• Next message: Ken Steele: "Lone Women in Shakespeare"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Upcoming SHAKSPER Hiatus"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 2, No. 248. Thursday, 3 Oct 1991.
 
 
(1)	Date:   Thu, 3 Oct 1991 10:06:10 EDT
	From: 	Jay Funston <FAC_JLFUNSTO@VAX2.ACS.JMU.EDU>
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 2.0246  Authorship Controversies
 
(2)	Date: 	Thu, 3 Oct 91 08:50:32 PDT
	From: 	Victor L. Bennison <bennison@r2me2.enet.dec.com>
	Subj: 	Re: The Authorship Question
 
 
(1)-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date:    	Thu, 3 Oct 1991 10:06:10 EDT
From: 		Jay Funston <FAC_JLFUNSTO@VAX2.ACS.JMU.EDU>
Subject: 2.0246  Authorship Controversies
Comment: 	RE: SHK 2.0246  Authorship Controversies
 
Let me add to the excellent reasons already given for ignoring the
"authorship controversy" one more: TIME.  Whenever another candidate for
authorship of Shakespeare's plays is advanced (or an old one resurrected)
I must deal with the problem in my classes.  Students are as eager as
any others to latch on to the latest popular themes, and have no qualms
about raising an "issue" in the classroom with a professor who has said
at the outset that questions of authorship--whether W. Shakespeare of
Stratford or someone else of the same name and background is responsible
for the works we read and view with admiration--are irrelevant.
 
Not only do I have to respond, wearily, to the challenge, but I also
have to read the latest "evidence."  Thus time and energy, in and out
of class, are expended upon a fruitless endeavor.
 
				Jay Funston
				<Fac_jlfunsto@jmuvax>
 
(2)------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 		Thu, 3 Oct 91 08:50:32 PDT
From: 		Victor L. Bennison <bennison@r2me2.enet.dec.com>
Subject: 	Re: The Authorship Question
 
Thank you for the calm and consiliatory replies.  I want to say in addition
that I am not an Oxfordian, though I think the contest is clearly between
him and Shakespeare.  I find problems with both sides.  I'm not one to just
let the victory go to the incumbent.  For me the result is inconclusive.
I, also, find some Oxfordians annoying in their methods.  But so do I find
annoyance in the Stratfordians, particularly Rowse (who made the statement
something like "Geniuses always come from the common people.  You never
find a genius among the nobility".  Talk about reverse snobbery!  Since
nobility make up less than 1% of the population, I would suspect that you
would find a similar percentage of the geniuses in that class).  I don't
feel that Schoenbaum's history went far to disprove the Oxfordian basic
premise, that Oxford was using the name Shakespeare.  Oxfordians don't deny
that there was a connection between the man from Stratford and the London
theatre.  The thing that I want to understand better is why there is such
a strong connection between the heroes in Shakespeare's plays and the life
of Edward de Vere, between the psychological profiles derived from his
works and the probable psychological makeup of Edward de Vere, versus the
probable psychological makeup of Shakespeare.  I am unwilling to believe
readily any explanation of the authorship that involves a large coverup
involving all kinds of authors, critics, monarchs, noblemen, etc.  As to
whether the question of authorship is important: I think that if the
authorship were definitely moved from Shakespeare of Stratford to some other
person that it would be considered an important finding in some areas of
scholarship, surely.  Wouldn't it?  As to whether the question is interesting:
I guess it's just a matter of what fills your quill.
 
					Victor L. Bennison

• Next message: Ken Steele: "Lone Women in Shakespeare"
• Previous message: Ken Steele: "Upcoming SHAKSPER Hiatus"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]