Skip to main content

Hunter on response to 1839 review of "Disquisition on . . . Shakespeare's Tempest"

Yesterday Oberon Chairperson R. Thomas Hunter, PhD, commented on Nina Green's Phaeton e-mail list on the topic of Stratfordian intransigence toward honest inquiry on the Shakespeare authorship question: 
The following is a remarkable piece of early Stratfordiana which I found today while looking for something else. I believe that you will agree that the sentiment is quite remarkable in contrast to the unyielding, uniform Hardy Cook pap we have been used to. It was a Google scan of a review in The Gentleman's Magazine of A Disquisition on the Scene, Origin, Date etc. of Shakespeare's Tempest by Rev. Joseph Hunter [in which Rev. Hunter argues for an early dating of The Tempest].
No publishing information for the Gentleman's Magazine appears per se, although a detached reference to "Vol XIII" probably refers to that specific issue. The article must have appeared somewhere in the vicinity of 1839, since that is the date Hunter's book was published.
So imagine how, having just read Elizabeth Imlay's powerful statement [on the Phaeton email list] of the intransigence of the Shakespeare deity, this sentence stood out: "The name of Shakespeare is so justly and deeply loved by Englishmen, that it only stops at this side of idolatry."  Here is, 171 years ago, the very thing Elizabeth described. It is stated as a given, and it appears within a lifetime of the Stratford Exposition!
But here is the surprise. Immediately following are these words: "and the minutest inquiries are not discouraged, and mention of the most trifling circumstances is endured, which tend in any way to cast a glimmer of light on the obscurity of his history, or the interpretation of his thoughts."
In other words, long before these current times requiring declarations of reasonable doubt to penetrate the Stratfordian fog, at least some Stratfordians came dangerously close to open-mindedness. Perhaps Hardy Cook might some day himself read about those days in which the minutest inquiries were not discouraged which tended in any way to cast a glimmer of light on the history of Shakespeare. 

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

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