespeare actually acted in some of Jonson's plays. In his effusive poem, he specifically names Shakespeare as a writer; not only that, he praises him as the "Soule of the Age," better than Lily, Kyd, and - yes- Marlowe! So what possible reason can there be to doubt Jonson's endorsement of the Stratford Man as the author of the plays of the First Folio? As it turns out, there are some very good reasons to doubt it.

Jonson was one of the very few contemporary writers to mention Shakespeare during the Stratford man's lifetime. And what he had to say about the man was not in keeping with the sentiments expressed in the First Folio.

The first thing we'll look at is Jonson's play, "Every Man Out of His Humor," which was first performed in 1599. One of the characters in the play, Sogliardo, is regarded by most scholars to represent the Startford man, William Shakespeare. A few years earlier, Shakespeare had applied for a "coat-of-arms" (the correct term is actually "an achievement of arms," but I'll use the more common expression). There exists strong evidence that Shakespeare got his arms by bribing the Garter King of Arms; his name appears on a list of grantees who were deemed unworthy by the York King at Arms, where he is described as "Shakespeare the Player." There is a scene in "Every Man Out of His Humor" that seems to point directly to these events:

Carlo Buffone

But have you arms, have you arms?

Sogliardo

I’faith, I thank them; I can write myself gentleman now; here’s my patent, it cost me thirty pound, by this breath.

Puntarvolo

A very fair coat, well charged, and full of armory.

Sogliardo

Nay, it has as much variety of colours in it, as you have seen a coat have; how like you the crest, sir?

Puntarvolo

I understand it not well, what is’t?

Sogliardo

Marry, sir, it is your boar without a head, rampant. A boar without a head, that’s very rare!

Carlo Buffone

Ay, and rampant too! Troth, I commend the herald’s wit, he has deciphered him well: a swine without a head, without brain, wit, anything indeed, ramping to gentility. You can blazon the rest, signior, can you not?

Sogliardo

O, ay, I have it in writing here of purpose; it cost me two shilling the tricking.

That this refers to Shakespeare is evident in the fact that Sogliardo's motto, "Not Without Mustard," is a parody of Shakespeare's motto, "Not Wihout Right."

"I commend the herald’s wit, he has deciphered him well: a swine without a head, without brain, wit, anything indeed, ramping to gentility." Hardly the type of man who would become "the Soule of the Age."

Then there is the matter of a poem written by Jonson shortly before the Stratford man's death:

On Poet-Ape

Poor Poet Ape, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e’en the frippery of wit,
From Brokage is become so bold a thief
As we, the robbed, leave rage and pity it.
At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean,
Buy the reversion of old plays, now grown
To a little wealth, and credit on the scene,
He takes up all, makes each man’s wit his own,
And told of this, he slights it. Tut, such crimes
The sluggish, gaping auditor devours;
He marks not whose ‘twas first, and aftertimes
May judge it to be his, as well as ours.
Fool! as if half-eyes will not know a fleece
From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece.

Who the "Poet-Ape" of this poem is has been the subject of a great deal of dispute, but traditionally it has been thought to be the Stratford man, William Shakespeare. The word "ape" was often used to describe actors. Of especial interest to me is the line "From Brockage has become so bold a thief." "Brockage" is another word for "brokerage," i.e., the act of buying and selling. The implication here is that the Stratford man began his career not as a writer, but a procurer of plays - something that fits neatly with the theory that he was acting as Marlowe's front man. And, surprisingly, there is additional support for this idea. The Rev. John Ward, who served as vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Stratford some fifty years after Shakespeare's death, notes in his diary that Shakespeare "in his elder days lived at Stratford, and supplied the stage with two plays every year." Note, "supplied," not "wrote."

As I have mentioned previously, it's my opinion that at first the Stratford man was content to front for Marlowe, but as his fame grew, so did his ego. From "brockage," he advanced to first altering the the manuscripts delivered to him, and may have actually attempted to write some on his own. That would explain some of the inferior plays that were printed under the name of William Shakespeare that the editors of the First Folio and modern scholars reject outright. Many of these were based of earlier works, and would explain the charges of plagiarism.

So why did Jonson despise the Stratford man while he was living, but eulogize him in death? We'll look at this question in the next segment.

Reply #81. Aug 24 12, 10:49 AM

daver852

Here's the link to Jonson's eulogy again; it's a bit long to include in its entirety, so you might wish to open it in another frame:

http://shakespeare.palomar.edu/Folio1.htm#Beloved

Did Jonson know that Marlowe was really the author of "Shakespeare's" plays? I'm not sure. What seems certain, however, is that he knew the actor from Stratford was not.

Jonson's poem is a difficult one. Better minds than mine have written extensively upon it, so I am only going to address a few issues that I feel are relevant to the authorship debate. Let's begin with the title:

To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare

Doesn't this strike you as a little strange? Why would Jonson specifically call Shakespeare "the Author?" If we take the First Folio at face value, we already know that William Shakespeare is the author. I believe that Jonson is doing this deliberately to let us know that he is making a distinction between "the Author, William Shakespeare," and "the actor, William Shakespeare," and that he knows that they are two different people.

