The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1434 Thursday, 1 September 2005
[1] From: Peter Farey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 19:16:12 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1421 Brian Vickers in TLS, Wm Niederkorn in NYT
[2] From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, September 01, 2005
Subj: The So-Called "Authorship Question"
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Farey <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Tuesday, 30 Aug 2005 19:16:12 +0100
Subject: 16.1421 Brian Vickers in TLS, Wm Niederkorn in NYT
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1421 Brian Vickers in TLS, Wm Niederkorn in NYT
This is 'authorship' stuff. As a new arrival here (and, truth to tell,
one whom members might call an anti-Stratfordian) I would like to ask
why, despite all I have heard to the contrary, 'authorship' matters such
as these do seem to be acceptable after all? I recall, as another
example, Sandra Sparks's "When I read earlier this year that Rylance
(along with, another shock, Derek Jacobi) does not believe that
Shake-speare wrote any of the plays, I was glad to know that he was
leaving Shakespeare's Globe."
Would it be right to assume that one can say anything one likes about
the authorship, just so long as, on balance, the orthodox opinion is
upheld?
Peter Farey
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, September 01, 2005
Subject: The So-Called "Authorship Question"
Dear SHAKSPEReans Old and New:
I do not have the time or inclination to provide a long history as to
why I do not permit conversations about the so-called "Authorship
Question," and a detailed explanation is just not necessary. I am either
a scholar who has studied the subject for more than thirty years or a
closed-minded fool.
For me, the so-called "Authorship Question" is simply not an issue. As
a fervent Anti-Anti-Stratfordian with limited time, I do not care to be
bothered with it.
I had an Editor's Note about this matter a few weeks ago:
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1341.html
At that time, I wrote, "If you wish to contend that William Shakespeare
of Stratford was not the author of the plays and poems generally
associated with him, then you have subscribed to the wrong list."
If you want to maintain that "the man from Essex," or Queen Elizabeth I
or II, or Bacon, or Marlowe, or Voldemort is the real author of
Shakespeare's plays and poems, then you have plenty of other places to
do it, including the newsgroup that was founded when I could no longer
tolerate hearing the same authorship arguments over and over and . . .
This list is my contribution to the world; it exists as a consequence of
my time (a minimum of twelve hours per week) and money (quite
considerable) with no institutional support or other assistance except
from webmaster and technical advisor Eric Luhrs and the members of the
SHAKSPER Advisory Board.
Hardy M. Cook
Editor, Owner, and Moderator of SHAKSPER
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.