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 This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.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
a woman sees the play Richard 3 acted by Burbage and is so
enamoured of him, meets him (Burbage) backstage and tells him
to come to her house and say, 'It's Richard the third',
and she'll let him in. Shakespeare overhears this and goes
ahead of Burbage to her house, saying at the door that he's
Richard 3, we suppose,(not included as part of the tale)
and he is 'entertained.' We all know what that means. So
then Burbage shows up, and says, 'It's Richard the third!'
To which shakespeare is said to have answered 'William the
Conquerer was before Richard the third.' Ho ho ho. Now,
what does this sound like. (a) Barroom joke. (b)historical
'facts' to base the authorship on. or (c) typically weak
Stratfordian evidence that is tarted up to sound important.
If you said a and c, you are right! Otherwise, nothing Bruce lists
above is evidence of any kind. You accuse Oxfordians of having
to 'show us the proof!' like Jerry Maguire's client, but just
by saying his name is on the plays doesn't prove authorship.
It's true there was a man named Shakespere, or Shacksper,
of Shaggsper, and he did live in London, and he did have some
kind of connection to the Globe theater. I don't contest
any of that. He may have been an actor in minor parts.
But there isn't ONE IOTA OF PROOF THAT SHAKESPER OF STRATFORD
IS THE SAME MAN WHO PENNED THE PLAYS!!! And you haven't
showed me any. A name appears on the plays. Shakespeare.
Often hypenated. (Indicative of a non-de-plume) Often no
name at all appears on the plays. The Oxfordian contention
is that Shak or Shack or shagg sper of Stratford didn't
lift a pen in his entire lifetime, except for badly scrawled
signatures necessary for legal documents. And the Earl of
Oxford did, and used his formidable talent and genius
(documented - he was writing fluent French at 13, was a
prodigous student, was tutored in everything, went to law
school) to write the plays under the name Shake-speare.
Shakspere may have been some sort of 'front' kept around
as security if it was necessary to prove to someone that
the Earl was not the author. A paid-off front, which would
explain his extraordinary wealth, which was too much for
a playwright/theater partner to amass. Anyway, the references
to Shakespeare do nothing to prove Stratfordian authorship,
since they refer to the PLAYWRIGHT, (who no one saw) and the
plays, not the man. Oxford is also cited, (going back to Camden's
list) earlier on as 'the best at comedies among the court writers'
(I'm paraphrasing there, I don't have the quote or date at hand.)
Bottom line here is if I'm going to be convinced even slightly
to respect the Stratfordian position, I'll need much better 'proof'
than this.
Posted by Bill Routhier on April 15, 1997 at 21:27:42
In Reply to "If you cannot find evidence that Shakespeare wrote..." posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 15, 1997 at 14:42:52
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help