Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: June ::
Re: "A Funeral Elegy"
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1548  Monday, 24 June 2002

[1]     From:   Tanya Gough <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jun 2002 12:38:40 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1543 Re: "A Funeral Elegy"

[2]     From:   Richard Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jun 2002 13:20:57 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1543 Re: "A Funeral Elegy"

[3]     From:   Tom Reedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 21 Jun 2002 23:55:20 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.1543 Re: "A Funeral Elegy"

[4]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, June 24, 2002
        Subj:   Re: "A Funeral Elegy"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tanya Gough <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 21 Jun 2002 12:38:40 -0400
Subject: 13.1543 Re: "A Funeral Elegy"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1543 Re: "A Funeral Elegy"

>As I wrote five years ago in The Observer, the "unseemly
>rush to certitude in America will come to be seen as regrettable, even
>embarrassing."

Unfortunately, such events are far from uncommon.  The Stratford (Ont)
Festival this year is publishing the Sanders portrait in their programs
in the "about the author" section, giving validation to the assumption
that the attribution is correct.  I fear an embarrassing situation for
the Festival may occur, should the subject matter be disproved.

Tanya Gough
Poor Yorick
www.bardcentral.com

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 21 Jun 2002 13:20:57 -0700
Subject: 13.1543 Re: "A Funeral Elegy"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1543 Re: "A Funeral Elegy"

In March of 1996 I posted to SHAKSPER that John Ford was the best choice
as the writer of the Funeral Elegy.  This was the first mention offering
Ford as the writer, and in his forthcoming book Brian Vickers credits me
with that, and for the two year's struggle at this place to promote the
attribution. Previously, Brian thought it might be by Simon Wastrel, but
he liked my arguments better. In the summer of 1996, Monsarrat was
doubtful that Shakespeare wrote the Elegy, but had not yet settled on
another author although he was in communication with Vickers.

Foster and myself exchanged several private letters in which I tried to
bring him over to Ford, but he said that the idea had been investigated
in depth, and that I was certainly wrong, and he asked what my
credentials were.  And evidently Ford had not been investigated at all,
the Shaxicon database not informed of his early verse.

Therefore, I find nothing at all graceful or scholarly in the man
regarding the Funeral Elegy.  My discovery came with no credentials, and
so it was ignored, even ridiculed.  It was not until Monsarrat and
Vickers came up with John Ford that Foster gave any attention to the
matter.

So, in these early years with Vickers behind Ford, and also Prof. Leo
Stock, who said he would "unhesitatingly" give the Funeral Elegy to
Ford, Foster was sticking to the Funeral Elegy as being by Shakespeare,
he was invested in that, as they say.  Now he recants, and Christine
Gilmore says it was a "remarkably graceful admission of an error."  No.
His error wasn't so awfully bad, many people were fooled and most of
them had credentials, but unfortunately none of them had a poetic ear.
Foster

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.