The Great Shakespeare Hoax
SIR,—After reading Martin Seymour-Smith on 'The Great Shakespeare Hoax' (February 10), I lay down, gently, on my couch and inflicted upon myself a whole hour of ruthless self-analysis. The results were shattering, but nowhere did I find 'mental instability . . . relentless ignorance, snobbishness and sheer idiocy.' Eventually I inclined towards the idea that there might well be a certain number of sane, even sparkling minds, which are deeply impressed by the cumulative weight of the evidence in favour of Chris- topher Marlowe's authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
Abuse disguised as psychiatric investigation, and the hint that Dr Mendenhall's test was rigged, sug- gest that Mr Seymour-Smith is almost in a panic. Some of his arguments are absurd: 'there can be no doubt that Marlowe died. His burial was registered.' If Mr Seymour-Smith genuinely thinks that any plotters would be so unbelievably stupid as to have the burial registered in any other name but that of Marlowe, his efforts at psychiatry have been mis- directed.
If the prospect of being burnt to death is not 'serious trouble.' . . . The Baines document clearly indicates that without rapid action the last thing on earth to be smelt by Christopher Marlowe would have been his own roasting flesh.
The difference between Tamburlaine and Edward II is possibly greater than that between Edward 14 and any Shakespeare play: and yet both plays .a$ accepted as Marlowe's. Is it really 'sheer idiocy' to toy with the idea that Edward II is Marlowe's bridge between his early work and what we know as Shake- speare's history plays?
Finally, a secret involving your own and at least five other lives ought to be even easier to keep than your grandmother's secret recipe for chocolate
JAMSHED VAREEL Christ Church, Oxford
Previous page
