I do think there are many ways in which Shakespeare stepped out of his time, but what's fascinating to me is how he was still very much of his time, in terms of playing politics, etc. More obvious in the history plays than the other parts of the canon, though.
I think Marlowe is cruder in many respects than Shakespeare. I saw a production of "Edward II" at ACT a few years go that didn't do much for me, and I've read his Faustus, though I haven't read "The Jew of Malta." To paraphrase Bloom again (who really isn't my favorite critic by a long shot, but I do think he has good insights on "Merchant"), Shakespeare was, in some ways, trying to outdo Marlowe's Jew of Malta in Merchant. It's interesting that he found ways to do it that both reinforce the worst stereotypes (Shylock sharpening the knife on his shoe), and that also allow for the possibility of the Jew's humanity. But for me, finally, it's not a successful synthesis.
Re: Also:
I think Marlowe is cruder in many respects than Shakespeare. I saw a production of "Edward II" at ACT a few years go that didn't do much for me, and I've read his Faustus, though I haven't read "The Jew of Malta." To paraphrase Bloom again (who really isn't my favorite critic by a long shot, but I do think he has good insights on "Merchant"), Shakespeare was, in some ways, trying to outdo Marlowe's Jew of Malta in Merchant. It's interesting that he found ways to do it that both reinforce the worst stereotypes (Shylock sharpening the knife on his shoe), and that also allow for the possibility of the Jew's humanity. But for me, finally, it's not a successful synthesis.