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 This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.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
You wrote:>>> You keep asking for proof and evidence of the Earl's claim, and I have been <<
asking for some from the Stratford man for a decade now,<<
and no one has cometo me with a single piece. <<<This is, of course, utter nonsense, as their is evidence
that Shakespeare wrote the canon we typically attribute to him.
I post that for any onlookers, lest they be deceived by this
ridiculous statement.The First Folio is evidence. You nay choose to accept it, or
disregard it, or reject it based upon wishful thinking, but
it is evidence. True, this was seven years after the man died, but
the publication attributing those plays to Shakespeare is evidence.The inscription on the tomb is evidence, of course. You
have every right to try to refute it. However, do not post
malicious nonsense and claim that it is NOT evidence.During Shakespeare's time, Meres compared Shakespeare to
Ovid, Plautus, and Seneca. This is evidence. Of course, you
have the right to claim some sort of conspiracy, or complicity,
but it is evidence, just the same.John Weever spoke of the "honietong's Shakespeare."
Yes, you can argue that he was refering to the man's
intimate taste buds. You can quibble about spellings, and pretend
to ignore the evidence that spellings were not at all
standardized, and it was not unusual for a man to spell
his own name in a different manner at a different time.
You may argue against this evidence. However, you should
not make claims that no one has presented you
with evidence, since they have.John Manningham noted the following in 1602:
13 March 1601 [1602] . . .Vpon a tyme when Burbidge
played Richard 3, there was a citizen greue [grew] soe
farr in liking with him, that before shee went freom the play
shee appointed him to come that night vnto hir by the name of
Ri: the 3. Shakespeare overhearing their conclusion
went before, was intertained, and at his game ere Burbidge
came..." [the remainder of the familiar bawdy tale has been
omitted, although it repeats Shakespeare's name, of course.]Is this evidence? Of course. Is it possible to argue
that is has been misinterpreted? Yes. However, it is
contemporaneous evidence (albeit it only a bawdy story)
of the association of Shakespeare and Burbage, and the
allusions to Richard III solidify it. You may argue
it has been misinterpreted, you may argue that it is
part of some larger conspiracy (yawn), but you cannot
in honesty claim that you have never been presented with evidence.Scoloker, in 1604: "like friendly Shakespeare's tragedies, where
the Commedian rides... Faith, it should please all, like
Prince Hamlet." Is this evidence?Camden lists Shakespeare's name among his list of the greatest
writers, in 1605. Is this evidence?I can go on, if you wish. However, instead, I merely make
the following request, in the interest of good scholarship and
accuracy:Please, refrain from posting such misinformation. You
do a great disservice to those who are trying to learn.-Bruce
Posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 15, 1997 at 14:42:52
In Reply to "the importance of being in some context" posted by Bill Routhier on April 14, 1997 at 20:18:09
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help