Skip to main content

Edmondson pitches a fit

The Sunday Mercury online edition published an article today titled "Row over new Shakespeare film which claims Bard did not write his plays" by Ben Goldby. Shakespeare Birthplace Trust education director Paul Edmondson is quoted throughout the short article railing against Anonymous, Roland Emmerich's forthcoming film about the Shakespeare authorship question. Edmondson, who took part in Monday's debate on the topic at the English Speaking Union, told The Mercury:
This may well provoke debate, but the point we are making is that there is no debate. It is historical fact that William Shakespeare wrote these plays. When I first heard about this film I thought, ‘we have to do something and get the real story of Shakespeare out there’.
Several questions occur to this reader regarding Edmondson's comments to The Mercury:

  • Does Edmondson find it odd to insist there is no debate after taking part in a high-profile debate?
  • Since when do academics take to the airwaves in concern that the public might be deceived by inaccuracies in a feature film?
  • How much more influence could the Shakespeare establishment possibly have over the hearts and minds of the public -- is world-wide icon status not sufficient?
  • Instead of repeatedly saying, "No, no, no, no!", why doesn't the Shakespeare establishment say, "Yes, yes, yes!" Even arch-conservative traditionalists admit information on the Stratfordian candidate is sparse -- perhaps not sparse enough, in their opinion, to doubt the attribution, but why isn't research on the topic of authorship useful and welcome? We study every other topic in the universe, why is Shakespeare authorship the only exception?
Resources:
June 12, 2011 report in Sunday Mercury:
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2011/06/12/row-over-new-shakespeare-film-which-claims-bard-did-not-write-his-plays-66331-28862194/
Oberon report on ESU debate:

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