a word from our sponsors
See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help
since it is inductive, in the same sense that any detective
novel is solved. We are trying for facts, in an of themselves.
The fact the Polonious is based on Lord Burghley is largely
accepted. From that, we can look at the following historical
facts. Burgley became oxford's guardian when Oxford was 14.
Their relationship was always strained. The list pf precepts
Burgley was noted for, parodied in Hamlet, (to thine own self...)
was unpublished, known of only in court circles. Certainly Oxford
by being Burgley's ward would have heard these precepts. Therefore
we have a compelling piece of circumstantial evidenbce, since we
know Shakespeare didn't have such inner access to the court.
Then we have the other attributes Shakespeare displays in the
plays - knowledge of law, science, travel, languages, falconry,
courtly intrigue and wit, all of what makes Shakespeare great.
In all instances, Oxford has events in his life which can be
dovetailed perfectly with the plays, the above example of
Burgley and the precepts and Hamlet being just one. I can't
begin listing these because each one, in order to make a good
case for them, would take a page or two. Perhaps though I can
present a few sometime later. In any case, these bits of
circumstantial evidence of Oxford's astounding 'coincidental'
connection to the plays of Shakespeare begin to add up to a
mountain of evidence. And all of it is historically corroborated,
in the sense that we do know these things about Oxford, and
they do fit perfectly with the plays. All the major issues of
contention, such as the dating of the plays and his anonimity
can be explained, granted, in supposition, yet nonetheless
logically. Therefore, Oxford isn't in the same category as
Bacon - the Baconian cryptograms and rosicrucian elements
were far afield from any logic - the Oxford isn't like that.
It is a simple lining up of facts about the Earl's life
with events alluded to in the plays. This is the autobiographic
element of shakespeare Stratfordians insist doesn't matter,
for the reason that in stratfordian scholarship, you can't
find barely any connection between the man and the plays.
My contention is that Stratfordian scholarship needs to address
this, and not deny it's importance, but rather offer the same
sort of textual connection between the plays and the man that
Oxfordians do, in order to prove their contention that he wrote
them. Just saying he did isn't good enough anymore.
Posted by Bill Routhier on April 15, 1997 at 10:02:56
In Reply to "Depends on which direction you're travelling" posted by Thersites on April 15, 1997 at 07:30:30
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help