Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: July ::
Re: Attributing Masterworks
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1706  Friday, 26 July 2002

[1]     From:   H. David Friedberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 25 Jul 2002 12:56:14 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1687 Re: Attributing Masterworks

[2]     From:   Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 26 Jul 2002 00:32:40 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1698 Re: Attributing Masterworks

[3]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 26 Jul 2002 09:46:00 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1698 Re: Attributing Masterworks


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           H. David Friedberg <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 25 Jul 2002 12:56:14 -0400
Subject: 13.1687 Re: Attributing Masterworks
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1687 Re: Attributing Masterworks

>Ward Elliott's confidence is quite laughable.

At the risk of making Terence Hawkes laugh more, and laugh himself
mortal with my spleen, I wonder why Shakespeare should copy Ford

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, did Will confuse a Ford
and a Lincoln?

H. David Friedberg

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 26 Jul 2002 00:32:40 +0000
Subject: 13.1698 Re: Attributing Masterworks
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1698 Re: Attributing Masterworks

Elliott H. Stone wrote,

"Scholars have always taken the position that "Shakespeare looked always
to Daniel as one of his principal mentors" as Foster tells us p 82. He
then quotes Ingenioso who charges Mr Shakspeare with the monstrous theft
of plagiarizing Daniel's verses wholesale. Perhaps, the time has arrived
to elevate Sweete Mr.  Shakespeare and deflate Mr Daniel. Is it possible
that the Bard wrote a Funeral Poem in the Elizabethan Era that was lost
or never published but served as the template for all of these later
plagiarizers? In the end perhaps Foster was right to begin with and that
there is some Shakespeare in the Elegy By W.S.!"

Speaking as an editor of Daniel who has the rhythms and cadences of his
discursive (i.e. non-lyric) verse seared into my brain, I would have to
say that FE sounds like Daniel on a *very* bad day -- convalescing,
perhaps, with a serious hangover to boot.

The simplest explanation for this resemblance is Foster's, that the
writer had Daniel open before him.  The alternative requires Shakespeare
to have written Daniel's oeuvre, pseudonymously, reserving that style
solely for those works and for any elegies he might have written.
Friend Occam suggest otherwise.

Peter L. Groves

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 26 Jul 2002 09:46:00 +0100
Subject: 13.1698 Re: Attributing Masterworks
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1698 Re: Attributing Masterworks

"The other thing that sounds far-fetched is the implicit notion that, if
Shakespeare did want to parody Ford, he would have done it with modern
stylometric measurements in mind. Can you imagine Shakespeare counting
Ford's enclitic and proclitic microphrases, or even knowing what the
words meant?  Or that he figured out in advance the 33 tests we would
use with our computers hundreds of years later, and find a way of making
it look 790 trillion times more like Ford than Shakespeare?"

What a peculiar thing to say. Isn't that like maintaining that Ford
would not have been able to write like Ford unless he knew the
stylometric criteria? How does Shakespeare's writing manage to come out
of the computers as "Shakespeare"? It makes no sense! He cannot possibly
have known the stylometric values we use to identify "Shakespeare"!

On Francis Bacon: it seems that the stylometrists could learn something
about how we arrive at empirical truths from De Augmentis... The data
comes first; the values we ascribe to the data are determined by the
data, not vice versa. Until now, I had no idea there were still such
rigid Aristotelians working away in our universities!

m

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.