Re: Shakespeare
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:50:45 +1100
> > Ahh ... now this is my area of expertise. I'm working on a radio show
about
> > this very subject. It's now been agreed that these were actually
earlier
> > drafts.
>
> Who has conducted this agreeing?
I direct you again to Eric Sams. Through this book's bibliography you will
find myriad books on this topic, not to mention the book itself which to my
mind is fairly convincing.
> Scholars have indeed refused to believe various logical things from time
> to time, but stubbornness and the tradition aren't the only reasons.
> Surely you will not suggest that the origin of Q1 and its relationship
> to Q2 and F1 has been found beyond a doubt out once and for
> all.
Of course not. But Sams' hypotheses are certainly a lot more convincing to
me than the other theories of how they came into being. All of this is
guesswork but, like many theories, it's the nearest guess which becomes
appropriated as the quote unquote `truth'.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest