Message from discussion Salon's Silly Marlovian Article
From: mste...@charter.net (Mark Steese)
Subject: Re: Salon's Silly Marlovian Article
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:48:50 -0000
Organization: Foul Weather Press
References: <email@example.com> <Xns91C8B577870msteesecharternet@22.214.171.124> <3C84D51F.F8601F75@teleport.com> <Xns91C8C513ECB5Bmsteesecharternet@126.96.36.199> <3C84E5AA.F6680EDF@teleport.com> <Xns91C8ECDA54804msteesecharternet@188.8.131.52> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Hwæt! We have heard of the glory of ga...@mcnett.org (Gavin McNett) that
wrote news:firstname.lastname@example.org, on the day of
06 Mar 2002:
> What I can, and what I did check, was the Marlovian and other
> Shakespearean scholarship that appears lavishly on the Web -- through
> which I went over every detail of substance that I could find. This is
> not a body of research that can be mastered in a week or two.
I find it difficult to believe that you went over "every detail of
substance," since you present nothing but a caricature of the case for
Shakespeare ("I used to think the same as most semi-educated people about
the Shakespeare-authorship controversy: that everyone knows the guy wrote
his own stuff and we can totally prove it and it isn't really a controversy
at all but part of a common urge to find conspiracies all over the place").
David Kathman has already dealt it length with many of the errors of fact
in the piece, but I am still puzzled by your failure to mention Ben
Jonson's reminiscences of Shakespeare and Edward Blount's preface to the
posthumous edition of Marlowe's *Hero and Leander* ("‘Sir, we think not
ourselves discharged of the duty we owe our friend, when we have brought
the breathless body to earth: for albeit the eye there taketh his ever
farewell of that beloved object, yet the impression of the man, that hath
been dear to us, living an afterlife in our memory, there putteth us in
mind of further obsequies due to the deceased").
> You, and other experts of your caliber, are going to know far more about
> it than some Johannes fac totem who writes an article. (I checked that
> term thrice over, btw; I know quite well that its meaning falls within
> the compass I described).
As others have already pointed out, it obviously doesn't mean "errand-boy"
in the Greene passage.
> When you say the article draws from Baker's research without citation, I
> have to reply that I certainly did cite that research, as something
> Marlovians believe -- which is in fact the case.
If you cited it, then your editor(s) removed the citation - Baker's name
appears nowhere in the article. If you found evidence that anyone other
than Baker believes in what he says, would you please provide it? So far
as I am aware, other Marlovians reject his hypotheses, and with good
> If I were doing a film such as Rubbo did, rather than a review of a film,
> distinctions regarding which Marlovians endorse which other Marlovians'
> research would become very important. As it is, I think it's more salient
> that the term "Marlovians," in the generic, is a bit more visible in the
> world this week than last week.
> And as much as any Marlovians here might dislike the article, believe
> me: I've got it coming in like crazy from the orthodox Shakespeare
> scholars. That bunch is hopping mad.
I believe you mean "the Shakespeare scholars"; there are no "unorthodox"
Shakespeare scholars among the anti-Stratfordians--scholarship and anti-
Stratfordianism can't coexist in the same brain.
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope
and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope
the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town
till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground
cold cold ground -Tom Waits