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