Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wadsworth's The Poacher from Stratford, a book on the Shakespeare authorship question, has an unfortunate aspect of subtle but pervasive mockery under a veneer of objectivity, perhaps somewhat deserved, but still frustrating. Very rarely Wadsworth deigns to break the illusion and offer the most inane forms of contempt (“J. Thomas Looney, not to be confused with the Baconian, George M. Battey”). The information itself is appreciated, though by now at least some of it is known to be inaccurate.
For those anti-Stratfordians who seem more likely to have mental issues, there is often an element of a “hidden place” or something similar, some one thing which establishes complete proof of the proposition but is not really intended to be checked. Delia Bacon claimed that she had a historical study which proved her case that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare, one which she never published, and also that manuscripts would be found in Shakespeare’s grave, but (if what I’ve read is true) she lost the courage to unearth it. Similar things are noted in some of the other anti-Stratfordians, and not only Baconians. I wonder if something like this is necessary to underpin the general faith for certain kinds of minds. They may even believe it. Perhaps Delia never did write that historical study, but had a false memory that she did. In her telling, “It seemed better to save to the world the power and beauty of this demonstration, its intellectual stimulus, its demand on the judgement.” I do still wonder about the accuracy of reports of her insanity, given that this was the 19th century.
The book, in my opinion, gets less interesting after the Baconians are dealt with, no doubt because the Oxfordians were recent history at the time this book was written. Greenwood and Looney are given short thrift, and the familiar ciphers and buried documents take center stage again. I’m not finished yet, so there is still space to impress me.
Overall, it was worth reading, with some caveats. There are hints of familiar tropes, such as Shakespeare’s “genius” and allegations of snobbery, but these are surprisingly subdued. Most of it delves into details about the works and methods of anti-Stratfordians, with some terms like “literary sincerity” (the idea that an author’s life necessarily exerts a direct influence on his art) perhaps deserving a second look. The evident sneering (at least, that’s what I saw, it isn't always open) thoroughly undermines any claims to fair play, and it leaves an unpleasant image of a face behind the mask which outwardly says “Our role should be not to suppress debate but to instruct students how to consider the Oxfordians’ (and others’) arguments carefully and thoughtfully.” Nevertheless he did after all bother to write a book about the topic. A somewhat inauspicious but still valuable beginning to academic overviews of the topic.
More options
Context Copy link