“54-40 or fight!” isn’t the sort of slogan that would inspire people. It involves numbers, and requires map-reading skills, or at least an understanding of geographic coordinates. No, not something to lodge in the brain of the common person. Therefore, the whole notion that it was used as a rallying cry is an obvious hoax. Proof to the contrary notwithstanding, it’s not something that I write on a banner and march to war beneath.
The notion that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is similar. There simply isn’t a river named “Rubicon”; it’s too…evocative. That’s it. Look, Shakespeare used that image, right? I’m sure that he did. It’s the sort of thing that he would do. Therefore, he did. Shakespeare referred to it all the time. And that takes the realistic wind out of its figurative sails, doesn’t it? We know that Shakespeare (if that was his real name) was an inveterate plagiarist, so it’s no surprise that he would create scenarios out of whole cloth. Or gauzy, flimsy, historically dubious cloth, as the case may be. Good writer, sure, but not to be trusted. No good writers are, frankly. Oh, fine, he was a playwright. That’s even worse, isn’t it? Plus, he had his men play women’s roles. Now, I’m not saying that everyone who runs a burlesque drag show is a liar, but they aren’t the sort of people who wouldn’t play fast and loose with history, are they? No woman was ever tasked with playing Queen Victoria in Shakespeare’s little troupe. Now, true, that would have presented some issues of timing, but assuming that he wrote a play about Queen Victoria, she would have been played by a man. And, one assumes, would not have been amused. The point stands.
So, when known liars are writing our history, one can’t help but not trust it. Or them. Or anyone involved, really. And Shakespeare was a liar; we established that. We haven’t established that he existed, but we have established that he was a filthy liar. Filthy, of course, because anyone who hangs around with actors is bound to receive some residual smut. Plus, they were British, so there’s the whole plague and dentistry thing.
Actually, having dentists spread the plague would explain an awful lot, wouldn’t it? Perhaps Europe was crawling with dentists prior to 1349. Everyone, from King to Queen (played by a man) to peasant had beautiful, healthy teeth. But then an evil dentist arrived in Venice from the Russian steppes. Or maybe it was a disreputable purveyor of cheap dental tools. Yes, cheap dental tools, imported from sweatshops in the Far East, caused the Black Death. And then led to centuries of inferior dental hygiene in Europe. The fact that Chaucer didn’t mention this sudden critical lack of dentists is, in fact, proof that it occurred. The shock was too much for him to even comment on, you see. The Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 was another obvious result of this dental-based plague. Peasants with clean, healthy teeth do not revolt. It’s a fact. The French Revolution? Caused by excessive cake-eating and the dental consequences thereof.
So, to summarize: 1. Shakespeare was a liar, and enjoyed having men dress up in women’s clothing. 2. Parsimonious dentists caused the Black Death. 3. Only good oral hygiene can prevent bloody revolutions.
Interesting fact: Marie Antoinette continued to regrow heads, hydra-like, until burning torches were touched to her freshly-cut neck stumps.