CHICAGO — I was somewhat taken aback by Chris Jones’ well-reported article “The Great Shakespearean Debate.” I was amazed to discover the extent to which professors of English literature are prone to gaffs in logical thinking and language usage that in my book I argue our schools should teach high school students to avoid.
For example, professor David Bevington allows that he knows “of absolutely no one in the profession who gives any of the Oxfordian theories any credence whatsoever.” The trouble with this statement is that Bevington appears on a videotape in which he argues against Felicia Londre and Roger Strittmatter, both of whom are “in the profession” and give the Oxfordian theories nothing except credence. Does he mean he was unaware of their credentials, or that they don’t exist, and are therefore not on the tape in which they appear, or what does he mean?
He is, however, awfully loyal to Shakespeare, because he has taken Antonio as his hero. Just as Antonio carelessly tosses a pound of flesh Shylock’s way, so Bevington is “willing to stake my life on him [Shakespeare] having written the plays.” In 1947, Dr. Giles Dawson, chief defender of the faith at the Folger Library, publicly admitted that there was no documentary evidence of any kind, while he was alive, to connect William Shakespeare with anything written. Meanwhile, decades ago, Alfred Harbage, another prime defender of the faith, admitted that only two of the plays could be argued to have been written after 1604, when Oxford died. The Oxfordians have since rather nicely taken care of both those arguments.
It’s interesting, though, that both sides have turned their backs on the most compelling evidence of all. Internationally famous forensic graphologist Charles Hamilton proved, more than a decade ago, that there are three manuscripts of Elizabethan plays in the handwriting of William Shakespeare of Stratford. Yet I’ll wager this won’t come up in the Nov. 3 debates.
— Peter Klein
Unorthodox advice
CHICAGO — I’m very, very upset at Randy Cohen’s [Everyday Ethics] answer to the person who wrote about their real estate broker who wouldn’t shake her hand because he is an Orthodox Jew.
[Cohen] calls himself ethical. He just advised someone to tear up a signed contract, where the person is doing a fine job, because he wouldn’t shake here hand? He just may have caused someone to lose a job that he needs to support a family because he wouldn’t shake her hand? That’s ethical? That’s moral? That’s decent? How about a little understanding? She was “discriminated” against according to [Cohen] because she is a woman well [Cohen] just condoned discriminating against a person because of his beliefs.So [Cohen] showed discrimination against a Jewish person. What’s worse? As you may have guessed I, myself, am Jewish and Orthodox. There are certain things we just can’t do. Trust me they’re hard to understand, even to us sometimes but they are not meant to be discriminatory in any way.
Women play a very important role in our religion and you can ask any orthodox rabbi about it.
I am more than sure that this man who “is courteous and competent” meant no offence. He was following the law. We keep the Sabbath because it is a law in the torah.
Does [Cohen] argue with that? Probably not because it doesn’t affect him. But this is the same kind of law. One we have to keep. I would have said to the woman I understand that it was uncomfortable. But let it go as long as he is doing a good job. No offense was meant.
Maybe instead she could ask him why. Maybe he could explain this prohibition to her. Understanding each other is the key to peace all over the world. [Cohen] encouraged the opposite.
— Debbie Wengrow
Status recall
LAKE FOREST — Your story on Soldier Field is instructive, timely and persuasive. The muddling of this lakefront historic site should be recognized now through yanking the landmark status.
I wish you wanted to print my call for a state-financed quarterback endowment, but . . .
— Art Miller