The first 16 lines of the poem are more or less an introduction, in which Jonson modestly seems to admit his unworthiness to praise Shakespeare's works. But look at these lines:

These are, as some infamous bawd or whore
Should praise a matron; what could hurt her more?

This is some pretty strange imagery. Unless one takes it as Jonson's way of telling us that the "actor Shakespeare" served as a "bawd" or procurer for the "author Shakespeare," and that praising the actor who pretended to be the author would be the worst insult to the real writer.

Then look at this line:

Thou art a Moniment, without a tombe

Note that Jonson uses the "moniment," not "monument." This isn't a misprint, and the words do not have exactly the same meaning. "Moniment" can mean "monument," but it can also mean "reminder." Digges uses the same word. Is there some sort of hidden meaning here - perhaps suggesting that Jonson thought or knew the true author still to be alive?

Then we have:

For a good Poet's made, as well as borne.
And such wert thou.

I believe these lines refer to Shakespeare's reputation being made by someone else - the true author, Christopher Marlowe.

And, finally, the strangest thing of all, at least to my mind. Jonson addresses calls Shakespeare the "Sweet swan of Avon!" It might make sense to compare a poet to a nightingale or other song bird, but swans are famous for the fact that they do not sing!

So why did Jonson write these two very puzzling poems? I believe that he was either paid to do so, or was coerced into doing so. He may have been under some obligation to to the publisher Edward Blount, and Jonson was notoriously short of money throughout his life. Whatever the reason, he left us plenty of clues that he was not writing about William Shakespeare the actor.

Jonson did know the actor, William Shakespeare, and seems to have liked him, despite all of his faults. He later wrote, "For I loved the man and do honour his memory, on this side of idolatry, as much as any." But he knew the actor was not the writer of the plays included in the First Folio.

Reply #82. Aug 25 12, 10:59 AM

daver852

I am not a scholar,and do not pretend to be. I have neither the talent nor the temperament to undertake the extensive research and pay attention to meticulous details that such a vocation requires. But I have often wished that I did, because there are many aspects of the authorship question which I feel have been neglected, and I'm going to talk about one of them today.

Why did Shakespeare never write a masque?

I think this is an important, nay vital, question that anyone who believes the glovemaker's son from Stratford was a writer needs to answer. And, like many other questions about this man, they have no answer.

A good place to begin would be to explain what a "masque" was. "A Masque was a lavish, dramatic entertainment often spoken in verse, usually performed by masked, disguised players representing mythological or allegorical figures. The disguised players in the Elizabethan masques were usually members of the Elizabethan court. Elizabethan Masques were accompanied with music and dance at the beginning and end of the performances and during the interludes." That's what Elizathabethan-era.org/uk says, and it's as good a definition as any.

We might say that the masque was the Elizabethan equivalent of the modern musical. Masques began to be popular during the reign of Henry VIII, and retained their popularity up until the English civil war. Unlike stage plays, which were performed for the masses, masques were restricted to royalty and the court. They were essentially private entertainments.

Masques were incredibly elaborate productions. They involved not only a script, but also stage settings, luxurious costumes, choreography, and music. The actors usually wore masks, and that is where the name "masque" comes from. There was another important distinction between plays and masques: on the stage, boys played women's parts, but women were allowed to perform in masques. Ann Boleyn is said to have acted in one, and the wife of James I, Anne of Denmark, was crazy about them.

Presenting a masque at court was a good way to curry royal favor, but they were incredibly expensive to produce. A masque could cost anywhere from several hundred to two thousand pounds to stage. The huge sums involved meant that only the nobility could afford to serve as sponsors.

Masques were so popular during Shakespeare's time that almost every noted playwright of the age tried his hand at writing them: Ben Jonson was the most famous of them. But our boy, Shakespeare, never attempted one. He was certainly capable of writing one; masques were actually easier to write than plays. The scripts were usually only about ten to twelve pages long. There's a "masque-like" interlude in "The Tempest." We also know that his plays were very popular at the Court, and there must have been some royal interest in seeing England's greatest poet and playwright try his hand at this form of entertainment. But he never did.

And here's where the real mystery comes in. If there's one thing we DO know about Will Shakespeare of Stratford, it's that he was a miserly, penny-pinching, money-grubbing tightwad. He skipped out on his taxes, loaned out money at incredibly high interest rates, and hoarded grain for profit. When he retired and returned to his hometown, his hobby seems to have been suing his neighbors, often over trivial sums; he once tried to get the Stratford authorities to reimburse him for the cost of a pint of wine he served to a visiting clergyman. A man like Shakespeare should have jumped at the opportunity to write a masque. Why?

The reason Stratford Willie would have loved to have written masques is that they were a much more lucrative market than plays. A writer might receive five or six pounds for a play - if he was lucky - but the payment for the writer of a masque was usually 40 or 50 pounds, and sometimes even more. We know, for example, that Ben Jonson was paid 100 pounds for writing a masque called "The Gypsies Metamorphosed" (the guy who wrote the music for it received 200 pounds!). This was a huge, and I mean huge, amount of money in Elizabethan times. Shakespeare should have been watering at the mouth at the prospect of writing masques for the Court, but he never did. Again, we must ask ourselves: Why?

