No, it's just that anti-Shakespearianism is a little industry with a momentum of its own. Like Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, only with far less basis.
The evidence really is completely overwhelming. We know more about Shakespeare than any other writer of his time, probably, and as much about him as we know about any Elizabethan. There is no rational doubt.
--- Mark Bennett <mab at straussandasher.com> wrote:
>
>
> jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
>
> 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.
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/