christopher marlow wrote stunningly, but it was a series of monologues. and jz are brilliant, highly metrical, rhyming, relevant, passionate writers, they're monologues. they're not and they're editorial. they're not capable in the way that shakespeare was of creating, it's not a hologram t is something much more profound than that. it's something that actually almost approaches the condition of life, in between the opposites of shakespeare's existence, both as a person and as an artist. i would say it is that duality in shakespeare that is the fundamental dna of his greatness. >> neither a borrower nor a lender be, for loan often loses of itself and friend and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. it is above all, to thine own self be true and it must follow as the night to day, thou cannot then be follow to any man. >> rose: how do you explain the shakespeare. >> the best possible question to is at the beginning of the book is i can't explain him, after all these decades of teaching him. i think the proper stance towards him is awe. it is astonishing t