Anglist and Shakespeare expert Professor (Emeritus) Hans -Dieter Gelfert, Berlin wrote in his prologue "Who created the works of Shakespeare?" of his new book "William Shakespeare in his time " (Jan.2014 Beck Verlag) that he felt compelled , to counteract the ongoing global authorship debates, e.g. of the Marlowe Thesis of B.Conrad "The true Shakespeare: Christopher Marlowe " (2nd Edition , December 2013 ) ..he shortly summarized five arguments against the Thesis. To this end he used consistently his own prejudice. For none of his five arguments it would have been necessary to open and tackle the arguments of the book.
Argument 1 (Straightforward translation of Gelfert)
"When you compare the works circulating under Shakespeare's name with those that had appeared to Marlowe's times under his name, the conspiracy theory [of Conrad] collapses like a house of Cards
Gelfert starts with his best prejudice. He obviously was not aware that none of Marlowes works were published during his lifetime under his Name....
He also must have thought about the fact that when using the word conspiracy theory you are always poisoning any real historic conspiracy situation. A conspiracy is real, a conspiracy theory is fictitious. During the lifetime of Shakspeare there was an excess of real conspiracies ("plots"), e.g. Ridolfi (1575), Throckmorton (1583), Babington (1586), Lopez (1594)., Main (1603), Bye (1603) Gunpowder (1605), But this is no argument for Gelfert. That Marlowe wrote under the pseudonym Shakespeare is a conspiracy theory. Full stop!
In Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure", would Gelfert call the order of the Duke, to save Claudio's life by pretending his death with a false corpse, a conspiracy theory? Why could Shakespeare (alias Marlowe) represent this situation in great detail on stage, but personally could never have experienced (autobiographical) a similar situation ?