Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0473. Monday, 30 May 1994.
From: William Godshalk <GODSHAWL@UCBEH>
Date: Saturday, 28 May 1994 19:06:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0470 Authorship
Comment: Re: SHK 5.0470 Authorship
My life sounds like a bad "soap opera." (Joe Gores and others have told me so.)
However, I do not write bad "soap operas." And so, even if Oxford's life sounds
like the play HAMLET, that doesn't mean he wrote the play.
Okay, now I won't say another thing about this debate, until the Oxfordians
come up with something not in Ogburn and Looney. How about come manuscript
evidence? How about proving that Oxford wrote the poetry attributed to him? The
collection of poetry attached to Looney (3rd edition) includes poems often
attributed to other authors, e.g., Lyly. Why not prove that Oxford wrote
something, anything? Prove that what you think is his handwriting is his
handwriting. Prove that "the Earl of Oxford" isn't just a figment of Sir Philip
Sidney's imagination. How about them apples? I want to see the dripping pen.
And if the Oxford authorship is supposed to be kept a secret by everyone
(including Jonson), why were Puttenham and Meres "allowed" to give the secret
away? If Meres was prohited from saying that Oxford was a playwright, why did
he say that he was a playwright and then atribute his plays to Shakespeare?
Well, it was a secret and yet not a secret. That Oxford was a playwright was no
secret, but the titles of his plays were a secret.
No, I want the Oxfordians to hold themselves to the same standards of evidence
that they wish to hold the Stratfordians to. No more assumptions.
Yours, Bill Godshalk