 |
 |
dave, could you expand on this: > In all but one of the lists of the Kin's Men in WS's life his name is > first, followed by Burbage. Burbage is there as principal actor, WS as > principal writer. > ... especially, "WS as principal writer". How many lists? Where? I'm intrigued, but I can't seem to find any examples on the Web. Robin. [I'd have responded sooner, but I thought I could track it down. No luck ... :-( R.] ----------------------------------- > On 16 January 2017 at 20:49, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask] > mailto:[log in to unmask] > wrote: > > > > Ok then lets take a look at this article. > > > > Paragraph 1 : "For four hundred years there has been a question > > about the authorship of the Shakespearean works." > > > > No, there hasn't. Apart from a sniffy eighteenth century parson the > > Question never became prominent until the advent of Delia Bacon. > > > > "the problem is that William Shakespeare, the man from > > Stratford-upon-Avon, was not acknowledged as a writer in any documentation > > of the time." > > > > Yes he was, from Francis Meres on there are explicit identifications > > of Shakespeare as a writer. > > > > "There is no evidence he was ever present in the royal court, where > > most of the plays take place." There are records of the King's Men being > > present at the Court, ample documentation of the plays at court and lists of > > the players in the Royal Household records (alongside the pantry staff) with > > Shakespeare at their head. > > > > "There is no evidence that anyone noticed when he died." Except for > > the First Folio. > > > > "There are no records from anyone in which Shakespeare is personally > > referred to as a writer (read the contemporary mentions of William > > Shakespeare carefully—the works are referred to, not the man)." > > > > Apart from Ben Jonson, Hemming, Condell etc etc. One might also > > mention Milton, who, though only 7 when WS died, had no doubt about his > > authorship and wrote a poem for the Second Folio. > > > > Literary London was even tighter and smaller than now - a deception > > on the scale required would not have held. > > > > >