Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: November ::
Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2157  Monday, 10 November 2003

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Nov 2003 13:02:00 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2145 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[2]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 7 Nov 2003 16:41:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2133 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Nov 2003 13:02:00 -0000
Subject: 14.2145 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2145 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Bill Arnold professes ignorance ("as far as I know" and "I personal do
*not* know") about how PhD degrees are awarded. I take him at his word
and will cease mocking.

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 7 Nov 2003 16:41:32 -0500
Subject: 14.2133 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2133 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Nobody who has used the work of E. K. Chambers or G. L. Kittredge
supposes that the letters Ph.D. are the only way to identify a scholar,
although it is true that those redoubtable page-sifters made their mark
before the diploma-mills grew so numerous and widely spread.   The
degree does certify that a body of work has passed the scrutiny of some
professional practitioners.  So, however, does publication after review
by refereed journals and scholarly presses - I'm sure we'd all be
readier to accord a measure of authority to Master Arnold if some of his
material had been deemed publishable by *Shakespeare Quarterly* or the
University of California Press.  Yet we also know that a distressing
amount of bad wine does make it past the filters (including some
produced by holders of the doctorate), and I'd propose that it will
finally be some consensus by the more dedicated tasters in the field
that the work (not the person) has value that must finally count.

From the vineyard, laboriously,
David Evett

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.