Subject
Re: Shakspere a playwright? (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Phil Howerton <howerton@vnet.net>
As I admitted on this page almost a year ago, it was I who authored a
piece for the Shakespeare/Oxford Newsletter four or five years ago that
quoted N.'s various denigrating references to the Stratford authorship.
In that note it was made clear that in my opinion N. was not endorsing
any other particular candidate. The piece ended with the recommendation
that the reader make up his own mind on where he stood. I have seen
nothing since to alter that position. My great friend, Peter Kartsev, I
think, would agree with me. As I agree with him, that N. would have
found it hard to believe that Shaksper of Stratford would have had the
education and life experiences that are so transparent in (and so
necessary to the construction of) Shakespeare's works. It is not that
Peter or I or anyone else who feels the same way is engaged in some sort
of war of snobbery against the "bourgeoisie," as Mr. Justice implies
(how a southern redneck like me and a Moscovite film translator like
Peter could acquire such airs is quite beyond me), but is rather based
on some small, shared idea of what it takes to write decent fiction,
much less the greatest works ever known; something that N. would have
known in spades. The snob argument is, however, an old and favorite
put-down of the Oxfordians by the Stratfodian establishment, who,
interestingly enough, are never shy of comparing their (little finger
extended from the teacup handle) decidedly non-bourgeosie attainments to
the rather common herd of us Oxfordians.
I would suggest, though, that perhaps this is a subject this list may
not want to spend too much time on. It is an endless and, on the
present state of the research, an unwinnable debate. Those who are
interested may want to turn to the sometimes fascinating struggle that
goes on daily on the newsgroup, humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare.
Phil
As I admitted on this page almost a year ago, it was I who authored a
piece for the Shakespeare/Oxford Newsletter four or five years ago that
quoted N.'s various denigrating references to the Stratford authorship.
In that note it was made clear that in my opinion N. was not endorsing
any other particular candidate. The piece ended with the recommendation
that the reader make up his own mind on where he stood. I have seen
nothing since to alter that position. My great friend, Peter Kartsev, I
think, would agree with me. As I agree with him, that N. would have
found it hard to believe that Shaksper of Stratford would have had the
education and life experiences that are so transparent in (and so
necessary to the construction of) Shakespeare's works. It is not that
Peter or I or anyone else who feels the same way is engaged in some sort
of war of snobbery against the "bourgeoisie," as Mr. Justice implies
(how a southern redneck like me and a Moscovite film translator like
Peter could acquire such airs is quite beyond me), but is rather based
on some small, shared idea of what it takes to write decent fiction,
much less the greatest works ever known; something that N. would have
known in spades. The snob argument is, however, an old and favorite
put-down of the Oxfordians by the Stratfodian establishment, who,
interestingly enough, are never shy of comparing their (little finger
extended from the teacup handle) decidedly non-bourgeosie attainments to
the rather common herd of us Oxfordians.
I would suggest, though, that perhaps this is a subject this list may
not want to spend too much time on. It is an endless and, on the
present state of the research, an unwinnable debate. Those who are
interested may want to turn to the sometimes fascinating struggle that
goes on daily on the newsgroup, humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare.
Phil