Skip to main content

Brief Chronicles Issue 2 sent to members of American Historical Association

Brief Chronicles Managing Editor Gary Goldstein sent this message about a hard-copy mailing of the Shakespeare authorship journal to members of the American Historical Association:
The second issue of Brief Chronicles (www.briefchronicles.com)a peer reviewed journal of  Shakespeare studieshas been distributed to 725 members of the American Historical Association teaching Early Modern Europe at US universities, with an invitation to help resolve the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
“Very few academic historians have written about the Shakespearean Question,” said Professor Roger Stritmatter of Coppin State University, general editor of Brief Chronicles. “We find this situation unfortunate because the issue of who wrote Shakespeare’s works is as much historical as it is literary, and the required investigation raises basic questions of epistemology and method requiring collaboration between historians and literary scholars. We therefore believe that early modern historians are qualified by training to make a significant contribution to the exploration of this question, which is so central to the self-conception of Anglo-American culture.”
There are several reasons why an authorship issue continues 400 years after Shakespeare’s death in 1616. First, no documentary sources from the period during which the works were written unequivocally confirm that the Stratford Shakespeare was the author of his supposed works – only that he was an actor and theater investor. Moreover, said Gary Goldstein, the journal’s managing editor: “He almost certainly lacked the experience required by the author of the works--travel to Italy, ability to read the known sources of his plays in French, Italian and Spanish, knowledge about astronomy, falconry, horticulture and law, as well as pursuit of a joint career as actor and prolific playwright.”
Further, there is no mesh between his life and the evolutionary trajectory of his works, accepting the orthodox chronology of when they were written. What little is known about Shakespeare's biography has virtually no explanatory power in understanding why he wrote a particular work when he did.
Contrast, for example, playwright Ben Jonson, Shakespeare’s contemporary, whose biography is documented in a library numbering in the hundreds of books, an epistolary trail including several letters, and numerous examples of literary holographs such as book dedications to friends.
For these reasons, the more a critic trades in Shakespearean biography, the less he can tell us about the works themselves. W. H. Furness, the father of the editor of the Second Variorum Shakespeare, stated this more than a century and a half ago: “I am one of the many who has never been able to bring the life of William Shakespeare within planetary space of the plays. Are there any two things in the world more incongruous?”
In the second issue of Brief Chronicles are ten research papers and five book reviews that supply some first steps towards constructing an inter-disciplinary inquiry on the Shakespearean question. “To us,” said Stritmatter, “this issue is the most exciting and challenging topic in a modern Humanities curriculum, and we hope historians will join us in our enquiry.”
Indexed by the MLA International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography, Brief Chronicles is an annual journal of research, authorship studies and the Tudor and Jacobean periods, with an inter-disciplinary Editorial Board of scholars in Economics, English, History, Law, Psychiatry, and Theater. The journal is published online each autumn at www.briefchronicles.com free of charge. -- Gary Goldstein 

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