Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: January ::
Re: Literacy with Editor's Note
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0223  Wednesday, 31 January 2001

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Jan 2001 14:28:42 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0200 Re: Literacy with Editor's Note

[2]     From:   David Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Jan 2001 20:51:46 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0200 Re: Literacy with Editor's Note


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Jan 2001 14:28:42 -0500
Subject: 12.0200 Re: Literacy with Editor's Note
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0200 Re: Literacy with Editor's Note

>In contrast [to other literary biographers], Shakespeare's biographers
>must instead rely on
>conjecture, posthumous evidence, inference, impersonal allusions,
>theatrical records -- anything but hard literary documentation, to
>account for his literary activity and development.  In that sense,
>Shakespeare's literary biography is unique.

writes Diana Price.

Well, no, not unique.  Homer surely overshadows Shakespeare in respect
to lack of documentary evidence.  And let's consider what we don't know
about Chaucer, a man active at the court of Richard II. Did Chaucer read
The Decameron?  And, if he didn't, why didn't he?  He seems to have read
other works by Boccaccio. Did Chaucer actually perform his works at
court -- as many scholars have suggested?  We don't really know. And, to
change the subject and date, why was Ovid exiled?  There are plenty of
literary mysteries to contemplate, and not all are related to
Shakespeare.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Jan 2001 20:51:46 -0600
Subject: 12.0200 Re: Literacy with Editor's Note
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0200 Re: Literacy with Editor's Note

Diana Price wrote:

>At such time as Prof. Cook wishes to terminate this exchange, perhaps I
>might suggest that anyone interested in hearing any more about my
>research on these matters communicate with me off-list. Or, members
>might wish to visit the Amazon.com website, which has posted six reviews
>of my book -- negative and positive, but collectively, they describe
>some of the new research and perspectives that relate to the preceding
>exchanges.

If I may, I'd like to suggest that such people also e-mail me off list,
preferably after having read the material I cited in my last post in
this thread.  I'm absolutely swamped right now and have no time to post
any more on this issue, but I would be interested in hearing from
anybody who is inclined to take Diana Price's conclusions seriously.  I
should perhaps add that I have met and corresponded with Diana, and have
always found her perfectly pleasant and friendly.  As anti-Stratfordians
go, she is more reasonable than many.  But when it comes to William
Shakespeare, she employs a double standard in evaluating evidence, one
which is somewhat less radical than that employed by Charlton Ogburn (as
I described in my article "Why I'm Not an Oxfordian"), but which is no
less antithetical to true historical inquiry.

Dave Kathman

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Shakespeare Authorship page:
http://www.clark.net/tross/ws/will.html

[Editor's Note: I really feel that this discussion has run its course
and should go off-line. -Hardy]
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.