Attempting to figure out where William Bartram went during his famous travels can make one very irritable. Cashin's book puts you solidly in the old wanderer's boot tracks. The wealth of historical detail brings to life the places Bartram went, the people he met, and the times in which he lived. An indispensable book for the serious student of Bartram.

Though it is true that the book is only a partial recount of the Barings story, I didn't think it was as bad as some have said. Personally, it seemed to me like pages full of what slack risk management can do.

I must take my hat off to this book and it's authors. This is a must read for anyone interested in the story behind the collapse of Barings Bank. Is it self serving? Probably. Is it one sided? Probably. Who cares! I was swept away from page one, and finished the book in a couple days....it read exactly like a great adventure/intrigue/spy novel....I couldn't wait to see what happened next. I would strongly advise reading this book, and have fun!

Compelling story of the rise and hard fall of one of the "Master of the Universe". Leeson tell his side of the story in a frank and honest way descibing his mistakes, bad luck and arrogance in a build-up of events that will end up in disaster. At the end of the book you can only wonder: for one that failed and got caught, how many walked away with clean hands?

I have been a Traditionalist for a long time, and never gave much consideration to the Conditionalist view. But Fudge has opened me up to the possibility that he is correct.

In the first part of the book each author is given space to present his view. Fudge does a good job I think, while Peterson uses his space to beat up on Fudge. Peterson uses "classroom" humor to ridicule Fudge and his position. I find that unprofessional. I would of liked to see Peterson stick to a presentation of the Traditional view in his opening statement so I could better judge it on its own merit apart from other views.

I intend to read each author's dedicated volume on this subject: Fudge - "The Fire That Consumes," and Peterson - "Hell on Trial." I would like to see them rewrite the above book and stick strictly to the plan. That would be fairer to Peterson and Fudge both, and would serve to ther reader what he expected and paid for.

Both present thorough and powerful biblical and non-biblical cases for their positions. This is the best book on Hell I've seen out there, although I find Crockett's view in Zondervan's "Four Views" book to be also quite powerful.

Both sides, I believe, prove their views to be biblically founded. However, I don't understand why the two have to be "contradictory." The Annihilationists cling to their belief that there is obvious destruction of the wicked, and insist to take these passages of destruction literally...but they are forced to blur passages (though they may be few) that obviously refer to the eternality of the punishment. Traditionalists take the eternality of the punishment literally, but choose to skew the most obvious interpretation of destruction metaphor. If you look at the scriptures (as these gentlemen have pointed out) there is convincing evidence for both... so is there not a possibility for a third option, a kind of synthesis of the views? I have found, most definately, YES!

There are two authors that I know of that come close to my own interpretation of Hell: C.S. Lewis and Greg Boyd. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, identifies Hell as being described in the bible to be (1) destruction, (2) privation, and (3) eternal in duration. He suggests that what remains in Hell for eternity is not a human, but the remains of a destroyed human ("conscious ashes", if you will). Boyd sticks to these same general ideas of Lewis but goes further to exegetically display why their needs to be a kind of synthesis of Annihilationism and Traditionalism, and then philosophically he proves how a "third way" could be feasible.

I am currently doing some more research on Hell, but have come to agree more with Lewis and Boyd. In fact, there is a whole realm of exegetical and philosophical evidence for the "third way" that neither Boyd nor Lewis touches on. Let me know if you are interested in my research.

After reading this book (and some of the reviews found here) I am convinced that conditionalists and traditionalists are not arguing to each other, they are arguing at each other. While admittedly I am pretty solidly on the traditionalist side, I would like to think that I came to this debate with as open a mind as was possible. That said, I have a few pointsthat I would like to make.
First off, Peterson makes a strong case that falls on deaf ears because of certain style differences that many readers (especially from the conditionalist camp) don't seem to understand. Peterson tries to be thorough in his exposition of the passages used, which by necessity limits him in the number of passages he can use. This opens him up to the "attack" that he is picking and choosing the only verses that allow for his view of Hell. This attack is unfair, since he openly admits that in order to be thorough he must limit himself. And to be honest, he is right in saying that he would need a lot more room to be thorough on every passage that applies, so yes, he did choose the best 10 passages, but from hundreds that agree with him.
Fudge does just the opposite. He uses as many passages as he can find, sometimes erroneously, while never delving into any one of them to any degree of depth. He seems to think that lack of substance can be made up for by quantity. And in all fairness, there are several passages he uses that, when taken out of context and with certain pre-suppositions, could leave room to interpret as being conditionalist.
However, when you cut through all the chaff, Fudge's argument boils down to 2 main points:
1. Immortality of the soul is a Greek idea in origin, and since the Bible is better than philosophy, must be rejected
2. Death and destruction language in the OT refers to removal from this earth, and so any time death and destruction is mentioned (in the NT), it must be the same concept.
Everything else is an emotional plea (made often with inflammatory language) to reject God as the "eternal torturer."
With his first point, Fudge seems to confuse agreement with Greek philosophy and dependence on said philosophy. And with the second point, he makes no concession to lexical range for words, and uses totally unrelated passages to "prove" his point.
All in all, I would say (out of my bias) Peterson makes a stronger argument, and does make a good point that it is up to the Conditionalist to assume the burden of proof that he or she has been avoiding throughout this debate.

