Dating shakespeares plays gilvary book
To you and your comrades, the works are merely a vehicle to ransack – in a thoroughly amateurish manner – to buttress your belief in a conspiracy.
Shakespeare’s Globe are to be applauded for organising a conference drawing together many academics who have published on the life of Shakespeare. William Leahy, and Mark Rylance, who has done so much to bring the authorship question to the fore.
The problem is that so much modern writing is autobiographical, modern biographers assume Shakespeare’s writings are the same.
Of course there must be some shards of his life in the works, but we do not know where or why they are included, and Shapiro has no confidence in even the ones suggested by Wells or Weiss.
Extrapolating that thesis to scholarship in regard to the canon, such endeavours may invite ridicule today.
the connections between “the lovely boy” and William Shakespeare: in doing so they kicked away the ladder whereby any connection between the irrelevant life and the canon can be invented – a valuable exercise for Oxfordians, who can demonstrate over and over again the biographical connections between Oxford and Southampton in their biographies as they reappear in the Sonnets’ references.
When the quotation from Coleridge was put to him that he (Coleridge) preferred the internal evidence from the plays to the documentary research of Malone on his (Malone’s) play dating scheme, Professor Cummings answered that he preferred Coleridge’s approach.
Stanley Wells & Paul Edmondson Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson launched an attack on the William-Shakespeare-autobiographical thesis for the sonnets.
Shapiro The highlight was the appearance of James Shapiro, whose talk was on the effect of Malone’s conversion of Shakespeare into an autobiographical writer.
Notes on Shapiro’s talk: Almost nothing we know shines light on his (Shakespeare’s) personality.