On 11 Oct 2005 at 16:31, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> Well, be that as it may. the issue here is evidence and historical
> method. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that WS wrote the
> plays attributed to him, and Bacon or Marlowe or whoever did not. This
> sisn't a question of religious faith. It's not that you can choose who
> you like as the real WS because there is a shortage of evidence. There
> is a deluge of evidence and it all points the same way. If you reject
> WS's authorship of his plays, you have suspended historical judgment.
Not something I claim much knowledge of but if the evidence is so overwhelming how to explain the abundance of scholarly work questioning authorship? Seems odd to say the least.
John Thornton ___________________________________
Well, there really isn't an abundance of scholarly work questioning Shakespeare's authorship. Most of the "controversy" is the result the speculations by amateurs and enthusiasts: some of it ingenious, to be sure, but much of it crazed. The favored candidate these days is no longer Bacon or Marlowe or Elizabeth or Raleigh but the Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford, whose supporters - from what I've read - offer nothing but conjecture and speculation to support their case. Irvin Matus demolishes the Oxfordians - at least to my mind - in his "Shakespeare in Fact." But the "controversy" isn't going away: there is probably no more extant evidence to be discovered about Shakespeare, so the meager record of his life is unlikely ever to be augmented; thus, there will always be some skeptic who will be able to fashion an argument against "The Stratford Man" as "Shakespeare," based upon gaps in historical record. It's harmless enough, I suppose; better than the "intelligent design debate," at least.