And I'm still a bit confused as to how someone who is so illiterate all they can do is to sign their own name, becomes interested in the acquisition of wealth, social status and property to begin with? And how someone this low on the social scale made his situation so well-known that 400 years later people are still talking about it.
Sal
On Feb 26, 2006, at 10:54 AM, feste37 wrote:
It just wasn't the thing for a nobleman to write plays for the public theaters,
which were considered rather disreputable places. Writing plays was
something lower-class people did. It was closer to a trade than an honorable
profession, hence the word "playwright," as in "shipwright" and "wheelwright,"
that is, an artisan, a worker.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why would the Earl of Oxford not have wanted to take credit for the
> plays?
>
> Sal
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2006, at 9:31 AM, feste37 wrote:
>
> > Shakespeare's plays were in fact written by the Earl of Oxford. They
> > were
> > certainly not written by the illiterate Shaksper from Stratford, who
> > could barely
> > sign his own name and appears to have been interested only in the
> > acquisition of wealth, social status and property.
>
