The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0335  Friday, 12 July 2013


From:        Michael Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 12, 2013 10:51:16 AM EDT

Subject:     Re: Anti-?


Stratfordian and non-Stratfordian are perfectly clear and have the merit of being traditional terms which everyone recognizes. They are also neutral which of course is why the pejorative, ambiguous and inaccurate Anti-Shakespearean has been introduced.


Larry Weiss wants to brand non-Stratfordians “heretics,” and Hardy Cook would burn Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? if he could. Maybe we should call this Roman Shakespeareanism, with its own holy city, text and priesthood engaged in a counter-reformation. 


Michael Egan


[Editor’s Note


>>I have also read Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? ed. Shahan 

>>and Waugh (LLumina 2013) and hope that others do too. 

>[Editor’s Note: No. –Hardy]


My “No” was only intended to indicate that I had not read Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? And NOT that I “would burn Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? if he [I] could.” Perhaps I was not clear, but I do object to having words put in my mouth, especially ones that imply that I am a Nazi or Savonarola book burner. Come on now. I will say that I do not find “Stratfordian and non-Stratfordian” to be “neutral”; to me they are loaded with connotations to which I object. –Hardy]


Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.