> > Common knowledge is an odd concept, when you think about it. Powerful as well. It's easy to believe the stories you grew up hearing.
>
> But tempting, too, to believe the most fantastic and revolutionary of ideas. It's simply "no fun" to believe Shakespeare was who he was -- where's the drama in that?
>
> I am undecided on the matter. I note unipeg's arguments for de Vere with interest, admit they are compelling, but also note that some are circumstantial and others could be explained quite simply by a close friendship between the two men. I'm not ruling out the possibility; nor am I rushing to embrace it.
>
> Either way, the question makes for interesting reading.

circumstantial, yes, many of them. but a close friendship between a man in the royal court and a commoner? possible, but not very plausible.

there is a book out about the subjext, i forget the title and the author, so it's not much help.... unfortunately i never found it when i was writing my paper, so it wasn't much help to me then, but this has reminded me that i still want to read it. i believe it's entirely about the claims for edward de vere's authorship, but hopefully it has the arguments from the other side in it too... personally, however, i tend to think, okay, it'd be interesting to know who... but whoever wrote them was a genius who contributed a lot to our culture, so does it really matter WHO it was? i'm not going to get into big arguments about it.

uni"eh whatever"peg