Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: May ::
Authorship
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0470.  Saturday, 28 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   E. L. Epstein <epstein@QCVAXA.BITNET>
        Date:   Friday, 27 May 1994 13:52:40 EDT
        Subj:   RE: SHK 5.0466  Authorship
 
(2)     From:   John Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 27 May 1994 13:51:33 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   authorship
 
(3)     From:   Jerry Bangham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 27 May 1994 18:39:38
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0466  Authorship
 
(4)     From:   Roger A Stritmatter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 27 May 1994 22:55:02 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   de Vere
 
(5)     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 27 May 1994 23:43:42 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Authorship
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           E. L. Epstein <epstein@QCVAXA.BITNET>
Date:           Friday, 27 May 1994 13:52:40 EDT
Subject: 5.0466  Authorship
Comment:        RE: SHK 5.0466  Authorship
 
Re Buckridge: Wouldn't the canopy reference give away Shaxford's identity to
those from whom he was eager to keep it secret? A pure case of one argument
too many!  ELEpstein
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Cox <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 27 May 1994 13:51:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        authorship
 
I agree with Hardy's decision to flag messages about authorship as part of a
separate discussion.  I'm sure he's right that most people believe the
authorship debate is a *non-issue*, though it has a way of taking over and
shoving other things aside.  Better to put it to one side, where it belongs,
and let the main conversation go on.
 
At the same time, I think it is important to point out that not only are the
Oxfordians thus being sidelined but also the Stratfordians, chief among them
(on this list) being David Kathman.  I for one am grateful for his patient and
(to my mind) wise responses to Oxfordian arguments.  As I see it, though
Kathman has consistently responded in credible ways with new arguments
rebutting Ogburn et al, his Oxfordian interlocutors simply fall back on the
same old arguments and authorities.  This is not surprising, given the fact
that they really have only one argument to make, namely, that Oxford wrote the
plays.  It would be nice if they could add something else to the discussion.
 
In this respect, I find Pat Buckridge's recommendation of personal allegorizing
dispiriting, and I recommend a rereading of the introduction to David
Bevington's *Tudor Drama and Politics*. Sophisticated technology cannot redeem
an intellectually bankrupt methodology, and if Buckridge thinks the method has
merit, he would do well to say why and to give an example from something other
than the Oxford repertory of arguments.
 
John Cox
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jerry Bangham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 27 May 1994 18:39:38
Subject: 5.0466  Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0466  Authorship
 
>I find the openly partisan spirit of Hardy Cook's ruling on authorship debate
>a little troubling, but I can easily live with the ruling itself, since I
>suspect there's a lot more interest in the question than he and some others
>seem to believe.  It's a surprising assumption, to say the least, that because
>there are five (more or less) self-confessed Oxfordians on the list everyone
>else must be either on the other side or uninterested.
 
So far, I've just ignored this drivel, but if you ask for a statement, let me
say that I've heard far more than I want to of these arguments.
 
I wouldn't be at all upset if H.C. did indulge in "censorship."
 
Jerry Bangham

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger A Stritmatter <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 27 May 1994 22:55:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        de Vere
 
Dear Shakespeareans (one and all),
 
Don Oldenburg, in his recent *Washington Post* article on the authorship
controversy, writes that Edward de Vere's life reads like a rough draft of
*Hamlet.*  Those who have read the play may know what Oldenburg means.
 
I must admit, on the other hand, that I don't have the foggiest notion what
Steve Urkowitz means about intellectual property and the Oxfordians. Please,
Steve, a little more matter and less art.
 
When I spoke at the Huntington Library in January of 1992 about my research on
the de Vere Bible, for example, all the scholars in residence were invited; and
when I spoke for the Shakespeare authorship Roundtable of Santa Monica, Ca., I
allowed my talk to be taped, because I don't believe the truth can be
copyrighted.   Some folk, knowing the former talk had the endorsement of the
Huntington's William Moffet (who also thought the Dead Sea Scrolls shouldn't be
the private preserve of a closed preisthood of true believers) chose not to
attend my lecture.
 
Hardy Cook, just so, thinks he should put a warning label on heretical
material, hoping that what is not posted here will not find its way by samizdat
into the *Post* or anywhere else, and that by expressing his editorial
disapproval, complete with a census of who believes what, he can scare away the
curious and uncommitted;  he wins enthusiastic backslaps from  the shamans of
the tribe.
 
These are the rites of a True orthodoxy; who would be such a Feste as to deny
them their day in the sun?
 
By contrast, there is nothing esoteric or incomprehensible about what the
Oxfordians are saying.  You can read the story in the daily newspaper; and your
students, whatever they may tell you in hopes of earning your approval, are
curious about it.
                                        Roger Stritmatter
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 27 May 1994 23:43:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Authorship
 
I'm like to reply briefly to Pat Buckridge. (1) Agents are often punished for
the crimes of their superiors. Cf. Nixon's men. Agents are fair game because
they are expendable. (2) We all know the Sidney-Pembroke connection. Why would
Jonson feel that it was all right to bad-mouth Sidney, but not Oxford? I'm sure
the Oxfordians have an answer. (3) And, yes, "popular drama" was an intentional
qualifier. Meres and Puttenham refer (I believe) to Oxford as a closet
dramatist. And probably Lyly did his writing for him. I think Martin Green
points out that secretaries actually did write poetry for their masters.
(Martin, correct me if I got that wrong. I was reading your book LATE the other
night.) Today, I read that Henry VIII's secretary wrote his letters which he
then copied out in his own hand. Surely, the Earl did not write his own plays!
I am sure that his servants did his writing for him.
 
And, now I have done. J. Thomas Looney is precisely that. Oxford may be of some
interest in his own right, but not as the putative author of Shakespeare's
plays.
 
As far as the Oxford debate and I are concerned, the rest is silence. And
flights of angels sing me to my rest.
 
Yours, Hamlet Godshalk
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.