Daily Archives: January 27, 2010

Richard Paul and Jane Roe SARC to be named

Director Daniel Wright, PhD of the Shakespeare Authorship Research Center at Concordia University in Portland OR, announced that as part of the April 8-11, 2010 Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre at Concordia will be named in honor of Mr. & Mrs. Richard Paul Roe of Pasadena CA. The center will be christened the Richard Paul and Jane Roe Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre during a ceremony to be held at 5:30 p.m. April 9 at Concordia.

Wright said:

The gifts bestowed by this revered colleague and his wife, in sums totaling almost half a million dollars, have gone far to make the institutionalization of the Shakespeare authorship inquiry — in a permanent, academic, and non-political setting for the benefit of scholars on this campus and worldwide — a reality. I hope you will join us for the ceremony that will name the SARC after this esteemed couple during the 14th annual Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference.

For more information about the announcement, see “Shakespeare Center to be named . . . “

Click here for the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference Agenda, or here to register for the conference: https://acme.cu-portland.edu/ecomm/shakespeare/

New American publishes review of antiStrat book

Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection by Samuel L. Blumenfeld

Raven Clabough reviewed Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s two-year-old book, Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: a New Study of the Authorship Question (McFarland, 2008), in yesterday’s edition of The New American Magazine, published bi-weekly by American Opinion Publishing — a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society.

Clabough’s review, “Who Authored the Shakespeare Canon?”, highlights the shortcomings of the Stratfordian authorship theory and places Blumenfeld’s Marlovian thesis within the controversy.

Clabough says:

Blumenfeld, like most anti-Stratfordians, makes use of the lack of information recorded about Shakespeare as a means to justify that Shakespeare could not have written the plays. Scholars cite Shakespeare’s failure to mention any manuscripts or books in his will to justify the claim that he could not have been the author, since the plays reflect an author who had access to historical, political, and geographical sources. Yet Shakespeare seemingly had none.

While it is certainly reasonable to question the authorship of the plays, given the lack of historical documentation, the solution proposed by Marlovians leaves several questions unanswered.

. . .

Despite the lingering questions, Blumenfeld’s book proves to be an intriguing read. His use of English history and close analysis of Marlowe’s plays are vital to the reader’s understanding of his theory, which is to convince the reader that Stratfordians have been duped for nearly 400 years.