I must say that in recent weeks I have found the Spenser list a really
distressing read. It's my impression that a small number of contributors
have been using the list to pursue an endless conversation that ought to be
conducted off-list. I spoke up earlier on behalf of tolerance, but lately
I've been regretting it.
DM
At 03:25 PM 10/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|