A little reflection provides us with the answer. Shakespeare could waltz into the offices of the Globe, carrying the neatly copied manuscript of one of Marlowe's plays, fresh from the scrivener's, plonk it down and say: "Here's my latest play. It's called Hamlet." And then waltz out. But if he had tried to write a masque, his presence would have been demanded at court during the preparation and rehearsals; the architecht, choreographer or musician might have demanded alterations or extemporaneous re-writes. And despite the monetary inducements, Willie knew he wasn't up to the task, and his cover would have been blown. Marlowe would have known this, too, so he limited his output to plays. That's the only reasonable explanation!

Reply #83. Aug 26 12, 9:55 AM

daver852

Random Musings

The Rev. John Ward was born in 1629. He took his Master of Arts degree at Oxford in 1652, and was appointed the vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Startford-On-Avon in 1662. He died September 7, 1681.

Rev. Ward kept a number of diaries, or notebooks from 1648 through 1679. He jotted down all sorts of gossip, anecdotes, etc. When he became the vicar at Holy Trinity Church, he seems to have been determined to learn all he could about the famous parishioner who had died some 48 years prior to his appointment. He wrote: “Remember
to peruse Shakespeare’s plays. And be versed in them, that I may not be ignorant in that matter.” It is from Ward that we get the famous account of Shakespeare's death: "Shakespeare, Drayton, and Ben Jonson had a merry meeting and it seems drank too hard, for Shakespeare died of a fever there contracted." But after this auspicious beginning, Ward's interest in Shakespeare quickly faded. He later wrote: “I have learned that Mr Shakespeare was a natural wit without any art at all.” He tells us that Shakespeare "supplied" the London stage with two plays a year; note his choice of words, "supplied," not "wrote." It makes one wonder what exactly the Rev. Ward learned about the Stratford man. There were certainly people still living in Stratford in Ward's time who must have known him, and Ward scribbled down everything in his diaries, but there is precious little information about the Bard.

Much has been written about William Shakespeare's will. No mention of books, no mention of unpublished plays, nothing toucing literary matters at all except the provision: "and to my fellowes John Hemynges, Richard Brubage, and Henry Cundell, xxvj.8. viij.d. a peece to buy them ringes." He's talking about mourning rings, a common custom of the time. Few of Shakespeare's biographers bother to mention that this bequest is an interlineation. It is written in ink that differs from the rest of the will, and is in a different hand altogether. It's possible that Shakespeare added this at the last moment. I believe that it is a fabrication added at a much later date, in order to establish some connection between the Stratford man and the English stage, no matter how tenuous.

Modern scholars usually attribute 38 plays to Shakespeare. Except for the history plays, only one of them, "The Merry Wives of WIndsor," is set in England. Why?

Although Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate, his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall, was not. Some of his records survive. What did he have to say about his wife's famous father, the greatest poet and most famous playwright in all of England? "My father-in-law died last Thursday." And, that, folks is it.

Reply #84. Aug 28 12, 10:09 AM

daver852

In my random travels about the internet, I occasionally uncover some gem that is not widely known. Today I found a most interesting podcast by a woman named Bonnie Miller Cutting. I know nothing about this woman, but she is evidently possessed of a brilliant mind, as she has independently arrived at many of the same conclusions about the Stratford man as I have :)

What Ms. Cutting did is what all good researchers should do, and very seldom do. Instead of blindly accepting often repeated statements as the truth, she went to the original source materials herself. This woman read 3000 Elizabethan wills, and then compared them to the will of the Stratford man, and came to some very interesting conclusions, particularly when it came to his treatment of his wife, Anne Hathaway.

She does make some mistakes. For example, she repeats the ridiculous and easily refutable canard that there are six surviving signatures of Shakespeare. There aren't; there is one "half signature." See the earlier entries in my blog for details on this. I would also disagree with her figures on literacy rates; she said that among Elizabethan males the literacy rate was 20% for men and 5% for women; my own research shows that by the early 17th century it was closer to 50% for men, and only slightly lower for women. I also don't understand why she thinks that we don't know who drew up Shakespeare's will; it is pretty much established that it was drafted and written by his friend, Francis Collins. And, finally, there is absolutely no evidence that the Stratford man was suffering from any illness when the final draft of his will was composed.

These caveats not withstanding, her discussion of the will is fascinating, and well worth listening to:

http://www.theshakespeareunderground.com/2011/09/where-theres-a-will-episode-1-with-bonner-miller-cutting/

Reply #85. Aug 29 12, 10:12 AM

daver852

John Wharburton's Cook

While this touches only tangentially on the authorship controversy, it's an interesting story, and it's surprising how few people have heard of it.

