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 This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.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
Bruce, the correlitive here between the OJ case and the authorship
is that if you are trying to 'accuse' someone on circumstantial
evidence of writing the plays, then Oxford is guilty hands down
and the Stratfordian, or standard academic Folger view is
the preposterous patchwork of sketchy, unconfirmable
stories that don't make logical sense. 'Why, gentlemen and
womebn of the jury, when shakespeare died, if he wrote the
plays, didn't the town of London mourn him? There was weeping
in the streets for Burbage, the famous actor, when he died.
Why not for the playwright? Why did the 'Bard', so called,
write a Funeral Elegy, (highly suspect, I must say) for an
obscure friend but not for the Queen of England!!! Strange,
passing strange...' Shakspere here is an undereduated man,
never even made it to university, is practically invisible
in all his years in London and there is no piece of written
documentation that refers to him as a writer. Yet the Earl
of Oxford, as I have said before, fits the profile of like
a glove, and it the glove fits, you must convict!!!
Posted by Bill Routhier on April 16, 1997 at 09:16:10
In Reply to "Which?" posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 15, 1997 at 15:12:52
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help