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 13.1726  Wednesday, 31 July 2002

[1]     From:   Richard Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Jul 2002 07:52:46 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1724 Re: Attributing Masterworks

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Jul 2002 09:25:14 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1724 Re: Attributing Masterworks

[3]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Jul 2002 12:48:46 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1724 Re: Attributing Masterworks


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Jul 2002 07:52:46 -0700
Subject: 13.1724 Re: Attributing Masterworks
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1724 Re: Attributing Masterworks

The most likely explanation of the "W.S." initials on the Elegy is that
John Ford was hoping to ride it in on Shakespeare's coat-tails.
Evidently it didn't work out.  No one of the day mentioned the Funeral
Elegy, and the poem was available to all the great Shakespearean
scholars up to the time when Foster discovered it to be by Shakespeare.
They would have straightened in their chairs at the W.S. initials, and
slumped back when they were a dozen lines into the poem.  Impossible.
And yet the attribution worked on modern day scholars, most all of them,
and that's an ugly comment on the times.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Jul 2002 09:25:14 -0700
Subject: 13.1724 Re: Attributing Masterworks
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1724 Re: Attributing Masterworks

Martin Stewart suggests that,

|Isn't that what "empirical" means - able to be observed and therefore
|reproduced, or imitated? If we think of a piece of writing as a
|scientific experiment, it becomes clear that it must be reproducible
|by a second party in order to be considered empirical data.

I would beg to differ.  I

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.