Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1996 :: August ::
Apology to Readers of SHAKSPER
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0609.  Monday, 12 August 1996.

From:           Patrick Gillespie <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 10 Aug 1996 13:10:32 -0400
Subject:        Apology to Readers of SHAKSPER

I want to to make several apologies. First, it is becoming apparent to me that
SHAXICON tallies far more than just word overlap. So, I would like to withdraw
some of my comments below, stemming, admittedly, from my ignorance of how
SHAXICON works, which I am attempting to remedy. I have also discovered that
I've repeated some assertions maintaining Ford as the author of FE. I also want
to apologize for this repetition. Furthermore, I do not want to leave anyone
with the impression that I am attacking Foster or SHAXICON, only the
interpetation. I very much admire Foster and his work and I am also tired by
those who cannot confront Foster's argument without also attacking him or "his
reputation". Insofar as intepreting the data provided by SHAXICON, I remain
*very* skeptical. However, before I continue exploring the possibility of Ford,
which has already been explored by others, I shall have to become more familiar
with what has already been done. There are admittedly factors which seem to
eliminate Ford, but there are also factors which seem to eliminate Shakespeare
- aesthetic factors which need to be defined. I will keep my peace, however,
until I've come to better understand Foster's position.

>However, it is freely accepted (isn't it?) that FE's use of
>phrases, contructions, ideas and themes are emphatically *not* typical or
>unique to Shakespeare. (There is an extreme paucity of figurative language, for
>example.) Does this not cast the FE attribution into doubt? If *the* primary
>feature of an author's "style" is missing, despite word overlap, isn't this
>pause for reconsideration? Word overlap *is* statistically significant, but I'm
>not sure it can be universally interpreted.

Yours,
Patrick Gillespie
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.