Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 4, No. 914. Thursday, 9 December 1993.
Date: Wednesday, 08 Dec 93 11:27:20 -0400
Subject: 4.0908 Re: The Paradox of Historicizing Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 4.0908 Re: The Paradox of Historicizing Shakespeare
Poor Leo Daugherty! [FN 1] How can he possibly believe that the sensible and
intelligible approach to Shakespeare studies urged by him has any
chance of prevailing in the near future, while we still have active a
generation of writers [FN 2] who, on the basis of flawed premises
obfuscated [FN 3] by incomprehensible, but impressive, jargon, have
found ways to rationalize designating as "Shakespeare studies" [FN 4]
their writings about their own phantasies [FN 5] and interests, and those of
their friends, and in which approach they all have a vested [FN 6] interest?
But who knows? It may indeed be better to light a candle than to curse
the darkness. Good luck, Leo Daugherty!
FN 1. I owe this verbal formulation to Joseph Cantor, who has often
used this phrase in reference to me.
FN 2. The concept of writers within a generation-group having common
characteristics was suggested to me in a personal conversation by
Thomas F. Bastow.
FN 3. This word was brought to my attention by Florence Packer, who
owns a very good thesaurus.
FN 4. Jerome M. Fleming is the source of this phrase as a way of
describing writings purporting to deal with the well-known Elizabethan
FN 5. Using this semi-semiotic spelling to reenforce the
"Renaissance" character of this message was the idea of Snigdha Prakash.
FN 6. I am indebted to Emma Brumfield who, by alerting me to the
possibility of this being construed as an allegation of
cross-dressing, affords me the opportunity to negate the implication,
and hence, I trust, the inference.