I agree with Marshall. This topic isn't worth (never was worth)
pursuing any further. There is nothing that anyone with an ounce of
scholarly training or historical rigor would credit in any of these
claims, and the list has been extremely forebearing in tolerating
them this long. Such discussion is banned, with good reason, on
SHAKSPER and would simply be laughed off most other scholarly lists.
I'm surprised Spenserians have put up with it. Will we next be
entertained with the claim that Marlowe also disguised himself as
Queen Elizabeth and usurped the throne for ten years? That he was
responsible for assassinating Henri IV? That he ghost-wrote
Monteverdi's "Orfeo"? Peter Zenner is an illusionist by trade. Let
him try his Archimagic pranks elsewhere for a change.
>[This message has been forwarded from Marshall Grossman]
>
>Yes. Of course you are right. And, reluctantly, because I feel lately that
>a sense of humor , to which I lack access, has taken possesion of
>the list, I feel ought to say that there is, in fact, no Shakespeare
>authorship question. Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare--he was a public figure
>and misattribution would have required a "conspiracy so vast..." (Well,
>Marlowe would have been so busy writing he would not have had the time to
>abduct
>Mulder's sister). Anyway, reading "Shakespeare" is more fun than worrying
>over who he wasn't.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|