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 This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.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
Evidence: No one who knew either WS or Oxford ever claimed anyone other than WS wrote the plays. That's a cold hard fact that you conveniently ignore.Further, you still ignore the fact that the language of the plays indicates the writer grew up in the Stratford area, since he uses local idioms throughout. Oxford did not grow up in the Stratford area, thus he couldn't have written the play. (But, of course, you're too afraid to address this point)
In addition, WS was named as the author of Richard II by two people being charged with treason, and the court did indeed find that WS wrote the play.
You merely ask questions and make bogus statements:
>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.
You are in no position to know this; it's merely an unsupported assertion. No one who knew WS doubted his authorship. No one who knew Oxford claimed he was the writer. You, who don't know either man, suddenly know more than those personally involved.
> A paid-off front, which would explain his extraordinary wealth, >which was too much for a playwright/theater partner to amass.
More false supposition. Where is it written that a playwright can't amass a fortune? Why is it absolutely impossible for WS to have made the money while writing the plays?
BTW, as head of the theater, it was WS job to write plays; that's was part of the job in those days. If he didn't write plays, he couldn't have been in charge of the theater company. It's that simple.
But, of course, you ignore anything inconvenient merely because it is a fact.
Basically, you don't know anything about the life of WS, or about the Elizabethan era. You start with a false assumption and add your own ignorance, plus some out and out lies, and then think you have proven something.
Show some proof of your assertion, not speculation. Facts, not fantasies.
Posted by Reality Chuck on April 18, 1997 at 07:01:10
In Reply to "Bruce, you needn't shield us from the bawdines of the tale, which goes like this..." posted by Bill Routhier on April 15, 1997 at 21:27:42
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help