John Wharburton (1682 - 1759) was an antiquarian and collector of old manuscripts. Over the years he amassed a very admirable collection, particularly examples of Elizabethan and Jacobean plays. For some reason, he left a pile of manuscripts in the kitchen of his house. His cook, a lady named (aptly enough) Betsy Baker, assumed they were waste paper and used the pages to start her fires and to line pie tins. When Wharburton finally got around to looking for his manuscripts, all but three of them had been completely destroyed. Among the losses were plays by Massinger, Ford, Dekker, Greene, Davenant, Tourneur, Rowley, Chapman, Glapthorne, and Middleton. There were about fifty lost plays in all, including 11 by Philip Massinger. What a loss to English literature!

What is interesting to us is that three of the plays were attributed to William Shakespeare: "Duke Humphrey," "Henry I," and one simply described as "a play by William Shakespeare," wih no title given. In addition, there was a play called "The Maiden's Holiday," attributed to Christopher Marlowe.

If these manuscripts had survived, and if they were the author's "foul papers," and not printed versions or copies, there might not be an authorship controversy today. Even their loss provides us with some information, however. "The Maiden's Holiday" sounds like a comedy, which gives the lie to those who claim that Marlowe could not write in that genre. Could that lost play by "Shakespeare" have been "Cardenio" or "Love's Labour's Won?" Alas, we'll never know.

Reply #86. Aug 31 12, 9:55 AM

daver852

Marlowe and "Don Quixote"

Thus far in my blog I have tried to stick to subjects that are factual and verifiable. But it's a holiday weekend, so I'm going to indulge myself and talk about a matter that is highly speculative.

"Don Quixote" is, without doubt, one of the world's great books. It is believed to have been written by Miguel de Cervantes sometime around 1600; Cervantes sold the rights to the book to the publisher Francisco de Robles in July, 1604, and the book appeared for sale in January, 1605. It was a sensation, and in a very short time had been translated into many languages. The first English translation appeared in 1612.

Now, here's where things get interesting. Cervantes had been working as writer, both of plays and novels, for many years before "Don Quixote" appeared. None of his work was very notable or successful, until this remarkable novel appeared on the scene. Doesn't this remind you of Shakespeare, who published nary a word while Marlowe was living, but suddenly sprang into life once Marlowe was supposedly dead? And Cervantes denies he wrote the book, claiming the true author was an Arab named Hamete Benengeli. "Hamete" is a form of the Arabic name "Hamid," which means praised or famous, "Ben" means "son of," which leaves "engeli." Could this mean England or English? Is Cervantes saying the novel was written by "the famous son of England?"

Now, we know that Marlowe had some knowledge of Spanish, because "The Jew of Malta" contains some lines in that language. But could he have written, or at least translated, "Don Quixote?"

Now, there was an English college in Valladolid, Spain, which trained young Englishmen to be priests, and to be smuggled into the country to keep the Roman Catholic faith alive. In 1599, about the time "Don Quixote" was written, a student named John Matthew was enrolled at the college; amazingly, a note in the margin says: alias Christopherus Marlerus!

Furthermore, there is a letter from an Englishman named William Vaughn, dated July 4, 1602, to the Privy Council that states:

"In the said seminary there is . . . one Christopher Marlor (as he will be called), but yet for certainty his name is Christopher, sometime master in arts of Trinity College in Cambridge, of very low stature, well set, of a black round beard, not yet priest, but to come over in the mission of the next year ensuing."

Now, let's look at the English translation of the work. It was published in 1612 by Edward Blount, who was a friend of Marlowe's and who had a hand in publishing the First Folio, as we have seen. The translation is attributed to Thomas Shelton. The trouble is, no one seems to know who Thomas Shelton was.

A lot of people have tried to identify Thomas Shelton, but none of the attributions is very convincing. The translation was dedicated to the Earl of Suffolk, and Lady Suffolk is said to have had a servant named Thomas Shelton in her employ, but if he was the man, it is strange that he never wrote anything else. The problem is that there were a lot of Thomas Sheltons in England at that time; dozens of them. But none of them seems to have had any literary connections whatsoever. Could "Thomas Shelton" have been a pseudonym?

If "Thomas Shelton" was a pen name, it is interesting to note that Marlowe's great friend and patron was Thomas Walsingham, and his wife's maiden name was Audrey Shelton!

There are some who believe that Marlowe knew Cervantes and translated his novel into English; others that Marlowe actually wrote the book in English, and that Cervantes translated it into Spanish. And some who think the entire theory is nonsense.

The question of whether the Englishman John Matthew was actually Christopher Marlowe led to a lively exchange between two very distinguished Marlovian scholars, Peter Farey and Isobel Gortazar; the former denying the idea and the latter supporting it. You can read the article here:

http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-matthew-alias-christopher-marlowe.html

What do I think? Well, honestly, I think Mr. Farey's rebuttal of the idea is most convincing. But there's still some room for doubt. It's certainly true that Cervantes never produced anything like "Don Quixote" either before or after in his literary career. And the name Thomas Shelton is certainly a strange coincidence. It would be a wonderful thing if evidence someday comes to light to prove that Marlowe not only wrote "Shakespeare," but "Don Quixote" as well!

