Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: October ::
Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2030  Monday, 20 October 2003

[1]     From:   Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Oct 2003 08:37:57 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
Stanley Wells in TLS

[2]     From:   Tom Pendleton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 17 Oct 2003 12:48:18 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
Stanley Wells in TLS

[3]     From:   Stanley Wells <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 18 Oct 2003 12:19:42 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
Stanley Wells in TLS

[4]     From:   Steve Roth <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 18 Oct 2003 09:03:08 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2015 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed by
Stanley Wells in TLS


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Oct 2003 08:37:57 -0400
Subject: 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

Daniel Traister writes,

>Bob Grumman writes: "Okay. I'm ignorant of such matters, so assumed some
>expert in photographing such material could have been hired to do so --
>and would have been long before this time, if the owner of the
>manuscript had any feeling of responsibility to Literary History."

>As someone who has spent much of a working lifetime involved with rare
>books and manuscripts from a curatorial point of view --

I said I was ignorant of such matters.  Why didn't you explain to me why
this manuscript could not have been photographed if you wanted to defend
the owner of the manuscript?

>*and* from the
>point of view of a user of them -- I find myself incredulous reading
>these remarkably ill-informed words and wonder if Mr. Grumman, Mr.
>Pendleton, and I live on the same planet.

If you read my "remarkably ill-informed words," you would see that they
said nothing whatever about legal responsibilities.  I believe in
economic freedom, so don't entirely agree with Mr. Pendleton's
"remarkably ill-informed words," although I certainly sympathize with
them.

I'm no legal scholar, either, but I doubt that Mr. Pendleton is so far
off in believing (if he does) that a community's right to an
individual's property can be greater in the eyes of the law than the
individual's.  Otherwise, where did the notion of "power of eminent
domain" come from?  (I happen, for the record, to believe that such a
power is pure totalitarianism and oppose it, but it certainly exists.)

--Bob G. (not incredulous that Mr. Pendleton can have a slant on
something that differs from mine)

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tom Pendleton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 17 Oct 2003 12:48:18 -0400
Subject: 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

First, let me say that I find Daniel Traister's response ill mannered;
it seems to me that far too often respondents on Shaksper feel obligated
to resort to insult to express disagreement and/or to exhibit their own
cleverness.

I did not suggest that the owners of the MS in question lack the legal
right to withhold it from what most would think of as proper scholarly
investigation.  And I even concede that they might legally act every bit
as boorishly as Daniel Traister speculates with seeming relish.

But I reassert that the owners have a moral obligation to make the
document at least more accessible than they have, although, as I said,
they of course may limit and control that accessibility.  Allowing a
single scholar (with an amanuensis) the limited access granted to
Stanley Wells is not sufficient. And, even in the face of Daniel
Traister's experience, I would suggest that few rare books and
manuscripts are so very nearly sealed away from scholarly investigation.

Daniel Traister wonders whether I and Bob Grumman live on the same
planet.  We do, which is exactly why people other than the legal owners
of such rarities have responsibilities to us other planetary
inhabitants.  They and we and Daniel Traister can assert personal right
of possession as an absolute, but it's hard to imagine that anyone who
posts on this list has no sense of being a member of a community larger
than himself.

I further object to Daniel Traister's implication that I am guilty of
"shooting the messenger," which in context would mean criticizing
Stanley Wells.  I specifically stated that I intended no such criticism
in the first words of the comments I posted.

And I suggest that Daniel Traister check out what "literally
meaningless" literally means.

Tom Pendleton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Stanley Wells <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 18 Oct 2003 12:19:42 +0100
Subject: 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.2024 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

The first of these messages is very good.

S

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Steve Roth <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 18 Oct 2003 09:03:08 -0700
Subject: 14.2015 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2015 Shakespeare's "first serious critic" revealed
by Stanley Wells in TLS

What's frustrating is that the owners' expressed reason for not
disseminating the document (photographing it might damage it) seems
irrational--which also makes it seem suspect. The "read it out loud
while another takes notes" requirement seems especially wacky, unless
some other concerns are at play.

That said, the owners have every (legal) right to do with the document
as they see fit. All we can do is hope that they see fit to do the right
thing.

Thanks to Stanley and Paul for sharing with us what they were able to
share.

Steve
http://princehamlet.com

_______________________________________________________________
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.