I purchased this book after seeing the author interviewed on television and reading the reviews. I cannot understand the number of 5-star reviews this book was given. The only plausible explanation is that they were all written by Mr. Streitz himself. Whether or not Oxford was the son of Elizabeth I is irrelevant. This is one of the most poorly researched and poorly written books I have ever tried to read. I finally gave up after the third time he told of event that probably happened, but for which there is no proof yet, stating that sometime in the future "someone" should do the research. No, Mr. Streitz, that someone should have been you, and the time to do the research is before you write the book.

Bottom line - unreadable drivel.

According to this book, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is not only the author of Shakespeare's plays, but much of the rest of the Tudor canon. He, not Golding, translated Ovid. He wrote Euphues. He wrote The Spanish Tragedy. You name it. But that's just the literary part. It turns out he is not only the son of a 13 year old Princess Elizabeth but also the parent (with his mother, the Virgin Queen) of the Earl of Southampton, the young man of the sonnets.

You might think this is Oxfordianism run amok. You might be right. Moreover, the book suffers from many of the usual defects of the Oxfordian cause. The author is an amateur. His professional credits listed on the dust jacket include service in the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam, an MBA from the University of Chicago, and co-authorship of the musicals "Oh, Johnny" and "Madison Avenue, the subliminal musical". And the book is self-published and suffers from numerous typos and mis-usages, especially in the first part, where credibility is won or lost.

However...the book offers many plausible arguments and some hard data as well as speculation. If you have any interest in the Authorship Question, you should read this book. (If you don't have any interest, you should take an interest; final confirmation and general acknowledgement of Oxford as Shakespeare would illuminate and transform both Tudor history and literature.) Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Henry James and many others long ago pointed out the implausibility of the Will of Stratford story that continues to be taught in school. Searching for the true author, the unfortunately named J. Thomas Looney fitted the glass slipper to de Vere during the First World War. And the professoriat has been trying to ignore it ever since. I suppose they fear looking foolish, and anyway the deconstructionists of the last 40 years have made clear that authorship is of no importance.

One academic, Roger Stritmatter, has recently given attention to the Earl's Geneva Bible in the Folger Library, where marginalia in the Earl's handwriting correlate very strongly with bibilical references in Shakespeare. The greatest need is to find more professors of English renaissance literature and Tudor history willing to break ranks and finally give attention to the mounting evidence in favor of Oxford as the author; they have relied on professorial hauteur long enough.

In the meantime, amateurs should carefully proofread their texts.

"Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" by Paul Streitz (published by Oxford Institute Press, 2001) is an extraordinary and provocative book. It is likely to be considered totally unacceptable to "Stratfordian" Shakespearean scholars, who believe that plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare can only be the work of the celebrated man of that name, born in Stratford-upon-Avon and christened "Gulielmus Shakspere" in 1564. By contrast, the book will be welcomed by "Oxfordians" who believe that the same plays and poetry should instead be attributed to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, born in 1548.

This authorship question has been growing for several decades. Streitz has now contributed to the debate by compiling historical evidence to suggest that Elizabeth I was the mother of the Bard, that the biological father was Thomas Seymour, and that the 16th Earl of Oxford (John de Vere) was his foster-father. These suggestions may be considered preposterous by many critics, but Streitz obviously would not have dared to publish his book if he did not have some substance to advance them.

