Auf →Bitte des Antistradfordianers Dr. Richard Waugaman hat sich Prof. Stephen Greenblatt, einer der bekanntesten Shakespeare Experten unserer Zeit in einem Brief (vom 11. April 2014) für seine Äußerungen in der →New York Times vor 9 Jahren entschuldigt. Dort hatte er geschrieben, dass es einen überwältigenden wissenschaftlichen Konsens für William Shakespeare aus Stratford als Autor der Werke Shakespeares gäbe, die auf einer sorgfältigen Bewertung harter Beweise beruhten. Dies solle nicht durch leidenschaftliche Fantasien von "Antistradfordianern" in Frage gestellt werden, die Anspruch erhöben, die gleiche Aufmerksamkeit zu bekom-men. Solche Ansprüche seien dann nicht mehr harmlos, wenn man sie mit Konsequenzen ähnlicher Ansprüche vergliche. Sollte man etwa Ansprüche, dass der Holocaust nicht passiert sei, in einen akademischen Standard-Stundenplan aufnehmen? ("These demands would seem harmless enough until one reflects on its implications. Should claims that the Holocaust did not occur also be made part of the standard curriculum?
Jetzt nach 9 Jahren schrieb er auf Bitten oder →Forderung der Oxfordianer [Excerpt]
"... I very much regret my Holocaust example, I had meant it only to call into question in the sharpest terms the apparent difference between the NY Times' treatment of scientific consensus and its treatment of historical consensus. But I had not reflected — as I should have — that Oxfordians might draw the implication that I was likening THEM to a particularly abhorrent group. As I say, that was not at all my intention. It would never have occurred to me in fact because I regard the denial of Shakespeare's authorship as a simple mistake, while I regard the denial of the Holocaust as an instance of moral bankruptcy and intellectual bad faith. I apologize for any distress I may have inadvertently caused.
Click Blog Nrs.(Engl.) →9, →10, →12, →37 , →39
Jetzt nach 9 Jahren schrieb er auf Bitten oder →Forderung der Oxfordianer [Excerpt]
"... I very much regret my Holocaust example, I had meant it only to call into question in the sharpest terms the apparent difference between the NY Times' treatment of scientific consensus and its treatment of historical consensus. But I had not reflected — as I should have — that Oxfordians might draw the implication that I was likening THEM to a particularly abhorrent group. As I say, that was not at all my intention. It would never have occurred to me in fact because I regard the denial of Shakespeare's authorship as a simple mistake, while I regard the denial of the Holocaust as an instance of moral bankruptcy and intellectual bad faith. I apologize for any distress I may have inadvertently caused.
Click Blog Nrs.(Engl.) →9, →10, →12, →37 , →39