Reply #87. Sep 01 12, 11:36 AM

daver852

Sometimes I surprise myself. I have gotten involved in a discussion about Shakespeare's funerary monument, in which I find myself at odds with two of the world's most esteemed Marlovian scholars, Anthony Kellett and Peter Farey. I certainly have no business disagreeing with them (it is like a high school physics student arguing with Stephen Hawking), but I am known for being somewhat stubborn and opinionated. Just a little.

If you would like to see me get my comeuppance, go to:

http://marlowe-shakespeare.blogspot.com/

Click on the comments at the end of the article.

Reply #88. Sep 04 12, 11:29 PM

daver852

What Shakespeare Didn't Do

Numerous works supposedly written by William Shakespeare appeared in print during the Stratford man's lifetime. But only two, "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece," contained a dedication. Both poems were dedicated to Henry Wriothesly, the Earl of Southampton. None of the plays, nor the Sonnets, contain a dedication written by the author.

Why is this strange? Well, it was the custom that a new book, poem or play be dedicated to some important person, often a member of the nobility. Some of these dedications are so fawning that they make a modern reader cringe. Dedications were a way of currying favor, obtaining patronage and employment, and the person to whom the dedication was addressed would often reward the author with a small monetary payment. One thing we know about William Shakespeare is that he was always on the lookout for ways to add the odd pound or two to his purse. So why did he neglect one of the easiest and most obvious ways of doing it?

Not only did Shakespeare fail to dedicate most of his works, he was strangely silent when one of the most important events of his life occured. Queen Elizabeth I of England died on March 24, 1603, and was succeeded by James I. Both of these events, Elizabeth's death and James' coronation, were celebrated by the poets of the day, both great small. But Shakespeare was silent. This is incredible if you believe that Stratford man was a writer. He and the his partners at the Globe Theatre had many reasons to be grateful to Queen Elizabeth, who had been one of their most important patrons. Surely, he should have written something. But he didn't. One would also think that he would have been anxious to gain the favor of the new monarch, by adding his voice to the hundreds of others ushering in the Jacobean era. But he didn't.

This makes no sense at all if the Stratford man was the author. But it makes perfect sense if the author was Marlowe. He had no reason to try to impress anyone, and he certainly had no reason to be grateful to Queen Elizabeth. Just another small piece of the puzzle, but one which intrigues me.

Reply #89. Sep 08 12, 8:40 AM

daver852

Money and Shakespeare

This has nothing to do with the authorship question, but as a coin collector, I find it interesting, and since it's my blog, I can write about whatever I want :)

There are many references to money in Shakespeare, and some may be confusing to modern readers. The basic monetary unit in Elizabethan times was same as that which existed in modern Britain prior to decimalization: twelve pennies, or pence, equaled one shilling, and twenty shillings equalled one pound, so a pound was equal to 240 pence.

That's pretty simple. But there were numerous coins that had their own names (some had more than one name), and various foreign coins circulated freely in England as well. So I'm going to look at some of these.

The smallest coin or denomination you were likely to encounter was a farthing; a farthing was worth one quarter of a penny. It was originally a tiny silver coin, but no farthings had been minted for many years in Shakespeare's time. People would take a silver penny and cut it into four parts to make "farthings." Base metal farthings were first produced during the reign of James I.

A halfpenny, or ha'penny, was just that: half a penny. No half pennies were minted during the reigns of Edward VI or Mary I. A few were minted by Elizabeth, but they were not common. Halfpennies, like farhings, were made by cutting a penny in half.

The penny was not the large copper coin that some people may still remember. It was a small silver coin, and it was produced in large quantities.

A groat was a silver coin worth four pence. Half groats (two pence) coins were also issued.

A sixpence was worth half a shilling.

A shilling was one of the principle coins of English commerce. It evolved from an earlier coin called a "testoon." Testoons were first issued under Henry VII. They were made of debased silver, and were very unpopular. During the reign of Edward VI, testoons began being made of fine (sterling) silver, and people began calling them shillings. The old coins were not withdrawn from circulation, but were countermarked to show their reduced value. Merchants hated the old coins and were loathe to accept them. In Henry IV, Part 2, Falstaff says to Wart: "Hold, there's a tester for thee," This is an anachronism, because there were no testers or testoons in Henry IV's time!

A crown was either a small gold coin or a large silver coin worth five shillings. Halfcrowns were also minted. Crowns are mentioned frequently in Shakespeare, as in "The Taming of the Shrew:" "Crowns in my purse I have, and goods at home."

A "mark" was not a coin at all, although Shakespeare mentions marks frequently. A "mark" was an accounting term, equal to 2/3 of a pound, or 13 shillings, 4 pence. Marks were never minted in England (although coins called marks or mercks were minted in other countries).

