Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: May ::
Authorship
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0479.  Tuesday, 31 May 1994.
 
(1)     From:   Robert O'Connor <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 31 May 1994 10:12:12 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0472  Authorship
 
(2)     From:   David Joseph Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 30 May 94 22:43:07 CDT
        Subj:   authorship
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robert O'Connor <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 31 May 1994 10:12:12 +1000
Subject: 5.0472  Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0472  Authorship
 
Dear SHAKSPEReans,
 
I have to say that, up till now, I have had no opinion on authorship question
at all - though I have enjoyed the (sometimes heated) debate. Now, though, I
would like to contibute something. I saw a report in *New Scientist* a few
months ago on a recent computer analysis os some Shakespearean and other
Elizabethan texts which - according to the authors - announced the development
of a method which produced results that agreed almost entirely with the
conclusions of more traditional means of textual analysis.  For myself, I found
the article quite convincing.  It was the stated intent of the researchers to
apply the method they had developed to some unattributed or doubtful works, to
see if anything surprising came to light.
 
I read in the paper this morning that the same researchers will reveal in a
forthcoming issue of *Literary and Linguistic Computing* that they are now
prepared to attribute *The Contention*  and *The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke
of York* to Marlowe, to confirm the dependence of *2* and *3HenryVI* on these
two plays, and to suggest, therefore, that Marlowe was _not_ killed in Deptford
in 1593 (Sydney Morning Herald, May 31). The kind of analysis used by these
researchers is controversial enough, but the results ...  Well, I will wait and
read the article. I also heard, over the weekend, that a recently-discovered
copy of one of Donne's sermons has been confirmed to have annotations in
Donne's hand which largely contradict the tone of the published version.  It
seems there is still a lot to be discovered . . .
 
Robert O'Connor
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Joseph Kathman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 30 May 94 22:43:07 CDT
Subject:        authorship
 
Just a quick note: on rereading my last message on the net, I see that I may
have given the mistaken impression that I'm trying to close off discussion of
the authorship question, which is not the case.  What I was trying to say was
that I can see the point of those who have objected to the space this has taken
up on SHAKSPER, and that some other forum might be more appropriate for this
sort of thing.  Where I said, "Don't clutter up the list with this stuff," I
probably should have said, "*Let's not* clutter up the list with this stuff."
 
One other thing: When I said the Oxfordians call the man from Stratford
"Skakspere", I assume everyone realized that was a typo for "Shakspere".
 
Dave Kathman 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.