Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: April ::
Re: Shakespearian/Shakespearean
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0903  Saturday, 1 April 2002

[1]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 18:17:20 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

[2]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 22:38:09 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

[3]     From:   Clifford Stetner" <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 23:08:44 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

[4]     From:   John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 29 Mar 2002 23:35:13 -0600
        Subj:   Shakespearean/Shakespearian

[5]     From:   Dana Shilling <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 03:36:40 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

[6]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 10:22:59 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

[7]     From:   Sophie Masson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 21:34:06 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

[8]     From:   John Ramsay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 14:07:24 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

[9]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, April 01, 2002
        Subj:   Re: Shakespearian/Shakespearean


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 18:17:20 -0000
Subject: 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Is there a consensus as to the preferred spelling of "Shakespearian" or
> "Shakespearean"?  The former seems to accord with "Chaucerian,"
> "Dickensian," "Spenserian," etc. but I seem to be seeing more spellings
> of "Shakespearean" (e.g. the recent Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean
> Comedy).  What do listmembers think?
>
> Katherine Scheil
> University of Rhode Island

I have always used "Shakespearean", but when setting about purchasing an
internet address for my webpage I faced a dilemma when deciding whether
or not this spelling of the word was acceptable enough to use as a
http:// address.  I checked the shorter Oxford English Dictionary first,
but that prefers "Shakespearian", a form that I find ugly, and relegates
"Shakespearean" to an "Also -" comment.  I then ran a comparative check
on the web, via Google, on the catalogue of Amazon the bookseller and
the British Blackwells bookshop, and on the archives of SHAKSPER.  All
of these comparative checks showed that "Shakespearean" was being used
many more times than "Shakespearian" in informal webpages, discussion of
Shakespeare between those with a specialist interest (on SHAKSPER) and
in publication of Shakespeare-related books, which gave me the
confidence to use this spelling as my web-address.  I have found,
however, that trying to tell people E-Mail addresses attached to my
webpage over the phone causes intense confusion.  Saying "Shakespearean,
spelled E...A...N" reduces people to panic and they invariably ask for
the whole word to be spelled out letter by letter.

Thomas Larque
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 22:38:09 -0500
Subject: 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

Shakespearean because the last letter as it's usually spelled is an E.
Chaucer is an R, Dickens is an S, Spenser is an R, etc.  Logic dictates
ShakespearEan.

Mari Bonomi

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner" <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 23:08:44 -0500
Subject: 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

I think it is the final e as in Nietzschean that gives the e spelling
priority in Webster's dictionary. Oxfordians might prefer Shakespurious.
An internet search gives 356,000 examples of e vs 20,500 of I which
would qualify as a consensus. I think the important thing is not to use
both in the same document.

Clifford

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Velz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 29 Mar 2002 23:35:13 -0600
Subject:        Shakespearean/Shakespearian

Katherine Scheil asks which to prefer.  I recall when I was decades
younger that CJK Hinman once said to me over breakfast in British
Columbia, "-ian, of course."  I wish now I had asked him why "of
course."  I have always used it unless an editorial policy I was
operating under demanded -ean.

Glad you raised this point Katherine.  Maybe we will get some answers
that make sense.

Orthographically yours,
John

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dana Shilling <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 03:36:40 -0500
Subject: 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

Katherine Scheil said:

> Is there a consensus as to the preferred spelling of "Shakespearian" or
> "Shakespearean"?  The former seems to accord with "Chaucerian,"

Bard, [Wife of] Bath and Beyond?

Dana Shilling

[6]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 30 Mar 2002 10:22:59 -0000
Subject: 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

Dickens, Spenser, Chaucer: none end with an "e".

So, it's "Shakespearean" every time for me.

But: "Baudelairesque", (Beau-d'ler-esk) not "Baudelairean". Same for
Tolkien - "Tolienian" has obvious drawbacks. And NEVER Miltonian or
Byronian!!

Gee, this is fun
m

[7]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sophie Masson <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 21:34:06 +1000
Subject: 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

I prefer 'Shakespearean' myself, because of the ending of WS' name.
Dickens, Spenser, etc, don't have an 'e' at the end. But I'm sure both
versions are acceptable..

Sophie Masson
Author site: http://www.northnet.com.au/~smasson

[8]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Ramsay <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 31 Mar 2002 14:07:24 -0500
Subject: 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0890 Shakespearian/Shakespearean

It's always been Shakespearean. I've never seen Shakesperian until now.

Shakesperian does not accord with Chaucerian, etc as they don't end with
an e.

John Ramsay

[9]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, April 01, 2002
Subject:        Re: Shakespearian/Shakespearean

I always thought that the distinction was a UK v. USA one.

From my laptop's hard drive, I find in the Random House Unabridged
Dictionary:

Shakespearean:
Also, Shake

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.