The two gold coins that appear most frequently in Shakespeare are the "noble" and the "angel." Nobles were first minted during the reign of Edward III. Half nobles and quarter nobles were also produced. The value of this coined changed considerably over the centuries; by Queen Elizabeth's time, it was valued at 8 shillings, 4 pence (100 pence). In Henry VI, Part 1, the Shepherd says, "Tis true, I gave a noble to the priest the morn that I was wedded to her mother." Nobles had not been minted for 100 years prior to Marlowe's birth, but were obviously still in circulation.

A more common gold coin was the "angel," first minted in 1464. It was valued at ten shillings (later raised to 11 shillings). Shakespeare (Marlowe) frequently mentions angels and makes very bad puns concerning them, as in "The Comedy of Errors," when Dromio says to Antipholus: "Here are the angels you sent for to deliver you."

Interestingly. Shakespeare also talks about "dollars." There was no English coin of that name, although Scotland briefly minted dollars. The name comes from a large German silver coin called a "thaler." Again, Shakespeare cannot resist punning "dollar" and "dolor," as in "The Tempest:" "A dollar - Dolor comes to him, indeed."

The most common foreign coin mentioned in the plays is the "ducat." Many countries minted ducats, but Shakespeare is talking about the Venetian ducat, a gold coin valued at 9 shillings 4 pence in English money.

If you would like to learn more about these coins, and see what they actually looked like, here is an excellent article:

http://www.stacksarchive.com/gallery/StacksCoinsOfGB.pdf

This only touches upon the subject of money and Shakespeare, but I hope someone may find it helpful. It is useful to know that when Shakespeare is talking about "nobles" and "angels" he may be refering not to peers or heavenly creatures, but to coins.

Reply #90. Sep 10 12, 12:24 PM

daver852

There are many interesting books relating to the authorship question, but one everyone ought to read, regardless of his opinion, is "The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard's Unknown Travels," by Richard Paul Roe. It is quite inexpensive (I bought my copy on Amazon for about $7), and very well illustrated with both drawings and photographs. It also contains a number of maps.

Although the book doesn't touch upon the authorship question directly, Mr. Roe, who passed away in 2010, appears to have been an Oxfordian. No matter. The point he makes, and makes quite convincingly, is that whoever it was that wrote the works of Shakespeare must have traveled extensively in Italy, and spent a great deal of time there. And that rules out the Stratford man.

What I like so much about this book is that Mr. Roe did not rely upon other people's opinions and findings, but actually went to Italy himself, and did his own research. He found out that many specific places mentioned in "Romeo and Juliet" still exist in Verona, and not just those involved in the tourist trade; that it WAS possible to sail from Verona to Milan, as is described in "Two Gentlemen of Verona;" and, yes, Virginia, at one time Bohemia DID have a seacoast!

I don't agree with all of Mr. Roe's conclusions (his location for "The Tempest" seems a bit far-fetched to me), but this book is a fascinating read and well worth your time and money.

There is no evidence that William Shakespeare ever ventured outside the boundaries of England in his life. He could not possibly have gleaned the details mentioned in the plays from returning travelers, or have gotten them from books. Marlowe, on the other hand, as a member of the English secret service, would have traveled extensively, and several of the Sonnets seem to indicate that Italy was his first destination after his exile in 1593. There were many things happening in Italy that would have been of interest to the English government, especially in regards to their trading activities. There were no English ambassadors at the courts of most of the Italian city-states of the period, and it makes sense that they would want someone there to keep them informed of events that might affect England's interests. Marlowe would have had to keep his eyes and ears open, but he would also have had plenty of leisure time for writing as well. Oxford? He would have been too busy squandering his inheritance.

Reply #91. Sep 11 12, 10:36 AM

daver852

Collaboration

Sorry I have been absent so long. I have been reovering from a nasty cold, and was out of town briefly.

Read the history of Shakespearean criticism, and you will find a great deal about Shakespeare "collaborating" with various other writers. I think most of this is just so much hokum.

It is true that dramatists did often work together in writing plays, perhaps even more often than not. There was a great demand for new plays, and a group effort was the most efficient way of turning out a new work quickly. I think it is very likely that Christopher Marlowe worked with other writers, notably Thomas Nashe, on many of the plays attributed to him, and also on some of the early works that are now erroneously attributed to Shakespeare. But it would have been impossible for him to "collaborate" wih other writers during his period of exile. Yet distinguished scholars repeatedly claim that he did. So what gives?

There's an easy explanation for this. Not "collaboration," but "alteration."

The editors of the First Folio tell us: "It had bene a thing, we confesse, worthie to haue bene wished, that the Author himselfe had liu’d to haue set forth, and ouerseen his owne writings; But since it hath bin ordain’d otherwise, and he by death departed from that right, we pray you do not envie his Friends, the office of their care, and paine, to haue collected & publish’d them; and so to haue publish’d them, as where (before) you were abus’d with diuerse stolne, and surreptitious copies, maimed, and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of iniurious imposters, that expos’d them: euen those, are now offer’d to your view cur’d, and perfect of their limbes; and all the rest, absolute in their numbers, as he conceiued them."

In other words, they are claiming that the versions of the plays printed in the First Folio are all printed from accurate, original manuscripts. And they are lying through their teeth.

