Last week I read, "Christopher Marlowe Officially Credited As Co-Author Of 3 Shakespeare Plays" by Rebecca Hersher. I was initially interested in this article since I'm an aspiring English Literature major. But I'm also a huge Shakespeare buff, so when this news came out, I found it shocking. Of course, I have read and heard about the controversy about the legitimacy of Shakespeare's authorship, but I would have never anticipated something like this happening in the literary/ theatrical community. For Oxford University Press (OUP) to legitimize the claims that have only been speculations up until now is a pretty big deal. I thought it was a bit of an unspoken rule to not officially credit anyone but Shakespeare for its work for it is not all proven. I think it is a pretty bold move on Oxford University Press's part, and I feel as if they might receive a bit of backlash for it.
Christopher Marlowe, a 16th-century British poet and playwright, has been accredited with writing at least some of Shakespeare's King Henry plays. They say he was given this acknowledgment for these plays have been analyzed for years, and researchers have found that some language used in King Henry is very much like the language Marlowe used in his plays at the time.
I do not think Oxford University Press was correct in giving credit to Christopher Marlowe. It is said that the language used in plays by both authors are extremely similar, and that's why the credit was awarded. But how is it a known fact that Marlowe wrote his own plays if Shakespeare- the most revered playwright in history- is being questioned? How did Marlowe escape this scrutiny? That is why I think that argument is invalid.
I also agree with the point:
As for how Marlowe's vocabulary and style could have made it into Shakespeare's work without direct collaboration, Rutter said: 'It's much more likely that he started his career working for a company where he was already an actor, and collaborated not with another playwright but with the actors — who will have had Marlowe very much in their heads, on the stage, in their voices. ... They were the ones putting Marlowe's influence into the play (Hersher).
I think this situation could have happened. Especially since Shakespeare's plays were performed, what the actors were influenced by during that time had a very big effect. This means that Marlowe did not have to directly collaborate with Shakespeare in order for his style to somehow seep into Shakespeare's writings.
I think it was a bit hasty for the OUP to credit Marlowe with no exact evidence. Take heart, Shakespeare lovers, there's still hope!
