The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.1173 Wednesday, 7 June 2000.
Date: Tuesday, 06 Jun 2000 09:27:23 -0700
Subject: What Happened?
Odd timing that the day I wanted to post the following question had a
post from Hardy saying,
>A few years ago, I banned discussion of the so-called
>"authorship" question. Robert O'Connor's post below invites discussion
>of this issue on a meta-level. I have no objections to posting a few why
>does it matter responses, but I do not want the topic to flare up again.
I trust this will be acceptable for being even more meta (how does one
properly express that?), so here goes.
In John Sutherland and Cedric Watts fun new book, HENRY V, WAR CRIMINAL?
AND OTHER SHAKESPEARE PUZZLES, still warm of the presses of Oxford
University Press, Sutherland tells the first half a story that he does
not finish. I cannot ask my question without raising the specter of
Oxfordites, as I prefer to call them. Quoting:
"The Oxfordians are very pertinacious and they can play dirty. One of
my colleagues who dared to mock their (eminently mockable) theories in
an article was summoned to the office of the President of her
university. There she was informed that 'complaints of a serious
nature' had been received, via the Trustees, about her conduct. The
over-riding sanctity of the 'Endowment', that most sacred of academic
cows, was invoked. These advocates of the top-people's Shakespeare knew
how to use top-people's muscle to advance their cause." p. 7.
Enough about the de Vere angle, which in not my interest here. I have
Are the facts accurate? Two sides to every story, and all that.
What happened to the good Dr.? Was her Endowment revoked? Was there a
happy ending, or did the bastards (bastards if the report is accurate)
Does anyone know?