It's Carolyn Spurgeon's book that spurs me with the
question -- when and where did he get the time to do all that
learning and all that writing when, apparently he was
so busy in the theatre doing productions, which is about
the only thing we know about him for certain. He outclassed
all the other writers of his time, and they weren't involved
in production to nearly the same degree. It is too phenomenal.
It doesn't add up. Even one simple fact, that he contributed
some 1500 (somewhat less actaually) words to the language.

From my humble, limited perspective, what Shakespeare
did looks humanly impossible.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New online Eliot material

Since we do not know, we have no evidence to the contrary either.
Absence is not evidence in such a situation.  I don't see why it is a

Date sent:              Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:18:02 -0700
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
<[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: New online Eliot material
To:                     [log in to unmask]

From: Nancy Gish
(Now the deluge will come.)

Didn't a French king say that at one point?
Actually Ithink your points are well taken Nancy,
but they leave one with the conundrum of Shakespeare,
wo activities of which we know, do not allow for
the phenomenal range of his production on quality,
quantity or otherwise.

Makes ne wonder if he were a Vulvan with hisears covered.