View Single Post
Sitat av Intervett Vis innlegg
Den allment akksepterte forklaringen om dikteren er debunket på mange punkter og som følge av det har mange beleste litteratur-vitere og historikere kommet med mer plausible teorier om opphavet til shakespeares værker.
Vis hele sitatet...
Akkurat hva er det med "teorien" om at Shakespeare har skrevet sine egne verker som du mener er debunket? Og krever det ikke litt mer solid argumentasjon enn å bare påstå at "mange beleste litteratur-vitere og historikere" mener noe annet, når Wikipedia sine kilder på det stikk motsatte er relativt omfattende:

Sitat av Wikipedia
Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system"; Schoenbaum 1991, p. 450; Paster 1999, p. 38: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."; Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure..."; Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him."; Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant."; Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory."; Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..."
Vis hele sitatet...