The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2016  Monday, 7 October 2002

[1]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 4 Oct 2002 15:13:03 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2003 Re: Authorial Intention

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 04 Oct 2002 09:24:22 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2003 Re: Authorial Intention

[3]     From:   John-Paul Spiro <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 04 Oct 2002 15:21:50 -0400
        Subj:   Intentional Follies

[4]     From:   Claude Caspar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 4 Oct 2002 22:48:40 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2003 Re: Authorial Intention

[5]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Sunday, 6 Oct 2002 13:13:54 +0100 (BST)
        Subj:   Re: Authorial Intentions


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 4 Oct 2002 15:13:03 +0100
Subject: 13.2003 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2003 Re: Authorial Intention

Those of us arguing that authorial intentions are unrecoverable are, of
course, referring to non-contingent authorial intentions. The point in
making this observation is to preserve the contingencies of authorial
intention as a site of critical dispute and negotiation.

So I agree (after absorbing his intentional prod at my epistemological
naievety - ouch!) with R. A. Cantrall, that      

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.