According to Paul Cantor
the whole Shakespeare authorship controversy is stupid.
_____________________________
Paul Cantor
Mr. John Roach [Jefferson Society) 2016 summarized a speech of Paul Cantor, a distinguished Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Virginia entitled
Who Wrote Shakespeare's Plays?
Cantor argues strongly in favor of the position that Shakespeare did indeed write Shakespeare’s plays, and that the whole authorship controversy is stupid.
Who Wrote Shakespeare's Plays?
Cantor argues strongly in favor of the position that Shakespeare did indeed write Shakespeare’s plays, and that the whole authorship controversy is stupid.
(s.Video)
Paul Cantors..modest arguments
1…… it doesn’t really matter who the author is, because the plays are stupendous works of literature and that isn’t changing. -
2. …… it is important about the plays: their subject matter not any potential self-expression.[really? s.nr.7] He claims that the notion that art is about self-expression is a Romantic notion. He finds most authors boring, and the fact that Shakespeare might be boring has no bearing on whether he wrote the plays.
3. …….It is a modern idea that one needs to go to college to be educated; most didn’t go to college in Shakespeare’s time, and he was well educated for his time, learning Latin.
4. ….its not necessary to be an Aristocrat to write about aristocrats or a beggar to write about beggars. Shakespeare was middle class and could therefore observe all walks of life. If he were an aristocrat he would not have known how the lower classes live
5. ….Aristocrats were wealthy enough to not work, so why would they spend so much time trying to make a living writing plays?
6. ……. none of the other candidates for authorship make much sense.The big problem with the primary pretender ,the Earl of Oxford, is that we have Shakespeare plays for 6 years after Oxford’s death in 1604.
Paul Cantors..modest arguments
1…… it doesn’t really matter who the author is, because the plays are stupendous works of literature and that isn’t changing. -
2. …… it is important about the plays: their subject matter not any potential self-expression.[really? s.nr.7] He claims that the notion that art is about self-expression is a Romantic notion. He finds most authors boring, and the fact that Shakespeare might be boring has no bearing on whether he wrote the plays.
3. …….It is a modern idea that one needs to go to college to be educated; most didn’t go to college in Shakespeare’s time, and he was well educated for his time, learning Latin.
4. ….its not necessary to be an Aristocrat to write about aristocrats or a beggar to write about beggars. Shakespeare was middle class and could therefore observe all walks of life. If he were an aristocrat he would not have known how the lower classes live
5. ….Aristocrats were wealthy enough to not work, so why would they spend so much time trying to make a living writing plays?
6. ……. none of the other candidates for authorship make much sense.The big problem with the primary pretender ,the Earl of Oxford, is that we have Shakespeare plays for 6 years after Oxford’s death in 1604.
7..… ….there seems no need to mention Christopher Marlowe.
Since Cantor is not ready to discover significant autobiographical [Marlowian] traces in "Coriolanus"
Since Cantor is not ready to discover significant autobiographical [Marlowian] traces in "Coriolanus"
8. ……. too many arguments against Shakespeare are based on plausibility. However, he finds it already implausible for someone to write this many amazing plays. Normal people don’t write this much this well; that is what genius is.
It challenges our expectations so it’s silly to try and pin someone extraordinary into notions of “plausibility“
It challenges our expectations so it’s silly to try and pin someone extraordinary into notions of “plausibility“
What can one say about such ingenious modest conclusions (8) of such a fine professor?
