The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0396  Thursday, 21 June 2007

[1] 	From: 	Douglas Brooks <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 00:08:08 -0500 (CDT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha

[2] 	From: 	V. Kerry Inman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 07:52:28 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha

[3] 	From: 	Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 15:49:31 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha

[4] 	From: 	Will Sharpe <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 16:46:30 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Douglas Brooks <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 00:08:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha

I've spoken with Professor Parry, and we've decided that the article 
cannot be boiled down to a few a salient points.  It is available in the 
issue from Edwin Mellen Press.

Best,
Douglas

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		V. Kerry Inman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 07:52:28 -0400
Subject: 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha

Nicole M. Coonradt <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >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.

Nor will the discussion of Shakespeare's Catholicism. The argument for 
or against is often the case of whether one is Catholic or Protestant 
himself. This being the situation, it is irresolvable. Yet, papers and 
books should continue to discuss the evidence for and against.

V. Kerry Inman

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 15:49:31 +0100
Subject: 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha

Nicole Coonradt writes ...

 >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.

I'd very much like to see Fr. Milward's letter.  While I find the 
Shakeshafte Theory mostly unconvincing (particularly after a number of 
other Shakeshaftes were found in the Preston parish records), the topic 
continues to fascinate me.

I must say I find it ironic that it is a Jesuit (Fr. McCoog) who has 
"blown" the theory "out of the water."

Peter Bridgman

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Will Sharpe <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 19 Jun 2007 16:46:30 +0100
Subject: 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0390 The Shakespeare Apocrypha

Nicole M. Coonradt writes:

 >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.

For a full and - as far as I'm concerned - utterly convincing end to 
this debate, see:

Bearman, Robert: 'Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte?' 
Revisited Shakespeare Quarterly (Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, 
DC) (53:1) [Spring 2002] , p.83-94.

If anyone has any hard evidence or thoughtful reasoning that 
convincingly refutes Bearman, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I really 
believe the matter to be closed.

All best,
Will Sharpe

_______________________________________________________________
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.