The need of contextual biographical proof
of Marlowe's enduring survival
VIDEO on DRAYTON (like SHAKE-SPEARE)
a Pseudonym of MARLOWE
-------------------------------------
Quite frankly, even among convinced Marlovians
a set of fundamental reflections are missing
1. A Marlovian theory cannot exist—indeed, it makes no sense at all—unless one first accepts that Marlowe survived 1593.
2. If Marlowe (alias Shakespeare) did survive, then he necessarily have lived on for decades thereafter.
3. Such a prolonged survival (until 1655 !!) presupposes a concrete, coherent biography—years of lived experience that cannot simply be left blank.
4. These life data and experiences must inevitably be reflected, in manifold ways, in texts written under concealed or pseudonymous identities ***—and by no means only in the Shakespeare plays.
5. Can anyone seriously maintain that no contextual, autobiographical, or poetical evidence needs to be sought, analysed, or reconstructed?
***Michael Drayton ( s.extensive VIDEO above ) stands exemplarily for the multiplicity of concealed "pseudonymous" of "TRUE" SHAKESPEARE (ALIAS MARLOWE)
In truth, this contextual autobiographical evidence constitutes the very cornerstone of circumstantial proof and historical reasoning in any serious Marlovian argument.
------------------------
And yet Daryl Pinksen—himself a Marlovian, mirabile dictu—appears not to have engaged with a single line of the extensive "Second or AFTER-LIFE " , answering the decisive question: what did Marlowe do, what did he write, under how many pseudonyms (other than Shakespeare)?
during his extensive After-life post-1593-? (living till 1655)
This silence is not a minor oversight. It amounts to a deeply discouraging confession of methodological failure.
-----------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment