- Mar 19, 2001
- PA USA
- Basic Beliefs
I edited my prior post while you were posting yours.
In answer to your question: I do not know, I am not an expert in these things.
If you could answer my questions we could continue without this misunderstanding.
Just a thought.
It's all good WAB, I don't perceive misunderstandings or problems.
When I use the terms noble and common I am referring to the class structure that existed at the time. I most emphatically do not subscribe to any kind of class privilege. It certainly exists in that some of us are born more privileged with more resources both material and cognitive. But it's fair to say that the best Gretzky and the best Shakespeare never were, those persons' stars just didn't align. And philosophically I'm egalitarian, it's even in my profile - which I haven't been to in a long, long time.
Concerning the authorship question what I believe is proper is that with all the evidence the question gain academic acceptance, that it become legitimate academic investigation, and not be dismissed as crackpottery, that that "certainty" about the man from Stratford become uncertainty. I am not advocating that it become a creationism/science conflict whereby students in classes get down and dirty. That would be bad. But certainly there is room in academia to entertain the authorship question, and this is the proper thing to do given the evidence and questions over the centuries.
I make the case for De Vere because of evidence. Am I dogmatic? Not if I keep and open mind and entertain the possibility that despite the evidence for De Vere it may indeed be Stratford, which I do. That I defend my position, perhaps too aggressively, I admit, is my misfortune.