2005

Shadowplay

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1566  Tuesday, 20 September 2005

From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 19 Sep 2005 13:57:04 +0100
Subject: 16.1552 Shadowplay
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1552 Shadowplay

 >>But to infer from these references that Shakespeare was a
 >>recusant Catholic and, indeed, a polemicist for the old religion
 >>is to appropriate him in a way which is inappropriate, given the
 >>established facts of his life and a broad view of his canon.
 >
 >I quite agree with Steve Sohmer's opinion. Gerald E. Downs.

I haven't read Claire Asquith's book (though a birdy tells me it might 
be in my Christmas stocking) but from what I've read so far it appears 
that Claire has overstated her case.  If Shakespeare's canon was full of 
secret nods and winks to Catholics, one might ask why was there such 
criticism of his work from these very Catholics.  And in particular from 
a fellow poet who would've been the first to see hidden meanings if they 
were there.  I am thinking of Shakespeare's cousin, the Jesuit poet 
Robert Southwell.

In 1592, after the huge success of Venus and Adonis, Southwell wrote: 
'Still the finest wits are (di)stilling Venus' rose ... playing with 
pagan toys'. The dedication letter to this poetry collection starts: 
'To my worthy good cosen maister W.S'.  Southwell was a huge fan of WS 
(and as 'Burning Babe' was used in Macbeth, we can assume the admiration 
was mutual) but disapproved of his subject matter and urged WS to write 
religious poetry. The letter ends: 'it rests in your will'.

Although several other Protestant poets like Edmund Spencer were deeply 
affected by Southwell's plea (Thomas Lodge said it changed his life's 
direction), it appears that the Catholic WS completely ignored it.

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

lovelocks

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1565  Tuesday, 20 September 2005

From: 		James Fitzmaurice <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 19 Sep 2005 10:38:22 -0700
Subject: 16.1549 lovelocks
Comment: 	Re: SHK 16.1549 lovelocks

Jack --

There is a painting of a young man with a lovelock at one of the 
Huntington art galleries.  You might ask Reader Services at the 
Huntington Library if there is a digital copy that they could send you. 
  I recall that there is a large digital library at the Huntington.  I 
am not sure about the date on the painting.

Jim Fitzmaurice

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Two New Authorship Studies

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1563  Tuesday, 20 September 2005

From: 		Ward Elliott <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 19 Sep 2005 18:59:28 -0700
Subject: 	Two New Authorship Studies

Many SHAKSPERians have wanted a look at the long, documented case 
statements underlying our most recent postings. Valenza and I have just 
put two of our latest articles on the web:  our long Tennessee Law 
Review Article, "Oxford by the Numbers," and a shorter one on the 
"Shakespeare" sections of Sir Thomas More and Edward III, "Two Tough 
Nuts to Crack," to be published in the Shakespeare Yearbook next year. 
The web addresses are:

http://govt.claremontmckenna.edu/welliott/UTConference/Oxford_by_Numbers.pdf
http://govt.claremontmckenna.edu/welliott/UTConference/2ToughNuts.pdf

"Oxford by the Numbers" gives a detailed explanation of how we calculate 
the odds of Shakespeare authorship of a sample text, relative to those 
of the least Shakespearean play or verse block in our core Shakespeare 
baseline. It describes the distinctive features of our methodology: 
quantitative evidence; clean, commonized baseline; negative evidence; 
and our use of blocks and profiles.  It discusses cautions about some 
tests for genre, date of composition, prosody, and editing; it considers 
internal consistency, replicability; correspondence with available 
documents, margins of error, holding up under adverse criticism, and 
presents our old, $1,000 wager.  It also explains scientific notation 
and tells how to calculate it with a $15 scientific calculator.  Table 
2.4, extracted below, gives a summary of some of our results:

Table 2.4.  Shakespeare's Farthest Outlier 3,000-Word Poem Blocks 
Compared with Oxford, Marlowe, and Funeral Elegy

Poem		Tests	Rejections	Discrete 	Continuous
Block					Composite   	Composite
					Probability	Probability

Shakespeare	14	1		3.1E-01		9.0E-02
Oxford		14	6*		7.7E-07*	<1.0E-15*
Bacon		14	7*		2.3E-08*	<1.0E-15*
Marlowe 1	14	3*		5.2E-03*	1.6E-02*
Marlowe 2	14	4*		3.7E-04*	3.1E-04*
Elegy		14	6*		7.7E-07*	<1.0E-15*

Table 2.4.  * = outside Shakespeare range.  3.1E-01 means 3.1 times ten 
to the minus one = 31%.raw composite Shakespeare probability for the 
Shakespeare block.  7.7E-07 means 7.7 times ten to the minus seven = 
.00000077 raw composite Shakespeare probability for the Elegy. Relative 
composite Shakespeare odds are computed by dividing the raw probability 
score of the least probable baseline Shakespeare block (top line) by the 
probabilities observed for comparison samples (next 5 lines).

