Niederkorns disappointment
about Shapiros orthodox Stratfordian position
 |
| James Shapiro |
 |
| William Niederkorn |
James Shapiro, Professor at the Columbia University in New York, a leading orthodox Shakespeare expert, in his Book "Contested Will - Who wrote Shakespeare?" wiped away 2 main Shakespeare authorship proponents (Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere) but ignored the third (Christopher Marlowe).
Why Marlowe was not on his Agenda? Obviously he did not want to pursue the particularly constructive Marlowe path.
The columnist William S. Niederkorn wrote in a Review of James Shapiros Book "Contested will" , that he had a brief email exchange with Shapiro in January 2007, after it was announced that Shapiro was working on a book on the authorship question.
He asked himself if - on the one Hand - if Shapiro may have decided to rethink the whole issue from scratch, clearing out all of the previous notions that he had about the subject and starting with a tabula rasa, as much as that may be possible .
On the other hand, if he might be imagining himself in the role of a crusader, setting out to vanquish the infidels of authorship studies, perhaps enlisting other knights errant in the field to aid in sharpening arguments on one point or another, resolved to prove that Shakespeare's in his heaven and all's right with the world."
It became clear that Shapiro took the second path, a strong orthodox Stratfordian Position: Niederkorn was disappointed, writing:
What sort of authorship book could I imagine coming out at some time in the future from a different endowed professor? Somewhere near the beginning it might say:
The columnist William S. Niederkorn wrote in a Review of James Shapiros Book "Contested will" , that he had a brief email exchange with Shapiro in January 2007, after it was announced that Shapiro was working on a book on the authorship question.
He asked himself if - on the one Hand - if Shapiro may have decided to rethink the whole issue from scratch, clearing out all of the previous notions that he had about the subject and starting with a tabula rasa, as much as that may be possible .
On the other hand, if he might be imagining himself in the role of a crusader, setting out to vanquish the infidels of authorship studies, perhaps enlisting other knights errant in the field to aid in sharpening arguments on one point or another, resolved to prove that Shakespeare's in his heaven and all's right with the world."
It became clear that Shapiro took the second path, a strong orthodox Stratfordian Position: Niederkorn was disappointed, writing:
What sort of authorship book could I imagine coming out at some time in the future from a different endowed professor? Somewhere near the beginning it might say:
"We don't absolutely know who the principal author of the Shakespeare canon was. There really is no hard evidence for Will of Stratford. We're not ruling him out, but the Shakespeare academy should be able to consider other possibilities. It's time to tear down the authorship wall that Stratfordians have erected."
