>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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|