tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350432428721365043.post4529325120575207130..comments2023-10-26T03:26:44.407-07:00Comments on ART & WILL: The Shakespeare DeniersAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07579992524124124425noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350432428721365043.post-8937540764633900232014-02-27T08:24:59.935-08:002014-02-27T08:24:59.935-08:00Thanks for the links, Doc. There does seem to be ...Thanks for the links, Doc. There does seem to be an awful lot of Oxfordian stuff there, which inevitably begs the question, "Why?" <br /><br />In Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon, there is a funerary monument for Shakespeare. The first part of the inscription refers to him being a Nestor in judgement, a Socrates in genius, a Virgil in art. Given that Shakespeare had been dead for at least six years when that monument was commissioned, designed, created and installed (and Oxford had been dead for 18 years) one has to ask why anyone would go to so much trouble and expense to maintain a pointless conspiracy. With both parties dead, what was the point of installing an expensive monument to Shakespeare, if Oxford really had done the work? There would have been absolutely no need to maintain the illusion.<br /><br />As with so much else in the Oxfordian argument, it all starts from nowhere and leads nowhere. There are no sound and reasonable grounds for assuming that Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays - not at all - and so there are no good reasons for imagining that Oxford did. All the so-called "evidence" only looks like evidence to those who have already convinced themselves. <br /><br />It's not complacency to accept what everybody at the time knew to have been the case, because there are no sound and reasonable grounds for doubting it (other than a deep misunderstanding of the nature of Elizabethan society). The entire topic is a great big waste of everybody's time, and a cynical and unworthy attempt to deprive a true genius of his reputation for nobody's benefit. What a pointless activity.<br /><br />There is a lot of genuine research to be done into Shakespeare (his links in the English Midlands being especially revealing). The Oxfordian mania is merely an unnecessary distraction.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07579992524124124425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350432428721365043.post-30043120237839098482014-02-27T08:15:48.012-08:002014-02-27T08:15:48.012-08:00Thanks for your comment, Sabrina. Your book sound...Thanks for your comment, Sabrina. Your book sounds very interesting, and I look forward to getting hold of a copy. I'm confident that Shakespeare had a hand in, or cast an editorial eye, over a number of plays, some of which were perhaps attributed to him on the grounds that his name was good box office. By the same token, it seems clear that several Shakespeare plays were passed to Thomas Middleton for edits/revision, and that John Fletcher substantially edited or revised several Shakespeare texts. In that respect, The Globe was a little like a Hollywood studio, in that the writer who gets the credit might not have done all (or even most) of the workAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07579992524124124425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350432428721365043.post-63250406840048184142014-02-26T15:08:34.212-08:002014-02-26T15:08:34.212-08:00Sir: "Please, devote your energies to researc...Sir: "Please, devote your energies to researching who William Shakespeare really was."<br /><br />Here are some websites that may assist you or your readers in doing so:<br /><br />http://shake-speares-bible.com/<br /><br />http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/<br /><br />http://firstfoliopictures.com/film<br /><br />I especially recommend the last link to the recent documentary, "Last Will. and Testament," which can correct some of the misapprehensions on which your blog posting depends for its self assured complacency. Please don't accuse me of trying to "mislead" you. I'm merely suggesting that you may yet have something to learn about this topic. <br /><br />Doc Stritmatterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06638248158293218129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350432428721365043.post-28077264113652543672014-02-26T12:00:38.497-08:002014-02-26T12:00:38.497-08:00Like you, I'm fascinated by what William Shake...Like you, I'm fascinated by what William Shakespeare was really like. Your post overlooks a major problem with the traditional authorship belief, though. If "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare," who wrote the Shakespeare Apocrypha? There is no evidence - none at all, not a shred - that somebody other than William Shakespeare wrote the apocryphal Shakespeare plays printed under his name or initials, or otherwise attributed to him (unless you turn to stylistic arguments). According to all the direct evidence available, they were written by William Shakespeare, gent, of Stratford-upon-Avon (although others had a hand in a few of them). The fact that two distinct bodies of literary work were attributed to one man, William Shakespeare, during his lifetime or soon after, is a fascinating historical mystery. --Sabrina Feldman (author of The Apocryphal William Shakespeare)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00508510338271929947noreply@blogger.com