CJD1965 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This simple answer to this is most likely that he
> was not the only author. I say this because the
> theatre in Tudor and Elizabethan times was a very
> collaborative affair, and my guess is that the
> final versions were heavily edited and added to by
> members of the company. Also the best criticism I
> have seen of him and the one that I think holds
> the most water is that Shakespeare was a borrower.
> His peers often claimed that he would "lift"
> lines from them and rewrite them in his own voice.
> Kit Marlowe was apparently the most vocal about
> this.
>
> I have to say just because there isn't
> documentation of it whose to say that some local
> wealthy do-gooder didn't take interest in old Will
> and give him an education plus access to a modest
> home library.

Hello. Absolutely. Just because there is no record does not prove anything. But all it would take would be one document showing him to be a writer to essentially end the debate. That document is yet to found.

I've been delving into all contemporary references to the man and the writer. I'm unaware of the Marlowe reference that you bring up. Remember that Marlowe died before any of the works associated with the name William Shakespeare were ever printed. Venus and Adonis being the first, released in 1594, a month after Marlowe was "killed" in very suspicious circumstances. I don't see evidence for the claim that he survived or faked his death but the whole incident is fascinating. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has delved into this?