The common sense has been completely lost over the centuries...
A comparative textual analysis does not leave any doubt that Shakespeare's "King Lear"(Q1,1608 (Faksimile right) is based on this early play "King Leir". It has attracted critical attention principally for its relationship with "King Lear".
It seems preposterous to conceive that Shakespeare could have borrowed (stolen) very essential ideas from an anonymous contemporary author. In the search for the alleged author, Greene, Peele, Kyd, Lodge, Drayton and others have been considered but not Marlowe since →Sidney Lee (1909) concluded in a strange and bizarre way:
Sidney Lee: «Marlowe's genius entitles him to a better fate. It is fatuous to associate his name with an effort which no point rises to any fulnes of poetic utterance«…»[their] characteristic merits are far inferior to those of Marlowe. They walk on a the lower slope of the Elisabethan Parnassus…their dramatic work…lacks for the most part indutible marks of exalted individuality«......»and to have withheld all key to the dramatist’s name from the title page. The absence of the author’s name, or his initials, suggests that he[the poet] never merged from a position of obscurity«);
What could have been the cause that the "unnamed dramatist" [of King Leir] never merged from a position of obscurity? Why no consistent explanation of Shakespeare experts has ever been elaborated? The "monkey business" would have been completely unnecessary, of course, if the Marlowe-Shakespeare authorship thesis had been taken seriously!