Consider the so-called "Virgin Queen". Streitz notes that "in over four hundred years, there have been no critical investigations of whether or not Elizabeth had children". Evidently there had been rumours circulating in 1549, when Elizabeth was just 15 years old. In a letter addressed to Edward Seymour, the Lord Protector, the princess herself referred to "shameful Schandlers" (slanders) that she was "with Child". In a second letter she appealed again to the Lord Protector, requesting that "no such rumours should be spread". Apparently she succeeded in this regard. Now, 450 years later, Streitz is the first person to link the "Schandlers" with events in the summer of 1548, when a child was born in suspiciously secret circumstances to a "very fair young lady" of about "fifteen or sixteen years of age". There is no proof that this young lady was princess Elizabeth, but Streitz considers this as a possibility in the context of events which he strings together to make a possible if not proven case. Notably, suspicions are associated with "the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the birth of the saide Edward, now Earle of Oxforde" (to quote from a late 16th century document)..

There is no doubt that the 17th Earl of Oxford was given opportunities to study in Cambridge (in 1564) and in Oxford (1566), and that he travelled to France and Italy (1575). Further, there is no doubt that Edward de Vere did write poetry, but not every modern scholar would accept that the de Vere poems correspond to the quality and style of those attributed to William Shakespeare. By contrast, Gabriel Harvey, a contemporary of the Earl, was absolutely flattering in 1578: "Thou has hast drunk deep draughts not only of the Muses of France and Italy...thine eyes flash fire, thy countenance shakes spears" (from Latin, 'tela vibrat', which can be alternatively translated as "brandishes spears"). Oxfordians venture to say that it is not coincidental that the name Shakespeare can itself be translated into Latin as 'tela vibrat'.

"Shakespeare's Sonnets", with a publication date of 1609 , have been interpreted in numerous ways. Streitz provides novel interpretations, suggesting not only that they include cryptic references to the 17th Earl of Oxford, but also that they were written by that dignitary whose dignity was diminished towards the end of his lifetime.

A poem with metaphorical references to bees is extraordinary. It includes references to henbane, hemlock and other substances, including tobacco. The line "wordes, hopes, witts, and the all the world [is] but smoke" leads to the statement "Twas not tobacco [that] stupifyed the brain". If the verse was indeed written by the Earl of Oxford, as Streitz suggests, perhaps at times he wrote under the influence of a substance more "bewitching" than tobacco: "from those [leaves] no dram of sweete I drayne, their head strong [fury] did my head bewitch"

"Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth" makes very interesting reading, even though one need not accept everything contained in it. There are intriguing facts, such as the Queen's grant of 1,000 pounds per annum to the 17th Earl of Oxford. That was an enormous sum of money in 1586. The obvious question is why? Was it really a gift from a benevolent mother to a playwright son? Streitz suggests that the anomalously large grant was intended to support actors and playwrights to prop up political power at a time when Elizabeth I had to be extremely careful against Catholic opposition at home, and the prospect of a Spanish invasion.

To assess the merits of the book, it is strongly recommended that it be read in its entirety. Even if one is willing to absorb and accept only parts of it, those parts may help to "flesh out" an understanding of relationships between Elizabeth I and the 17th Earl of Oxford, in the context of literary debate.

Reviewed by J.F. Thackeray, Transvaal Museum, Box 413, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

The Prince and the Pauper was a classic example of early literature. It was written like every other Mark Twain book, in old English dialect. I could understand it, but at times I had to read some areas over again to get what he was saying. I read this book for a literature assingment, and I did not enjoy it. Some areas of the book are funny and quite charming, but overall the story is really hard to get into. If you like fairy tales or stories from medievil times, this is the book for you. I really think I could have read a book better than this one with my time though. I also recommend: "Princess: A tale of life under the veil in Saudi Arabia" By: Jean Sasson

