Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: April ::
Re: Limericks and a Related Query
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0333.  Wednesday, 13 April 1994.
 
(1)     From:   John Mucci <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 06:01:14 -0400
        Subj:   Limericks
 
(2)     From:   E. L. Epstein <epstein@QCVAXA.BITNET>
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 11:46:05 EDT
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0322  Re: Limericks
 
(3)     From:   Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 12 Apr 94 16:18:10 EDT
        Subj:   Q: Identities
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Mucci <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 06:01:14 -0400
Subject:        Limericks
 
Thank you Patrick Buckridge for your defense of the sober study of Oxford as
regards David Bevington's interest against him. I don't know if that defense is
entirely necessary.  Having produced the three-hour live videoconference on the
authorship issue, for which Dr Bevington was interviewed on tape, I can say
that I have never talked to another scholar, Shakesperian or otherwise, who
looked at a topic he disagreed with, with a more neutral, dispassionate and
fair demeanor.  Because he is so knowledgeable on the times and the topics, he
was easy to converse with on subjects most of the other scholars had "come to
conclusions about long ago."  He is truly one of the guiding lights of the
videoconference itself, and when people see the tape, they still comment on how
he bridged the gap between those ossified professors who regurgitate--sometimes
down to the last word and punctuation--what another has concluded, and the
primary research which is being done on the Oxford issue.  I cannot say I am an
Oxfordian (please, not Oxonian!) as dyed in the wool as there are some, but I
am perfectly fascinated with the possibility of his authorship, because so much
of his story *fits*, whereas the story of William Shaksper (thank you for
naming the BBS service after him of Stratford!) has to be constantly shored up
and wedged into a story that rings false more often than not.
 
As for Limericks, anyone can indulge in them with impunity!
 
Remember this?
 
      AECHAEOLOGY IN STRATFORD
Mr Shaksper's old privy you seek?
They've dug up foul papers all week.
What would befall instead,
Leaves of poor Hollinshed,
Had he no Latin and less Greek?
 
John Mucci
GTE VisNet

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 
[Editor's Note: SHAKSPER was chosen as the name for this conference because
it was the best EIGHT letter (the limit for a list name) choice available; the
name has absolutely *nothing* to do with the "authorship" debate.  --HMC]
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           E. L. Epstein <epstein@QCVAXA.BITNET>
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994 11:46:05 EDT
Subject: 5.0322  Re: Limericks
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0322  Re: Limericks
 
Dirtiest kind of politics. We only know about kings and queens through
Shakespeare anyway, so here we have a circular argument of the worst kind.
 
ELEpstein
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Rick Jones <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 12 Apr 94 16:18:10 EDT
Subject:        Q: Identities
 
The vigor of the Oxfordians brings to mind a thought... and a question:
 
To my mind, Shakespeare surpasses Lyly by less than Lyly surpasses Udall or
"Mr. S", and surpasses Marlowe by less than Marlowe surpasses Preston or
Sackville & Norton.  Yet Lyly's and Marlowe's careers are almost exactly
tangent to Shakespeare's: they were not, as is often assumed (especially with
respect to Marlowe), really contemporaries.  Has anyone ever suggested that
Lyly and Marlowe, neither of them nobles, were anyone other than who we think
they were?
 
Rick Jones

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.