The three leading Shakespeare claimants and the Funeral Elegy are all 
far less likely than Shakespeare's own farthest outlier baseline blocks 
to have come from Shakespeare by chance.  The closest block, Marlowe 1, 
is 5-60 times less probable than Shakespeare's own outliers.  The most 
distant block, Bacon, is between 13 million and 90 trillion times less 
probable than Shakespeare's outliers.  Marlowe 1 would be a much closer 
call than Bacon, Oxford, or the Elegy, but Marlowe himself is hardly a 
likely Shakespeare claimant, thanks to his very distant second block and 
his long list of plays which don't come close to matching Shakespeare. 
Neither he, nor Oxford and Bacon, nor any of the 34 other Shakespeare 
"claimants" we could test are close calls.

All the claimants are on different stylistic planets from Shakespeare. 
So is the author of the Funeral Elegy, which, however, fits comfortably 
within our stylometric profile of John Ford.

For whole plays, some numbers of interest from "Two Tough Nuts" would be:

Play		Tests	Rejections	Discrete 	Continuous
					Composite   Composite
					Probability	Probability

The Tempest	48	2		2.3E-01	3.7E-03
Sir T More 	48	7*		3.3E-05*	<1.0E-15*
Edward III 	48	13*		4.4E-12*	2.6E-12*
Woodstock	48	20*		<1.0E-15*	<1.0E-15*

The Tempest falls just within the Shakespeare range and marks the outer 
threshold of our core Shakespeare baseline.  None of the three others 
listed are on the same stylistic planet with Shakespeare, even after 
appropriate cautions and discounts for genre, date, editing, and 
prosody.  Both versions of Woodstock's Shakespeare probability, Discrete 
and Continuous, are too low to compute on a standard PC.

These are figures for whole plays and do not rule out partial 
Shakespeare authorship.  The "Shakespeare" parts of Sir Thomas More and 
Edward III are much closer calls, but the odds in both cases still do 
not favor Shakespeare.  "Two Tough Nuts" also discusses which plays 
which appeared during Shakespeare's lifetime raise the most interesting 
questions of authorship; it also raises the ante of our wager from 
$1,000 to its present amount of 


Malvolio's Revenge Release

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1564  Tuesday, 20 September 2005

From: 		Sophie Masson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 19 Sep 2005 14:59:59 +1000
Subject: 	Malvolio's Revenge Release

Greetings to all SHAKSPEReans:

Just to let those who might be interested know that my latest novel, 
Malvolio's Revenge, was released in the UK last week, by Hodder 
Children's Books. Set in New Orleans and Louisiana in 1910, it tells the 
story of a motley group of travelling actors who are touring a play 
called 'Malvolio's Revenge', which purports to be a continuation of 
Twelfth Night. Those who are interested could find it on Hodder's 
website, www.madaboutbooks.co.uk It is also available through Amazon.

Sophie Masson
author site: www.northnet.com.au/~smasson

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Greek Drama

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1562  Tuesday, 20 September 2005

From: 		Jack Heller <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 19 Sep 2005 08:44:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 	Greek Drama Available in Elizabethan/Jacobean England

Listmembers:

I don't have access to EEBO and the STC which might help in answering 
this question: How readily available would translations of Sophocles, 
Euripides, and Aristophanes have been to Shakespeare and his 
contemporaries? I've been thinking about this after reading Oedipus at 
Colonus-which has some similarities to King Lear though I don't want to 
argue that it was a source or analogue for Shakespeare's play. However, 
it seems more likely that names from Euripides's Hippolytus would have 
become names in Midsummer Night's Dream. Of course, some dramatists, 
notably George Chapman, could read Greek texts. But I'm not ready to 
assume that Shakespeare's less Greek would have had him reading Eurpides 
untranslated.

Your comments will be appreciated.

Jack Heller

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.