Mark Twain was a true American original and one of the true titanic figures of American literature. He was also, as anyone who bothers to dig beneath the "The-guy-who-wrote-Tom-Sawyer-and-Huck-Finn" surface knows, a man who held distinct and perhaps slightly provocative political opinions. One of the things Mark most detested was monarchy - once calling it "the grotesquest swindle ever invented by man." In his later highly controversial novel, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court, he took on the concept in a viscious and fearless adult satire. In this, his earlier novel, The Prince and The Pauper, Twain did the same thing while aiming principally at younger readers. The story, while featuring a lot of dialect in Middle English, is written in fairly simple and straight-forward prose, which, thus, opens the book up to readers both young and old. The novel's oft-forgotten original subtitle, A Tale For Young People of All Ages, perfectly sums up the books' merits: while this novel may have been written, primarily, with a young target audience in mind, it can also be enjoyed and appreciated by adults. Though it is novel length, the style in which it is written reflects that of classic fairy tales, and will probably be appealing to any child who likes to read. Adults, on the other hand, will note and appreciate the books' deeper underlying meanings, as well as Twain's ever-present wit. This book is very well-written; Twain, a master writer, was, alas, sometimes prone to clumsy prose in his novels - but not here. The Prince and the Pauper is practically a tour-de-force of character development and suspense in plotting. Reccommended to younger readers looking to broaden their horizons, as well as Twain fans of any age.

As a final thing worth mentioning, many reviewers here have commented that, owing to its use of dialect (something which Mark Twain uses in every single one of his writings, which is part of the reason why he was such a great writer - not to mention why he is the true father of real American literature), it is hard to understand. If these assertions have bothered you, however, rest assured: they are mightly over-exaggerated. The dialogue, though prevalent, is minor, and the meanings of the words are usually obvious - even to children; after all, one must remember who Twain wrote this book for. Most children who would read this book would probably already be familar with these elementary colloquial phrases from the many King Arthur stories derived from Malory. And, even if not, Twain foresaw this - and was helpful enough to include a useful appendix.

This is the story of a prince and a pauper who switch places because of their uncanny outer resemblance. They obviously go through many trials and ordeals - the pauper trying to learn the ways of royalty, and the prince having to witness and undergo the results of some of the ridiculous laws and practices of the period.

Like many of Mark Twain's books, this is another satire that makes fun of the values that society holds to be important. In this story, Mark Twain points out how people place so much importance on outer appearance. A prince and a pauper, who, despite their outer resemblance are very different people, switch places, without anyone noticing. There is more to a person than their looks, and this is one point stressed throughout the novel.

The one complaint I have about this book is that there wasn't enough written about Tom Canty, the pauper who became a prince. I found his situations much more interesting than those of the true prince, but this was only a minor point.

I would recommend this book for ages 12 and older. Younger people could read the story, but miss the underlying meanings in certain situations. I wouldn't call this book a "Must Read" but it is a good introduction to classic literature.

I too found this book exciting and controversial when I first read it. I admit, I was even taken in for a while. Ogburn's argument seemed so persuasive, his argument presented with such confidence and power. Surely he was right and the 'man from Stratford' couldn't possibly have written those plays. And then, having read it, I did some follow-up research of my own. To the reviewer below who states that there is no evidence ("none") to suggest that the Stratford poet is the true author, I have to tell you that that's complete nonsense. The trouble with Ogburn is that he's highly er...'imaginative' with his evidence, to the point of wilfully misleading the reader. One example will suffice to make my point: in the 1623 First Folio, Ben Jonson's well-known eulogy to the 'author' includes the phrase: 'Sweet swan of Avon'. Naturally, Stratfordians have reasonably assumed that this 'Avon' refers to the town of Shakespeeare's birth and death. Not so, says Ogburn. In fact the 17th Earl of Oxford owned a manor called Bilton, also situated on the river Avon. So Jonson MUST've been referring to the Earl. Closer analysis reveals the truth. Edward de Vere did indeed own a manor called Bilton, situated on the river Avon. Unfortunately for Ogburn and his cause, Oxford sold this manor in 1581 and it hadn't been reclaimed by him at his death in 1604. Does it seem likely that Jonson would refer to an old manor of Oxford's 42 YEARS after it left his hands? I don't think so. If we can believe that then to believe that Shakespeare is the true author is a cinch. Needless to say, this is a piece of information that Ogburn leaves out. All of Ogburn's, and the anti-Stratfordians', ideas can be refuted. Ogburn also completely misleads the reader over the issue of the non-appearance of Shakespeare in the diary of the impresario Philip Henslowe. No other actors, at the time when Shakespeare SHOULD'VE appeared in the diary, are mentioned either. Only later, after the mid-1590s, did Henslowe begin to include the names of actors in his diary, and by this time he had nothing further to do with Shakespeare, who was now acting with the Lord Chamberlain's Men. Having waded through all 750-odd pages of this book I was digusted to learn how I'd been mislead. It makes an interesting ... theory, but one that is in the same league as the idea that the moonlandings were faked in a hanger in Nevada. I have no academic axe to grind at all, but don't waste time reading this, especially when you can better spend the time reading Shakespeare himself.

