Researching the French influence in Shakespeare, I discovered two totally ignored French scholars, Abel Lefranc and his student Georges Lambin, whose works have been totally ignored by mainstream academics with good reason. These French scholars make it impossible to believe that Shakspere of Stratford was the author. Why is it that traditional scholars are so wedded to the man from Stratford? Because of group think and tradition. Mendel (genetics), Reus (cancer virus), Wegener (continental drift), Crick and Watson (DNA) are just a few examples of how new discoveries are rejected — especially if accepted theories are proven incorrect. Insulting and demeaning the doubter is the favorite response. After all we have hundreds of biographies of Shakspere of Stratford based on conditionals and assumptions as David Ellis bravely points out in The Truth About William Shakespeare (2012). Nobody who reads Diana Price’s Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem (2001) comes away from that study believing Shakspere of Stratford was Shakespeare. The irony of this academic debacle is that for centuries, and still today, traditional academics maintain Shakespeare was not that learned — an opinion that stunted Shakespeare studies until recently when traditional academics decided to ignore the restrictions of what Shakspere of Stratford could have known and just examine the texts, which has opened up a new world in Shakespeare studies, a world totally unknown to Shakspere of Stratford. Ironically, if traditional academics continue to refuse to examine the authorship question, curious non-specialists will. It’s already happening. How tragic that traditional academia has slammed shut the door of the authorship question, which could breathe new life into Shakespeare studies in an age that is witnessing the death not only of Shakespeare studies, but of literature in general in our colleges and universities. Could it be because academics have locked their ivory tower only to discover nobody wants in?
Researching the French influence in Shakespeare, I discovered two totally ignored French scholars, Abel Lefranc and his student Georges Lambin, whose works have been totally ignored by mainstream academics with good reason. These French scholars make it impossible to believe that Shakspere of Stratford was the author. Why is it that traditional scholars are so wedded to the man from Stratford? Because of group think and tradition. Mendel (genetics), Reus (cancer virus), Wegener (continental drift), Crick and Watson (DNA) are just a few examples of how new discoveries are rejected — especially if accepted theories are proven incorrect. Insulting and demeaning the doubter is the favorite response. After all we have hundreds of biographies of Shakspere of Stratford based on conditionals and assumptions as David Ellis bravely points out in The Truth About William Shakespeare (2012). Nobody who reads Diana Price’s Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of an Authorship Problem (2001) comes away from that study believing Shakspere of Stratford was Shakespeare. The irony of this academic debacle is that for centuries, and still today, traditional academics maintain Shakespeare was not that learned — an opinion that stunted Shakespeare studies until recently when traditional academics decided to ignore the restrictions of what Shakspere of Stratford could have known and just examine the texts, which has opened up a new world in Shakespeare studies, a world totally unknown to Shakspere of Stratford. Ironically, if traditional academics continue to refuse to examine the authorship question, curious non-specialists will. It’s already happening. How tragic that traditional academia has slammed shut the door of the authorship question, which could breathe new life into Shakespeare studies in an age that is witnessing the death not only of Shakespeare studies, but of literature in general in our colleges and universities. Could it be because academics have locked their ivory tower only to discover nobody wants in?