Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: April ::
Re: Funeral Elegy
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0274. Thursday, 11 April 1996.

(1)     From:   Michael Sharpston <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 08:08:04 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Did the Unabomber Write the Funeral Elegy?

(2)     From:   Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 09:56:49 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0269  Re: Funeral Elegy

(3)     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 14:48:57 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy



(1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael Sharpston <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 08:08:04 +0000 (GMT)
Subject         Did the Unabomber Write the Funeral Elegy?

Clearly my title, "Did the Unabomber Write the Funeral Elegy?" is a conflation,
as in "1066 And All That" recollections or those of a, like totally challenged
high school student of Shakespeare.  But there are more serious questions
behind it.

        (a)  How does the FBI evidence that Theodore Kaczynski wrote the
Unabomber Manifesto compare to the evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the
Funeral Elegy?

        (b)  Are the FBI on a better tack in confronting their issue than
Foster and Shaxicon?

        (c)  Is the standard of proof being used radically different in the two
cases?  Presumably "beyond a reasonable doubt" or some such for the FBI case,
but what in the case of the Funeral Elegy?

I do get the impression that some SHAKSPER participants feel that William
Shakespeare is potentially facing charges along the lines of "reckless
versifying while in proven possession of better faculties", but perhaps that
could be reduced from felony to a misdemeanor.

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

(2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stephanie Hughes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Apr 1996 09:56:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 7.0269  Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0269  Re: Funeral Elegy

In response to Leo Daugherty's comment that his "overwhelming evidence"
garnered in eighteen years of research will still fail to convince those who
hold some preconception such as Oxfordianism, etc.; in the deathless words of
the erstwhile mayor of New York City (Wagner) "I reiterate once again what I
said before," no "ism" is required to grasp immediately the overwhelming
evidence AGAINST Shakespeare's authorship of this poem, which is the profound
boredom that assails the reader after the first few stanzas. If with these
volumes of evidence, the good professors succeed in leading ALL their
colleagues over the cliffs of common sense like so many ivy-clad lemmings, all
I can say is I hope they're enjoying themselves.

Stephanie Hughes

(3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 11 Apr 1996 14:48:57 +0100
Subject: 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy
Comment:        Re: SHK 7.0269 Re: Funeral Elegy

Leo Daugherty wrote

>1.  The evidence that Shakespeare wrote FUNERAL ELEGY is overwhelming.

This has been said many times, but without giving us the new evidence.

Foster's book cannot be offered in lieu of the new evidence, since it concludes
that the authorship is uncertain.

What was the point of all the hoo-haa of going public on a claim so long before
publication of the evidence? We have been led into the trap of raking over all
the old inconclusive evidence and, naturally enough, no consensus has emerged.
I disagree with Daugherty that Abrams "won" the TLS exchange, it seemed rather
a stalemate.

Shouldn't the new evidence have been made available BEFORE victory was claimed?
Is there some advantage in doing things the other way round which I have
overlooked?

Gabriel Egan
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.