Ogburn's views generally convince those who will examine the historical evidence. It is not fantasy to think that they may eventually prevail, as literary historians who have not already committed themselves to the Stratfordian view gradually replace those who have. But it will take time. The problem is not so much the "you're all crackpots" attitude nor the "you're prejudiced against the uneducated" attitude -- both reflected in earlier reviews. The problem is that if the traditional attitude is true then "Shakespeare" was a transcendent, almost mystical genius, whereas if the Oxfordian theory is true then "Shakespeare" was a great genius but one whose inspiration obviously came -- as it has for most great writers -- from his own life and experiences. To bring him "down to earth" like that will be emotionally wrenching. But the parallels between the writings of "Shakespeare" and de Vere's life seem overwhelming.

Ogburn's views have been popularized in other books but this -- a summary of his much-longer book -- is better. Read it to see what the history books may say fifty years from now.

Count me a convert, along with the following people who believe the Stratford man did not write the poems or the plays: Mr. Justice Harry A. Blackmun (Supreme Court Justice); Mr. Justice John Paul Stevens (Supreme Court Justice); Orson Welles; Mark Twain; Charles Dickens; Henry James; David McCullough; Ralph Waldo Emerson; Sir John Gielgud; Sigmund Freud; Walt Whitman; Mr.Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Supreme Court Justice); Charles DeGaulle; Ambasadore Paul Nitze.

Charlton is not the most flowing writer, but his points are very well researched - a fascinating who-done-it which most likely never can be proven. The evidence clearly points away from "Wm. Shakspere, Gent."

Read this book, then re-read Hamlet. You will have moments which will make your skin crawl.

Book is too massive to hold while reading. Pages not sequential due to frequent insertions of other articles and reproductions. Good nautical history but doesn't flow . A difficult read and practically impossible in bed.

"America and the Sea" is a magnificent study of our maritime history. It is magnificent in breadth starting with Norse settlements in North America and continuing through the end of the 20th Century. It is magnificent in depth as it delves deeply into key areas of historical importance. With numerous vignettes, the authors are joined by others in capturing detailed views of people and events that make history come alive. It is magnificent in presentation as it uses colorful illustrations and pictures, many with captions that are history lessons in themselves.

Writen by several of our nation's pre-eminent maritime scholars, "America and the Sea" successfully blends together our naval history with the more traditional view of maritime history.

While handsome (and large) enough to be a coffee-table book, it would be a shame if that were its only use. "America and the Sea" should be read time and time again by all who have an interes! t in our nation's history.

If you love Roman history, you'll love this book. It'll give you interesting and new details, as well as new perspectives from which to look at the history of the late Republic and early Roman Empire.

If you don't have any background in Roman history, however, this book may mystify you. It's extremely detailed and well-researched. There are some arguments that can be made about his using kid-gloves with Augustus regarding Cicero's death, the proscriptions, and a number of other dastardly deeds. These are never Augustus' fault, and if they are, well, they are what any of us would have done in his place the author seems to say. And Marc Antony is not just presented here as a loser, but also as a madman. Still, this is a book about Augustus written with great affection, so I don't find anything unnatural about the author choosing to interpret all events in his favor.

The story is written in non-chronological order in the form of letters and journal entries, from various perspectives. I personally felt that this made the story hard to follow. Moreover, because of this, it's almost impossible to get to know any of the characters particularly well as they must share the stage with so many others. If there is any character we get to know well, it is Julia, who all but steals the show. This is unfortunate because the one person we end up knowing the least is the subject of the book. Augustus.

When you close the book at the end of the night, you have learned a great deal, but you know little more about Augustus the person than before you started reading. And that's regrettable.

i am absolutely galled that no one has reviewed this classic tale of Roman life in the empire's infancy. As the publisher stated, this work was meticulously researched, seemlessly combining a tawdry soap opera-esque element with a hard, eloquently written, historical narrative.This book should be required reading in every high school in America! .I much preferred it to the often-tedious, "I, Claudius"

I purchased this book expecting it to cater to someone beyond University level. However, the contents clearly cater for high school level learning and therefore provided little value to me. If you are looking to strengthen your technical and analytical skills look somewhere else. If you want basic training, give it a try.