We don't know the sources the editors of the First Folio used. They MAY have had access to original manuscripts of a few of the plays; some they reprinted practically verbatim from previously printed quartos; some appear to have been reconstructed from actors' prompt sheets; and some are just a mystery. But what we do know is that many of "Shakespeare's" plays underwent a metamorphosis from the time they were first performed, and the time they appeared in the First Folio. We know, for example, that Thomas Middleton was paid to edit "MacBeth," and that he not only made major changes to the play, he abridged it mercilessly! Other writers are noted to have been paid for "additions" or something similar. But just because another writer contributed to parts of surviving drafts of Shakespeare's plays does not prove, or even imply, collaboration.

Charges of collaboration are almost always made on stylistic grounds. This is always a dicey proposition, as can by seen by that fact that critics do not agree on who the collaborators were, or which plays, scenes and speeches are involved. But I have no doubt that some of them are correct. I can believe, for example, that Thomas Middleton wrote the banquet scene in "Timon of Athens," but I don't accept the proposition that Shakespeare (or Marlowe) and Middleton sat down and wrote this play together.

There are many reasons why theatre owners might want to make changes to a play, especially an old one. They might think it too long, or not long enough. They might want to expand the part of a particular actor. They might want to exploit changes made to the stage itself. And so on.

There is some internal evidence in the plays that Marlowe was aware that changes were being made to his plays, and was not happy about it it. For example, in the famous "play within a play" in "Hamlet," the protagonist tells the players: "Speak the speech I pray you as I pronounced it to you . . . let those that play your clowns
speak no more than is set down for them."

Now those who make claims for collaboration are aware that their arguments are weak; they come up with all sorts of reasons why a play is a joint effort, and does not merely reflect later changes, but their explanations are always inadequate and unconvincing, at least to me.

The truth is that we just don't know how much of what we call "Shakespeare" is the original work of Christopher Marlowe, and how much was contributed by other writers. Enough has survived to prove that Marlowe was the greatest writer the English speaking world has yet produced. And we should be grateful for that.

Reply #92. Sep 21 12, 11:27 AM

Mariamir

I don't really frequent these blogs, but I have to say something here.

This is wonderful! After reading it, I'm fully convinced.

I do have a question, not disputing anything, but out of curiosity. If Marlowe was so bitter and upset about

1) being out of England forever and
2) someone else getting all the credit

Why didn't he

A: get someone else to publish his books somewhere else or
B: use a different pseudonym since this one seemed to have gotten out of hand
C: Stop writing
D: expose Shakespeare without divulging the true author
E: stop sending his masterpieces to England and publish in other countries

...?

Reply #93. Sep 23 12, 8:20 PM

SisterSeagull

I agree.... This is a fabulous thread!

Reply #94. Sep 24 12, 4:28 AM

trojan11

Daver missed his true calling. :)

Reply #95. Sep 24 12, 7:02 AM

daver852

Those are all interesting questions, and ones to which I have devoted a great deal of thought!

As far as the first one goes, I think there's an obvious explanation. If Marlowe had revealed that he was still alive, and published his books somewhere else, it would have compromised his friends in England who had helped to engineer his escape. He was also (presumably), still working for the English intelligence service throughout his period of exile; revealing he was still alive would have "blown his cover," so to speak.

I believe that Marlowe always believed that he would someday be allowed to return to England under his own name. Why this did not happen is a very tantalizing mystery. I have some ideas on the subject, but they are all just arrant speculation. I suspect it may have had something to do with his friendship with Sir Walter Raleigh and his association with Arbella Stuart - neither of which would have endreared him to James I. I think that the increasngly pessimistic tone of "Shakespeare's" later plays reflects Marlowe's increasing frustration with his situation.

As to why he did not adopt a different pseudonym, I think there's an easy explanation for this, too. If he were to write for the English stage, he would have had to have had someone associated with the theatre as his front man. If he had begun writing under another name, say Henry Brown, it would have attracted unwanted attention. People would have begun asking questions: "Who is this Brown?" "Why have we never heard of him before?" It may be that Marlowe did write some works under a name other than "Shakespeare," but we have no proof that he did.

As to why he didn't stop writing, well, I think writing was in his blood. And he pretty much had to write for the English stage; English was his native tongue, and his plays show he was extremely patriotic. He may have spoken French or Spanish well enough to write in those languages, but, again, if he had done so, he would have attracted attention to himself. There's the tantalizing possibility he may have written or translated "Don Quixote," however. See my previous post on this.

I think Marlowe became increasingly annoyed with Shakespeare taking credit for his work, as I have pointed out. The famous scene in "As You Like It," which I have previously discussed, did expose Shakespeare as a fraud - at least to those who were wise enough to read between the lines. If you read that scene with Touchstone as Marlowe, and William of Arden as Shakespeare, nothing could be clearer.

Another question that

Reply #96. Sep 27 12, 9:23 PM

daver852

Oops! Hit the wrong key again!

