The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1990 Friday, 2 December 2005
Date: Thursday, 1 Dec 2005 19:51:35 -0000
Subject: 16.1974 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1974 Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my...
Ward Elliott wrote:
>My sense is that our Shakespeare ranges are pretty well validated back
>to 1590, since you can find two early plays, 2H6 and R3, that fit them
>pretty closely and no gold-standard Shakespeare play of any date that
And that is part of the problem. As I understand it, the computer
thinks that 2H6 is by Shakespeare, but that 3H6 isn't. This is a
surprising result, and as far as I am aware one that has never been
seriously suggested. (The 'Richard as villain' passages in 3H6 are
clearly additions/revisions, presumably by Shakespeare himself.) There
doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why 2H6 and 3H6 should have
different authors (or teams of authors) - there have been arguments over
the quality of the two plays (or two parts of the same play), but not
usually claiming one as 'better' or 'more Shakespearian' than the other.
(2H6 and 3H6 are stylistically identical - R3 is somewhat different.)
As I see it, these computer techniques are all very well until they come
up with something totally implausible - wasn't there one group a few
years back that came up with the suggestion that "Henry VIII" was all by
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
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.