• Next message: Ken Steele: "Oxford Middleton Announcement"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Responses: Lone Women, The Atlantic"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 244. Tuesday, 1 Oct 1991.
 
 
(1)	Date: 	Mon, 30 Sep 91 07:36:47 PDT
	From: 	Victor L. Bennison <bennison@r2me2.enet.dec.com>
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 2.0241 The Earl of Oxford vs William Shakespeare
 
(2)	Date: 	Tue, 1 Oct 1991 10:16:00 -0400
	From: 	John Cox <COX@HOPE.BITNET>
	Subj:  	Bevington Shakespeare on disk
 
 
(1)-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 		Mon, 30 Sep 91 07:36:47 PDT
From: 		Victor L. Bennison <bennison@r2me2.enet.dec.com>
Subject: 2.0241 The Earl of Oxford vs William Shakespeare
Comment: 	Re: SHK 2.0241 The Earl of Oxford vs William Shakespeare
 
It (the Shakespeare authorship debate) is in a major magazine (whatever that
means) because it is a very interesting subject for a lot of pretty
intelligent people (albeit some of them not Shakespeare scholars).  I, on
the other hand, am forever baffled that whenever the subject gets any
press time there are invariably a score or two of Shakespeareans (among
others) who make bold enough to inform the hoi polloi that what they find
interesting is in fact not so.  They, the Shakespeareans, have everything
under control, please ignore the man behind the curtain.  I would think that
any aspect of Shakespeare that can get people interested in the bard would
be looked on as positive.  What is there that is so alarming in having that
kind of publicity?  For example, except for watching many of the Shakespeare
plays on PBS, I had neither read nor paid much attention to Shakespeare for
the 25 years since graduating from high school.  Then I found, in a book
sale, a (really rather pathetic) little book called "The Six Loves of
Shakespeare" (or something like that).  This fluff piqued my interest in the
authorship question.  I started reading voraciously on the subject -- books
pro and con this or that contender -- books on pyschoanalytic studies of
Shakespeare's writing -- histories of Shakespeare (Rowse, Adams, Schoenbrun
(sp?)) - and Shakespeare's works themselves (I read the sonnets through for
the first time in my life).  And here I am, subscribed to this Shakespeare
usenet interest group with all you English professors and graduate students,
et al (I fall into the "other" category).  So maybe the result of the debate
in the Atlantic will be that in the country (or elsewhere) a hundred or so
reasonably intelligent people (software engineers, corporate executives,
airline pilots, janitors, whatever) will become Shakespeare buffs.  What's
wrong with that?  Or are people like me not welcome in the lofty domains
of Shakespearean scholarship?
					Victor L. Bennison
					Ph.D., Univ of Chicago, 1976
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 		Tue, 1 Oct 1991 10:16:00 -0400
From: 		John Cox <COX@HOPE.BITNET>
Subject:  	Bevington Shakespeare on disk
 
I asked David Bevington if HarperCollins (*not* McGraw Hill) plans to publish
his text on disk.  He said there had been discussion about it, but as far as
he knows the plan has been dropped.
 
John Cox
COX@HOPE

• Next message: Ken Steele: "Oxford Middleton Announcement"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Responses: Lone Women, The Atlantic"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]