As I was saying, another very intriguing question is how Marlowe managed to support himself for 30 years or more while he was in exile. As Peter Farey has pointed out in his essay on the Shakespeare Monument, Marlowe was evidently still alive in 1616, and probably when the First Folio was published in 1623 as well. He may have received some payments in his capacity as an English agent, and might have received some money from his friends back in England, but he must have had other employment as well. Perhaps one of these days some evidence will turn up showing exactly what he was doing during this period. The logical place to look is Italy. Was he in the employment of one of the various princes who ruled the city states of Northern Italy? That would be my guess. He could have been a secretary, a librarian, a "master of revels," or a court poet. Perhaps one day we'll find out.

Reply #97. Sep 27 12, 9:32 PM

daver852

The Curious Case of Dalton Trumbo

Many people pooh-pooh the idea that Marlowe could have written the plays attributed to William Shakespeare without everyone finding out. Just how credible is the notion that the Stratford man could have "fronted" for Marlowe, with very few people being the wiser?
Well, let's fast forward a few centuries and find out.

In the 1940s and 50s, Hollywood, like the State Department, was literally riddled with Communists. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s, almost everything the much-maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy had claimed was found to be true, documented in the Russians' newly declassified files.

Because many of the Hollywood figures involved in the "Red Scare" refused to cooperate with authorities or give testimony before Congress, they were "blacklisted," or banned from working for the studios that then controlled the motion picture industry. Contrary to popular belief, McCarthy had nothing to do with the blacklist; the studio heads themselves were behind it.

One of those blacklisted was a man named Dalton Trumbo. He was an unrepentent Communist. He was also a very talented writer, having worked on popular films like "Kitty Foyle" and "30 Seconds Over Tokyo."

After his banishment from Hollywood, Trumbo moved to Mexico. He continued to write for Hollywood, though. How? By using front men!

Here are some of the movies the disgraced Trumbo wrote while in "exile:"

"Gun Crazy" (front man: Millard Kaufman)
"He Ran All the Way" (front man: Guy Endore)
"The Green-Eyed Blonde" (front woman: Sally Stubblefield)

You get the picture (pun intended). Now, these are pretty obscure movies, true, but . . .

In 1953, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awarded the Oscar for "Best Story" to Ian McLellan Hunter for the movie "Roman Holiday." In 1957, the name of the award was changed to "Best Original Screenplay." The problem is, Hunter didn't write the story; Dalton Trumbo did.

Trumbo died in 1976, and Hunter passed away in 1991. Shortly before he died, Hunter admitted the decption and asked that Trumbo be given credit for the film. If he had not done so, history would have forever credited Hunter as the man behind the story of this film, because evidently there were very few in Hollywood who knew the truth! In his book, "Marlowe's Ghost," Daryl Pinksen discusses at length Trumbo and other blacklisted authors who used front men.

Incidently, Trumbo won a SECOND Academy Award in 1956 for the movie "The Brave One." Only he did not not use a "front man" for that film; instead, he wrote it under the pseudonym of "Robert Rich." And trouble started immediately. He couldn't, of course, show up and accept the award himself; Jesse Lasky, Jr., head of the Communist dominated Writer's Guild of America accepted it for him, coming up with a cock-and-bull story that Rich's wife was in the hospital giving birth. It didn't take reporters long to figure out that there was no Robert Rich. A dozen or more people came forward claiming they were the "real" author. In 1959, Trumbo finally came forward and claimed authorship of the film - although he never did so for "Roman Holiday." Lesson learned: front man: good
pseudonym: bad.

Now, if such a thing as the "Roman Holiday" affair could happen in the second half of the 20th century, how much easier would it have been to pull off 400 years ago? I think it also shows why using the Stratford man as a "front" was safer than writing under an assumed name, or writing anonymously.

Reply #98. Sep 28 12, 11:52 AM

Mariamir

Okay, very good answers!

One more question. This one puzzles me.

Being out of the country, Marlowe would not have needed to flatter or ingratiate himself with any noble or royal. How then to you explain "The Merry Wives of Windsor", which was supposed to have been dedicated to Her Majesty? Who wrote that, and, if it was Marlowe, why?

Reply #99. Oct 02 12, 6:18 AM

daver852

Well, I'm pretty certain Marlowe DID write "The Merry Wives of Windsor." It contains not only lines from Marlowe's famous poem, "The Passionate Shepherd To His Love," but the horse-stealing scene is very reminiscent of a scene in Marlowe's "Faustus." The idea that "The Merry Wives of Windsor" was written at the behest of Queen Elizabeth, however, is just nonsense. This was not reported until 1702, over 100 years after the play was first performed. It is rumors like this that get repeated over and over again until people accept them as gospel, that makes separating fact from fiction when it comes to Shakespeare so difficult. The truth is, we don't know much about the origins of this play. It was first published in 1602, in a "bad quarto," and again in 1619, before it was included in the First Folio. So it had to have been written prior to 1602, but how much earlier is a matter of dispute. But it is very doubtful that it was "commissioned," by the Queen or anyone else.

Reply #100. Oct 02 12, 11:20 AM

2346 replies. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 118

Legal / Conditions of Use