Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Current Postings ::
Shakespeare the Grain-Dealing Tax Evader

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0190  Thursday, 18 April 2013

 

[1] From:        Bob Grumman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         April 17, 2013 4:15:52 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Businessman 

 

[2] From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         April 17, 2013 8:22:17 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Businessman 

 

[3] From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         April 17, 2013 9:53:58 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Businessman 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Bob Grumman < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         April 17, 2013 4:15:52 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Businessman

 

As long as some of us achieve greatness like Shakespeare’s, there will be bardolators and equally foolish bardefilers.  Shakespeare was clearly neither a saint nor a villain, just a conventional man of his times, but no academic is going to make a splash telling us that.

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         April 17, 2013 8:22:17 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Businessman

 

>Larry Weiss wants to know whether I am an “Oxfordian 

>masquerading as a Stratfordian in the hope that the 

>Shakespeare community will accept him as one of their 

>own and not reject his Woodstock attribution out of hand, 

>or is he really an orthodox Stratfordian who lends his 

>name and rhetorical talent to the Oxfordian heresy for
>the financial gain that offers?”

>

>The answer is neither. . . . the Oxfordians appointed me 

>their editor despite my agnosticism on the so-called 

>Authorship Question. It was enough for them that I am 

>independent and open-minded.

 

Sorry, “agnosticism” just doesn’t cut it. An agnostic won’t take either position in the controversy. Egan is in both camps at the same time. I have read some of his editorials in The Oxfordian, and they surely don’t express doubt on the subject, or even “an open mind.” They are in the voice of a committed believer (or perhaps the strident tones of one who should be committed). On the other hand, the cartoons he wrote, drew and published which portray anti-Stratfordians as delusional fools hardly take an “I’m not sure” stance. The closest thing to candor I’ve seen is his comment in his Woodstock treatise explaining his involvement with the Oxfordians by saying “causes have their uses.” That is all but an admission of deliberate hypocrisy for ulterior purposes. 

 

To my mind, this is worse than politicians and clergymen who preach one thing but do the opposite. It is not hard to understand the spirit being willing while the flesh is weak. St. Augustine perhaps said it best: “Lord, make me celibate; but not yet.” Egan, on the other hand, claims that rectitude resides in being a nun and a whore at the same time.

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         April 17, 2013 9:53:58 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Businessman

 

In my other post in response to Michael Egan’s observations, I comment on his own hypocrisy in taking diametrically opposing stances on the same issue. Here, I shall confine myself to responding to the accusation that WS was a hypocrite. Maybe he was; we have no way of telling, as we have nothing in his own voice that contradicts something else he said or did in his personal dealings. Had John Milton condemned some Caroline politician for obtaining a divorce, we would be justified in saying he spoke hypocritically. But, it Shakespeare acted in a fashion contrary to the expressed views of one of his characters, that would prove nothing. We are not surprised that Ulysses and Jack Cade expressed opposing views on the question of social leveling. Why should we be shocked if Shakespeare himself rejected the expressed morality of one of his creations? Was he obliged to shun the company of lawyers because they were not to Dick the Butcher’s liking?

 

I have thus far avoided commenting on the rectitude of time arbitrage trading in commodities (a/k/a “hoarding”). I would be happy to do so at length if anyone is interested. A quick answer to the tsk-tsk’ers is that there is not much difference between storing commodities for later sale and purchasing contracts for future delivery, for which we now have regular markets which did not exist in Eliz/Jac England. Both entail risks of loss in the prospect of gain, and both serve similar economic utility. 

 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.