Marlowe, not Shakespeare—so what?
...on the blog of Oxford University Press‘ s (OUP - Academic Insights for the Thinking World ).
There Loughnane is informing us of at least three camps of commentators about the recent official acceptance of Marlowe as a contributor and coworker of Shakespeare in the Henry VI Plays: The camp of ...
1. Stratfordians 2. Anti-Stratfordians ( …“those who care about "the true" ‘Shakespeare’, the imagined mastermind of conspiracy theorists who ‘really’ wrote the plays (De Vere, Bacon, et. al. omitting box-office Marlowe!!) and 3. Ignorants
Loughnane’s adresses explicitly only the first and third camp, to outline what is new and to suggest why it matters. Astonishingly he confesses that Marlowe's "creative genius, and his murder at the age of twenty-nine, makes us wish that more of his work survived. But such wishing would /should (?) have no place in modern attribution research.
Loughnane’s seems aware of the fact, "that the new attribution of scenes and passages to Marlowe may not convince everyone, but that the case for his hand in these plays has been built slowly, cumulatively, and cautiously. Moreover, he claims, that Marlowe was raised in nearby Canterbury and is likely to have had the knowledge of the near area of Faversham evidenced by the play Arden of Feversham.-
Are we in fact to believe that Shakespeare was a "sometimes-solitary genius"?