The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0390 Monday, 18 June 2007
Date: Saturday, 16 Jun 2007 15:29:00 +0000
Subject: 18.0375 The Shakespeare Apocrypha
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0375 The Shakespeare Apocrypha
RE Douglas Brooks' post about Parry and the "new evidence to suggest
that there is no connection between the William Shakeshafte -- who
received an annuity in the will of Alexander Hoghton, a Catholic
Lancashire gentleman -- and William Shakespeare."
Well, some are saying this, but as with most "proof" re all things
Shakespearean, this is not a done deal.
For good or ill, the debate is not yet closed and simply saying that it
is, unfortunately, will never make it so.
I will be curious to see what Parry says this "new" evidence is (if it
refers to the recent TLS [Times Literary Supplement] exchanges, I am all
the more ready to assert that the case is not closed). See
Davidson/McCoog, "Unreconciled" (16 mar 2007) and the replies by Eamon
Duffy, and John Shaw on "Shakespeare and the Jesuits," (30 Mar 2007).
The TLS later dubbed the matter of the Shakeshafte Theory "blown out of
the water" based on their acceptance of the Davidson/McCoog article and
the complete dismissal of the other replies. Incidentally, Peter
Milward's letter of reply that ran parallel to Duffy and Shaw was never
printed. If anyone is interested, I can probably get his permission to
run it here. (Note: these other articles/letters should be accessible
if one runs a search in the TLS archives at their On-line edition-- I
only have hard copies).
Would it be possible for Mr. Brooks to run an excerpt from the book with
the pertinent "new evidence" or at least a listing of the key points?
Curious to hear what other members have to say about the matter.
Denver, CO USA
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
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.