humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On 1 Apr, 22:36, "Peter Groves" wrote:
> "John Andrews" wrote in message
>
> news:07f8c896-f02b-4928-905a-ab468c467e56@y24g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Mar, 23:53, rparisi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 8:40 am, John Andrews
> > wrote:
> > > On 29 Mar, 20:59, rparisi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 1:44 pm, John Andrews >
> > > > s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On 27 Mar, 21:53, rparisi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 27, 12:38 pm, John Andrews
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On 25 Mar, 22:47, rparisi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
> > Chambers,as you correctly stated ,simply gathered together.He
> > added virtually nothing and proved nothing .He could nearly always be
> > counted on to transcribe a document correctly.He had absolutely no
> > creative power,a mediocre ear,and as my old teacher A.Kent Hiett
> > correctly remarked of him,"If you put a topical allusion on a red flag
> > and waved it in front of Chambers's nose,he still wouldn't be able to
> > recognize it."
>
> Odd that no-one has ever heard of your old teacher A Kent Hiett
>
> **Speak for yourself -- any scholar of Renaissance literature will be
> familiar with his important work on number symbolism and topomorphism
>
> and
> yet even the most modern editions of Shakespeare plays pay homage to
> to Chambers. The job he did didn't require "creative power" nor did he
> need a good "ear" - the power of his work is based on the absence of
> subjectivity and speculation.
>
> > Compare his work with anti-Stratfordian Robert Curtius's
> > "Literature and the Latin Middle Ages"
>
> Never heard of him or his book.
>
> **Again, I wouldn't boast about it.
>
> However, it is libellous to label him an antistrat (if you can libel the
> dead).
>
> --
> Peter G.
>
> "A sure sign of a lunatic is that sooner or later, he brings up the
> Templars." (Umberto Eco)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Peter, I'm *never* afraid to admit my ignorance. I'm not a
professional academic and I couldn't claim that my interest in these
things amounts even to a sideline. I'm pretty widely read though and
have been taught by some of the best Shakespeare scholars of the past
50 years (L.C. Knights, Leo Salingar et.al.). I've not heard of the
critics RNP referred to in order to denigrate the work of Chambers.
I'd take a bet that they haven't had a comparable impact on the field
of literary studies as Chambers has - but I'm sure you know better.

John Andrews