Nope, Shakespeare Wasn't Oxford, (or Marlowe, or Bacon)
Jim KQKnave
Despite the many candidates proposed as the "true" author
of Shakespeare's works by the tin foil hats on this newsgroup,
William Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate
supported by the historical evidence.
see also
The Droeshout portrait isn't unusual at all!
http://shakesandbacon.yolasite.com
Agent Jim
Mark Houlsby
One imagines that Oxfordians, Baconians, et al could readily agree
with your
subject heading.
In fact, people who know nothing of the authorship question could,
too.
Mark
rangotang
support any of the Oxford/Bacon/etc theories. Invariably, the people
supporting those theories know little of the literature of the period,
frequently seem to be acquainted with the writings of only one author
of the time other than Shakespeare, have found some parallels between
Shakespeare and that one author they know, and jump to a conclusion.
They tend to know very little about the details, including the legal
considerations, of publishing and theatre of that age.
We know that Shakespeare actually lived, that he attended a school, we
know that his name was associated with a considerable number of plays
- some in collaboration with other authors, that he was acknowledged
as an author by some of his contemporaries such as Ben Jonson, and
that besides his much published plays and poetry he is also credited
with composing epitaphs and some other short items.
The usual fallback position of the theorists is that something so good
(although not all his stuff was really so good) cannot come from a
mere commoner -- only a blue blood could have such refined artistic
gifts. No such theory at all about the dozens of other lesser known
authors of the same period.
book...@yahoo.com
<sussm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have not seen anyone with a bona fide expertise in Elizabethan lit
>support any of the Oxford/Bacon/etc theories. Invariably, the people
>supporting those theories know little of the literature of the period,
>frequently seem to be acquainted with the writings of only one author
>of the time other than Shakespeare, have found some parallels between
>Shakespeare and that one author they know, and jump to a conclusion.
>They tend to know very little about the details, including the legal
>considerations, of publishing and theatre of that age.
Yours would seem to be a judgment based on inductive reasoning,
positing this and that, then assuming they jump to a conclusion.
Actually, their evidence and method are worse than that, because they
not only use as license a very limited information base, but use
fallacious negative logic, the big one being that so little is known
about Stratman that he must be a puppet and someone else with
credentials the real Shakespeare.
My take is that in a sense it's okay to begin arguing without
substance because its entertaining, can stimulate speculation, and may
lead to firm ground.
>We know that Shakespeare actually lived, that he attended a school, we
>know that his name was associated with a considerable number of plays
>- some in collaboration with other authors, that he was acknowledged
>as an author by some of his contemporaries such as Ben Jonson, and
>that besides his much published plays and poetry he is also credited
>with composing epitaphs and some other short items.
>
>The usual fallback position of the theorists is that something so good
>(although not all his stuff was really so good) cannot come from a
>mere commoner -- only a blue blood could have such refined artistic
>gifts. No such theory at all about the dozens of other lesser known
>authors of the same period.
And what about the collaborationist group theory, that more than one
author was involved all along, may have had a local habitation and a
name? bookburn