My exchange on Twitter with a leading scholar RE "Romeo's Mischief"
Silence as corroboration
Near the end of Romeo’s Mischief, I said, "Sometimes, silence is the best corroboration.”
This seems to have proven true again in a rather unexpected way.
On Tuesday, I shared my piece on Twitter. I tagged two leading scholars, Stanley Wells and Emma Smith, asking for their thoughts. I wasn’t sure they would respond, but Wells did.
Here’s my tweet:
About half an hour later, Wells wrote,
I replied,
As you can see, Wells cites the “Glossary” to The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works, of which he’s the editor. In other words, he quotes his own dictionary.
By contrast, I cite the OED, or Oxford English Dictionary, or “the definitive record of the England language.”
Two days have now passed.
How did Wells respond? He didn’t.
Instead:
Silence.
Ah, and there is the rub. As I said in response to the original article, mischief is in the air...
In today's world, not many want to comment on religious or metaphysical implications, especially in Shakespeare, as it opens up a whole question of, what else might be implicated, especially in The Scottish Play, Hamlet, or a Midsummer's Night.