Skip to main content

Tom Hunter responds to WSJ letters on Justice Stephens' non-Stratfordian view


The Wall Street Journal has caved in to the inevitable traditionalist reaction to its front page report last Saturday, April 18 about the finding by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens for Edward de Vere as the name behind the pen-name, Shakespeare. All five of the five letters to the editor printed today (Sat./Sun., April 25 -26, 2009) attack the authorship issue and authorship doubters in general, and the Journal and Justice Stevens in particular. The Journal printed none of the supportive letters it received.

The letters which it did print are a remarkable lot, brilliant in their own conceit but in fact blissfully ignorant and uninformed, among the very best examples of the know-nothing mentality which prefers ". . . that the media wouldn't give print space to Oxfordian elitists." They rail against “. . . treating this nonsense seriously.” They see themselves ". . . like Shakespeare,. . . primarily self-educated and masters of intellectual material." They congratulate themselves that they have “. . . probed and delved with the solitary power of independent minds and found the elitists’ positions wanting and negative.”

All of this demonstrates that they haven’t a clue about the true genius who was Shakespeare or about the new and greater understanding they might have if they only cared to learn about the author they profess to love.

So. although the Journal has taken one step backwards, we must still congratulate that publication for the two steps forward which it took last Saturday. We should also assure the Journal that in the dog-eat-dog world of Shakespeare authorship, it is OK to tell the world that an informed readership appreciates what you have done.

Thomas Hunter, Ph.D.
Chairperson, Oberon Shakespeare Study Group

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h

Winkler drops the mic

Elizabeth Winkler presenting at Shakespearean Authorship Trust virtual event April 22, 2023 by Linda Theil In her new book, Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature , Elizabeth Winkler presents a smart, witty, and eminently readable account of one woman's journey through the wonderful world of Stratfordian bullshit. Winkler's new book published by Simon & Schuster, 2023 According to her publisher: "Elizabeth Winkler is a journalist and book critic whose work has appeared in  The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement , and  The Economist,  among other publications. She received her undergraduate degree from Princeton University and her master’s in English literature from Stanford University. Her essay “Was Shakespeare a Woman?”, first published in  The Atlantic , was selected for  The Best American Essays 2020.  She lives in Washington, DC." I've inclu