FW: FW: Dan's epistemology (Christian on Shakespeare)
lizfried at umich.edu
Sat Mar 3 18:16:52 EST 2001
This is off-topic, but I have a friend who's a Shakespeare buff.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lester H. Cole [mailto:lhcole at rain.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 3:13 PM
> To: Liz Fried
> Subject: Re: FW: Dan's epistemology (Christian on Shakespeare)
> At 02:58 PM 03/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >Discussion of shakespeare on B-hebrew.
> Give this to your list:
> > > >Sorry folks. I can't resist: do we really know who "Shakespeare" was?
> > >
> > > Yes, we can. Besides the contemporary witnesses on record, there are
> > > registry records, land transactions, and various signatures
> in appropriate
> > > places which are compatible one with another, despite the
> differences in
> > > spelling.
> Despite the Stratfordian certainty expressed in this paragraph, it
> is subject to correction. There are, for instance, six signatures
> Shakespeare's, and all six are on the will. The witnesses can
> attest to a Mr. Shakspear of Stratford, but *NO* witness ever
> saw the playwrite Shakespeare. The land transactions are all
> Shakspear's. And the registry records are of one event: the
> marriage between Shakspear and Hathaway, which might not
> even have been Hathaway. There is a numerous and large corpus
> of literature on the "real" Shakespeare, and it is far from the
> fringe element.
More information about the b-hebrew