Comments on: Shaking spears at each other

By: Gareth

Gareth — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 10:21:14 +0000

What I would say that while, perhaps, the lack of any great evidence either way might lead one to suggest that someone other than WS of Stratford *might* have written them, I think then to go nailing your colours to the mast of an author with even less evidence supporting is counter to the original argument that it couldn’t have been WS because of lack of evidence.

One thing I would say, having now seen Anonymous, is that I now believe in the conspiracy theory that the film was funded by a cabal of Stratfordians intent on making the Oxford theory look like a nonsensical barrel of hogwash.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:49:51 +0000

Well, I’ve read a lot of the books about this (on both sides) and actually signed the declaration. As an aside, it’s always interesting that the only original plot in the Shakespeare canon is “The Tempest”. Oh, and Cardenio!

By: hatmandu

hatmandu — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:26:38 +0000

In reply to Jon Marsh.

Thanks Jon. Funnily enough you’re the 2nd person to recommend BB’s book to me lately – I suppose I should take a look!

By: Jon Marsh

Jon Marsh — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:22:40 +0000

A,
Great post. Not sure if you’ve seen it but, for the less academically-inclined (such as myself!), I think the case for the Stratfordian is well-argued in Bill Bryson’s ‘Shakespeare – The World as Stage’. He also examines whether or not any of the various portraits/statues are actually of the man himself.
J