Nov 11, 2016 4 min read

Pennsylvania leaped boldly into the mid-20th century this week when Gov. Tom Wolf signed a law that, 60 days hence, will allow retail beer distributors to sell six-packs rather than cases alone. Or, perhaps it was the 17th century or so, since the same new law provides for seasonal farm markets to sell mead, the ancient drink of fermented honey.

But, given Pennsylvania’s archaic and convoluted laws covering alcoholic beverage sales, any progress is welcome. And allowing retail distributors to sell six-packs rather than cases alone actually might benefit consumers.

Because of the explosion of craft brewing, this truly is a golden age for beer. Yet, Pennsylvanians who wish to sample the infinite variety would have to do so by the expensive case if shopping at a retail distributor. Most do that sampling at supermarkets or convenience stores, some of which have been allowed to sell beer for the last several years under another bizarre set of legal restrictions. But, for that “convenience” as defined in Pennsylvania, consumers often pay markups well beyond those of the case prices charged by retail distributors.

Allowing those distributors to sell beer in smaller quantities will create some badly needed competition and, potentially, some downward pressure on retail prices at markets as those outlets strive to keep their market shares.

That almost is how the market should work. But beer sales remain tangled in complicated restrictions in the law that flow from legislators appeasing special interests over the years.

To better serve consumers, the state should drop those restrictions, such as the nonsensical requirement a market can sell beer to go only if it has a facility in which people can dine.

And then, of course, there is the 1930s-style state government monopoly over wholesale and retail wine and liquor sales. The state has authorized some wine sales at supermarkets, but that will not break the monopoly because every participating market will have to use the same wholesaler – the state government.

But lawmakers are talking about a private, 21st-century system. If that progresses at the same rate as the beer-sale improvements, expect something around the time that the first humans set foot on Mars.

For hundreds of years, William Shakespeare has been on the business end of whispering campaigns calling into question the authorship of many of his most famous plays. Being dead for half a millennium has put the Bard in the awkward position of not being able to forcefully contest these theories.

One name that consistently comes up as someone whose handiwork can be detected in plays traditionally attributed to Shakespeare is Christopher Marlowe, the Elizabethan playwright. While the theories that Marlowe (or anyone else) was the sole author of any of Shakespeare’s plays have been mostly debunked, there’s a good reason that his name keeps resurfacing: he and the Bard collaborated on at least three plays.

In fact, Shakespeare is believed to have collaborated with many other writers of the Elizabethan era, as well. According to an international committee of 23 distinguished Shakespeare scholars, a computer-assisted analysis of recurring phrases and language points to the likelihood that Marlowe should be credited as co-writer of at least the three Henry VI plays now attributed solely to Shakespeare.

That’s why the latest edition of “The New Oxford Shakespeare” lists their names jointly on the title pages of Parts One, Two and Three of “Henry VI” for the first time.

There’s much excitement in the academic world about this because it represents an honest acknowledgment of irrefutable scholarship and textual analysis.

This move also makes it possible to assess the 17 Shakespeare plays that are believed to be the result of uncredited collaborations, whether with Marlowe or other writers.

A more realistic understanding of Shakespeare’s output and work process will only deepen our respect for the most influential writer of the last 500 years – not lessen it.