If the argument that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works generally ascribed to 'Shakespeare' is so strong, if the historical record is so 'unequivocal', why would the proponents of this view need to use tactics such as:
- converting 'Shakspere' directly to 'Shakespeare', skipping the fact that
- he never called himself that in life
- the works were originally ascribed to 'Shake-speare' (formed as, and very likely, a pen name designed to cover the real author's name)
- pretending that there exist 70+ serious 'claimants' to authentic authorship, when only a handful have ever been actually proposed with any real support
If those who believe William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works generally ascribed to 'Shakespeare' have to resort to these tactics, why listen to them or their arguments?
No comments:
Post a Comment