Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1994 :: October ::
Authorship
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 5, No. 0818. Tuesday, 18 October 1994.
 
(1)     From:   John Cox <COX@HOPE.BITNET>
        Date:   Sunday, 16 Oct 1994 11:28:58 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 5.0809  Authorship
 
(2)     From:   Matthew Westcott Smith <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 17 Oct 1994 09:46:21 GMTDT
        Subj:   Foster's comments re. "Authorship"
 
(3)     From:   William Boyle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 17 Oct 1994 12:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Authorship
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Cox <COX@HOPE.BITNET>
Date:           Sunday, 16 Oct 1994 11:28:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 5.0809  Authorship
Comment:        Re: SHK 5.0809  Authorship
 
In his recent posting about Ward Elliott's work, Don Foster modestly refrains
from mentioning his own computerized work on the Shakespearean text.  I'd be
grateful for an update, and I'm sure others would be too.  If nothing else,
Don, could you give us a bibliography of what you've published so far and a
summary of what you've discovered?
 
I hope I speak for others on the network.
 
John Cox
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Matthew Westcott Smith <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 17 Oct 1994 09:46:21 GMTDT
Subject:        Foster's comments re. "Authorship"
 
As a political scientist specializing in the Shakespeare's political thought, I
was disturbed by the implications of D. Foster's comments on Ward Elliott's
program at Claremont on 10/15: "Elliott is a political scientist not a literary
scholar, but his "Shakespeare Clinic" is not without value. I am I to interpret
this as meaning any non-literary inquiry in to the corpus (until given the
imprimatur of the likes of Foster) *is* without value. The surface absurdity of
such a statement leads me to hope otherwise. While Foster is writing in
reference to the authorship question--which is not necessarily the province of
the literati--his condescending demeanor strikes me as completely at odds with
the golas of this list. WHy was I, a *political scientist* graced with
admittance to this list? Only to learn the "straight path" to understandinh
Shakespearean drama? I hope not. Given the tone and content of a great deal of
the discussion on this list, I think that more not less--to use a popular
term--*diversity* of approaches is required in Shakespearean studies. It is my
sense that most others on the list share this sentiment.
 
Matthew Westcott Smith, PhD
Lecturer of Political Science
The Civic Education Project
Debrecen, Hungary
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Boyle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 17 Oct 1994 12:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        Authorship
 
In response to Donald Foster's posting about Ward Elliott's "Shakespeare
Clinic" computer study, it is interesting to note that he can say that some of
the statistical tests are "worthless", yet when "taken together" with others,
effectively prove that none of the prospective anti-Stratfordian candidates
comes close to matching Shakespeare's stylistic and linguistic peculiarities.
Elliott's study is far from the last word on this subject.
 
For any members of SHAKSPER interested in comparing for themselves the writing
of a prospective anti-Stratfordian candidate (Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of
Oxford) with Shakespeare, check out William Plumer Fowler's *Shakespeare
Revealed in Oxford's Letters*.  In it he compares words and phrases found in 37
of Oxford's surviving letters with the works of Shakespeare.  I understand that
some individuals who have become Oxfordians in the last 10 years have been most
swayed by the parallelisms in both thought and phraseology as documented in
this book.  Oxford's letters were not, as far as I know, part of Elliott's
study
 
If you can't find it through your library system, email me directly, and I'll
send you further information on |acquiring a copy of this book.  Mr. Fowler
died about two years ago, but his estate has copies of this book.
 
William Boyle
17 October 1994
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.