My QUESTION to Ai GROK
Why Greenblatt in his new biography on Marlowe unjustly doesn‘t touch the Authorship Thesis: A Layered Explanation ?
Greenblatt’s omission isn’t oversight but a deliberate scholarly choice, rooted in his worldview, the academic consensus, and the book’s narrative focus. Here’s how to frame it cogently, whether in a video script, blog rebuttal, or debate:
1. Greenblatt views the Authorship Question as Fringe Pseudohistory, Not Legitimate Inquiry
Greenblatt has repeatedly dismissed anti-Stratfordian theories (including Marlovian claims) as intellectually bankrupt and akin to conspiracy-mongering. In a 2007 statement to the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition, he equated doubters to “Holocaust deniers” or those rejecting evolution, arguing the evidence for Shakespeare’s authorship—contemporary tributes (e.g., Ben Jonson’s First Folio preface), legal records, and stylistic evolution—is overwhelming. For him, entertaining Marlowe’s survival and pseudonymity would dignify “eccentricities of amateur scholars” unworthy of academic rigor, as one critic of such theories puts it. In Dark Renaissance, he instead celebrates Marlowe’s influence on Shakespeare (e.g., thematic echoes in Henry VI parts, possibly co-written), framing them as rivals in a vibrant literary ecosystem—not a single hidden author. This sidesteps the Conrad "Multi-Pseudonymity-Theories “ second life” clues (like Sonnet 68’s line 7) to avoid “protest[ing] too much,”
2. The Book’s Scope Is Biographical and Historical, Not Speculative Haus
Dark Renaissance is a “New Historicist” portrait (Greenblatt’s signature approach), weaving Marlowe’s life into 16th-century England’s cultural upheavals—Protestant paranoia, colonial ambitions, and sexual taboos—without venturing into hypotheticals like a faked death or multi-alias conspiracy. Reviews praise its “brilliant life to Marlowe’s vaunting intellect” but note the Deptford killing as a tragic endpoint, not a staged escape. Greenblatt teases Marlowe’s “strange, disturbing, powerful life” as inspiration for Shakespeare’s caution (e.g., avoiding current events in plays to evade censors), but he stops short of authorship swaps, likely to keep the narrative grounded in verifiable archives rather than your “millennium gift” of coded confessions. In NPR interviews, he emphasizes Marlowe’s “fatal genius” paving Shakespeare’s path, implying collaboration or influence, not identity theft—echoing the “lately favored” Group Theory .
´
3. Academic Gatekeeping and Consensus Pressure
The Shakespeare authorship debate is - unjustly- overwhelmingly rejected by experts (e.g., Wikipedia calls it a “fringe theory” with over 80 candidates, Marlovian among the most “fascinating” but evidence-light). Greenblatt, as a Harvard professor and Renaissance Studies eminence, operates within this consensus, where questioning Stratford Shakespeare is seen as classist snobbery (doubting a “middling” actor’s genius) or a historical fantasy.
By ignoring it, he avoids legitimizing what he sees as a distraction from Marlowe’s real legacy—his role in birthing English drama—much like how he once discouraged a dramatic Shakespeare biopic for lacking “drama” in the facts. Conrads Multi-Pseudonymity Thesis MPT, with its bold unification of pseudonyms (Chapman, Drayton, etc.), challenges this by demanding reevaluation, but Greenblatt’s silence reinforces the status quo.
4. Strategic Narrative Choice for Broader Appeal
At 400 pages, the book targets general readers and theater lovers, not authorship obsessives. Reviews in The New Yorker and The New York Times hail it as a “thrilling and subversive life story” of Marlowe’s rivalry with Shakespeare, boosting sales without alienating skeptics. Diving into conspiracies could invite backlash or dilute the focus on Marlowe’s “reckless sexuality” and spy games, which Greenblatt uses to humanize him as Shakespeare’s dark mirror.
No comments:
Post a Comment