This insightful book proved worth its weight in gold. A must read for any entrepreneur looking for serious funding.

In fact, it's been said that likely didn't write most of it. The production of this play performed at my university is generally considered to be the worst play performed on our stake in the last five years. Plot threads are left untouched, dialogue is uninteresting for the most part, etc. People in the audience either slept, left during the intermission, or pretended they were enjoying themselves. When you are in a play, usually people you run into on campus have something polite to say about the play. The best comment I got was, "You were OK, but I didn't understand what the play was trying to do with your character." Pericles does have some good scenes, but they are so scattered that the play isn't worth sitting through to get to them. Only for those who feel a compelling need to read all of Shakespeare's works. Even those may want to avoid it, because it isn't wholly the work of the bard.

I don't feel "Pericles" represents Shakespeare's best efforts. It lacks the profound aspects and suspense of his better (4-5 star) works. In my opinion, some characters like Cleon are handled less than fairly. The play seems to delight in his death, when he had nothing to do with the wickedness of his wife. Nor did he approve of it. Nevertheless, it is easy to see why this play has always been very popular. Pericles is a well developed character. First we see him as a youth jousting for the love of his life. Although not much time passes, we are somehow given the impression that he has aged. He becomes a father and he 'believes' he has become a widower. It is interesting how he changes from a typical teenage lovestruck youth to an adult concerned over his 'motherless' daughter. When he thinks his daughter is dead, he is reduced to an old man's solitary state. When he is reunited with his wife and daughter, it is almost as if he is young again. Marina is memorable as Pericles' virtuous daughter. Helicanus is striking as Pericles' loyal servant who is no flatterer. Cleon is sympathetic as the decent man who is destroyed by his wife Dionyza's wickedness. So, we have some interesting characters, a man's growth, good images, comical touches, a sudden dilemna, and a happy ending. In my opinion, this was Shakespeare's attempt at a fairy tale. If you read this (knowing not to expect his best efforts) you may be pleasantly surprised.

This least known of Shakespeare's romances was enormously popular during his day judging by handbills and other evidence--though not, of course, as much as his all time blockbuster; Romeo and Juliet.--And Pericles continued going strong for quite a while.

Immediately after the Restoration, when the Puritans (bless their hearts) fell from power and the theaters opened for business again, guess which play was the first the court wanted to see?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So what happenned?

Oscar Wilde once said there were two ways of disliking poetry. One was to simply dislike it and the other was to like Pope.

Preicles did not do well with the 18th century pundits because it deviates from the 'Aristotalean unities'. Unlike The Tempest, for example, which takes place in one locale over a couple of days, Pericles takes place over 10 to 15 years all over the ancient Mediterranean. It has the form of an epic. What can I say? Homer would have dug it.

It's the story of a prince who screws up. Partly from his fault, mostly not. It's got tyrants, incest, treason, murder, knights, wizards, teenagers, kings, pirates, brothels, young love, a great hero and The Goddess Diana.

Oh yeah, the poetry's not too shabby either.

The theme is what to do when everything goes horribly wrong. How to weather sorrow and get through your life. How to be honorable and not give in to despair.

Someone once remarked that the romances are tragedies turned upside down e.g; The Winter's Tale begins as Othello and then has a happy ending. At least if it's performed by a good cast who commits to the miracle of the statue coming back to life.

If they 'apologize' for an outlandish miracle, it's doomed. Likewise, Pericles also has a happy ending if it's produced by a company who loves the play rather than by a group who views it as a rare curiosity in the Shakespeare canon.

It might interest some readers to know that the nonsense about Shakespeare only writing part of it is, God help us, a compromise position from a few scholars who don't want to get into an argument with unorthodox loons about who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

Pericles was left out of the first folio. For that matter so were 100 lines of King Lear and there's 300 lines that appear in the folio version of Lear that aren't in the quarto (having fun yet?) which, of course, is positive proof that de Vere or Queen Elizabeth or Bacon or Lope de Vega was really the true writer and never mind that while William Shakespeare lived and for 200 years later no one thought to question his authorship, what did those Elizabethans know , anyway?

Besides he never went to college, so there.

(sigh)

As James Barrie, the author of Peter Pan once remarked: I do not know if Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare' plays, but if he didn't he missed the opportunity of a lifetime.

In the hands of the right director, Pericles, Prince of Tyre is pure gold.